Well, we can argue no environmental impact vs following the rules wrt lakeside building until the cows come home and never agree. I for one think that the rules have to apply to all, as long as they are not being enforced too long after the fact. One should not be allowed to "buy" one's way out of noncompliance with shoreline protection and other building restrictions, or we wind up with what we had before, where builders or homeowners would do whatever they please and just add the fine to building cost. But there are always the odd, borderline cases that can be argued either way.
One thing that puzzles me is the line in the story that says as part of the agreement: “no land-based activities may take place on the boathouse roof.” How does one define such activity, and why would it in some way have some environmental impact? Would parking himself in a chair on the boathouse roof while reading the Sunday newspaper harm the lake or shoreline in some way? Was this line somehow the state's way of sneaking some "sour grapes" into having to come to agreement?
|