Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permit Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Silver Lane condominium dispute put to March after town and developer disagree over permit compliance
Summary
Attorney for the developer disputed a town cease‑and‑desist for a 10‑unit condominium project at 600 Silver Lane, arguing the inland wetlands permit process was completed; town staff said excavation and unapproved sequencing began and asked for compliance. The commission asked the developer to submit revised plans and tabled the item to the March meeting.
At the meeting the commission took up a contested administrative matter at 600 Silver Lane involving a previously approved condominium site plan and a town‑issued cease‑and‑desist.
Attorney James Bellas said a court‑recorded settlement required the applicant to apply for site plan review and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a 10‑unit layout. Bellas objected to the cease‑and‑desist and said the applicant had posted a bond and believed they were entitled to building‑permit sign‑off.
"We came to an agreement, gave a bank check for $31,900 and posted the bond," Bellas said. He argued the town’s inland wetlands permit framework had already been satisfied for the upland‑review area and that the cease‑and‑desist is therefore improper.
Town staff (Kelly) said a site inspection found excavation, soil stockpiles and silt fence installations that had not been keyed in — and that required items for a valid construction start (an approved construction sequencing plan, consistent construction plans and a pre‑construction meeting) were not in place. Staff said those outstanding conditions justified the enforcement action.
"Construction has clearly begun on‑site," Kelly said, and added that the permit requires submittal of plans consistent with the permit and a pre‑construction meeting prior to any on‑site regulated activity.
After discussion the commission directed Attorney Bellas to submit the revised plans that had been filed with other agencies, allow staff and commission members to review them, and reconvened the item at the March meeting. No enforcement remedy beyond the existing cease‑and‑desist was decided at the meeting.
