I wonder why an application to allow single family residential was voted down?
It seems to me that those who voted it down are, with few exceptions, themselves living in homes on lots zoned single family residential (just an assumption).
While I can certainly understand the abutters / locals objecting to expansion of the current commercial use to include, e.g., a marina, the rationale to oppose conversion to single family residential is less clear.
If voted down, would that mean Ames must continue the current use, even if he's tired of it and wants out?
Would the only viable option for him be to sell out, with the understanding that the new buyer has to continue the current use (cabins, restaurant, boat launch) without change?
It just seems pretty harsh.
What am I missing here?
