Residents of the Village Grande development turned out in numbers at the West Windsor Township Council’s February 17 meeting to urge council to hold off on releasing five performance bonds to developer D.R. Horton because of driveway apron work still needed to be completed.
However, after hearing guarantees in writing and from the developer’s attorney that Horton would complete the work by May, and that it would even put up $70,”000 in cash in addition to $1.2 million in bonds as insurance to cover any deficiencies, the council voted 5-0 to release the bonds.
The five performance guarantees were each for public site improvements for each of the five phases of development. Township Attorney Michael Herbert explained that when there is an approval given by the township for site plans, the township is allowed to require certain improvements be done by the developer. Herbert said Horton has proceeded with the improvements. And when there is a request by a developer to release performance guarantees, the township engineer needs to respond within 45 days. Then, the engineer issues a report to the township, which has to make a decision promptly. This request by Horton goes back to December, but it was pushed to January, at which time the homeowners association requested that the township postpone it for further consideration until issues with the driveway aprons were examined.
Herbert said that Township Engineer Fran Guzik and consulting engineer Rob Korkuch issued a report, in which they recommended the performance bonds be released, after negotiations with Horton “to provide for some assurance that any type of improvements that were not yet made would be made after the release of the performance bonds.”
In addition, the maintenance guarantee — which includes $1.2 million in bonds — would cover the actual maintenance work, including fixing the upheaval of some driveway aprons, about which residents had complained.
In addition to the $1.2 in maintenance bonds, the developer also made $70,”000 in cash available to cover any improvements that may be needed, Herbert said, citing a letter the township received. “Horton has now committed itself to dealing with any driveway aprons” and other work identified by the township engineer, Herbert said.
There are about 24 aprons that will need to be fixed, as determined by township officials, Herbert said. The work is to be done by May 4, and that date was due to the “insistence by my office and engineer’s office to do it by then,” Herbert said, adding that developers usually wait to make any improvements until the end of the period of time in which the maintenance bond covers, which in this case, would be two years. The cost to repair the driveway aprons is about $750 per square of pavement, and aprons usually encompass two squares. Therefore, on average, a typical driveway apron would cost about $1,”500 to repair.
The developer will also have to perform the remainder of the replacement or repairs of any displaced sidewalks in the development on or before June 1, Herbert said.
Debbie Baker, the president of the homeowners association at Village Grande, told the council the association just wanted clarification that in the event that the engineer finds other aprons that need repairs, that the work would be done. She also asked the council whether it could require the developer to put root barriers into the sidewalk to prevent sidewalks from cracking and becoming displaced by tree roots in the future.
Mitch Newman, an attorney for D.R. Horton, said his client was acting in good faith by agreeing to have the work done by May and June, respectively, and that the maintenance bonds would cover any repairs in the coming two years. He also pointed out that putting up $70,”000 in cash — which would more than cover the cost of repairing the 24 specified aprons — is “also something we typically don’t do,” he said. “We did that to assure our commitment to make this community right.”
With regard to installing root barriers, Newman said that, in any community, as trees grow older, they displace sidewalks. He said the developer might be open to talking about doing so, but the first response is “no.”
Councilwoman Linda Geevers asked if it would be possible for the developer to include installing root barriers in the remaining funding out of the $70,”000 in cash, but Newman said he did not know if the developer would agree to that, and the subject was dropped after township Community Development Coordinator Pat Ward told the council that she would consult with township landscape architect Dan Dobromilsky regarding the tree roots.
Honeyflower Lane resident Stan Goldner asked the council to deny the performance bonds because the developer used pavement comprising compacted soil rather than stone and cement, as required by the site plans.
Guzik, however, explained that the work was properly done because there was flexibility allowed with road construction.
“The issue is that we paid for something we were supposed to get that we didn’t get,” Goldner said in response.
Herbert said that if there is not a substantial reason to withhold the bonds and the matter is litigated, the township could end up losing, and its taxpayers could end up paying the attorney fees.
Grover Property. In other business during the February 17 meeting, township Division of Land Use manager Sam Surtees asked the council what it wanted to do with the farm house on the Grover farm. Peter Grover, who owned the 90-acre farm, sold it to the township — who used Green Acres funding for the purchase — in 1994, but he and his wife maintained life rights to live in the house.
Grover died last month, and his wife has decided to give up the life rights effective on February 18. Surtees said the township will be leasing the farm to other farmers, who will continue to maintain the property, and said that officials were contemplating leasing the house as a residence to pull in additional revenue for the township.
He said the township could see between $20,”000 and $24,”000 a year in renting costs for the house, which has been maintained and updated as time progressed.
Councilman Will Anklowitz said he was skeptical of renting the house because the township would have to assume landlord responsibilities and could encounter unruly tenants. George Borek suggested renting the house as an affordable unit, but Sam Surtees said he would have to check whether that use is permissible under the strict guidelines for Green Acres funding. He also said that once the house is designated as an affordable unit, it maintains that classification forever.
Anklowitz also suggested using it for municipal office space, but Herbert said that “it would be tough to have anything other than a residential use” on the site because of the Green Acres designation.
Redevelopment Meeting. Also in other business during the meeting, the council consented to allowing Planning Board Attorney Gerald Muller add language to the draft redevelopment plan for the 350-acre Princeton Junction train station area that would require a financial impact analysis to be conducted for each individual property in the redevelopment area as those property owners come forth individually with site plans in accordance with redevelopment. This would be in addition to the general, redevelopment area-wide financial impact analysis already called for in the language of the draft plan.
The council will be holding a workshop meeting on Monday, February 23 beginning at 6 p.m. to allow representatives from community groups to discuss remaining concerns about the language in the draft redevelopment plan. The council may or may not introduce the redevelopment plan by ordinance during the meeting.
Also in other business, the first meeting during which the council will discuss the 2009 municipal budget is scheduled for Monday, March 9.
