None of the old boathouse was over water and it never had a wet slip inside. The boat, a steel-hulled vessel IIRC, was winched up and inside, over dry land. The structure was quite old and never had any kind of "living" accomodations. In the 18 years I owned nearby, I don't recall ever seeing the boat out of its dry dock, although that could have occurred from time to time.
On thinking about this issue after my earlier post (#8), I am thinking that most likely the LDS article does not provide the whole story on the matter, as TiltonBB suggested. If the owners believed they had the appropriate permits in place to build what's now there, then the state ought not to be changing the rules after the fact. But if the town and state, collectively, permitted one thing and the owner went beyond that and built, say, a "party room" with bathroom, kitchen, etc, then the state has a rightful beef to resolve. If it is decided that what was built clearly was illegal (and perhaps if the owners knew and proceeded anyway), then enforcing compliance should be the outcome. A law that is not enforced is not really a law, is it? This was the problem back in the first years of the Shoreland Protection Act. Developers just did what they wished with a property, paying any later fine as just a small part of the overall cost.
This will indeed be interesting to follow.
|