Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission urges enforcement after unapproved work at 150 Shore Drive
Summary
The Inland Wetlands Watercourse Commission discussed after-the-fact demolition and foundation work at 150 Shore Drive and directed enforcement action and permit requirements before further construction may proceed.
The Inland Wetlands Watercourse Commission on Jan. 15 discussed unapproved demolition and foundation work at 150 Shore Drive, and commissioners instructed staff to pursue enforcement and require the applicant to return to the commission before additional construction starts.
Commission members were told the property owner and the owner's engineer proceeded with changes that appear to have converted the project to a demolition and rebuild while the previous building inspector was leaving the town. The interim building inspector, Jim Clark, allowed a footing inspection to proceed; commissioners said further framing should not start until wetlands permit modifications, erosion-control reviews and any required bonds are approved.
Commission staff noted several outstanding requirements the applicant must satisfy before continuing work: obtain a demolition permit (after the fact), notify utility companies, complete asbestos testing, present an updated erosion-control plan for wetlands review, and provide an as-built survey when work is complete to confirm the foundation location and that any 4-foot extension allowed by the commission was not exceeded. The commission said those items must be addressed before any framing or further structural work occurs.
Commissioners discussed whether the commission should have staff issue a cease-and-desist order. The body directed staff and the building inspector to prioritize enforcement; the building inspector noted this matter was at the top of his list to address. Members emphasized that oversight and required plan reviews were not completed before work proceeded.
No formal vote was taken on an enforcement motion during the meeting; the exchange recorded commission direction to staff and the building inspector to pursue appropriate enforcement measures and to require the applicant to return for permit modification and erosion-control review.
Meeting participants also noted the project will likely require an increased bond if the scope of work has expanded and emphasized that the cost of protecting exposed footings and erosion controls should fall to the property owner.
Ending: The commission indicated it will follow up through the building inspector and require the applicant to appear for wetlands-review and permit modification before additional work moves forward.
