Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Engineering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board authorizes billing applicant or using escrow to cover engineering review for Tanya Lane
Summary
Citing subdivision regulation 6.17, the board approved asking the applicant to pay a professional-consultation invoice (about $2,700) related to engineering review of Tanya Lane or to cover it from escrow.
The Brentwood Planning Board voted to require the applicant for the Tanya Lane subdivision to pay a professional-consultation invoice (approximately $2,700) for engineering work or for the board to draw that amount from the project’s escrow account, citing subdivision regulation 6.17.
Board members referenced the relevant regulation that allows the board to charge a fee payable by the applicant to cover the cost of professional consultation selected by the board to determine completion of required work. Glenn Greenwood and Mark Kennedy discussed that TEC (an engineering consultant) performed a field review and produced a bill for comment work related to Tanya Lane; the invoice and the review were raised as evidence that the planning board had a reasonable need to engage external expertise to determine whether required improvements met town standards.
Some board members asked whether the work had been inspected in the field before the engineer signed off; staff and the planner said the inspection sequence and the permit conditions (including requirements for headwalls on culverts) warranted the consultant review. The board debated whether to send a direct invoice to the applicant or to draw from escrow; members approved a motion allowing either use of escrow funds or sending a bill to the applicant to recover the cost.
The motion cited subdivision regulation 6.17 (performance security and professional consultation costs) as the legal basis for recouping the expense. The board also noted that whether additional legal or contractual follow-up is needed could prompt future nonpublic discussion about vendor relationships, but the immediate vote was limited to recovering the engineering-review cost.
Vote: The board adopted the motion by roll call; members voting in favor included Doug, Brett, Bruce, Paul, Steph and Kristen.
Context: The vote follows earlier discussion in the meeting about engineering invoice management and the planning board’s limited engineering budget. The board directed staff to check escrow balances and, if necessary, invoice the applicant or take the amount from the project escrow consistent with the regulation.
