Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Virgilio, adding that it was Mr. Virgilio's opinion that the design he provided would have <br /> mitigated the run off issues and questioned why that design was not utilized. Mr. Rowley responded <br /> that binder course only was currently on site and the grade on Great Neck Road South was such that it <br /> may be contributing to runoff issues. Mr. Rowley reported that the shoulders were not complete, no <br /> loam and seed was present, the top coat mix was not in place and the area had not been dressed. Mr. <br /> Rowley stated that the contractor indicated that the work completed was what he was instructed to do <br /> and Mr. Rowley had received no response to his requests regarding the timeline for the top coat. Mr. <br /> Rowley stated that the Board approved the Covenant that was recorded with the Subdivision Plan, but <br /> did not recall that a time limit had established for completion of work. Mr. Rowley suggested that <br /> Covenant time limit would be the consideration of the Board for a modification or amendment to the <br /> Special Permit, under Chapter 41, Section 81. Hay bales requested over one month ago had still not <br /> been placed on site. Mr. Lehrer confirmed that he discussed the hay bales with Mr. Morin who <br /> responded with his belief that there was limited contamination, but Mr. Rowley's report indicated <br /> otherwise. Mr. Balzarini agreed that there was erosion from rushing water, adding that silt and rocks <br /> had entered the drainage system and that a puddle still remained in Mr. Virgilio's yard. <br /> The Chair summarized the issue for Ms. Connolly, the developer agreeing to install hay bales one <br /> month ago, in order to mitigate some of the drainage issues. The Chair added that neighbors had been <br /> actively involved at meetings expressing their concerns about the project. Ms. Connolly confirmed <br /> that she had reviewed the Special Permit Decision, and photographs submitted but had not yet seen the <br /> original Subdivision Approval. Ms. Connolly stated that, to amend the Special Permit, clerical <br /> changes could be addressed at tonight's meeting. To modify the Special Permit, the Board would need <br /> to schedule a Public Hearing, by motion, notifying the applicant and abutters. In the Public Hearing, <br /> the Board could amend the Special Permit with deadlines for compliance, with technical requirements <br /> to be identified by Mr. Rowley. The other authority the Planning Board could utilize would be <br /> Chapter 41, Section 81W, with amendments to the Subdivision Approval, but also through the Public <br /> Hearing process. Ms. Connolly discussed performance bonds and guarantees, suggesting that if they <br /> were in place, the Subdivision approval should still be amended with deadlines, suggesting the Board <br /> may wish to do both a Special Permit Modification and Subdivision Approval Public Hearing. The <br /> Chair agreed with conducting both Public Hearings. <br /> VERBATIM <br /> Ms. Connolly: I would do two separate Public Hearings because they're under two separate statutes <br /> and if there is an appeal, they've got to be handled separately. You can do the one after the other and <br /> incorporate the first hearing into the second one, so that you don't have to repeat everything, but <br /> definitely do one hearing, take a vote on the Special Permit, you start with that, and then do a separate <br /> hearing. And you can say, we're incorporating by reference all of the discussion that we just had so <br /> that it's part of it. <br /> Ms. Connolly also recommended that Performance Guarantees tended to provide towns with a better <br /> position. Mr. Rowley inquired whether the Performance Guarantee or Covenant would be the decision <br /> of the applicant and not the Board. Ms. Connolly responded that the applicant could choose but that <br /> the Board would require one or the other. Mr. Rowley believed that there was a Covenant on record <br /> that required that the developer could not receive a lot release until the entire road was built according <br /> to what was approved. Ms. Connolly noted that the Subdivision Approval could not be amended <br /> without the approval of owners who purchased the lots. There was discussion regarding whether the <br /> deed had been turned over to Habitat for Humanity and Ms. Connolly recommended consulting with <br /> the Town Assessor prior to releasing the notice for the Public Hearing. The notice would be sent to the <br /> developer and holders of the mortgage, to consider an Amendment, Decision, Revocation of previously <br /> 7 <br />