Shoreland Protection

Onshore · 02-09-2011, 08:27 AM

A while back someone mentioned it would be nice to know in advance of pending legislation that may affect them. There are 4 bills that I am aware of affecting the Shoreland Protection Act. They are SB20, SB124, and SB154 originating in the Senate and HB 470 originating in the House. Those interested can find and track them through the link below.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_Status/

birchhaven · 02-09-2011, 11:14 AM

Just gave a quick look, am I reading this correct?

VII-b. “Impervious surface” means any modified surface that cannot effectively absorb or infiltrate water. Examples of impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roofs, and unless designed to effectively absorb or infiltrate water, decks, patios, and paved, gravel, or crushed stone driveways, parking areas, and walkways [unless designed to effectively absorb or infiltrate water].

(the formating was lost in the copy paste so the underlined words are what is being removed)

Does this mean you are now saying that decks, patios, and paved, gravel, or crushed stone driveways, parking areas, and walkways can not be designed to be permiable surfaces like porous pavement?

Onshore · 02-09-2011, 12:17 PM

No, I don't think it means they can't be designed to be pervious. The change seems to be "stylistic" and does not seem change the actual meaning of the term.

LIforrelaxin · 02-09-2011, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

No, I don't think it means they can't be designed to be pervious. The change seems to be "stylistic" and does not seem change the actual meaning of the term.

Agreed, I think that is a case of removing some misguided verbiage, which probably lead to a great deal of controversy with developers trying to claim that what they where doing was pervious, to get around things. Claiming to be pervious, and actually being pervious are two different things, depending on what the absorption rate needs to be.

Gatto Nero · 05-01-2012, 04:24 PM

Shore Things, I am looking for some guidence on an upcoming building project and I'm hoping you can help. Back in 05' when I first considered adding on to my preexisting non-conforming house I recall that there was a section in the Shoreland Protection Act that allowed for a 12' deck to be added to the structure even if it was was within the 50' Waterfront buffer. Could you tell me if that is still the case? I haven't followed the rule changes that have occurred since then so I went back and tried to find that clause in the new rules but could not. Thank you.

Onshore · 05-02-2012, 07:14 AM

That provision was removed last year. We are currently trying to restore it.

Gatto Nero · 05-03-2012, 10:57 AM

Thank you for the quick reply. That is discouraging but I'll keep my fingers crossed that it it gets reinstated. In the meantime, I read another clause that might apply and I wonder if you could confirm or correct my understanding.

"However, alteration or expansion of a nonconforming structure may expand the existing footprint within the waterfront buffer, provided the structure is not extended closer to the reference line and the proposal or property is made more nearly conforming than the existing structure or the existing conditions of the property."

So I take that to mean, in my case, that I could still add the deck, or even add to the house for that matter, within the waterfont buffer as long as it doesn't get any closer to the water than what my house is now and I make the property more nearly conforming by, among other things, enhancing stormwater management. Am I reading that right?

Onshore · 05-03-2012, 11:10 AM

Yes you could add a deck off the side of the structure. There would need to be some aspect of the overall proposal that made the project more nearly conforming.

wifi · 05-03-2012, 06:41 PM

I have a neighbor with a currently going in 10.5 foot spite fence, 18 inches from the property line and going to 15 feet from the waters edge.

Is this an impermeable surface, or in any way in violation of the CSPA ?

tis · 05-04-2012, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wifi

I have a neighbor with a currently going in 10.5 foot spite fence, 18 inches from the property line and going to 15 feet from the waters edge.

Is this an impermeable surface, or in any way in violation of the CSPA ?

Every day I think how lucky we are to have the neighbors we have!!!!!!

Onshore · 05-04-2012, 07:34 AM

Fences are exempted under the Shoreland Act. They do not need permits and they do not count as impervious surface. Wetlands law on the other hand does not exempt fences. So extending the fence down the bank to the water's edge would need a Wetland Permit. Extending the fence further into the water would also need a permit, however it is not a project that would be approved.

Gatto Nero · 05-09-2012, 04:30 PM

Shorethings,

I apologize in advance if I'm being a pain, but I'll ask anyway in hopes that you'll continue to indulge me..

1) Does replacing all or part of standard asphalt paved driveway with pervious asphalt or pervious pavers count towards making a lot more nearly conforming? If so, does none of that newly paved driveway count against me with regard to the overall impervious surface measurement?

2) I understand from reading the Home Owners Guide to Starmwater Management, that if the lot is more than 30% impervious I need to have a certified engineer design a stormwater management system prior to obtaining a permit. If, after construction and by means such as above, the overall impervious surface is less than it is currently is it still necessary to hire the engineer to create the plan, or is a plan even necessary at that point?

Thanks again for your help.

