Holy boathouse batman

[AB_Monterey]

Did anyone else see the Winns' family diggs?

http://www.hgtv.com/video/boat-owner...deo/index.html

[Onshore]

that is awesome...

[robmac]

Yes that is very cool.Great to see those old wooden treasures being preserved. Do they want to adopt.

[welchislandman]

wow, what a setup !

[Merrymeeting]

It was all for sale about a year ago. Anyone want to buy?

[SIKSUKR]

Wow! He doesn't even know how many boats are in there.

[Chaos]

i'm still drooling.

[DBreskin]

How nice can it really be if it's not on Winnipesaukee?

[NoRegrets]

How can you get a permit to do something like this in NH with the laws we have?

How exciting to see someone's dream make something like this for us to enjoy. Thanks for sharing.

[BroadHopper]

And the $L law will prevent this from happenning on the big lake. =(

[upthesaukee]

Perhaps the SLPA may have an impact on this type of construction on Winni, but perhaps with enough shoreline footage and sufficient shoreline deep water, this could be built here. I am currently looking into building something that size off the back of my house over the stream that runs there, so I can have my 19 FTer, my red toy tugboat, and my yellow ducky there.

Looking at the boats stored in there, I doubt that the other reason would not apply. We certainly have a large number of restored speedboats on Winni and other area lakes. Doesn't seem to be a deterrent to them.

Perhaps if one of us buys a new Four Winns, we could get a bus and go out there for a tour! Hey, just like the Lottery...you can always dream.

[Onshore]

With the right property you could build a boathouse of that nature. The facility would have to be built over a dredged basin so the property would need to be large and the flatter, the better. Almost all permitting would be under wetlands law, RSA 482-A. Any shoreland permit would probably only be needed for the temporary construction impacts around the building. The one thing that absolutely could not happen is that it could not be connected to the residence. The residence and boathouse must be physically separated. Again this is an issue of wetlands law not the CSPA. You would also need a waiver of the administrative rule limiting structure size to 900 sq ft. Given the uniqueness of the use as it relates to the historic and rare watercraft a very strong case for a waiver could be made.

[tis]

Originally Posted by shore things

With the right property you could build a boathouse of that nature. The facility would have to be built over a dredged basin so the property would need to be large and the flatter, the better. Almost all permitting would be under wetlands law, RSA 482-A. Any shoreland permit would probably only be needed for the temporary construction impacts around the building. The one thing that absolutely could not happen is that it could not be connected to the residence. The residence and boathouse must be physically separated. Again this is an issue of wetlands law not the CSPA. You would also need a waiver of the administrative rule limiting structure size to 900 sq ft. Given the uniqueness of the use as it relates to the historic and rare watercraft a very strong case for a waiver could be made.

Good luck getting that waiver. I don't think I will live to see the day!

[Rusty]

You can have it for $8,950,000....Maybe they'll take $8 mil for it.

Click on the image below to read all about it:

[Onshore]

If you have the ability to purchase the right piece of land and finance the design and build on that structure, you can probably afford to hire someone with enough intelligence and experience to draft a well thought out, complete, and approvable waiver request.

[bigpatsfan]

The real question is why is the Owner selling this property????

[secondcurve]

Originally Posted by bigpatsfan

The real question is why is the Owner selling this property????

I'd bet because he over extended himself on this crazy project!

[NoRegrets]

As I watched the video you can not help but notice the age of the gentleman that was talking about the property. Maybe he is entering another phase in life and will pass this on. Looking at the quality in every picture was truly impressive.

Once again, Thanks for the links. This really makes winter seem long!

[tis]

Originally Posted by shore things

If you have the ability to purchase the right piece of land and finance the design and build on that structure, you can probably afford to hire someone with enough intelligence and experience to draft a well thought out, complete, and approvable waiver request.

I would love to know who that person is that could get this waiver through. Any suggestions?

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by tis

I would love to know who that person is that could get this waiver through. Any suggestions?

Not a matter of who, it's simply how deep are your pockets. Nowadays anything can happen if the right wheels are greased here and pockets lined over there. Wink and a nudge later you got your permit. Question really is what's it worth to ya?

[tis]

Well, if the Marriott's pockets aren't big enough to get what they want, I don't know who's are! They lost to the state on their boathouse.

[upthesaukee]

Tis, didn't the Marriott's build and then try to get it approved when they got caught?

If so, and if they had gone about it right, they may have got permission.

[Just Sold]

Dave it was Mr Walgreen - he built the 7 slip boat house in Wolfeboro on its own lagoon with 40 acres right near Parker Island. His ex-wife ended up owning it in the divorce. He has a nice collection of boats that he keeps at his place in Alton Bay now.

[Onshore]

The issue at the heart of the Marriott case was that of expanding a residence over water. As I said earlier, one would need to keep the residence and the boathouse completely separate.

The "Wallgreen boathouse" was designed with an area you can back a trailer into from which you can lift a boat and move it across overhead so that it may be lowered into any of the 3 internal bays. There is also a launch ramp leading into the basin for regular trailer launching of watercraft. Rules were waived, no wheels were greased. The project was simply well put together.

[ApS]

FWIW, the Walgreen's boathouse "basin" was dynamited out of a huge granite ledge. The first blast shook the ground and the entire Lakes Region stratosphere . From ½-mile away, the mighty explosion caused me to literally fall onto the ground from out of a hammock!

