Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Enforcement Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer’s attorney says Dighton committee can’t force third‑party inspection payment; committee plans written response
Summary
An attorney for 2231 Elm Street owner ZES LLC asked Dighton’s stormwater committee to drop a demand that the owner pay $10,300 for third‑party inspections; committee members said the attorney misinterpreted the bylaw, will send a written reply and said enforcement options, including stop‑work, remain available.
DIGHTON — A May 19 letter from attorney Michael P. Oessy representing ZES LLC (owner identified in committee records as Mr. Eman) argues the stormwater committee lacks authority under the town’s 2009 stormwater bylaw to require the company to pay for third‑party inspections. Committee members read the letter into the record on June 17 and discussed their response.
The letter states, in part, that the bylaw vests inspection authority in the board of health and does not provide authority to require ZES LLC to fund third‑party inspections. "...there is nothing in the bylaw requiring ZES LLC to pay additional fees of inspection of its erosion and sediment control measures," the letter says.
Chair Nancy replied that the attorney’s interpretation selectively cites the bylaw and fails to reflect the town’s historical practice. Nancy said the board of health previously requested that the board of selectmen create the stormwater committee to handle stormwater matters, and the committee has acted as the board’s delegate on many matters. "I will prepare a response to that attorney and I will copy the appropriate people including this committee," Nancy said.
Committee members discussed potential next steps if the property owner refuses to pay for required engineering verification, including sending a clarifying letter first, asking town counsel to weigh in, and — if necessary — issuing a stop‑work order. Nancy cited past enforcement where a solar farm was halted until restoration and supervised inspections were completed.
The committee also discussed cost context: Nancy said an earlier permit fee for the Elm Street tract was roughly $3,200 (base fee plus area calculation) and that the town’s outside engineering proposal for building‑site review on the second Elm Street building was $10,300. Committee members said the engineering firm already has familiarity with the site and that, in the committee’s view, property owners have been required to fund outside engineering when the town lacked an in‑house stormwater agent.
Members agreed to send a non‑confrontational response pointing out the attorney’s selective citations and to involve town counsel or the board of selectmen only if necessary. The committee also reminded members that its statutory reporting obligation under MS4 is to EPA; enforcement options are available locally if compliance is not achieved.
