Moultonborough Article 4 - tree point total

[DickR]

On the upcoming Moultonborough town election ballot is Article 4, which proposes to amend the zoning ordinance pertaining to shoreland protection. Beyond changing wording to reflect the new name of the state level program (now SWQPA, formerly CSPA), the proposed amendment also calls for a doubling of the state's tree point totals required in the shoreland buffer. Specifically, within each 50 by 50 foot section along the shore of the lakes (mainly Winni, of course), while the state calls for a 50 point tree total, Moultonborough would have a higher total, at 100 points.

The tree diameters are measured at 4-1/2 feet above ground. The point schedule is the same as the state now uses, I believe, and is this:

1-3" = 1 point
3-6"" = 5 points
6-12" = 10 points
12-24 = 15 points
>24" = 25 points

While I agree that far too many shoreline lots have been nearly cut bald, and it's too late to do anything legally about those, I have to wonder if the proposed requirement for 100 points of trees within any 50 x 50 foot section is overdoing it.

On looking back over the minutes of meeting of the town planning board, all I found was that in one meeting last summer there is reference to some report some other body prepared, and that the board accepted its recommendations. Does anyone know of a reference to the report, so I can read the reasoning behind the town's wanting to impose tougher shoreline rules than the state does?

[tis]

Why don't these politicians just kick all the people out and let the environment take over? Who should we get rid of first?

[secondcurve]

On the upcoming Moultonborough town election ballot is Article 4, which proposes to amend the zoning ordinance pertaining to shoreland protection. Beyond changing wording to reflect the new name of the state level program (now SWQPA, formerly CSPA), the proposed amendment also calls for a doubling of the state's tree point totals required in the shoreland buffer. Specifically, within each 50 by 50 foot section along the shore of the lakes (mainly Winni, of course), while the state calls for a 50 point tree total, Moultonborough would have a higher total, at 100 points.

The tree diameters are measured at 4-1/2 feet above ground. The point schedule is the same as the state now uses, I believe, and is this:

1-3" = 1 point
3-6"" = 5 points
6-12" = 10 points
12-24 = 15 points
>24" = 25 points

While I agree that far too many shoreline lots have been nearly cut bald, and it's too late to do anything legally about those, I have to wonder if the proposed requirement for 100 points of trees within any 50 x 50 foot section is overdoing it.

On looking back over the minutes of meeting of the town planning board, all I found was that in one meeting last summer there is reference to some report some other body prepared, and that the board accepted its recommendations. Does anyone know of a reference to the report, so I can read the reasoning behind the town's wanting to impose tougher shoreline rules than the state does?

Unfortunately I agree, it won't make a difference. Where were these folks 50-years ago? Or more appropriately, where was common sense?

[Belmont Resident]

Unfortunately I agree, it won't make a difference. Where were these folks 50-years ago? Or more appropriately, where was common sense?

It seems like in some cases those with the money just do not see or care to see just what a real eye sore that million dollar home really is in relationship to it's surroundings.
I've recently had the experience of doing some work over on Squam Lake.
You cannot see many houses at all from the lake.
I read posts about how beautiful Winni is and how fortunate we are to have this lake. I fail to see the beauty! There isn't much shoreline where your not looking at houses that belong in the city. (Governors Island for instance) Much of the shoreline around the lake just looks ruined, and then you see the occasional Adirondack style house that is tastefully done and fits right in with the landscape.
You are so correct that changes should have been incorporated years ago, unfortunately it is to late now, what's done is done.

[Lakegeezer]

There is no enforcement funding proposed and few want to rat out their neighbors, which can create decades of ill-will. I've seen tree plans that bore no relation to actual trees and clear cutting where the owner claimed to be in compliance. I've seen dead trees counted in the plan and then cut down because they were dead, leaving gaping holes in the shoreline. However, the new regulation seems excessive, which will encourage property owners to have less respect for it and other shoreline protection rules. I'll be voting against the ordinance. Synchronization with the state regs seems to be a smarter choice as long as there is no funding (or desire) for compliance monitoring.

[Heaven]

Although I haven'y read the proposed ordinance, I believe there is a move toward increasing native shrubbery and ground covers in regulation, which will do the job of protecting the lake water from silty run-off while still allowing for some more open views.
I suggest anyone voting please read through the proposed article

[Onshore]

In 2008 NH's shoreland protection law, RSA 483-B first changed to used a point system to measure vegetation. In 2011 that point values were changed in a manner that would allow the cutting of approximately 75% more vegetaion than was previously allowed. In response several towns around the state are adopting ordinances that increase the number of points required. This is creating a problem in that we are returning to a situation where every town is different. It makes it harder for builders and realtors in that they have to know and explain all the different standards and attempt to explain the inconsistencies to their clients. There is a house bill (HB 513) this year there rolls the point values back closer to what they used to be in hopes that middle ground can be found and we can regain some consistency in the standards but some towns have already said they have no faith in the state standard and will continue to adopt their own.