The more I read the documentation submitted to the court the more likely I think the Wetlands decision will be upheld and the building will be allowed to stand as is. It's an unfortunate outcome for the neighbors but I think DES dropped the ball here not putting enough scrutiny on the amended PBN. The language on it is vague and because the building was being pushed back 10 feet which changed dramatically the base (starting elevation) where the original house was build into the landscape and embankment, the new one just plain sits on top of it. The fact they approved it and along with that approval was knowledge of what the ZBA approved of, including the plans submitted seems to infer they reviewed those plans and were OK with them. Whether or not that actually happened may be different story. The applicant can't be held to a standard that is not conveyed in the documentation clearly. See I don't think that amended PBN should have gotten approved, I think DES is kind of caught here back peddling on this trying to apply the standard they approved in the original PBN which technically can no longer apply.
Due to the pitch of the roof he may be a little higher than the original building but a couple or three foot difference is likely to get a pass (not arguing the merits of that) than if he was clearly adding a full second story etc... In other words - did he take some liberties on this, maybe, but to the point where the state orders this thing be taken down? I don't think so, because there is culpability on the part of DES and the town in regards to being clear what he could do which in DES's argument to the court makes it far clearer their position than the re-issued amended permit ever did. I could be wrong in how I read this, but that's how I see it.
End of the day nobody wins. He's drawn so much attention to himself now and this project while I think it's likely he will win this battle he's also painted himself into a corner to where he now has constructed a very expensive and fancy shed. After all every single permit labels that as a "dry boat house" not living space. Any further improvements he attempts to do should be shot down. With an emphasis on should.
Lakegirl24 - in order for this guy to live in said building he'd need a certificate of occupancy issued by the town which puts a whole lot of requirements on the building itself (mind you he is NOT permitted for) before he can "stay" in it. If he is doing this without one the town can and should ensure this is enforced. Technically just because somebody builds something doesn't mean they can just live in it. If there ever was a good example of why this law exists, this would be it and I'd make damn sure it was enforced. After all if you see him living in it go ask the town to see his COO.
He also CANNOT bring pressurized water into that building with out having it tied to a septic system. He can't just tie this into his existing septic system without a permit for starters and the system has to be sized for the additional loading which is likely not.
|