Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Fees topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Developer seeks $16,000 refund of unused sewer connection fee; Select Board asks counsel to research options

Town of Situit Select Board · June 23, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Rivermore Development asked the board to refund one of two sewer‑connection fees paid for 33 Beaver Dam Road after the planned ADU was removed; town staff and counsel said no clear administrative mechanism exists for refunds across fiscal years and suggested further legal and finance review before any action.

Rivermore Development representatives asked the Select Board to reimburse $16,000 for an unused second sewer connection that was paid when an existing unit and an ADU were permitted at 33 Beaver Dam Road. The developer said the ADU was later demolished when it proved visually incompatible with a newly built primary residence and that the second connection was never used.

The developer, Mike Reynolds, said the team paid two connection fees and seeks refund for the unused ADU connection after changed plans and re‑routing caused added engineering costs. Town staff and counsel replied that sewer connection fees and betterments are treated as benefits to a parcel and that there is no routine administrative mechanism to refund a fee that crosses fiscal years; the town attorney said the issue may require action at town meeting or a specific legal mechanism.

Board members expressed sympathy for the developer’s timeline and recognized the unique facts of the case, but raised precedent concerns about opening a refund path for connections that remain available as a property right. The board asked counsel and finance staff to research legal options and possible town‑meeting language and tabled the request for further review.

No refund was granted at the meeting; the board requested follow‑up legal analysis and options for a potential town‑meeting article if staff conclude a refund is legally permissible.