Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Grand Island residents oppose Gun Creek wooden path; town board tables site-plan change
Summary
A resident opposed a proposed wooden path and benches in the Gun Creek community, citing ADA access and maintenance concerns. The Town Board voted to table the site‑plan discussion and asked the applicant to return with amendments.
Tony Weisel, a Grand Island resident, urged the Town Board on July 7 to withdraw plans for a wooden path and benches in the Gun Creek community, saying the project had broad neighborhood opposition and would be inaccessible to some residents.
“My name is Tony Weisel. I live at 499 Limestone Court, Grand Island. And I'm here to talk about the Gun Creek community wooden path and benches that we are opposing,” Weisel told the board during the public comment period. He said he has HOA documentation and distributed material showing “2 people from 1 resident that want the path and a 111 now 115 that do not want the path.”
Weisel told the board the wooden path would not meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards for wheelchairs, crutches, strollers and walkers and described neighbors who would be unable to use it. He said residents would prefer trees along the corridor and suggested redirecting part of the developer’s budget toward planting.
The concern about long‑term maintenance surfaced in board discussion after the public comment. Councilman Dan Kilmer said the town needs more detail before amending the site plan and flagged a risk that planting trees could create ongoing maintenance obligations for homeowners if the HOA is not fulfilling its duties. He said a one‑time recreation fee or similar approach might limit future costs passed to residents.
Board members agreed they needed a clearer plan from the applicant before taking action. The board voted to table the matter to allow the developer or applicant to file for an amended site plan and provide the additional details requested by the board. The motion to table carried on a roll call vote of 5–0.
Supervisor Marston said staff will continue outreach to the applicant and expected further discussion at upcoming meetings. No amendment or final approval was adopted at this meeting.
The board also noted code‑enforcement concerns in the neighborhood: a board member reported recent conversations with the property manager about construction‑site mud and other violations and said town staff would continue to monitor the area.
