Quote:
|
Originally Posted by upthesaukee
When you read the article on the vote, the approving opinion really came down to one very important point: The proposed property simply meets the definition of a single family residence. The town's building ordinances do not define a single family residence by size (ie, square footage) nor do they define it by the number of attached garage spaces, be it below or attached to the side. Bottom line, three of the members felt that the Bahre's had met their burden of proof, and were granted the approval.
|
You have hit upon one of the nagging problems really hurting many communities from the Lakes region up through the North country, namely poorly written zoning regulations with little or no short or long range growth planning.
The old "live free or die" and "leave me alone to do whatever" is great for the individual, but easy to take advantage of when large monied interests with unfettered legal access move into town. People can't have it both ways, complete freedom to do what they wish with their property while complaining when others take the same attitude to heart.
Many smaller communities are now playing catch-up but are well behind the curve when it comes to controlling these situations. I don't need to emphasize any of this to you long term Lake residents, I'm just preaching to the choir here.
It will be intertesting to see how this plays out, but I think someone has found a hole in the regulations big enough to drive a sixteen car garage through! Simply put, if he is following the rules, then so be it. But if the community wants to sacrifice some personal property freedoms for the town as a whole they better act fast, because the ability to manage growth in a responsible manner is quickly passing by.....
Merry Christmas,
Skip