Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement Crocker Hill topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Resident urges action on Crocker Hill Road properties; town inspector says pole barn deemed agricultural

Town of Fenton Town Board · May 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At Residents’ Time Judy Cummings asked the board to act on multiple Crocker Hill Road properties she said host commercial activity and visible junk; Building Inspector Matt Banks said a pole barn on 34 Crocker Hill was considered an agricultural structure (no building permit required) and noted the presence of a business vehicle does not by itself indicate a commercial operation at the residence.

During Residents’ Time at the April 1 meeting, resident Judy Cummings described what she called increasing business encroachment on Crocker Hill Road and identified several addresses (16, 34, 38, 171, 190, 419) where she said property conditions include garbage, scrap metal, storage units, and a pole barn. Cummings said she had contacted Code Enforcement Officer John Broughton two years earlier and asked why the issues had not been resolved.

Building Inspector Matt Banks told the board the property owner at 34 Crocker Hill Road (identified in the record as Mallory Illsley) was told that a building permit was not required for the structure because it was characterized as an agricultural pole barn; Banks added that the owner’s husband operates a plumbing truck that is parked at the property, which Banks said does not necessarily mean a business is being run from the site if customers are not being received there.

Supervisor David Gunster said the board would look into the complaints and get back to Cummings. Resident John Kopalek provided two historic maps to the town historian and the building inspector for review. The board did not take immediate enforcement action at the meeting; staff follow‑up on code enforcement was requested.