HomeMy WebLinkAboutSD-75-0001 - Decision - 0000 Shunpike Road2.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 13, 1275
Mr. Ward told the Planning Commission that Mr. Mitchell had submitted his
verbal resignation to the City Manager on Friday but no formal letter of
resignation had been received because Mr. Mitchell had been called away
because of serious illness in the family. Mr. Ward said he believed the
resignation was to take effect in a month.
Subdivision hearing of Willis proper. Shunpike Road
Mr. Ward distributed copies of a drawing of the property in question, and
explained the only lots to be created as new ones would be the homestead
lot, the barn and shed lot, and the 18 acre piece to the rear of that lot
which has been identified as #5. Lot #6 is under option to GBIC;#? is across
the road with no plans for that piece in the immediate future. The property
lies in three different zones, R-4, industrial, and the Conservation District.
Also Muddy Brook and Potash Brook are involved.
Mr. Ward stated the City Engineer has no problems with what is being proposed
right now.
Mrs. Krapcho asked about the road coming in from Williston Road, if the,50-
foot right of way could be extended to 60 feet.
Mr. Ward said the City would rather have a 60-foot right of way when talking
about deeding a new road to the City, but in this case the road is already
existing and has been deeded.
Mr. Wessel agreed that the Planning Commission couldn't go back and do it all
over again.
Mr. Ewing asked about the shed being on the abutting property line, and Mr.
Ward said Mr. Willis owns both sides, that the barn and shed are in the R-4
District, the only way the barn could be used under the existing zone would
be if someone wanted to live in it.
Asked by Mr. Wessel to explain the subdivision further, Mr. Ward said the
subdivision has to be approved or Mr. Willis cannot deed the land. He said
GBIC has had some different thoughts and when Mr. Willis goes to Act 250
GBIC is going to ask for a deferral until such time as they are ready to
develop, but he understands they still want to exercise the option as far as
the Willis farm is concerned. He had hoped that Harry Behney would attend
this meeting.
Chairman Wessel asked about drainage ways and how the number of bridges
could be minimized.
Mr. Willis said the road is where it is so that it will line up topographically
as best suited for placement, and they had tried to get the best possible lay-
out of the road.
Mrs. Maher explained tb t approving it as shown does not commit the Commission
to the right-of-wayxas is shown, because in the end the engineers have to
approve it.
Mr. Wadd said the basic reason for the Willis subdivision is to allow the
sichange of land between Mr. Willis and GBIC. There has been some discussion
about dividing the 30 acre piece and possibly the 18 acre piece in the future.
Mrs. Krapcho asked if the Commission would see the plan again after the final
position of the road was approved.
Mr. Ward replied the Commission would see it with the GBIC subdivision, that
this is a subdivision by the Commission's standards but Mr. Willis has no
development thoughts on it at all; that was why he had hoped to have the GBIC
representative there.
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 13L 19J
Mrs. Krapcho asked if the Planning Commission would see another plan of
Mr. Willis's subdivision showing the precise location of the new road.
Mr. Ward said details such as road, water, sewer, etc. will all come later,
that this is a preliminary plan for a subdivision of the Willis farm.
Mrs. Maher moved that the Planning Commission approve the proposed subdivision
of the Willis property as shown on their plan dated 475 which indicates th;
the land is zoned into three districts, some lots R-4, and some industrial,
and the remainder Conservation district.
Seconded by Mr. Levesque.
Motion approved unanimously.
Discussion on Lamplough proper
R
Chairman Wessel said he would like to continue by partitioning the discussion
into two sections, but if the other members want to do it differently he
would go along with their wishes.
Mrs. Maher said she felt they should discuss the entire triangle.
Mr. Ellis proposed continuing the discussion of last week with respect to
the Lamplough property, but extend it to the whole property under 1-a and 1-b.
Attention was called to the new revised format prepared by the City Planner
to replace the check list Which had been used at the last meeting.
Mrs. Krapcho said the issue was really whether there was a need to change
the adjoining property, that the Commission should be looking at the larger
land use. She said she did not agree that all the parcels within the triangle
should be zoned the same way, or that the same land use would be found.
Mr. Wessel asked if they wished to do the whole triangle first for land use,
with the findings to be based on that.
Mr. Ellis said he felt that point 2 would need a discussion of zone, but
Mrs. Krapcho disagreed with that.
Mrs. Maher, referring to the Minutes of May 6, asked if Mr. Hall and Mr.
Towne had been contacted to be present at this meeting, and also asked about
traffic figures to be supplied by the developer.
Mr. Levering said he had only dealt with marketing information as contained in
his letter of May 12 to the City Planner. Mr. Lamphere was to be responsible
for the first six questions asked by the Planner and this had been taken care
of by a letter from Mr. Lamphere to Mr. Mitchell.
It was assumed by the Commission that Mr. Mitchell had been called away before
receiving Mr. Lamphere's communication, or before he had time to do anything
with it, as copies had not been given to the Commission.
Mrs. Maher referred to the memo from Mr. Mitchell dated May 6. 1975, saying
she felt some of the figures to be way off in regard to the optimum carrying
capacity of Williston Road.
Mr. Levering said he was impressed by the additional volume the traffic ex-
perts said Williston Road would be able to take; they were told by the experts
that if they wished to hire them they could fix the traffic problem.
Chairman Wessel recommended deferring the traffic discussion until the next
meeting when Mr. Mitchell would be there.
Mr. Wessel then recommended using the new set of criteria and running through
again the consideration under 1-a as it concerned the whole area.
Discussion then took place on whether the classification considered inappro-
priate for the Lamplough property was equally inappropriate for the whole
triangle.
Mrs. Krapcho felt the suggested 20-80 split would essentially bring total
commercial to the area that borders on Patchen Road because the 20% is optional.
Mrs. Maher felt the land to be good for a mix of commercial and residential,
doesn't have to be 100% either way, and should be a more flexible zone.
�IdKlle�ii-io�aecommeT�iajking the 20% residential an option because this