Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-02 Community Planning and Development Commission MinutesCommunity Planning 9 Development Commission Meeting Sept. 2, 1966 Page 1 A meeting of the Community Planning and Development Commission convened in Room 16, Municipal Building at 7:30 P.M. Present were Chairman Howard, Secretary Goodemote, Board Members Ensminger, Griset and Jenks and Asst. Supt. for Engineering - Department of Public Works - William A. Redford. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to accept the minutes of the August 26, 1986 meeting as written. The Commission next reviewed the Subdivision Bond Reduction Request for Sanborn Village Phase III. Present for the applicant was Attorney 0. Bradley Latham. Asst. Supt. Redford recommended that the Commission reduce the present bond from $560,000.00 to $300,000.00 (a reduction of $260,000.005. Mr. Goodemote moved, and it was seconded, to reduce the Performance Bond on Sanborn Village - Phase III from $560,000 to $300,000. Mr. Griset asked what was the original amount of the bond? Mr. Redford replied $978,000, the bond was reduced twice by the Board of Survey to the present $560,000.00. Mr. Griset asked is there any requirement for public notice for a bond reduction? Mr. Redford replied no. Mr. Griset asked what is Phase III as opposed to Phases I and II, why do you recommend we reduce the Performance Bond requirement and what does the Town gain from it? I know there have been a lot of problems up there. where the new roadway connects to the old Sanborn Lane, and Phase III is 18 lots consisting of three on old Sanborn Lane and the majority on a roadway north off Sanborn then east to Verde Circle. Under the Mr. Redford replied Phase I consists of the first six lots from N Mill Street toward the west, Phase II consists of the next six lots from where the new roadway connects to the old Sanborn Lane, and Phase III is 18 lots consisting of three on old Sanborn Lane and the majority on a roadway north off Sanborn then east to Verde Circle. Under the i. Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. 21 1986 Page 2 wishes to try and hold that additional money, they are holding more than 100 % surety to get the work done. The Board of Survey dial not choose to require the developer to do the old section of Sanborn Lane prior to doing anything else. Therefore, it is not part of the Covenant or the Performance Bond. Therefore, the Town does not have any legal recourse to move or coerce the developer into doing this. Most of the abuttor complaints came during the winter months, and most of the problems that occur in the spring and winter months were because the developer constructed the sewer main during these months, which caused problems with winter frost. He has put in stone at the time of thawing conditions and a high water table. Chairman Howard asked what is the estimated completion date for this project? Atty. Latham replied I think the Covenant is up in 10 months. Chairman Howard asked would you say they are on schedule? Mr. Redford replied most of the work has been handled by construction crews which are fairly new and I don't feel they are well experienced in doing the work, however, I see the bulk of this work all done. Chairman Howard asked how frequently are you or someone from the Department out there? Mr. Redford replied we have a staff member up there every day to I requirements of the Covenant Agreement and the Performance Bond, the developer has done the work to date to that amount of money. If the Town wishes to try and hold that additional money, they are holding more than 100 % surety to get the work done. The Board of Survey dial not choose to require the developer to do the old section of Sanborn Lane prior to doing anything else. Therefore, it is not part of the Covenant or the Performance Bond. Therefore, the Town does not have any legal recourse to move or coerce the developer into doing this. Most of the abuttor complaints came during the winter months, and most of the problems that occur in the spring and winter months were because the developer constructed the sewer main during these months, which caused problems with winter frost. He has put in stone at the time of thawing conditions and a high water table. Chairman Howard asked what is the estimated completion date for this project? Atty. Latham replied I think the Covenant is up in 10 months. Chairman Howard asked would you say they are on schedule? Mr. Redford replied most of the work has been handled by construction crews which are fairly new and I don't feel they are well experienced in doing the work, however, I see the bulk of this work all done. Chairman Howard asked how frequently are you or someone from the Department out there? Mr. Redford replied we have a staff member up there every day to I inspect. Fm Mr. Gnodemote asked have you figured a rough estimate of the cost to complete the work? Mr. Redford rpelied we would not recommend a bond reduction unless we were very comfortable with the work done to date. :.Community Planning 6 Development Commission Meeting Sept. 2, 1986 Page 3 1 now. There will be a binder course placed probably by the end of October 1 on the entire Subdivision. In no way will the developer allow in the condition Mr. Goodemote asked are there certain performance standards terms of conditions that must be met within the Convenant? Mr. Redford replied there are no performance standards in your Covenant, nor timetables. The only other advice I can offer is back in February the Board of Survey indicated that they would not act on any further bond reduction request until all the utility work had been completed. Atty. Latham stated I have met with representatives of the neighbors, there is a Letter of Agreement