Illegal Tree-Cutting at Ellacoya State Park

[mcdude]

from the Gilford Steamer

A portion of Ellacoya State Park has been cleared of trees, violating the shoreline Protection Act. One hundred and twenty feet of the shoreline was cut of trees near Scenic Drive across from the beach. The discovery was made by anonymous persons who sent a letter to Dave Andrade, code enforcement officer, informing the town of the cleared trees. Andrade notified officials in the Department of Environmental Services after confirming the area was in the park. The protection act states that there must be a 50 foot buffer of waterfront foliage must be maintained. In order to cut trees in the park permission must be sought from DES.
“The purpose of this buffer shall be to protect the quality of public waters while allowing homeowner discretion with regard to water access,” reads the protection act,” safety, viewscape maintenance, and lot design.”
The act goes on to stipulate a scoring system that determines when the buffer can be cut. The only exception to the scoring system is when the
tree is diseased or poses a hazard to structures near them. The Department of Environmental Services discovered that the cuts had been recent and indicated that they were looking for help from the public in the investigation. Anyone having information regarding this matter or seen
anything that might lead to the persons involved is asked to call the Wetlands Compliance Bureau at 271-3503.

This seems like a rather odd story. Surely someone saw who cut down trees on 120 feet of shoreline....???

[SAMIAM]

Can't wait to see how this plays out.The papers trashed a local businessman recently, for tossing out a plastic bag.Wonder who will investigate this since it is so much more serious.If this was a homeowner,there would be a huge fine and that person would be made to replace them with adult trees.

[Alsobig]

Funny... We had the same thing happen to us on a parcel of land on Pagaus Bay... Someone cut down about 15-20 huge Pine trees so that they could have a better view of the lake... Police were notifed but nothing ever happend... We all found out who did it... he ended up selling his house and moving away... but ruined our beach and probably got more in return for his"Lake View" house...

[fatlazyless]

I have no clue who did it but suspect that it was done by the Ellecoya State Park itself. That corner is the area where the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association wants to build its' community sailing facility.

If the abutting residential neighbors with homes on Shoreline Drive were to cut the trees to improve their view, probably the state employees who work at Ellecoya would immediately know of it.

My guessing opinion is that one state agency [url]www.NewHampshireStateParks.com did it without probably knowing about the new July 1 Shoreline Protection law that is administered by the www.NHDES.com

A sailing facility in that spot will be a terrific addition and a big benefit for teaching sailing to young sailors, age 8-18 in the surrounding towns, as well as adults.

Proper tree trimming improves the view and makes for healthier and stonger trees!

[ITD]

A new law will result from this requiring all chainsaws to have a Hobbs meter with a GPS logger to keep track of where and how long the saw was used. A permit with sappling grid, arial photo and soil samples will be required before start up with the submission of the GPS logs required within 48 hours of saw shutdown. Waterfront owners trimming weeds will be served with a cease and desist order along with a $5,000 fine.


Meanwhile, scofflaws will ignore any and all laws and continue with business as usual, never getting caught.

[Onshore]

Can we fit that meter and GPS logger on an ax because that is what was used in this instance.

[wifi]

Now, whose fault would it be if someone let loose a bunch of beavers ?

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by shore things

Can we fit that meter and GPS logger on an ax because that is what was used in this instance.

Someone cut down a 120 foot area of trees with an axe, and no one saw this? How long does it take to cut down so many trees with an axe? A pretty long time, I would think. And yet, no one noticed this person out there for days (probably)? Smells fishy to me. This person must have had some protection while doing this.

[Grady223]

Originally Posted by This'nThat

Someone cut down a 120 foot area of trees with an axe, and no one saw this? How long does it take to cut down so many trees with an axe? A pretty long time, I would think. And yet, no one noticed this person out there for days (probably)? Smells fishy to me. This person must have had some protection while doing this.

Or it wasn't a person with an ax at all but beaver in the dead of the night. How big were the trees? Were they removed?

[Waterbaby]

Originally Posted by Grady223

Or it wasn't a person with an ax at all but beaver in the dead of the night. How big were the trees? Were they removed?

That's what I was wondering.......... I think we need to hear more of the facts before the speculation begins. As SAMIAM said, I can't wait to see how this plays out.

