Here's why:
("Reader's Digest condensed version")
PB Chairman says: "......right now, as it sits, it doesn't need to be fixed. It's perfectly drivable."
PB Attorney says: "we raised the issue 'could the road fail' and there doesn't seem to be any evidence whatsoever that the road would fail."
Town Engineer says: "although these failures are minor in nature, we recommend limiting the number of repetitive construction vehicle loads located along the northern edge....and so this is a condition where we're basically saying there would be, could be a high number of heavily loaded vehicles traveling along the north edge that could precipitate a failure."
RSM Attorney says: "No traffic issue, no steep slope impact."
Costich says: "Pavement is generally in good condition. Roadway has excess capacity, sufficient pavement width, and adequate sight distances....."
(Detailed version.)
July 27th, 2009 Planning Board Meeting.
At the 137 mark of the video, Mr. Ricci starts talking about the road. He states: "If the road is in deteriorating condition, it's the town's responsibility to do something about it, and during construction the Town can mitigate, move, they can say that because of the deteriorating condition we want you to move and have one side done and whatever, but, we have to make it clear in here that the developers aren't responsible for the condition of the road, and I think we've said that several different ways, but I wanted to make sure that we....uh..."
Then, Mr. Wehner interjects: "They're not responsible for the existing conditions of the road...but you could be responsible for further or excessive deterioration due to the construction traffic."
Mr. Ricci states: "Right, but we can't tell somebody that they can't drive on the road because it's...it...it...."
Hintentach: "Well they can drive on the road and then when it fails, they gotta fix it. How's that?"
(lol I love that....."how's that"! Ha!)
Ricci: "We can't tell 'em that either, it's a..."
Hintentach: "Why not?"
(love that too! Yeah! Why not?!?)
Ricci: "Because it's a dedicated road. I mean....so......"
Hintentach: "So, because of their development let's say that the road....needs to be fixed. Because right now, as it sits, it doesn't need to be fixed. It's perfectly drivable. So after 500 dump trucks run on it, and it gets destroyed, to some level....who knows....I'm just speaking hypothetically....the Town can't say 'because of that you need to fix our road a little?'"
Wehner: "There's many times when developments are made to create turning lanes, or widen roads, or install signal lights, or modifications.. or are required to keep roads clean..."
Why can't this development be made to stabilize the road before their behemoth construction vehicles put excessive weight on it.....or at least go "halvsies" with the Town?
Ricci: "Right. So I, but......it's....."
Hintentach: "I mean if the road fell apart, and it wasn't their fault, obviously the Town would be responsible, but I think to say that this development wouldn't cause further maintenance issues to this road would be....."
What? Would be what?!?! Finish that statement!!!!
Ricci: "That's...but that's not what this is saying though, this is saying that you can't do any....I wanna make sure that it's....the condition of the road is the responsibility of the Town, and not the developer. Is that correct?"
Attorney Leone: "Well...just...just....just to jump in though, I mean I think, just on this discussion...um....and I can't find the letter right now"
(Neither could I on the Newport page on the Town website....it was a letter from LaBella from March 20th, 2009.)
"I think that our Town Engineers were asked that specific question, and I think our Town Engineers (LaBella)wrote a letter saying that based upon interactions with the DPW, that, you know there has been some wear on the road, but...but....based upon what we've been told the construction would be, it's not going to cause a problem, and anything can be further mitigated by.....these mitigation measures of the light either way...so...I think we would be hard pressed to....I mean if our own engineers have said that, it's gonna be hard for us to say...."
Hintentach: "Otherwise?"
Leone: "Well, I mean, I mean...I think we would need to explore it a lot, (clicky pens rule!)I mean, in addition to that....because there doesn't seem to be any empirical evidence that the road....I mean we raised the issue 'could the road fail' and there doesn't seem to be any evidence whatsoever that the road would....would, would fail."
Soooo.....then.....there's no need to bond a million taxpayer dollars to "fix" a road that has no evidence that it would fail.........right?
Ricci: "Alright, so, as a...as a....just so that I'm clear...cause...maybe I'm not clear on this...um....the fact that the road is the responsibility of the Town right now, doesn't mean that the Town can't say 'Look, we're concerned about the condition of the road...we don't want you to do specific things..because...we don't want the road to fail'."