between the neighbors and Mr. Rivers. As far as the timing is concerned, there is gravel going in there happen again, from a liability standpoint. Mr. Redford stated as an alternative, if it would make the Commission more comfortable, you may wish to subject your bond reduction and order the DPW not to perform any other inspection work on the subdivision other than what is necessary for the completion of the binder of the entire roadway. Mr. Goodemote stated if you refuse to inspect any work you would be forcing the issue of what should be done first. Mr. Redord stated I am trying to come up with a methodology to give you some power to insure that the binder is placed prior to winter. The utility work is all in. I also feel relatively confident the developer does now. There will be a binder course placed probably by the end of October 1 on the entire Subdivision. In no way will the developer allow this to happen again, from a liability standpoint. Mr. Redford stated as an alternative, if it would make the Commission more comfortable, you may wish to subject your bond reduction and order the DPW not to perform any other inspection work on the subdivision other than what is necessary for the completion of the binder of the entire roadway. Mr. Goodemote stated if you refuse to inspect any work you would be forcing the issue of what should be done first. Mr. Redord stated I am trying to come up with a methodology to give you some power to insure that the binder is placed prior to winter. The utility work is all in. I also feel relatively confident the developer does not wish to go through another winter. 1 don't see a problem with what is proposed. the condition of a letter from the developer binder course in by November 1st. Atty. Latham stated I would propose that the vote to release be made on the condition of a letter from the developer that he will have the binder course in by November 1st. •, �'Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. 2, 1986 Page 4 ' outlined on a plan the runoff, he added that the forth not for the what is there now. He Mr. Redford stated I would go and ask portion all the way up to the disruption of Sanborn Lane which insures all of the "old Sanborn Lane" is back to equal or better condition than it was originally. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0:1 (Ms. Jenks abstaining) to amend the motion to reduce the bond by $250,000.00. It was moved, seconded and voted 4:0:1 (Ms. Jenks abstaining) to amend the motion to instruct the developer that the commission will reduce the Performance Bond by $250,000 upon receipt of an amendment to the original three -party agreement such that the binder course will be placed prior to November 1st on the entire roadway in all areas of construction from Station 8 +00 to Station 17 +65. It was saved, seconded and defeated 1:3:1 to amend the motion to ' reduce the bond by $260,000.00 The main motion as amended for $250,000.00 was voted 4:0:1 (Ms. Jenks abstaining). Estates. Mr. Redford next gave the Commission an update on Maplewood Mr. Redford reported he has taken the time to review the hydraulic calculations to date. He stated he has some serious problems with them. He attempted to contact the developer and the Engineer to let them know we would be discussing this issue tonight. Some of the problems are: they have calcualted the runoff based on 100 year storm on one area and 10 year storm on the abutting area. I assume these calculations were done by Atlantic Engineering, it is stamped by Douglas Forbes. Mr. Redford recommendation that the roadway be constructed to the end. outlined on a plan the runoff, he added that the calculations do not reflect what is there now. He added there will be a strong staff recommendation that the roadway be constructed to the end. y , Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. 2, 1986 Page 5 Mr. Goodemote stated I would like to see the language be very specific in terms of article and subarticle where you have problems under the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Mr. Redford stated right now I would recommend that you disapprove based on the Board of Health disapproval. You can not override the Board of Health disapproval. Mr. Griset stated I am concerned about a perceived weakness of our position as a Commission. I would rather see us deny the project than conditionally approve it. Mr. Redford stated Subdivision Control Law is very clear on the point that you can not overrule the Board of Health decision. for making certain that applications filed are complete. Ms. Jenks stated I agree with Mr. Griset, we are trying to send a message to the Town and to the Developers. Mr. Griset stated again I feel we should deny these submissions. Mr. Redford stated the staff will do what it can to support you and if there is the clear indication of a split group, we can certainly give you two recommendations. Regarding the Site Plan Review - 279 Salem Street - Gallahues Market Filing - Chairman Howard asked for an update. The Commission reviewed the letters from Latham and Latham, F.C. and from Attorney Stephen G. Viegas. Mr. Redford stated Town Counsel indicated that we should not hold a hearing because the "owner" was opposed. The "owner ", Reading Development Corporation, last Friday was deciding whether or not they would remove their opposition to the Site Plan. I have not received confirmation one way or the other as of today. Mr. Griset stated I feel anyone who comes before us with a ' deficient submittal should be denied. I would like to see some procedure for making certain that applications filed are complete. Ms. Jenks stated I agree with Mr. Griset, we are trying to send a message to the Town and to the Developers. Mr. Griset stated again I feel we should deny these submissions. Mr. Redford stated the staff will do what it can to support you and if there is the clear indication of a split group, we can certainly give you two recommendations. Regarding the Site Plan Review - 279 Salem Street - Gallahues Market Filing - Chairman Howard asked for an update. The Commission reviewed the letters from Latham and Latham, F.C. and from Attorney Stephen G. Viegas. Mr. Redford stated Town Counsel indicated that we should not hold a hearing because the "owner" was opposed. The "owner ", Reading Development Corporation, last Friday was deciding whether or not they would remove their opposition to the Site Plan. I have not received confirmation one way or the other as of today. y , Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. 