Hudson resident urges council to investigate fence permit, council says lease option was offered

Anthony Revita, who said he lives at 1746 Edgar Drive, told the Hudson City Council that he paid $54 for a fence permit, completed his fence in September 2023 and received a final inspection pass on Oct. 3, 2023 — but later was told the fence had been installed without a permit and was asked to move it.

Revita urged the council to investigate what he described as a reversal by city staff, saying in public comment that an inspector, Nick Bellis, initially approved the fence and that later records were altered. “If I paid $54 for a permit, I should get what the permit requires,” Revita said during public comment. He said he received an email on Dec. 7 from Sarah Fagnelli asking him to call about “the fence that you installed without a permit.”

Why it matters: the dispute concerns the scope of staff authority to reopen or change permit records, the location of private improvements in the public right of way, and whether a previously issued final inspection should be treated as conclusive.

Council President Chris Foster responded in council comments, saying the permit, as issued, did not authorize the fence where Revita installed it and that the fence as built included metal components that the land development code does not permit except in agricultural districts. Foster told Revita the permit “was not given to you to be placed along the city’s right of way. It was to be placed further back.” He also said the city had in the past offered land leases to allow fences in the right of way and that a lease had been offered in this case and declined.

Councilor Banweg (name as recorded in the minutes) said he would like to see a forensic review of the permit file and correspondence under the state’s open-records and sunshine laws. “No one should be deleting anything,” Banweg said, and asked staff to produce the relevant documentation.

City Manager Thomas J. Sheridan told the council the city will provide the requested information to all council members and the mayor and that staff are working toward a resolution. “We will get all that information to all of council and the mayor. … We are working toward a resolution,” Sheridan said.

What was and was not decided: council did not take a vote or adopt a formal remedy during the meeting. Council members described two distinct lines of inquiry: (1) whether the final inspection and permit record were altered after a pass was issued, as the resident alleges; and (2) whether the installed fence complies with the location and materials authorized by the permit and the Architectural and Historic Board of Review. Foster reiterated that a metal fence in the public right of way was not authorized by the permit and that the city cannot retroactively authorize an installation that violates the land development code without a formal land lease or other legal authorization.

The resident requested that the city either grant a land lease to allow the fence to remain or relocate the fence at the city’s expense; Foster and Councilor Kowalski said a land lease had been offered previously. Sheridan said staff will gather records and follow up with council members and the mayor.

Ending: The council asked staff to audit the permit file and provide documentation; no timetable for a final decision was set on the record. Revita’s account and the council’s remarks will be considered in that staff report.