This structure is a walk down shore from me. I've been wondering what the story is on it's completion being in limbo. After reading the Sun article, it seems to me that this is basically a battle between two state agencies. As to how to rule, I would think that since the property owner already had received approval to proceed from both the town and "the state," then the court ought to have no choice but to adhere to the long-standing constitutional "double-jeopardy" principal and let the structure, as built, remain and be completed. Further, it should remind "the state" that its various mini-bureaucracies need to get their collective act together, so that property owners aren't subject to state agency turf battles.
|