Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bonds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies bond reduction request for Oaks at Hope Furnace pending certifications
Summary
Attorney Joel Rocha asked the Coventry Planning Commission to release roughly $800,000 in developer bonds for the Oaks at Hope Furnace subdivision, but staff and the town engineer recommended denial because required certifications and construction documentation remain missing; the commission voted to deny the reduction until the applicant provides the requested information.
The Coventry Planning Commission voted Dec. 17 to deny a bond‑reduction request for the Oaks at Hope Furnace development after planning staff and the town engineer said key certifications and documentation remain outstanding.
Joel Rocha, attorney for the applicant, told the commission the development is “fully complete,” noting that the top course of asphalt has been laid and the project had previously been reduced to maintenance bond levels. Rocha said the applicant had provided an August letter and correspondence addressing items in an October memo from the town engineer, and argued the drainage work was private infrastructure and should not justify continued withholding of bond funds. He said “there’s over $800,000 being held, the vast majority of which has nothing to do with these issues.”
Planning staff and the town engineer, identified in staff correspondence as Mr. Levesque, disagreed. Planning staff said the engineer has reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant and still seeks additional certifications documenting the construction of infrastructure and materials to confirm conformance. Staff noted a request for those certifications dates back to October and remains open; on that basis the town engineer recommended denial.
Commissioner [by roll call] moved to deny the requested release pending the applicant’s submission of the engineer’s requested certifications. The motion passed on a recorded vote of the members present.
The denial is procedural: it does not call the bond but prevents reduction until the town receives and accepts the requested documentation. The commission did not set a deadline for the applicant to provide the missing certifications; planning staff said the matter can be revisited once the town engineer confirms receipt of adequate documentation.
