I have read the discussion this morning on the infamous wall, and before
things get out of hand I would like to update everyone with the facts as
I understand them today.



Last Fall, the developer was ordered to cease and desist his
construction and remove the wall due to the fact he had no building
permit for the structure and a portion of it was within the setback.
However, he was ordered to file a plan to remove the wall, because
clearly we did not want him just chopping it down, as that would have
caused more problems.  He took no action to file a plan or remove the
wall so the Town took him to court two weeks ago to force action.  He
was fined $1,000 which I understand seems minimal and in perspective it
likely is, but it is still a large fine for the court to issue for such
violations.  In addition to the fine, he was ordered to file a plan
within 30 days as to how he was going to address the wall.  To date I do
not believe that has been filed.



It is possible, and in fact likely, that he will file a plan to keep the
wall and make it conform.  Cleary he would have to remove the portion
from the setback to do so.  In addition his plan would have to satisfy
the following:  The Engineering Department as to the structural security
of the wall.  The Building Department as to conforming with the building
code and zoning regulations.  Lastly he will need a Planning Board
approval as to conforming with the subdivision regulations, which as I
understand it would include such items as access and drainage.  If he is
able to get all these approvals, it is possible that he could keep
obtain a permit and keep a majority of the wall in place.   However, if
he is unable to obtain all the listed approvals, the case will revert
back to court, where we will continue to try and enforce our order.



I know there is a lot of frustration with the issue, but please keep in
mind there are processes in place that need to be followed.  Please keep
abreast of the developments, the most obvious time for public
participation will be the Planning Board's consideration of the issue.



I hope this clarifies the issue.



George King

Reply via email to