2, 1986 Page 6 The Commission next had an informal discussion on Subdivision Hearings and Decisions. Mr. Redford reported that Subdivision Control law is based on State Statutes to control development within a Town, and to set standards. The general staff outlook is that any developer can come in with a plan for our review and comment. Upon receipt of an official filing, at that point, staff feels they work fully for the CP & DC and will not release any information to the public or to the developers as far as staff recommendations and reviews. The reason for this is that I feel the Commission is looking at an overall plan. I don't wish to prejudice the Commission in any way as far as the technical provisions, hopefully, this gives you clear objectivity. On waivers, generally the staff recommendation is not to grant waivers unless it is a clear benefit to the ' Town to do so. Ms. Jenks stated as far as future developments, there is only marginal land left. What is your rough estimate of what percent of the Town is left for subdivision development? Mr. Redford replied my guess is you probably have three or four 50 lot subdivisions left in Town. Ms. Jenks asked what has been done in the past about trees, have we ever mandated that a certain number of trees be left in a subdivision? Do we have control over this? Mr. Redford replied yes, but your real control is over the roadway and the utilities. You can advise the developers that you wish to incorporate the trees that can possibly be saved. Mr. Goodemote stated we can instruct the developers on individual lots that they have to retain certain trees. We might want to address this under zoning rather than under subdivision control. Ms. Jenks stated I would like to see the parameters become more restrictive. 5 I Community Planning 9 Development Commission Meeting Sept. 2, 1966 Page 7 CMr. Griset stated I have great concern about any retention devices. Mr. Redford stated we control the roadway, Conservation Commission controls the runoff and hydraulic considerations involved with the development. Mr. Griset stated we need to get to the point where we really need to say retention ponds are not acceptable. I think we should be more prepared to say that than our predecessors were. Mr. Ensminger stated we also have the responsibility to develop affordable housing. review the fee schedules, such as filing fee per lot. My ultimate goal would be to establish a Land Bank Fund. Mr. Griset stated this puts the burden on the developers to support our staff so that we can deal with them fairly. Mr. Redford stated I would suggest you charge the fees based on length of roadway. Ms. Jenks stated I would be interested in seeing what other Towns charge. Mr. Ensminger asked the staff to prepare a list of fees and the surrounding communities fee structures. Mr. Goodemote stated I have some ideas and concerns. I called MAPC to discuss the possibilities of some assistance in regards to zoning modifications, i.e., fee structures and content. I would like to formulate some goals and objectives as far as what we would like to see in the end result of zoning. Doe of the major issues I see is the business district. Mr. Goodemote asked do you charge for your inspection time? Mr. Redford replied that is covered in the filing fee, utility tconnections are a separate filing fee. Ms. Jenks stated I would like to entertain the idea that we review the fee schedules, such as filing fee per lot. My ultimate goal would be to establish a Land Bank Fund. Mr. Griset stated this puts the burden on the developers to support our staff so that we can deal with them fairly. Mr. Redford stated I would suggest you charge the fees based on length of roadway. Ms. Jenks stated I would be interested in seeing what other Towns charge. Mr. Ensminger asked the staff to prepare a list of fees and the surrounding communities fee structures. Mr. Goodemote stated I have some ideas and concerns. I called MAPC to discuss the possibilities of some assistance in regards to zoning modifications, i.e., fee structures and content. I would like to formulate some goals and objectives as far as what we would like to see in the end result of zoning. Doe of the major issues I see is the business district. j Community Planning & Development Commission Meeting Sept. 2, 1 986 Page S eMRPC would really will put together a proposal for us, our own planner take the time to look at our particular issues. Maureen Rich, as our I C representative, would have to speak for us. We should draft a letter to her asking her to do this. I would like to form a subcommittee to be very inclusive an these issues. Ms. Jenks stated I would certainly be willing to work with David on these issues. Mr. Goodemote asked can we set up the 15th for a meeting of our list of individual objectives for zoning. I would also request that someone from the Department put together their list for the 15th. It was moved, seconded and voted 5:0 to adjourn at 10:50 P.M. Res a tf ally su itted, S retary