[fatlazyless]

Cutting large trees is difficult and dangerous work....the trees do not always fall how was planned.

Nobody chops down a whole big tree wih an axe anymore. Last time that was done was in 1955. For $45, you can go to Wal-Mart and buy a little electric chainsaw that works very good.

My guess...it was Big Olaf from the sailing association....they said...'Hey Olaf...we need to replace this sailboat mast....go find a tall skinny tree to use as a mast'...and Olaf headed on up the hill......

[ApS]

Originally Posted by This'nThat

"...And yet, no one noticed this person out there for days..."

Maybe nights?

Originally Posted by mcdude

"...This seems like a rather odd story. Surely someone saw who cut down trees on 120 feet of shoreline....???"

'Seems like it somebody who wasn't afraid of the consequences of being seen or heard. A local official? A lawyer?

Originally Posted by Alsobig

"...he ended up selling his house and moving away... but ruined our beach and probably got more in return for his"Lake View" house..."

A Seattle judge got fined $500,000 "to improve his lake view". The cut trees were on a State park!

He blamed his landscaper, and thought he was allowed to "trim" trees there. My recollection is that he sold the mansion and still made millions.

Originally Posted by SAMIAM

"...Wonder who will investigate this since it is so much more serious..."

1) If the trees were abandoned in place, it's most likely the homeowner who would benefit most from the improved view.

2) BTW: The use of an ax actually increases the likelihood of forensic identification.

Alas, I saw this summer that the NH State Crime Lab has hundreds of violent-crime cases backed up—probably a demographics issue.

[fatlazyless]

hey acres...that's interesting that Massachusetts demographic link. When I lived there, what I heard, was to receive a Massachusetts prison sentence one had to do bodily harm to another or do a property crime to a member of the state's law enforcement family.

Chopping down an 18" diameter oak tree with an ax could take like three days.....no kidding, it's a very demanding chore....chopping down an 18" pine....better have permission from the King.......King's pine......timber!

All together now.....oh, I'm a lumber jack & I'm ok.....I drink all night...and work all day....

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by Grady223

Or it wasn't a person with an ax at all but beaver in the dead of the night.

And yet, no one observed the beavers crossing the road with the axes over their shoulders? I think the beavers were encouraged to do this by scoundrals, and were protected by "big muscle".

[ITD]

Originally Posted by shore things

Can we fit that meter and GPS logger on an ax because that is what was used in this instance.

Strangely enough, an ax will require no regulation because an ax emits no "greenhouse gases" and if you are determined enough to chop down a tree rather than use a chain saw, you must have had a good reason.

[mcdude]

Originally Posted by shore things

Can we fit that meter and GPS logger on an ax because that is what was used in this instance.

shore things: How do you know that an axe was used? Just wondering.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by mcdude

shore things: How do you know that an axe was used? Just wondering.

Excuse me for jumping in,,,,DES...sparing no investigative expense....hired a forensic lumber jack who took one fast look at the stump and says 'Ayuh...this was definately axed....as clearly indicated by the multiple ax chops!

[Just Sold]

I went by the park yesterday and could not see any area that had obviously been cut. If they did tree removal maybe it was selective cutting and not clear cutting but I nor the person with me could see any evidence of tree removal from the waters edge to Sceinc Drive.
There is the bath house near the beach and maybe that was the where the trees were cut but from the road we could see nothing indicating tree removal.

[Slickcraft]

Today we walked the shore from the south park boundary up to the north boundary at Scenic Road/shore intersection. As "just sold" indicated there were no signs of illegal cutting in the main park.

However, at the north end of the park, or more likely just north of the park boundary, the "brush" had been cut back along a section that is about 120’ along the shore. This is across the street from the small white cottage, 2nd to last cottage on the southern end of Scenic Road. The brush cut was along the old railroad bed.

Most was brush of about 1" diameter that could be cut with long handle lopping shears in about 15 minutes time. One white birch of about 4" diameter had been hacked down with ax or hatchet by someone with less than Paul Bunyan skills. There was evidence of a prior brush clearing a few years ago.

My guess is that the totality of the downed material could be gathered and fit within the bed of one pick-up truck. It must have been a slow day at the news paper.

