Developer denied bond refund after outcry

Residents of Village Grande complain of myriad problems.

By: Shanay Cadette
   WEST WINDSOR — Village Grande residents locked horns with a developer over the reduction of performance guarantee bonds Monday and the Township Council sided with them, declining most of the requests for reductions.
   More than 150 residents showed up at the council meeting to complain that shoddy, incomplete work has led to problems with paving, sidewalks, sewers and retention basins, among other things. Because those private improvements are covered by four of the five requested bond reductions, residents argued they should not be granted to developer D.R. Horton.
   Performance guarantee bonds are issued to protect the township in case a developer fails to complete a project. As a project moves toward completion, the developer requests percentage reductions.
   D.R. Horton requested Monday that the bonds be reduced from $6 million to about $4 million.
   Problems are rampant at the 540-unit development, according to resident and expert testimony. Cracking pavement, heaving concrete, excessive sediment damaging the retention ponds and the aerators and other issues must be rectified before reductions are granted, the council was told. Residents also presented several photos of cracks and what they said were sinkholes in the pavement, and a report outlining drainage problems that affect about 145 homeowners.
   One of the homeowners’ experts said it could cost up to $4.8 million just to properly fix the pavement. That doesn’t include the problems that may arise in other areas.
   Resident Marvin Gardner — who is also chairman of the residents’ transition committee — further argued the council should not reduce the bonds because statutory requirements had not been met by the developer. In order for a reduction to be granted, Mr. Gardner said, the developer must show the private improvements are complete and satisfactory.
   The council confirmed there was no list of unsatisfactory items in its report from the inspecting engineers, but the photos tell a different story, residents said.
   "The assertion that (the pavement is) satisfactory clearly was an erroneous assertion in light of the photos that were produced," Mr. Gardner said.
   Township Engineer Jim Parvesse said, in his professional opinion, the requests for reductions were warranted.
   Representatives from D.R. Horton agreed.
   Frank Petrino, attorney for D.R. Horton, continually stressed the requested reductions were recommended by the township’s engineering department as well as its consulting engineers and inspectors.
   As for the residents’ concerns, Rocque La Corte, senior project manager with D.R. Horton, said the development is 100-percent complete, but not 100-percent stabilized. He explained many of the issues raised either won’t be resolved until after paving is complete or aren’t covered by the private improvement bonds.
   Mr. La Corte also disagreed with the claim that millions of dollars will be needed to pave the streets properly. He said it will cost $120,000 to repair road problems and $510,000 for the final paving job at Village Grande.
   "I am not aware of any sinkholes of any significance," Mr. La Corte continued, adding he was blindsided by the homeowners’ claims because he has not seen any photos or evidence of the various concerns they raised.
   In the end, council members were swayed by the residents’ photos and expert testimony on their behalf, and declined to reduce the private improvement bonds, though it agreed to reduce the single public improvement bond.
   "I cannot deny visual evidence," said Council Vice President Jackie Alberts.
   "It is powerful evidence," added fellow member Charles Morgan.
   Council members encouraged the developer to look through that evidence and reconcile the differences with residents before submitting another request for reductions. They also asked the homeowners’ association to send a letter to the developer asking for a meeting.
   Mr. Gardner said he has little faith in a favorable outcome because of the developer’s "cavalier, arrogant attitude" when it comes to the residents’ concerns.