Counsel for respondent Eldad Itzkovich asked the magistrate to clarify what milestone should be treated as compliance for an earlier order that cited Floodplain Development requirements. The question arose after multiple related enforcement matters and an ongoing FDA application with outstanding comments.

Town Attorney Jeff Kurtz and staff said an FDA application has been submitted but reviewer comments remain unresolved; staff acknowledged turnover among reviewers and the need to coordinate with the property engineer. Petitioner counsel (Katie Edwards Walpole) and the respondent’s counsel told the magistrate they intended to work with the town to resolve outstanding items.

Magistrate Amity Barnard read ULDC 175‑110 and explained her long‑standing interpretation that, for FDA matters, compliance with the cited section is possession of the issued FDA permit (not merely making an application). She agreed to sign a joint stipulated order that will state the parties’ agreement that compliance will be determined by issuance of the FDA permit and asked the parties to continue working with the town to address any additional permits that may be required (right‑of‑way, land‑development steps, etc.).

Next steps: the parties will draft a joint stipulated order for the magistrate’s signature and continue to resolve permitting comments with the town’s new reviewer; if issuance occurs the magistrate will deem the enforcement matter complied.