Officials say developer will grant right‑of‑way but not fund state‑standard bypass; traffic study and FlowServe easement remain unresolved

The Planning Commission received an extended update on the Mountain Brook Farm project and a draft Developer Rights and Responsibilities Agreement (DARA). Staff and the town’s legal and planning representatives said the developer is willing to provide a right‑of‑way for the future bypass road, but expressed reluctance to pay the additional costs required to build that road to state‑highway standards. Commission members and staff emphasized that an independent traffic study and further negotiation are needed before a formal DARA can be signed.

What the commission was told: Jay (town legal) said the team has made progress but that the most significant unresolved questions are about the road: who will pay to build it, what standard it must meet, who will review it and whether it will be built in phases. “The big ones were, were quite hefty. They were the issue of the road,” he said, and summarized the developer’s position: the developer “did not mind giving the easement…However, they did have a problem building the road to state highway standards.”

Developer and city positions: According to staff, the developer indicated it will grant the right‑of‑way but that its traffic generation does not justify the higher construction standards and costs the state would require for a state road; the developer therefore expects the town or another party to pay the incremental cost if the town wants the road built to state standards. Town staff said the state has indicated it would consider accepting the completed, end‑to‑end road as a State Road only if the entire connection from FlowServe/Route 140 to the existing terminus at Antrim Boulevard and Trevanion is built to the state’s specifications and reviewed by the State Highway Administration.

Traffic study, timing and risk: Legal and planning staff described an outstanding traffic study prepared with CDM Smith; a preliminary follow‑up meeting of traffic engineers occurred but the formal report remains outstanding. Staff warned that if the traffic study does not show a need to justify a second exit—i.e., an exit at each end—the developer will argue it is not required to build both connections. Commissioners noted the public‑safety and circulation implications: one commissioner observed that 450 homes could end up served by a single exit if a second connection is not required by mitigation measures proven in the traffic analysis.

FlowServe easement and expectations: City staff reported FlowServe’s corporate counsel is reviewing a draft easement. Staff said FlowServe understands a connection across its property is expected to occur as part of Mountain Brook Farm’s second phase, but FlowServe is not seeking immediate construction of the road; the easement negotiation is ongoing.

Budgetary and implementation concerns: Staff and commissioners raised the fiscal risk the city could face if the developer phases expensive off‑site improvements into a late phase, making later phases financially infeasible for the developer. Speakers pointed to a local precedent where delayed expensive off‑site improvements contributed to project shortfalls. Commissioners emphasized the need for mayor and council budget discussions if the city is expected to subsidize any portion of road construction.

Next steps: Staff said the city will continue monthly progress meetings with CDM Smith and the developer, finalize the traffic study parameters and continue easement negotiations with FlowServe. Legal counsel said that absent clearer agreement on who pays for state‑standard improvements, a DARA is unlikely to be finalized in the near term.