Onshore · 05-13-2012, 11:37 AM

Replacing impervous paved surfaces with pervious alternatives can count towards being more nearly conforming. Calculate what your impervious area is now as well as what it will be post construction. If you can off-set the area of home expansion (new impervious) with an equal area of paved surface conversion (no longer impervious) then you do not need an engineer regardless of impervious percentage. The engineer requirement only kicks in when there will be both more than 30% impervious area and the project will result in an increase in the impervious area.

Another thing to consider, look to convert things like patios and walkways to pervious surfaces first. The reason is that areas that will not have a great deal of weigh and loading on them only need 8 -10 inches or so of base material under them. This is in part because they are at lower risk of compaction than areas that receive greater loading such as parking areas which should have about 36 inches of base material under them.

Billy Bob · 05-13-2012, 02:32 PM

We want to increase the footprint of the house by about 12x12 ft. It would be increasing the size of an existing bedroom and adding a bathroom-also moving the laundry room from the basement to the new bath area. We would not be going any closer to the water than we are now, in fact we would be staying back 50 feet however part of the house is now withing the 50 ft. mark. (built in the 1970s). We are in a community with a community septic system so only the tank is on the property not the leachfield. As long as we meet impervious service % and vegetation point system will there be a problem and will we need an inspection on the community system(that seems to be the glitch here since it is not a private system)?

Onshore · 05-13-2012, 06:34 PM

Since you have a tank I am guessing that there is a large community leachfield but just in case...What kind of community system are you on?

Billy Bob · 05-14-2012, 02:37 PM

It's one of the Kranewood streets where everyone has a tank in the yard then the tanks all pump up the hill to a community leechfield . about 15 homes on the field. Issue is the cost of getting that entire system certified would be prohibitive not to mention the issue with the leechfield being owned by the HOA . The other residents may take issue with having the field looked at and the potential issues that could cause .

Thanks in advance for your opinion

Onshore · 05-17-2012, 01:36 PM

You will need to to have the leachfield looked at to determine is the system can handle the additional loading. If you can get approval from the Subsurface Systems Bureau then Shoreland should not be a problem.

02-09-2011, 08:27 AM	#1
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Shoreland Protection A while back someone mentioned it would be nice to know in advance of pending legislation that may affect them. There are 4 bills that I am aware of affecting the Shoreland Protection Act. They are SB20, SB124, and SB154 originating in the Senate and HB 470 originating in the House. Those interested can find and track them through the link below. http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_Status/

02-09-2011, 11:14 AM	#2
birchhaven Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 132 Thanks: 14 Thanked 54 Times in 30 Posts	sb 154 Just gave a quick look, am I reading this correct? VII-b. “Impervious surface” means any modified surface that cannot effectively absorb or infiltrate water. Examples of impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to, roofs, and unless designed to effectively absorb or infiltrate water, decks, patios, and paved, gravel, or crushed stone driveways, parking areas, and walkways [unless designed to effectively absorb or infiltrate water]. (the formating was lost in the copy paste so the underlined words are what is being removed) Does this mean you are now saying that decks, patios, and paved, gravel, or crushed stone driveways, parking areas, and walkways can not be designed to be permiable surfaces like porous pavement?

05-01-2012, 04:24 PM	#5
Gatto Nero Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Isola Gatto Nero Posts: 696 Thanks: 162 Thanked 263 Times in 81 Posts	Shore Things help Shore Things, I am looking for some guidence on an upcoming building project and I'm hoping you can help. Back in 05' when I first considered adding on to my preexisting non-conforming house I recall that there was a section in the Shoreland Protection Act that allowed for a 12' deck to be added to the structure even if it was was within the 50' Waterfront buffer. Could you tell me if that is still the case? I haven't followed the rule changes that have occurred since then so I went back and tried to find that clause in the new rules but could not. Thank you. __________________ La vita è buona su Isola Gatto Nero

05-03-2012, 10:57 AM	#7
Gatto Nero Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Isola Gatto Nero Posts: 696 Thanks: 162 Thanked 263 Times in 81 Posts	Thank you for the quick reply. That is discouraging but I'll keep my fingers crossed that it it gets reinstated. In the meantime, I read another clause that might apply and I wonder if you could confirm or correct my understanding. "However, alteration or expansion of a nonconforming structure may expand the existing footprint within the waterfront buffer, provided the structure is not extended closer to the reference line and the proposal or property is made more nearly conforming than the existing structure or the existing conditions of the property." So I take that to mean, in my case, that I could still add the deck, or even add to the house for that matter, within the waterfont buffer as long as it doesn't get any closer to the water than what my house is now and I make the property more nearly conforming by, among other things, enhancing stormwater management. Am I reading that right? __________________ La vita è buona su Isola Gatto Nero

05-03-2012, 06:41 PM	#9
wifi Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Lakes Region Posts: 1,321 Thanks: 282 Thanked 287 Times in 169 Posts	Fences I have a neighbor with a currently going in 10.5 foot spite fence, 18 inches from the property line and going to 15 feet from the waters edge. Is this an impermeable surface, or in any way in violation of the CSPA ?