[Onshore]

An axe takes out far bigger chips than beaver do. Also, beaver teeth leave 3 relatively narrow cut marks where an axe is a single edge. Having someone say "oh ya, we did that... used the axe last weekend..." helps too.

[mcdude]

Laconia Daily Sun - December 10

Man Who Had Ellacoya timber Cut Steps Forward
....have identified the party responsible as Leonard Russo whose cottage at 227 Scenic Drive overlooks the site. ....blah, blah, blah, .....yada, yada....Amy Bassett of the Division of Parks and Recreation, which manages the state parks, said that the area, some 120 feet beyond the sandy beach, lies within the bounds of the park and the cutting was...

[Pineedles]

Bottom line though is that he gets the "view" he wants, and plants a few trees/bushs. I planted some mint plants near our shoreline this spring. It took all of 30 seconds. I could have planted 30 or 40 of these perennials in less than 10 minutes. Where's the justice here? Or is it a foolish law that needs to be looked at?

[Woodsy]

If you read the whole article, the property owner who did the cutting has a DEEDED right to do so! The only point that possibly could be argued was DES/Shoreland Protection Act permission. I dont think he required thier permission because of the wording of his deed. I suspect the planting of ground shrubbery was a nice compromise to a protracted court battle that nobody wants.

Woodsy

[Pineedles]

I did read the article as posted, and although he said he had the deeded right to do so it was still judged to be a violation. What I can't read is what his deed said in its entirety, so I can't tell whether it was reasonable for him to assume he had the right. Look, I don't want to get into an arguement here, but don't tell me I didn't read what was posted.

[fatlazyless]

As you know, the NH Shoreline Protection Law became effective last July 1, and before that there supposedly was somewhat of a rush by builders to get building permits approved.

For 2009, it looks like the area slowdown in building will continue due to tight mortgage money and the economic depression and loss of jobs.

When building gets going again the new plans will need to get the go-ahead from the state DES as part of their building permit approval as well as the local building inspector.

Many waterfront lots are pretty small....maybe one half acre in size....some smaller...some bigger. Does the new SLA spell the end for building the mcmansion that basically spans across the whole width of a waterfront lot.

Is SLA the end for the mcmansion? How...oh how...will people be able to live without a 15 rm house w/ 4 1/2 baths, two fireplaces, 70k worth of granite counters in the kitchen, a mud room bigger than a garage, and a three-car garage? How will they get along......oh-my-gawd?

[SIKSUKR]

I'd have to give him 1/2 a pass on this one and it looks like the authorities felt the same way.I actually know Amy and usually see her at Cannon Mt.I'll ask her about it if I run into her.

[Pineedles]

I would be the last to stand and wave the DES flag and I do understand the confusion that anyone would have trying to abide by every law and regulation. I couldn't figure out what a couple paragraphs of legalese meant on the Machine gun thread. And, as we all know once you do start doing the "right" thing it leads to more bureaucratic BS that may make the original plan void or very very expensive and frustrating.

[Slickcraft]

As I reported a while ago I have visited the site (across from a white cottage) and found that this was brush cutting along the old railroad bed. Most could have been cut with long handle lopping shears; maximum tree size was 4" diameter and was ax hacked. There is evidence of prior brush cutting some years ago. Almost all of the old railroad bed in this area is kept free of brush and it appeared to me that this periodic brush clearing has been going on since the bed was abandoned by the railroad.

While I support the objectives of the Shoreline Protection Act, this issue has been overblown.

[jeffk]

It seems to me that since this law overrides my rights as a property owner to do what I wish with my own property the fact that he has deeded rights to clear other property means nothing. Every other owner of lake front land is precluded from arbitrary clearing of their land, why would this person with deeded access be exempt?

I understand that if his view of the lake is significantly obscured it would impact the value of his property and certainly the enjoyment of his property. This is the problem with environmental laws. While it might be desirable, even necessary, to place environmental restrictions in place for the public good, the public should compensate private owners for the loss of freedom to use their own land.

For example, if a road was to be put in and my house needed to be taken I would be paid for my house. But when an environmental law either precludes building or creates usage restraints no compensation is offered. IMO, if it is in the public interest to create restrictive environmental laws the public should pay compensation to private owners.