A stream of dump trucks took months to remove that rocky residue from out of the Walgreen's "basin", while thousands of granite boulders were dumped at the NW end of The Lakes Region Airpark's runway. Dump trucks shook the ground all summer but the runway was extended by hundreds of feet, possibly at no cost to The Lakes Region Airpark—as it saved many miles of trucking.

As of last year, the Marriott's purchased that runway, that extension, that 101+ acres of The Lakes Region Airpark, including the remains of Walgreen's former granite ledge!

Footnote: A few years ago—to build a multi-residence septic sytem—a Maine blasting company blasted several granite ledges that were only ¼-mile away; however, dynamite-technology has changed: except for one barely-noticeable blast, I never noticed the many dynamite blasts at the opposite end of that same runway.

A much closer abutter to those blasts—astonished at hearing my account—told me, "You couldn't miss 'em!"

[tis]

Originally Posted by shore things

The issue at the heart of the Marriott case was that of expanding a residence over water. As I said earlier, one would need to keep the residence and the boathouse completely separate.

The "Wallgreen boathouse" was designed with an area you can back a trailer into from which you can lift a boat and move it across overhead so that it may be lowered into any of the 3 internal bays. There is also a launch ramp leading into the basin for regular trailer launching of watercraft. Rules were waived, no wheels were greased. The project was simply well put together.

My point with the Marriott's is that money and a wink and a nod don't work as some keep suggesting.

The Marriott's still have a kitchen and bathroom in the boathouse, (still a house) because it was there before.

Both of these boathouses were built before the size restriction went into place.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by tis

Well, if the Marriott's pockets aren't big enough to get what they want, I don't know who's are! They lost to the state on their boathouse.

I found this on the Department of Justice (DOJ) website:


RELEASED BY: Attorney General Philip T. McLaughlin
SUBJECT: Richard E. Marriott to Restore Boathouse, Pay $200,000 Civil Penalty in Settlement of Wetlands Case
DATE: August 29, 2002
CONTACT: Assistant Attorney General Richard Head
(603) 271-1248
RELEASE TIME: Immediate

Attorney General Philip T. McLaughlin and Department of Environmental Services Acting Commissioner Dana Bisbee today announced that Richard E. Marriott of Washington, D.C. has entered into a Consent Decree to resolve claims brought by the State for trespass on State-owned public waters, alteration of wetlands without a permit, and conversion of a boathouse into a dwelling over public waters. The State has submitted the Consent Decree to the Carroll County Superior Court for approval.

The State's lawsuit alleged that Mr. Marriott violated State law when he extensively refurbished his boathouse located over Lake Winnipesaukee in Tuftonboro. The suit alleges that Mr. Marriott converted much of the first floor of the boathouse from a docking facility to living quarters, including a kitchen and dining area, after being advised by the State that the law did not permit such a conversion. Because the State holds the waters of all great ponds in trust for the benefit of the people of New Hampshire, the suit alleged that the conversion of the boatslips to living space was a trespass on State waters.

In addition to the conversion of the boathouse to a residence, the State's lawsuit alleged that Mr. Marriott constructed structures over water adjacent to the boathouse without a wetlands permit, including a new deck and bench along the southern side of the boathouse; a new deck off the eastern side of the boathouse; and an enlarged canopy over exterior boat slips. The bank of Lake Winnipesaukee was excavated to construct the enlarged canopy over the exterior slips. The lawsuit also alleged that Mr. Marriott dredged and filled more than 10,000 square feet of wetlands during the construction of a septic system serving the boathouse and other structures on his property.

Under the Consent Decree, Richard Marriott will pay the State a $200,000 civil penalty for the wetlands violations. In addition, Mr. Marriott must restore the first floor of the boathouse to its original primary function of docking boats by removing all newly enclosed living areas. Bathroom facilities added to the third floor will also be removed and Mr. Marriott will record a use restriction limiting the residential use of the boathouse.

Mr. Marriott has also agreed to narrow the breakwater adjacent to the boathouse, and remove exterior decking added as part of the boathouse conversion. In addition, he will restore the wetlands impacted during construction of a septic system.

The $200,000 civil penalty is the largest cash penalty ever collected by the State for violations of New Hampshire's Wetlands Act.

Attorney General McLaughlin commented that the State takes its responsibility as trustee for public waters seriously. "New Hampshire holds its lakes in trust for the public and for future generations," said Attorney General McLaughlin. "Turning a boathouse into an exclusive private residence violates this trust and calls for enforcement action by this office."

"These were substantial violations that called for substantial remediation and a significant penalty," stated Acting Commissioner Bisbee. "We are pleased that Mr. Marriott and the State were able to reach this settlement agreement."

[MAXUM]

In the case of Marriott he really pushed the boundaries, having connections and money helps, but isn't going to be a miracle worker either.

This does bring up another interesting question, what about the person that did the work, do they not also face some culpability?

[tis]

I believe they did.

[BroadHopper]

A Dick Piper of Terrace Hill Road in Gilford, became a state representative to get a 'land grant' from then Gov. Merrill to create a berm to extend his dock out into the lake. The resulting land berm created a beach that cause the family dock to become a 'dry dock'. The state refused to extend our dock beyond its original length. We had to beach the boats. Its politics at its best folks!

However, I met a Lieutenant in the Army Corps of Engineers, and explain my case. I did not know that any changes in the shore line has to be reported to headquarters in Lebanon at the time. An investigation and a satellite view of the beach results in an order from the Army to restore the shore line. Sad part of this order was that Piper never did anything about it. If he did, my family was stuck with the removal of the sand in front of the property. We didn't pursue this as the cost to remove the sand was enormous!