1/ made the mistake of reading neighborhood news on Facebook. story #1: the planning board has approved the construction of an Aubuchon Hardware store reactions include: * "I have it from someone who knows that it's going to be a Dollar General" [ ...ignoring the link ]
-
-
12/ further, article seems to say that building codes are also in play, and non profits were willing to work w the squatter to get utilities connected, but he refused so,,,
Show this thread -
13/ This approach "let's trust what he says. If X is true, then he is hoisted on petard Y ; if S is true, then petard T" is exactly like
#BarnLaw >>>https://twitter.com/WhippleMarc/status/1421124150765182980 …Show this thread -
14/ multiple examples: * Zoning board chair says that he read my memo in objection to variance in full. If he did, then he knows that there's a Cease and Desist, and the variance can't be granted bc "personal circumstances". If he was lying, then he was derelict in his duty.
Show this thread -
15/ * variance applicant said in court that there were other places he could have put the structure. If this is true, then he can't get a variance, because of “other reasonably feasible methods” sub prong of the hardship prong. If, OTOH, he lied, then he perjured himself.
Show this thread -
16/ next zoning board meeting is on Tuesday three outcomes that I see: * variance denied (super unlikely) * variance approved (we immediately sue to overturn) * application rejected for rework (most likely, IMO, bc the application is laugable)https://twitter.com/rog_thronhill/status/1421121353021890560 …
Show this thread -
17/ "Application returned for rework" is most annoying, because it stretches out the timeline for another 6 months or something ... and is unfair, as I TOLD ZBA 9 months ago exactly how the application was defective, and yet the rejection would give him a 2nd bite at the apple
Show this thread -
18/ My atty and I are in agreement that if the ZBA returns the application for rework, we sue immediately for summary judgement (I think that's the term) because there is no possible way a variance can legally be granted, and this charade has gone on long enough.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Alternate legal theory: either he had permission, in which case he acquired an ownership interest in the property under a theory of detrimental reliance/promissory estoppel; or he did not have permission, in which case adverse possession.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.