In this specific case, it seems that the DES was trying to provide a reasonable compromise, retaining the view and protecting the shoreline. Although I don't like the law (because it doesn't provide compensation for rights taken), it seems that DES is trying to treat people fairly. IMO that's a good thing.

[Argie's Wife]

What does the law say?

The Shoreland Protection Act says....

Section 483-B:5-b, II. Timber harvesting operations permitting requirements shall be in accordance with RSA 485-A:17, IV and therefore shall be exempt from the permitting requirement under paragraph I.

The RSA referenced above says....

485-A:17 Terrain Alteration. – IV. Timber harvesting operations shall be exempt from the fee provisions of this section. Timber harvesting operations shall be considered in compliance with this section and shall be issued a permit by rule provided such operations are in accordance with procedures prescribed in the Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire, published by the department of resources and economic development, and provided that the department of revenue administration's intent to cut form is signed.

So, did he have a permit and a signed intent to cut from DRA?

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

What does the law say?

The Shoreland Protection Act says....

Section 483-B:5-b, II. Timber harvesting operations permitting requirements shall be in accordance with RSA 485-A:17, IV and therefore shall be exempt from the permitting requirement under paragraph I


So, did he have a permit and a signed intent to cut from DRA?

Permit for what?

Did he really sell any timber from the harvest?

Was he harvesting timber?

[Argie's Wife]

Permit for what?

Did he really sell any timber from the harvest?

Was he harvesting timber?

My answers to your questions:

Cutting the trees...

Does the RSA say anything about selling it? What if he was using it for firewood...

If he cut wood, he harvested it. Period.

[tis]

Originally Posted by jeffk

It seems to me that since this law overrides my rights as a property owner to do what I wish with my own property


For example, if a road was to be put in and my house needed to be taken I would be paid for my house.

.

The problem is you would be paid for your house, but very likely not WHAT your house is WORTH! That is why I hate eminent domain. They want to pay you what they want to pay you, not what it is really worth.

[Argie's Wife]

The laws for eminent domain have changed - it's not what it used to be. You're not paid what they want to pay you and you now have a contract where you can get fair market value. The person who "looses" the property makes out far better than they used to and the law helps to keep people from jacking up prices for municipalities so they can unjustly profit from a situation.

Here's an example...

Let's say the fire department decides to expand but they don't have enough land to put their new building and drive way on. They wish to buy a neighboring piece of property that is valued at $120,000 BUT the seller sees dollar signs - he can make out big because the fire department can ONLY buy his property to complete their project. So, he jacks the price to $360,000 - way above value. Eminent domain can be done to procure the property at a FAIR price - both for the seller and buyer. The law has changed.

[tis]

I don't mean to disagree, Argie's Wife but you are wrong. That is the way it is SUPPOSED to work but it doesn't. The towns/ state do not want to offer anywhere near what is the "highest and best" use of the property which is what is required under the ED law. They offer what they want to offer. There is an appeals process which ends up in Concord, but it is a big hassle and they hope most people won't be bothered. As you said, a lot of it is just a little strip of land and people just don't want to fight it.

[Argie's Wife]

I understand your point but don't think I'm wrong in the example I gave to you.

From the Wiki article on the subject:
On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[7] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the Federal government.

I don't dispute for a moment that there have been abuses of it.

Bringing this thread around, full-circle, I don't believe that the Shoreline Protection Act takes away the property owner's right his/her property. I'm also impacted by the law because of the inlet to Winni that runs along two sides of my property and although my house is grandfathered, my plans to put up a garage are now down the tubes. But I also "get it" that something has to be done to control erosion and the impact that construction has on the lake and the wetlands. Conservation is very important; it just seems complicated now.

[tis]

Unfortunately, the government is the government and the people that we HIRE to work for us think they control us and they do because of the power they have over us. If I sound bitter, I am. I know first hand about eminent domain and I know several people who know first hand and we have all had the same experience. So despite George Bush or anyone else, they do what they want to do.
I think the SPA is overkill. I agree, we need to protect our shorelands but much of what they have come up with is just unnecessary bureacratic manipulation. It is too bad things go that way. I think what they really want to do is stop development and don't know if they really care about the lake.

