STILES CROSSING
PUBLIC HEARING MEETING MINUTES
July 8, 2010
Chairman: Richard Baker
Members Present: Bill Manter, Laurie Levy
Members Absent: Julia Hucknall Kim Ames
Recorder: Melanie Rich
Consultants: Mike Andrade (Graves Engineering)
Stiles Crossing Public Hearing
Mr. Baker opened the hearing at 7:10 p.m. He informed those attending that the purpose of the hearing is to determine if it is in the Town’s best interest to modify the subdivision plan to allow street construction to move forward through agreement with the bonding company. He briefly explained the past history of the project:
* The developer failed to finish the subdivision and was found to be in default of the conditions of the subdivision approval.
* The Town took steps to collect the surety.
* An estimate was prepared for the remaining work, which exceeded the amount of the bond.
* The bonding company requested and received bids and identified a contractor who could complete the work with modifications to the plan:
1. sidewalks will be on one side of the subdivision streets only;
2. material for sidewalks will be geotextile fabric between subgrade and aggregate, 8” aggregate base, 1 ½” asphalt surface courses;
3. tree spacing will be at 150’;
4. the bounds material will be concrete;
5. Cape Cod berm will be used for curb inlets and transition pieces;
6. detention pond fencing will be replaced with warning sign posts; and
7. the decorative stone wall will be eliminated.
Mr. Baker suggested that making the proposed modifications would be the best way to proceed so that the streets will be completed and eventually accepted by the Town. If the Board approves the modifications, work could start as early as the first week of August. Mr. Baker concluded by stating that the developer will at some point ask the town to accept the streets, and the Town wants to make sure the construction of the streets and stormwater meet required standards.
Chuck Thyne (7 Juniper Hill Drive) stated that it seemed like a lot of modifications. He asked what the shortfall with the bond was. Mike Andrade (Graves Engineering) stated it was approximately $90,000. Mr. Baker said that if the town had to complete the job, costs would be increased because the town would have to pay prevailing wages.
Lee Ann Marien (16 Juniper Hill Drive) asked how things reached this point, noting that the builder was obligated and posted bond. She stated it was the residents that notified the town that the builder was not doing what he was supposed to do. She also asked how the developer was able to start another job in town when the Stiles Crossing job was not completed. She said they purchased their houses with the expectation that the subdivision would be completed according to the original specifications, noting that the bylaw says that the Town can increase the bond due to inflation. She said they are paying $9,000-$10,000 in taxes and deserve to get what they paid for. She questioned why residents must make concessions due to inaction by the Town. Mr. Baker responded by saying it was the
builder who failed to honor his commitments and that there is no mechanism in place for the road to completed other than by claiming the bond. Ms. Marien questioned the amount of taxes they pay, given that the street is private and not maintained by the Town. Mr. Baker stated that until the streets are accepted by the town, they will remain private, even when completed.
Mr. Baker was asked if the Town could do anything to get the developer to do something about the dirt pile on one of the unfinished lots. Mr. Baker replied that it is on private property. He stated that it is a possible zoning violation and suggested they bring it to the attention of the Building Inspector. Mr. Baker also said there is a Homeowner’s Association, which might have authority to require the developer to improve his property. Several residents stated they were unaware of a homeowners association. Mr. Baker said it is referenced in the restrictive covenant and specifically noted on several of the deeds.
John Amato (24 Ridgefield Circle) asked about the high grass by the fire hydrants. Some are not visible because of the grass. Ms. Levy said that the Homeowner’s Association would take care of such maintenance by collecting fees. Mr. Amato asked who would be responsible if the remaining lot was developed after street construction was completed and heavy equipment was brought in causing damage. Mr. Baker responded that it is the responsibility of the developer until the road is accepted.
Mr. Manter suggested that, based on his experience with failed subdivisions, residents should organize together and focus on the developer.
Mr. Amato questioned how the developer could be allowed to build another project given his track record. Mr. Manter told him that if the plans meet the standards and criteria, the Town has to let them build. They can’t deny because of their track record. Mr. Amato said they could possibly sue the town collectively for negligence. Mr. Manter said he understands they are not happy, but this package gives the best opportunity to get the job finished. Mr. Amato commented that the Town was bartering with the developer to gain benefits for the Town. Mr. Baker strongly objected to that comment. Mr. Amato asked if a pumping station was installed at the Compass Pointe development, to which Mr. Baker replied he did not believe so.
Ms. Levy stated that streets are private until they are accepted by the Town and there is a period during which the residents will pay taxes while it is still a private street. Mr. Baker said that typically the developer will petition the Board to bring forward a street acceptance article. He also said he believes the residents as a collective group could petition the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Andrade added that the current agreement includes the preparation of all documents needed for such a petition. The question was asked if the contractor would have the work monitored to completion. Mr. Andrade said inspections are not covered in the current estimate and that the bonding company would have their own agents do the inspections. He said that typically he would inspect the site and consult with
Don Parker (Highway Superintendent). It was asked who would be liable if past work was not done properly and Mr. Baker replied it would be the developer.
