Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Board Administration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kingston Planning Board handles escrow releases, master-plan RFP timing and a cell-tower recording dispute
Summary
The planning board reviewed escrow-release requests, discussed finalizing the master-plan RFP for counsel review, and decided to ask legal counsel to respond to a cell-tower site-plan recording dispute where the registry has not accepted the applicant's instrument.
In the meeting’s administrative session, the Kingston Planning Board reviewed two escrow-release requests, discussed the master plan request-for-proposals (RFP) timing and wrestled with a conditional-approval follow-up on a cell-tower site plan.
Board members asked staff to confirm outstanding inspection fees and to verify the on-site conditions before releasing escrow for a recent commercial building project; town engineer Dennis Quintel offered to re-inspect to confirm remaining items such as hydroseeding and minor grading. For a larger, older escrow involving All American Assisted Living (aka Senior Housing Development LLC), Quintel said the remaining bond amount was small (about $6,206 as a remaining item years after initial work) but ongoing monitoring and specific items (drainage, plantings, stabilization) need field verification before release; the board asked staff to inspect and return the matter to the next meeting with firm numbers.
On the master-plan RFP, staff sought comments and asked the board to provide feedback by a Thursday deadline so the document could be reviewed by town counsel and placed on the next agenda for final approval. One board member suggested including language about debrief opportunities for unsuccessful bidders; staff and members agreed to send comments quickly because the RFP is a major solicitation for the town.
Finally, board members discussed a cell-tower conditional approval where the applicant has not recorded the required instrument at the registry of deeds; the registry was refusing to record the site plan instrument because it is not a survey map. Staff said the conditional approval technically lapsed in December and that the applicant’s counsel was asking the town to record a notice of decision despite the missed deadline. The board decided to ask legal counsel to advise and to instruct staff not to unilaterally record a notice without counsel’s guidance; members discussed contacting higher authorities if the registry’s practice appears to conflict with the state law that governs planning-board approvals and recordation.
No formal land-use approvals were made in this administrative segment; the board set inspection follow-ups and asked staff to return with updated escrow calculations, RFP edits and counsel advice on the cell-tower recording issue.