[Lakepilot]

The executive order cited above would not apply to the state or any state municipality. Also "just" compensation in who's eyes? What does "just"mean. Again, this would only apply to an agency of the federal government taking property.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

Bringing this thread around, full-circle, I don't believe that the Shoreline Protection Act takes away the property owner's right his/her property. I'm also impacted by the law because of the inlet to Winni that runs along two sides of my property and although my house is grandfathered, my plans to put up a garage are now down the tubes. But I also "get it" that something has to be done to control erosion and the impact that construction has on the lake and the wetlands. Conservation is very important; it just seems complicated now.

You state yourself that you have lost the right to build the garage you wanted. If you sell your property it is less valuable because future owners are also prohibited from building.

While you feel that the constraints may be needed for the overall health of the lake, and I agree with that view, why is it the shore owners that bear all the cost impact? Ten's of thousands of people, i.e. the public, enjoy the benefits of a healthy lake as well as the associated tourist businesses. Even the state of New Hampshire benefits from the room and meals taxes generated. Why are the shore owners the only ones to pay the cost?

Further, we are constantly reminded that the Lake is NOT ours. We can't keep people from fishing or generally being annoying in front of our property.

If the public wants to take 50 ft from the lakefront and tell me I can't build on it and am limited in what clearing I can do then I think that that portion of my land should be treated as in "current use" exemption and my property taxes should be reduced accordingly.

I'm sure our legislature will take action on my reasonable suggestions ASAP.

[tis]

Originally Posted by jeffk

You state yourself that you have lost the right to build the garage you wanted. If you sell your property it is less valuable because future owners are also prohibited from building.

While you feel that the constraints may be needed for the overall health of the lake, and I agree with that view, why is it the shore owners that bear all the cost impact? Ten's of thousands of people, i.e. the public, enjoy the benefits of a healthy lake as well as the associated tourist businesses. Even the state of New Hampshire benefits from the room and meals taxes generated. Why are the shore owners the only ones to pay the cost?

Further, we are constantly reminded that the Lake is NOT ours. We can't keep people from fishing or generally being annoying in front of our property.

If the public wants to take 50 ft from the lakefront and tell me I can't build on it and am limited in what clearing I can do then I think that that portion of my land should be treated as in "current use" exemption and my property taxes should be reduced accordingly.

I'm sure our legislature will take action on my reasonable suggestions ASAP.

I never thought of that, but what a great idea! It IS like putting our land in current use, so we should get the benefits! Maybe we can start a drive, just think if all of us lake people rebelled and stuck together, they would have a tough time fighting us! Try to get people to do that though!

[chipj29]

You know, all this could have been avoided if the guy had just waited until AFTER the ice storm. He wouldn't have had to cut down a single tree!

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by jeffk

If the public wants to take 50 ft from the lakefront and tell me I can't build on it and am limited in what clearing I can do then I think that that portion of my land should be treated as in "current use" exemption and my property taxes should be reduced accordingly.

I think the minimum for 'current use' designation is 10 acres, so I guess anyone with 10 acres within 50' of the lake could apply, however i'm guessing that anyone with that much property isn't too concerned about the tax burden...

However there are many rules and regulations primarily from zoning and or deeds which could be construed as "impairing" your ability to do what you want with your own land. The most obvious is the zoning setback from the town - for Meredith 20 feet on all sides and 65 feet from the shoreline (meaning that the town is more stringent than the state in this case). In Moultonborough I believe you can't cut trees within 150 feet from the shoreline.

Yes, all rules and regulations chip away at the freedom to do what we want with our property, however that is the price we pay to be part of "society" - the trick is to keep a balance

waiting for ice-in... PIG

[meteotrade]

Originally Posted by jeffk

You state yourself that you have lost the right to build the garage you wanted. If you sell your property it is less valuable because future owners are also prohibited from building.

I understand your position, that the state should compensate waterfront owners because their land is less valuable now that its "in current use". However, you would have a very hard time making the case. In fact, I could argue the exact opposite; my property, which is across the lake from yours, is worth more now that my view is not impeded by your ugly garage.

[tis]

PIG, could we retreat from society do ya think?
I think you are right, it is ten acres mimimum (I forget it could be 7 but think it IS ten ) for current use. However, lake property with the cottage cannot be included in current use, but taxed as in a situation with less land around it. A house away from the lake and the acre or so it sits on cannot be included in current use either even if that property is surrounded by acreage.
It would be nice though!

