The needler in the haystack.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Unresolved issues derail release of Monarch condos performance bond


The developer's agreement calls for rooftop solar panels,
which have yet to be installed.
Citing several unresolved issues with the Monarch/Senior Center project, City Council members failed to get a consensus to put the Robinson-Briggs administration's proposed release of the developer's performance bond on the agenda for next week's business session.

Though Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson protested that the Planning Division had signed off on the release, Council members Storch, Mapp and Williams spoke to the unresolved matters: a finalized parking agreement (in writing) that will mollify the Seniors; the unfinished 'roof garden' for residents and Seniors; certificates of occupancy; and rooftop solar panels called for in the original developer's agreement.

I have written about the solar panels issue before (see here and here), but will summarize it again.

It is important because a) it is in the Developer's Agreement, b) it is a considerable expense from which the developer would be excused, and c) it would comport well with the UCIA's push for solar energy use throughout the County.

The complete Developer's Agreement is available online (see here).

The pertinent section dealing with the roof-top solar panels is
Section 7. (a)(viii), an image of which appears below --


Rooftop solar panels are called for in the developer's agreement.
Corporation Counsel Williamson's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, no one has yet produced a memorialization in writing of Dornoch being excused from this provision of the developer's agreement. It seems to me a change of such magnitude -- it could be several hundred thousand dollars worth -- would have had to engage the attention and approval of both the Planning Board and the City Council.

It's about time that the Council got to the bottom of the matter, BEFORE releasing the performance bond.

-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

7 comments:

Jeff said...

It may have been posted in the other write ups, but is there any other info besides "the roof shall contain solar panels?" Does it sat how many or what they will power? If not, he could technically put in 1 unit and be done with it. I hope for the buildings sake, its enough to power more than just 1 light bulb. Just wondering...

Bob said...

I am so glad that we have some responsible members on the City Council who are on the ball and watching out for the people of Plainfield. Others have their eyes on some payment down the line if they allow the people of Plainfield to be taken to the cleaners. Voters in those wards need to show their displeasure in the upcoming election.

Dan said...

Jeff -- it says 'panels' plural, which means the minimum would be two.

That should be enough to power the EXIT sign in the sales office, don't you think?

Rob said...

The Mayor will simply wait the council out.
They will fold. She knows it.

Anonymous said...

Dan,
Off topic however I noticed in city hall that the receptionist desk hi blocking the World War 1 memorial.Several names are covered over by the desk. This is totally disrespectfull to the men who served our country. Proper respectful protocol requires that nothing obstruct or be placed in front of memorials

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the UCIA situation with the Park Madison office building and parking deck. The UCIA NEVER completed all requirements in the redevelopment agreement including those stipulated by the Planning Board. Don't know if they ever got their bond back but they haven't been paying the yearly $200,000+ they owe Plainfield for the PILOT payment and they are still operating on a temporary certificate of occupancy. The permanent CO would have triggered the PILOT. They owe the city $1,000,000+ by now.

Anonymous said...

Every other section is very specific about what has to be done to comply. Yet that one just says "the roof shall contain solar panels". Seriously was that written specifically so they could basically ignore it (as mentioned, two small solar panels will satisfy this requirement). Whomever's job it was to raise issues/approve this document did not do their job.