Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB
There are more questions than answers here.
Did the structure that is being "replaced" have living quarters above it?
The article in the Sun says this structure is higher so it may not have. If they are adding living quarters to a "replacement" building that presents a whole different list of legal challenges.
Was the original structure on the water such that a boat could be driven into it?
Do they intend to excavate from out at the water to under the building so that a boat can be driven in and out?
If they don't, then I would assume that this is just an accessory structure and zoning laws for a new building would apply. It would seem to have no relation to a boathouse that was once there.
It should be an interesting case to follow.
|
Yes, interesting questions but it seems the time to answer them would have been BEFORE approvals were given. As I understand it, the owner went to all the proper agencies and got all the proper approvals. Rules are important but the time to apply them is BEFORE approvals are granted. If height was all that important, perhaps the approval should clearly state that condition/restriction in the body of the approval, in red, BOLD, especially since this problem seems to reoccur.
What is really puzzling is that the building, not actually over the lake any longer, is possibly better for the lake? The DES is the fussing over the HEIGHT, which has WHAT to do with the environment? There are houses nearby that are close to the water so it's not like this one building is creating a big visual impact unusual to the area.
A lot of fuss over a very minor issue. For a state with pretty limited government, it sure can kick up a lot of dust from time to time.