A resident asked about the disparity between bids and why there were only three bids. Mr. Baker did not know, but said that if the bonding company did not feel the bids were acceptable, they would write a check for the bond amount and walk away, leaving the Town to finish the work.
Raj Anandhi (14 Ridgefield Circle) asked who would be responsible for plowing and who would be responsible for road damage? He asked if the Town could put a hold on the undeveloped lots. Mr. Baker said that the conditions of approval are very clear: until the streets are accepted, plowing and maintenance is the responsibility of the developer. The Town cannot legally maintain private streets unless Town Meeting approves funds to do so. With regard to putting a hold on property, counsel advised that the Town has no means of doing that. Mr. Baker added that when the streets are finished, it will add property value, directly benefitting the developer who owns several lots.
A resident asked if the construction agreement includes repair to the retaining wall. Mr. Baker said the retaining wall remains a major issue. The bonding company maintains that the wall is built, and it is not their obligation to fix, inspect or certify it. Mr. Andrade stated that there was movement in the first year, but not since. He would not feel comfortable recommending acceptance of the streets until it was certified by a structural engineer. Steve Senosk (125 Stiles Road) stated that Cabco said the wall has a bow in it. Mr. Andrade reiterated that he would not recommend street approval until the wall is certified. A resident asked if the subcontractor was qualified to build the wall. Mr. Baker said that in the early stages of construction there was a cease and desist
order because proper permits were lacking. Since that time, reports were submitted. It was asked if the Town could force the developer to take it down and repair it. Mr. Baker answered no. The resident stated further that the Board was leading them on by not mentioning the retaining wall earlier. Mr. Baker apologized for that. He stated that certification was required for the wall, but not received. He stated again that the Town cannot require the developer certify the wall, but it is unlikely the streets would be accepted by the Town without the certification.
Mr. Baker read into the record an email was received from Camille and Ralph Viscomi (10 Ridgefield Circle) to voice their concerns.
Nicki Fox Tapper (8 Ridgefield Circle) asked if the plan included paving for the driveways. The answer was no. She asked about the timeline and was told that if all goes according to plan, work could begin in August. Mr. Manter strongly suggested they organize as an association and work together concerning the driveways.
A resident asked what is the Board going to do to get the retaining wall fixed. Mr. Baker said that the Board could send a letter to the builder and ask him to take action regarding the wall but has no legal means to force him to fix it. It was asked if the road would have to be torn up to fix the wall. Mr. Andrade said the bond company is consulting with the engineer to make that determination. Mr. Baker asked if there would be a significant impact to the street if the wall has to be repaired, to which Mr. Andrade answered yes. Ms. Levy suggested the homeowners retain an attorney to approach the builder.
A resident asked how the amount of the bond was determined. Mr. Baker said that in late 2005, the builder was required to post surety in order to sell lots. An estimate was prepared by the Board's engineering consultant. A 20% contingency was included, which is considered fair. Mr. Amato noted that the sidewalks were going to be asphalt and asked if they could forego them in order to get the wall fixed. Mr. Andrade told him the original plan called for asphalt sidewalks, and during street construction sidewalks are often installed first. Regarding the retaining wall, Mr. Andrade said if repair is needed, someone would have to come up with the money to fix it. He is not sure if the bond company has considered it, but reconstructing the wall is not in the proposal. He was
asked what is involved in certifying the wall, and he replied that the construction reports need to be reviewed and an inspection performed by a structural engineer.
With no one else asking to be recognized, Mr. Baker explained that the Board will deliberate and take a vote to amend the plan as proposed to allow the changes to be made and work to go forward. He stated that he knows the residents are not happy, but neither is the Town. He reiterated that the Board is attempting to find the best possible solution. Mr. Baker entertained a motion to close the Public Hearing; so moved by Mr. Manter seconded by Ms. Levy, all in favor. The Board reviewed a draft decision. Mr. Manter motioned to approve the Decision to Modify the Definitive Subdivision Plan as drafted; Ms. Levy seconded; all in favor (Mr. Baker voted yes as the third Member); motion approved. Mr. Manter made a motion that the Chairman be given the authority to sign documents as
required to complete the agreement with the bonding company; Ms. Levy seconded; all in favor; motion approved.
Hearing adjourned at 8:15 pm.
Hearing Materials:
1. Email message from Chris Parrish to Nancy Colbert Puff, July 1, 2010
2. Email message from Camille Viscomi
3. Draft Decision
| 
