Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Applicant withdraws appeal; permit for 44 Glen Meadow Drive to be reinstated

Zoning Board of Appeals · June 16, 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 a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in Amherst, the applicant and town reached a stipulation to withdraw an appeal over street-lighting requirements for The Preserve at Glen Meadows subdivision; the town will rescind a permit revocation and the building permit at 44 Glen Meadow Drive will be reinstated.

At an Amherst Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, town attorneys and the applicant announced a stipulation that ended an appeal over street-lighting requirements for The Preserve at Glen Meadows subdivision and cleared the way to reinstate a revoked building permit for 44 Glen Meadow Drive.

Town Attorney Steven Bengar, summarizing the agreement, said the applicant had agreed to "waive any liability that may have occurred to this point" and that the parties would carry the lighting-installation issue to a later date. Ralph Laurigo, speaking on behalf of the applicant, confirmed the withdrawal: "That is the agreement that we have entered into," he said.

Bengar described the background: the subdivision is a 32-lot development whose final plat, approved May 18, 2021, included a condition requiring the petitioner to create a lighting district. A dispute arose over whether the applicant must install street lighting consistent with the approved engineering plans; that dispute led to a building permit issued April 17, 2026, being revoked.

Under the stipulation, the applicant will withdraw the appeal before the ZBA and the town will rescind the revocation, with the building commissioner set to reinstate the permit the following morning, according to Bengar. The parties made clear they were not making admissions of liability beyond the applicant’s agreement to waive claims to date.

The board did not take a formal vote on the stipulation at the meeting; the appeal was withdrawn and no further action on the item was required that night. The town and applicant agreed to address the underlying dispute about lighting at a later date.