[SIKSUKR]

It IS 10 acres. My sister has part of her property as current use and taxes sure are a consideration. The tax on that 10 acres was about $250.

[jeffk]

Yes it is 10 acres.

It is also the choice of the property owner as whether or not to put their property under current use.

I have no choice. 50 ft of my land has been placed under current use restrictions for the protection of a public resource without any ability on my part to say otherwise. In essence my land has been forcibly taken for public use and as I see it that falls under the eminent domain clause and I should be compensated. I won't be because it has been done under the flag of environmental protection. It amazes me that a law can override the constitution.

I was going to (when I could afford it) add a second floor to my house. Most of my neighbors have already done so. Their houses and property are more valuable because they have enhanced their property in a way that I am now prohibited from doing. Further, properties that have already taken this action are now priced very high because no one else can build so the fixed supply of such houses is priced up. This is like the ridiculous price a boathouse commands today because no one can build any new ones.

As to setbacks and other similar restrictions, most have been in place for a long time and are well understood. I would argue if a property owner wanted to put in a driveway and the setbacks had recently changed so that he couldn't and no other access was possible he would get a variance permit.

As to building a garage that someone else might not like, that's what private property is about. This concept is so important that it was placed in the constitution. If I want to build a funny looking house and paint it neon pink on my property, I can. There is a reason for this. You can find someone to object to almost anything. So I don't like your driveway, or your bushes, or the shape of your windows, or just about anything else and it becomes ridiculous. Instead, on my property, I decide what will be what.

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I was going to (when I could afford it) add a second floor to my house

Actually my understanding of the CSPA is that you can add a second floor to your house, as long as the impervious area is not increased (i.e. you are not expanding the footprint)... but will defer to "Shore Things" for the definitive answer!

Contrary to popular opinions and beliefs, I find the new regulations to be much easier to navigate/understand and are actually less stringent for the average homeowner making changes to their property (including thinning of trees, limbing, and expanding/modifying their house). What is much harder to do within the CSPA is to build a house that takes up 90% of the lot size (aka McMansions) and increases the impervious area so that run-off goes directly into the lake!

Regarding zoning "setbacks", they haven't been around all that long... and when they were instituted, people probably had the same reaction to them, as you have to the new regs

ice ice more ice... PIG

p.s. if you have questions regarding the new regs, ask someone at DES, send them an email, attend one of their information sessions! I have had nothing but positive experiences with them, found them all very helpful, and pleasant to deal with. And no, I am not a State employee, not married to one, and don't have any relatives in State government

[Onshore]

The law was changed last year to remove any restriction on the height of primary structures (read "residences") last summer. We no longer require any profiles or cross sections of proposed residential structure improvements. In fact with the new rules if you are expanding upward, but not outward, with no excavation, and no increase to on-site septic, you don't need a permit from the state. You do need to make sure you meet septic loading if you are adding bedrooms and that you meet any local regulations that may exist.

...and we still issue permits for dug-in boathouses.

[meteotrade]

Originally Posted by jeffk

In essence my land has been forcibly taken for public use and as I see it that falls under the eminent domain clause and I should be compensated. I won't be because it has been done under the flag of environmental protection. It amazes me that a law can override the constitution.
.

Your whole argument is flawed because your premise is incorrect- you CAN still build a 2nd floor on your house, and you CAN still build boathouses.

Property rights are a very complicated subject and its not nearly as simple as you convey, "I own the land, I can do whatever I want to it." Courts have decided, time and time again, that this cannot be further from the truth. As the wise Mr. Spock once said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

[tis]

Still, I agree with Jeffk, the SPA has limited what can be done on the lots and made it much more expensive to do anything with your land. It also is not only expensive but very complicated and time consuming --like stalling you for a year to get permits. I don't like losing property rights either. I am with ya' Jeff.

[Pine Island Guy]

Originally Posted by tis

--like stalling you for a year to get permits.

the CSPA permitting process (including a waiver), is 30 days!

I'll keep reiterating... please READ the documentation, attend one of their information sessions, talk to them personally... I think you might be pleasantly surprised how straight-forward the process is, and WHY it is beneficial to the lake that we love and want to maintain in good health for subsequent generations!

more ice, more snow... PIG