Leone: "The Town could, could, if one of the potential environmental impacts was....it could really chew up the road or hurt the road...let's say they needed to use equipment that had some sort of...you know...spikes on it...there's something that could chew up the road or something like that, then certainly the Town would say, 'you can't do that' or 'whatever you do you have to put back in place' or even more than that if, if there was going to be so much, so many construction vehicles that there was some sort of....professional opinion that it COULD cause the road to fail, then I think yes...then the Town could put certain conditions on there, um, in order to, to protect that, but...I think the point though, is and Mike, you (Leone then WINKS at Mike at this point (141:4 mark)...?...lol what's up with that?) please weigh in on this...I think the question's been asked to DPW and to the engineers, and they've given an opinion on it, and they've given a methodology that they feel comfortable...protects the road....and if that's not true, please let me know, but I'm fairly confident that was the case."
Winky-wink-wink!
What the hell? Seriously. I wanna know what is up with that wink!
(You really have to view the video.....it is clearly a wink.)
Mike(?) from LaBella talks about the stability of the embankment and the definition of it, and the condition of the pavement where potholes and cracks etc. due to wear rather than catastrophic failure.....and then references the letter dated March 20th, 2009 and says: "it does indicate that there are existing location of failures as indicated by depressions in the road.....and that's a stability issue, and it goes on to indicate that although these failures are minor in nature, we recommend limiting the number of repetitive construction vehicle loads located along the northern edge...and so this is a condition where, uh, we're basically saying there would be, could be a high number of heavily loaded vehicles traveling along the north edge, that could precipitate, uh, a failure and that we would recommend moving those further away from that crest of the hill and that got into using alternating one way traffic during the major construction events....and, since there was a possibility of a great number of heavily loaded vehicles precipitating a stability failure, it made sense to have them take some mitigating action and move to the inside, further away from the crest of that slope, to mitigate that impact. The other case is by virtue of the fact there is increased traffic load, you could say that there would be some....uh...increased wear on the road....but...I think the point is, uh, since it is a public road, there's nothing stopping a fully loaded H20 vehicle from going up and down that road all day long because it is a public road."
Wehner: "There's no weight limitations or anything associated with that road.."
Mike: "Nothing is posted at this point in time....so long as it wasn't an excessively loaded vehicle, that uh, contravenes some code, some truck could go back up and down that street, uh, 24/7....and I think Ray's point is, in view of the fact that it is a public road, it would be difficult to say that the project is causing and beginning to show wear of the surface and that would be the developer's responsibility."
WHY in the world would that be difficult to say?
Blah, blah blah, blah blah blah blah.......after all of that....there is no responsibility on the developer's part if the road fails due to his behemoth construction vehicles? Are you kidding me?
The road is fine now. LaBella said it was fine with some minor dips and cracks. Leone said that there is NO empirical evidence whatsoever that the road would fail.
There was never any issue when the marina and restaurant were open and the traffic was up and down there all day and night with cars parking all along the road......nope.....never any slope failures at all.
The taxpayers should NOT have to pay to fix this road so construction vehicles can ruin it and then we have to bond another million to fix it again!!!!
C'mon!
Labella asks them to describe the impact of construction on the existing roadway and their financial responsibilities related to any need for subsequent restoration or rehabilitation.
The attorney for RSM development stated at a meeting that:
*there is no issue with traffic.
*no steep slope impact.
Here is the link to the Newport Project on the town website. Some of the links take a very long time to load - I had thought that they weren't working - but it's just a bit of a wait to get them to fully load.
Browse through and read Labella's report, the PB meeting minutes, and the public comments.
Here's another page, from the costich report on the town website.
According to this:
*Newport Road is in good condition, with portions recently resurfaced.
*It's a relatively safe road, with one unfortunate fatality when a car ran off the road. Since then a guard rail has been installed at the location of that accident.
*The road has excess capacity,sufficient pavement width, and adequate sight distances that will provide safe passage for motorists.
If there are no issues with traffic, or steep slopes - why is the town bonding a million taxpayer dollars to stabilize the steep slopes and pave the entrance to a private road?
For clarification, the area proposed in the bonding a million for the "Newport Road Slope Stabilization Project" resolution is for Newport Rd. from the hill to just before Mooring Line Drive.
This area outlined in red:
