Clear Cutting / Errosion Discussion

[OCDACTIVE]

To be specific, I had some questions regarding the practice of clear cutting for new construction around the lake. I know this has been a hot issue, so I hope we can stay on topic.

With all the new watershed regulations for shore line protection to avoid runoff into the lake and errosion, are there also regulations prohibiting clear cutting on property away from the lake? and should there be?

Case in point on Red Hill there is a large area that was clear cut by a developer that unfortunately went under due to the down economy, so now there is an area that is completely clear and has not regrown in over 5 years due to the top soil having washed away.

I am wondering if there are the same protections now to keep this from happening.

Also, I would like to discuss how in many instances the laws are too overbearing and costly for the regular Joe who is lucky enough to live on the lake. The permit process is outrageous and can take years and is extremely expensive. While I know they are trying to prevent enviromental issues does this impede on new construction and provide yet another hurdle to the hurting contracting and construction business?

[DEJ]

Regarding away from the lake property, as mentioned in a recent thread, your question needs to directed/asked of the town you are concerned with. Your concern about Red Hill should be directed to that town.

Your second question about cost for the average Joe to get permits etc... I hope shore things might chime in and help with that.

[jmen24]

In the case of regulations away from CSPA, you are really relying on the developer being a good steward of the land. Some companies are part of organizations that work very closely with the Forester and replant after harvesting timber. Not everyone does this and as far as I know, other than a timber tax, there is no regulation, unless wetlands or marsh areas are involved.

Over bearing, that is a subjective term. To preserve our current state of water quality requires some tight measures. That is what CSPA is all about, preserving what we have now so that we can come up with a plan to improve in the future.

Having your property surveyed is not a requirement of meeting the regualation of CSPA. Unless you are looking to cut any tree that puts you over your point limit, then it is not necessary to completely map the entire property, unless you really need those points from bushes and scrub brush.

Now take this for what it is as I have experience with permiting, its my part of my job description. But, I do not feel that the process is overwhelming, it follows a flow chart of yes and no answers, depending on your answers, each path can be different. CSPA is really no worse than wetlands in regard to red tape and processing time. Trying to walk the line of in or out with any permiting process is going to cause headaches for everyone involved.

In my opinion and the opinion of many of my colleagues, it is as easy to build on waterfront as it every has been.

Say you want to add an addition to an existing non-conforming structure. Your in the grey area zone on impervious surface 15-20%, the regs tell you to play it safe and deal with the extra water that hits that impervious surface, but you only have to deal with the new impervious surface, not the existing. So you put up good rain gutters and drop the drain into a dry well that allows for leaching below grade.

What typically happens that gets folks in a ruffle is that they come up with an idea of what they want to do and then try and make it work with the regulations. This is the wrong way to approach the situation, you need to determine what regulations you will be bumping into and deal with the issues that they present, this creates a design that works for you and the state.

And lastly no, CSPA is not directly hurting the industry right now, the economy is. If you want to build a boathouse, addition, deck, etc, just ask, it can be done. The biggest issue is most folks want things done yesterday and are impatient when it comes to this aspect of the process, mostly because they have commited to a project, given a deposit and want to see their money start working. This leads to a bad taste in the mouth and is typically fueled by a contractor that do not want to deal with these headaches or that does not understand why they are in place.

[Heaven]

OCDACTIVE, clear cutting is not necessarily worse that selective cutting. It may be better to clear cut than to take all the "good" wood, as that leaves only the "bad" wood for regrowth on the parcel. The undergrowth and slope would play a part in the decision.

[Pine Island Guy]

Also, I would like to discuss how in many instances the laws are too overbearing and costly for the regular Joe who is lucky enough to live on the lake. The permit process is outrageous and can take years and is extremely expensive. While I know they are trying to prevent enviromental issues does this impede on new construction and provide yet another hurdle to the hurting contracting and construction business?

This topic has come up before, and I'm not sure what your experience has been to make that statement, but my personal experience was quite the opposite.

A year ago I applied for and received a State CSPA permit/waiver to re-build our "non-conforming" camp on Pine Island. I'm not in the construction trade and had no previous permitting experience, but was determined to do this myself and not pay a professional "permitter". I found the regulations very easy to understand, and also attended one of the DES workshops which was very helpful as well.

The whole process took less than 3 months, cost less than a thousand dollars, and was pretty painless.

We are fortunate to have a few experts in such matters on the forum ("Shore Things", "jmen24", and others), who have been able to address specific questions.

I'm happy to give more details on the process I went through or share my knowledge and experience with anyone that would like.

Looks like sun this weekend! -PIG

[Sue Doe-Nym]

To be specific, I had some questions regarding the practice of clear cutting for new construction around the lake. I know this has been a hot issue, so I hope we can stay on topic.

With all the new watershed regulations for shore line protection to avoid runoff into the lake and errosion, are there also regulations prohibiting clear cutting on property away from the lake? and should there be?

Case in point on Red Hill there is a large area that was clear cut by a developer that unfortunately went under due to the down economy, so now there is an area that is completely clear and has not regrown in over 5 years due to the top soil having washed away.

I am wondering if there are the same protections now to keep this from happening.

Also, I would like to discuss how in many instances the laws are too overbearing and costly for the regular Joe who is lucky enough to live on the lake. The permit process is outrageous and can take years and is extremely expensive. While I know they are trying to prevent enviromental issues does this impede on new construction and provide yet another hurdle to the hurting contracting and construction business?

You point out an interesting case where the owner ran into financial difficulties and never finished what was to be his huge personal residence. It is a real eyesore that can be seen from as far away as Alpine Meadows Road in South Wolfeboro. The problem is really whether a town has the right to force a landowner to do something when there is no violation of any law or regulation.

To answer your specific question, there is no present law governing this situation. Where do you draw the line between a property owner's rights and the public's right to not have to look at something like this?