Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty
It appears to me that in the beginning the DES only approved building the boathouse where the original one was. Than the owners decided to move it back 10ft and somehow the DES wasn't involved with the official review plans. Everything went smooth through the town requirements and got approved. The neighbor than notified the DES and told them that they were left out of the process and wanted them to look at where it was being built. This is where the DES rejected the height of the building because it was higher than the original one that they approved.
It is really hard to get the full picture of what went wrong because of the way it is being presented by the newspapers and the DES wesbsite approval .pdf files.
|
The original building permits specified clearly the dimensions of the replacement building. Furthermore and this is very interesting, the ZBA's decision in favor or allowing the building to be moved back 10 feet was contingent upon re-submitting an amended PBN to DES and getting their approval. So they, DES, knew about the change in building location. What it appears they didn't know is that by moving the building back 10 feet came with a base elevation change due to the natural contour of the land. The building itself still meets all the requirements as originally documented.
That I guess poses the question is the submitter obligated to include that level of detail (base elevation change) in the amended PBN or is the person that reviews and approves the amended application obligated to do the due diligence to find out what the result is of approving the relocation of the building?