Residents Voice Concerns Over Developer Obligations and Infrastructure Issues in Southwick

During a recent Southwick Planning Board meeting, a debate unfolded over the release of developer obligations concerning infrastructure improvements in the Sunnyside Ranch Estates subdivision. Residents, led by Mark Fulkill, a homeowner representative, conveyed frustration over the town’s consideration to absolve developers from their commitments to road repairs. Fulkill highlighted that homeowners had collectively incurred over $11,000 in expenses for safety issues linked to substandard road construction, resulting in two significant injuries. He criticized the town for allegedly releasing the covenant without proper inspections or documentation confirming the completion of required work, referencing multiple engineer reports indicating the absence of necessary top coat applications. Fulkill urged the board to reconsider their stance, emphasizing the need for the town to assist residents in recovering these costs.

55:08Attorney Mike Browny, representing Sunnyside Ranch Estates LLC, clarified that releasing the security would only absolve Sunnyside Ranch, not the subsequent developer, Pinnacle. He noted the court’s dismissal of claims against Sunnyside Ranch due to their lack of property ownership in the subdivision, and mentioned a judgment against Pinnacle for funds spent on road completion. Jim Sullivan, another resident, echoed the community’s concerns, questioning the town’s alignment with developers and stressing the importance of protecting homeowners from inheriting unresolved infrastructure problems. Sullivan also pointed out that previous releases of obligations occurred without the commencement of construction, leaving buyers vulnerable.

39:12The Planning Board acknowledged the residents’ concerns and decided to continue the discussion at a future meeting, allowing time for further consultation with the town council. The board expressed a commitment to exploring options to support residents and address the infrastructure issues that have persisted for over two decades.

01:24:16On a separate note, the board deliberated on a proposal from Crepes Tea House for several special permits and site plan approvals related to modifications on Feeding Hills Road. The application sought adjustments to pre-existing non-conforming uses, particularly concerning outdoor dining gazebos. Concerns about the existing septic system’s capacity for 93 seats were raised, with assurances from the applicant that no additional seating would occur, thus maintaining compliance. The health director highlighted that any increase in seating capacity would require septic system modifications. The applicant confirmed adherence to health regulations and discussed plans for electrification and lighting of outbuildings to ensure security and navigation.

02:19:42Additionally, the board examined the request for expanded outdoor cooking operations by a local business, Crepes Tea House. The business sought flexibility in their cooking schedule due to unpredictable weather, which had previously impacted sales and attendance. The board discussed accommodating these operational challenges while ensuring compliance with health and safety standards. The board agreed to permit outdoor cooking operations for one day per weekend over a six-month period, emphasizing the necessity of compliance to avoid further complaints.

02:35:57The Planning Board also reviewed Dollar General’s signage proposals, emphasizing the need for designs that align with the community’s aesthetic values. Board members expressed a preference for signs that reflect high-quality craftsmanship and natural materials. The board highlighted the importance of upholding design guidelines to ensure signs contribute positively to the town’s visual identity.

Note: This meeting summary was generated by AI, which can occasionally misspell names, misattribute actions, and state inaccuracies. This summary is intended to be a starting point and you should review the meeting record linked above before acting on anything you read. If we got something wrong, let us know. We’re working every day to improve our process in pursuit of universal local government transparency.

Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:

is discussed during:
in these locations: