Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Siteplan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant asks to build five units on Bradford Way; commission withdraws approval motion for further review
Summary
The Kingston Municipal Planning Commission heard a request for site-plan approval to build five condo-style units on Bradford Way in the C4 district but withdrew a motion to approve after commissioners raised questions about subdivision rules, lot widths, drainage and road frontage; the applicant was asked to return with additional documentation in December.
The Kingston Municipal Planning Commission on Tuesday took up a site-plan request for Lot 8 off Bradford Way (Brentwood) that would place five condo-style units on a parcel in the C4 commercial district, but commissioners withdrew a motion to approve and directed the applicant to return with more information.
The applicant, identified on the agenda as AJ and later addressed in discussion as Matt, asked for site-plan approval that would allow five single-level units set close together under the current C4 zoning. The applicant said zoning amendments allow lots down to 20 feet in width and that the proposed units would be roughly 28–30 feet wide, but financing requirements for condominium regimes — including pre-sale thresholds lenders require — complicate whether the development should be a condominium or individual lots.
Why it matters: commissioners flagged a mismatch between zoning and subdivision regulations. Commissioner Jim Owens and others noted that while zoning amendments permit narrow lots, Kingston’s subdivision regulations still list a 60-foot minimum lot width; that inconsistency means the project may need a planned-unit development (PUD) or a revised plat to move forward.
Commission discussion focused on setbacks and lot configuration, whether property lines would “blow down” to party walls if the units are platted as individual lots, and whether the private roadway and recorded plat already establish the necessary right-of-way. The applicant said drainage can tie into existing catch basins near the Enrichment Credit Union and that runoff ultimately reaches the city reservoir and Watch Bar Lake.
Chairman Tim Neil acknowledged the multiple technical gaps and asked staff to research the subdivision-code implications. After a period of questions and an initial motion and second to approve the site plan, the motion’s maker and seconder withdrew their support, and the commission agreed to continue the matter so the applicant can supply clarified plat records, drainage details and options for PUD treatment or final platting.
What’s next: the applicant was told to return with a survey, recorded-plat confirmation and refined drainage plans; commissioners indicated they will not take action until subdivision and zoning inconsistencies are resolved. There was no formal vote on the site plan; the motion to approve was withdrawn at the commission’s request.
