From: 	Danielle West-Chuhta (Danielle West-Chuhta)
To:	Jean Fraser
CC:	Barbara Barhydt
Date: 	4/24/2013 1:07 PM
Subject: 	Re: Question over RTI and CZA re 2282 Congress Site Plan

I think that you could have David amend his application (instead of the letter I mention below - although the letter would work as well for the same purpose) to include Portland Property as a co-applicant.

D

>>> Jean Fraser 4/24/2013 11:55 AM >>>
Thank you -  I agree its likely that Portland Property is also David, but I recall in the past that the Legal Dept (before your time) had required us to get application forms altered etc to ensure consistency and wanted to be sure as its going straight to a hearing.   Jean

>>> Danielle West-Chuhta (Danielle West-Chuhta) 4/24/2013 11:30 AM >>>
Jean:
 
The CZA allows for assignments.  The option agreement just allows the applicant (CJ Developers, Inc) the option to purchase the property - probably once the approvals have been obtained.  The option does not seem to have been exercised yet, so Hutchcount LLC is still the owner (as stated in the Site Plan application).  Under the assignment of the option agreement it seems that the option to purchase the property has been assigned from CJ Developers to Portland Property Holdings, LLC (which is a valid Maine company).  I would bet that Portland Property Holders, LLC was created by CJ Developers, Inc. so that they could use that company to build the project on the site (Avesta does this a lot with their developments).  You can just confirm this with the applicant so that you have this in writing and/or have them provide you with a letter from Portland Property Holders, LLC signing on to CJ Developers, Inc's application.
 
In addition, I would note that if you are concerned about assignments of the CZA you could include a condition in the approval that specifies if the CZA is assigned CJ Developers, Inc. shall provide notification of the assignment to the City.  
 
Thanks,
 
Danielle

>>> Jean Fraser 4/23/2013 5:53 PM >>>
Danielle
 
We have just received a revised site plan submission for the PB Hearing on May 14th.
 
You will recall that we agreed that a condition of the site plan approval would be that the CZA is executed (its not yet executed as far as I know).
 
In the revised submittal there is an option assignment FROM CJ Properties TO Portland Property Holdings LLC dated 4.11.2013 (after the submission date of the site plan application on which it states the applicant is CJ Properties).  So I am not sure that David Latulippe (CJ Properties) has RTI and therefore the application is currently needing an amendment.
 
Of more concern may be that the CZA is between the City and CJ Developers, who now have no RTI in the site.  I am not sure CJDevelopers can assign the unexecuted CZA to Portland Property Holdings and I am not sure if CJ Developers can execute the CZA since they no longer have RTI.
 
I attach all relevant docs:
Option assignment CJD to PPH 
P & S Agreement submitted with both the rezoning and site plan applications 
The Site Plan Application form 
Approved CZA (not yet executed)
Could you please advise regarding RTI for the site plan and how the CZA can legally be bound to the site plan if the CZA is not between the city and the site plan applicant.  (I guess we can still make it a condition but can David execute the CZA when he has no rights to the land???).  I don't think he can assign the CZA if its not yet executed......
 
If the CZA is now invalid (as CJDevelopers have no RTI) is it legally OK for us to entertain the site plan application at all??? (since it is predicated on the CZA).  
 
thank you
Jean