A central case involved property owners Christopher and Shannon Robertson, who faced compliance issues due to unapproved work on their property. An inspection on August 28, 2025, revealed the property remained largely unchanged, with permitting challenges still unresolved. Despite the Robertsons’ claims of completing all compliance items, the town’s permitting department, represented by Officer Terry White, required additional details, including a floor plan and project costs, before proceeding with the outstanding permit number 2024 2455.

The Robertsons expressed frustration with the permitting process, citing numerous attempts to coordinate with FEMA and county officials, only to be redirected to town staff. Chris Robertson highlighted the cooperative nature of their efforts, questioning the specific actions needed to progress. The magistrate, acknowledging the disconnect between the property owners’ understanding and the town’s requirements, urged both parties to collaborate in resolving the compliance issues. The magistrate suggested that if the town could not specify the necessary documentation, the property might be considered in substantial compliance due to the Robertsons’ efforts.

Another discussion centered on Scott Sullivan’s property on Bay View Lane. Sullivan participated via Zoom, addressing compliance issues related to a tiki hut and decking. Although the tiki hut permit showed progress, the decking permit had expired without renewal. Sullivan, frustrated with the protracted permitting process, expressed willingness to remove the decking if necessary, stating, “If you want me to take the damn decking down, I’ll do it. I’m sick of this.”

The magistrate sought clarity on whether the tiki hut and decking required separate permits or could be combined, highlighting the need for precise communication. Sullivan believed the permits should be interconnected, having submitted all relevant information together. The magistrate emphasized the importance of clear permit requirements and advised Sullivan to consider revising the tiki hut permit to include the decking, potentially simplifying the process.

In another case, Mary Cohen and Steven Driscoll faced violations at their property on Fairweather Lane. Officer T. Hoffman presented evidence of an inoperable vehicle, unsecured pool, and improper storage, posing safety risks. Despite attempts to notify the property owners, no contact had been established. The magistrate scheduled a follow-up hearing for October 7, 2025, with fines accruing if compliance was not achieved by September 24, 2025.

Similarly, Starlight Property Investments on Andre Drive faced violations for an unsecured pool. Without a respondent present, Hoffman requested administrative fees and fines, mirroring previous cases. The magistrate issued an order for compliance by September 24, 2025, with penalties starting if violations persisted.

Further discussions addressed Bay Life, Inc., where Officer Marshall Chavez documented violations related to pool maintenance and enclosures. Despite attempts to contact the property owners, no response was received. Chavez requested an order for compliance, administrative fees, and a follow-up hearing to assess progress.

The meeting also addressed Andrew Rukavina’s property, where work was conducted without permits. Rukavina argued that he had been misinformed about permit requirements and was seeking to comply. Officer White countered that the current permit only covered the driveway, not additional structures. The magistrate withheld an immediate decision.