[shhrubbery!]

I googled this case. From what I read, almost 50% of the lot was filled in with rocks and gravel.

[okie01]

From what I read, almost 50% of the lot was filled in with rocks and gravel.

This case has been around for several years. I first became aware of it two years ago, I believe it was.

At that time, a photo was posted on FR that showed the couple standing on their lot. It appeared to be relatively level and fully grass-covered -- suggesting that there was no significant fill work (unless it was outside the camera's field of view).

I've also viewed an aerial...and the lot was visually indistinguishable from the adjacent lots.

At any rate, there was obviously no expectation of a "wetlands" designation at the time they purchased the lot and were issued a building permit. And, from the photos, one could see why.

I've dealt with the COE on a "wetlands" issue before. And, as far as I'm concerned, the liklihood is that the couple has fallen afoul of some faceless bureaucrat with a bone to pick in the EPA.

I'm rooting for the plaintiffs.