Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permits Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hudson resident urges council to resolve fence-permit dispute after inspection and prosecution claims
Summary
Resident Anthony Revito told the council he followed city inspection steps for a fence permit but later faced a failed inspection, prosecutor contact and court action; he asked the council to help resolve the matter.
Anthony Revito of 1746 Edgar Drive asked the Hudson City Council on Jan. 21 to intervene in a dispute over a residential fence permit and subsequent prosecution.
Revito said he applied for a permit, submitted drawings and followed directions from city inspectors and engineering staff, including placing stakes and arranging inspections. He said the building inspector initially passed the final inspection and that he retained a photograph of the approval. "I did exactly what the city said," Revito told the council. He said an inspector identified as Nick Bellis later returned and marked the inspection as failed and that the pass record appeared to have been deleted from the building-department record.
Revito said a prosecutor contacted him and told him the inspector alleged he had built the fence without a permit; Revito said he showed the prosecutor paperwork documenting the permitting and the final inspection. He said the matter proceeded to court and that the inspector testified in court that the sun was in his eyes and he pressed the wrong button when recording the inspection result. Revito told the council he was offered a lease agreement by the prosecutor and felt pressured to sign to avoid continued prosecution. He said the inspector who wrote the summons no longer works for the city and that the judge who handled related matters has been fired; he described the sequence as "a nightmare for a simple fence."
Revito asked the council to "alleviate this problem and make it go away" because he believes he followed city direction throughout the permitting and inspection process. The council allowed two additional minutes after the standard five-minute public comment period for Revito to finish his statement. No formal motion or vote followed; the matter was presented as public comment and not acted on during the meeting record.
The transcript identifies the inspector by name and records Revito’s account of communications with the prosecutor and the court, but it does not include a city staff response or any immediate council direction recorded on the public record. Revito asked the council to review the matter and intervene where appropriate.