02-09-2011, 12:17 PM	#3
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	No, I don't think it means they can't be designed to be pervious. The change seems to be "stylistic" and does not seem change the actual meaning of the term.

05-02-2012, 07:14 AM	#6
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	That provision was removed last year. We are currently trying to restore it.

The Following User Says Thank You to Onshore For This Useful Post:
Gatto Nero (05-02-2012)

05-03-2012, 11:10 AM	#8
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Yes you could add a deck off the side of the structure. There would need to be some aspect of the overall proposal that made the project more nearly conforming.

The Following User Says Thank You to Onshore For This Useful Post:
Gatto Nero (05-03-2012)

05-04-2012, 07:34 AM	#11
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Fences are exempted under the Shoreland Act. They do not need permits and they do not count as impervious surface. Wetlands law on the other hand does not exempt fences. So extending the fence down the bank to the water's edge would need a Wetland Permit. Extending the fence further into the water would also need a permit, however it is not a project that would be approved.

05-09-2012, 04:30 PM	#12
Gatto Nero Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Isola Gatto Nero Posts: 696 Thanks: 162 Thanked 263 Times in 81 Posts	Impervious Surface question Shorethings, I apologize in advance if I'm being a pain, but I'll ask anyway in hopes that you'll continue to indulge me.. 1) Does replacing all or part of standard asphalt paved driveway with pervious asphalt or pervious pavers count towards making a lot more nearly conforming? If so, does none of that newly paved driveway count against me with regard to the overall impervious surface measurement? 2) I understand from reading the Home Owners Guide to Starmwater Management, that if the lot is more than 30% impervious I need to have a certified engineer design a stormwater management system prior to obtaining a permit. If, after construction and by means such as above, the overall impervious surface is less than it is currently is it still necessary to hire the engineer to create the plan, or is a plan even necessary at that point? Thanks again for your help. __________________ La vita è buona su Isola Gatto Nero

05-13-2012, 11:37 AM	#13
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Replacing impervous paved surfaces with pervious alternatives can count towards being more nearly conforming. Calculate what your impervious area is now as well as what it will be post construction. If you can off-set the area of home expansion (new impervious) with an equal area of paved surface conversion (no longer impervious) then you do not need an engineer regardless of impervious percentage. The engineer requirement only kicks in when there will be both more than 30% impervious area and the project will result in an increase in the impervious area. Another thing to consider, look to convert things like patios and walkways to pervious surfaces first. The reason is that areas that will not have a great deal of weigh and loading on them only need 8 -10 inches or so of base material under them. This is in part because they are at lower risk of compaction than areas that receive greater loading such as parking areas which should have about 36 inches of base material under them.

The Following User Says Thank You to Onshore For This Useful Post:
Gatto Nero (05-14-2012)

05-13-2012, 02:32 PM	#14
Billy Bob Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Tiera Verdi Fl & Moultonborough Posts: 295 Thanks: 115 Thanked 154 Times in 92 Posts	Expanding size of bedroom and adding bath We want to increase the footprint of the house by about 12x12 ft. It would be increasing the size of an existing bedroom and adding a bathroom-also moving the laundry room from the basement to the new bath area. We would not be going any closer to the water than we are now, in fact we would be staying back 50 feet however part of the house is now withing the 50 ft. mark. (built in the 1970s). We are in a community with a community septic system so only the tank is on the property not the leachfield. As long as we meet impervious service % and vegetation point system will there be a problem and will we need an inspection on the community system(that seems to be the glitch here since it is not a private system)?

05-13-2012, 06:34 PM	#15
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Since you have a tank I am guessing that there is a large community leachfield but just in case...What kind of community system are you on?

05-14-2012, 02:37 PM	#16
Billy Bob Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Tiera Verdi Fl & Moultonborough Posts: 295 Thanks: 115 Thanked 154 Times in 92 Posts	Tank It's one of the Kranewood streets where everyone has a tank in the yard then the tanks all pump up the hill to a community leechfield . about 15 homes on the field. Issue is the cost of getting that entire system certified would be prohibitive not to mention the issue with the leechfield being owned by the HOA . The other residents may take issue with having the field looked at and the potential issues that could cause . Thanks in advance for your opinion

05-17-2012, 01:36 PM	#17
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	You will need to to have the leachfield looked at to determine is the system can handle the additional loading. If you can get approval from the Subsurface Systems Bureau then Shoreland should not be a problem.