The Planning Commission convened at 5:00 PM for a work session on zoning ordinance amendments and at 7:00 PM for the regular meeting. The regular meeting included decisions on a subdivision variance, a surety reduction for the Harbor View development, discussion of a retaining wall modification, and public hearings for a proposed animal kennel (Buckaroo Creek). The Commission also approved several site visit minutes and administrative reports.
The first item we'll be hearing right now is item 3A, a decision, unified developmental review of the zoning variances and preliminary plan application of RHC properties, LLC, Post Office Box 482, Saunderstown, Rhode Island for Huckleberry Road lot, a two-lot minus subdivision to be located at 620 Drybridge Road. Cessus Platte 79, lot 37 in the village residential zone. This is continued from May 6, 2025. And we have the decision in front of us. You should all have a paper copy of it. I guess I I have a quick question. Okay. In the um page four in the background section, number 14 is a quick summary of the conversation that we all had here about that if the applicant was coming in with different uh requests, there could have been more units. And my question is whether that was part of our conversation, but is that um pertinent to the decision that we're being asked to render here and is it in the ordinance anywhere that we can look at that this is better than other things that could happen on the property. So this is your decision, right? You you direct us to draft the decision, but you can edit in any way. Um this is in the background portion, so this is your discussion, not necessarily your decision. Um if you feel that it's it's not necessary, you can always take it out if you feel that needs to be reordered. You can do what you will with it, but that's not these are not the findings. This is just the background from the discussion that you had. Yeah, I realize that. So I guess my question is that uh is there an ordinance somewhere that instructs us to look at other uses that the applicant could be asking for that same parcel. I I don't think it's as important that there were other options. I think the important part of that uh section is 14CI, which is the deed restriction that the applicant agreed to to waive any further subdivision of the lot and to give up the rights to any ADUs, which was going to control the overall density. That would be my my feeling why it's important to be there. That was something that the applicant agreed to on the record. And it would prevent um almost a doubling of or tripling of the amount of lot. I don't object to it being in the document. I don't think that we when we when we render our decision about the zoning and about the application, that we really I don't think it's in the ordinance that we should be looking at other possible ways that that same parcel could be developed if the applicant was asking for something else, which they weren't. I I think keeping the deed restriction is very important. Um I I don't know if the what the importance of the uh explanation above it is. I don't know what the other members' feelings are, but I wouldn't want to give up that future restriction. I mean, I I don't agree with it, but I have no problem with it staying in the document. The I mean portion of it. Obviously, I I mean I don't think it justifies the uh the decision, but I don't have a problem with it being in there as part of the what was considered. Okay. Steve, yeah, I'm fine with it. I'm I'm fine with it as well, too. I think that since I think having the backup discussion of how it got there explains, gives credence to why we have the deed restriction on there. That's why we came up with that decision. So I think that it's you know, and I think the public needs to understand, you know. What options are out there? I don't think it was giving the the developer any heads up. I mean, put it this way, they've been around a long time, and he he would have known that ahead of time anyway. So I don't think it's giving any trade secrets out. But I think that it sets it up. So that I just don't think we can base our decision based on the fact that uh that there could be ways to develop this parcel that allowed more units. Well, I don't think that we did that decision based on that. I think that what happened is is that we set it up, having that in there, so that the applicant would give up that right to have the ADAU. So we kind of headed things off at the pass. Um any other questions on the decision. Uh would anyone like to make a motion to approve the decision as written. I make a motion. We approve the decision as written. This is for the zoning relief.