Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalks And Public Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer, staff and board debate sidewalk construction versus payment‑in‑lieu for Reece Landing
Summary
At the April 7 Planning Board meeting, the Reece Landing applicant and staff debated whether a sidewalk should be constructed now or whether a contribution to the town’s sidewalk fund under Chapter 201 should be accepted and held; the board agreed to continue the application to allow documentation and ordinance language to be clarified.
The Planning Board on April 7 continued the Reece Landing subdivision discussion after prolonged debate over whether the developer should build a sidewalk in front of the property or make a payment to the town’s sidewalk fund in lieu of construction.
Jeff Aliva (also referenced as Jeff Oliva in the packet) presented revised plans for the proposed subdivision at 1922 Post Road. Planning staff summarized the relevant ordinance language in Chapter 201 (Streets and Sidewalks) and explained the ordinance allows a property owner in the sidewalk development plan area to “make a contribution to the sidewalk development fund” instead of constructing the sidewalk, with provisions that public works approves designs and that funds may be returned if unused under section f.
Board members and staff raised cost, timing and feasibility concerns. One member noted the large potential difference in cost between 2018 and 2025 estimates and asked whether the applicant would agree to a future inflation adjustment if construction is delayed. Others argued the town’s sidewalk fund can be used elsewhere in the corridor and that DOT and DEP approvals complicate building a sidewalk now where a state project may alter Route 1 in coming years.
Some members pressed for a plan note committing the applicant to accept any future ordinance changes, or to place funds into the town fund with a performance guarantee rather than immediate construction; the applicant indicated they were willing to explore such language. Staff and the board discussed holding the contribution for up to seven years per the ordinance language, and noted section f allows a developer to be repaid if the sidewalk is not built within that period.
Outcome: the board agreed to continue the matter to allow final DEP paperwork, a draft easement for public access and clearer plan notes on sidewalks and payment‑in‑lieu language. The timeframe discussed ranged from 30 to 60 days for follow‑up items.
