SPRINGFIELD - The Springfield town board voted against enacting a moratorium on major development in the town Monday night but plans to revisit the issue at its monthly meeting in July.

Near the tail end of a nearly five-hour meeting and after more than an hour of discussion on the issue of moratoriums, councilman Dan Rosen motioned to follow the town planning board's advice and enact a two-year moratorium while the town developed a comprehensive plan.

The motion proposed a "two-year moratorium on all development that involves significant projects with major impacts on the community" and would include, but not be limited to "particular projects such as subdivisions creating over 50 lots, commercial buildings over 100,000 square feet and commercial wind turbine projects."

The motion failed by a vote of 3-2, with town supervisor Tom Armstrong, and councilmen Richard Rathbun and Rick Morris voting no and Rosen and councilman Jim Willsey voting yes.

Although the moratorium was rejected, Rathbun and Morris indicated they would like to reconsider the issue at the next meeting after getting more information, specifically regarding what a comprehensive plan entailed.

"I would like to see what a comprehensive plan is to see that it's not zoning with a different name," Morris said. "We're getting into something big" and we don't want to make a mistake, he added.

Rathbun motioned to have the failed motion revisited at the meeting July 10 and his proposal was unanimously approved.

The board also scheduled a special meeting next week to address the issue and talk with consultant Nan Stolzenburg. The meeting will be Thursday, June 22 at 7 p.m.

Rathbun expressed a concern during the discussion that if the town enacted a moratorium now - when no major developments or wind turbine projects were pending - they might not be able to handle a project once one was proposed.

"If you implement one now, what happens when you really need one?" Rathbun asked.

Planning board chairman David Staley said that the end product of the moratorium would be a comprehensive plan which would identify areas in the community where potential projects could be located. A comprehensive plan would prepare them for any such proposals, he said.

"You're ready for anything that comes your way. You don't need another moratorium," Staley said. "It's just a fundamental planning tool that should be in place before dealing with any of those changes."

Morris asked why the town couldn't start work on a comprehensive plan and enact a moratorium once a project proposal came in.

Staley said that was "less legally defensible" in court because it would appear as if they were targeting a specific project. He said one of the reasons they made the moratorium encompass such a wide scale was to make it more defensible and not target one specific industry.

Morris, Armstrong and Willsey at various intervals questioned whether landowners and more specifically farmers would be impacted and whether it infringed on their rights to prevent them from selling land.

Staley and Rosen said it would only put a hold on major projects until the moratorium expired and did not prevent landowners from selling if they want.

Armstrong said he didn't want the town to develop a comprehensive plan because he said it was basically the same thing as zoning. He suggested enacting a one-year moratorium focused solely on wind turbines, but his proposal was not acted on.