New Boathouse Permits Endangered?

[ApS]

Today's Union-Leader indicates that the more recent, dug-in style boathouses are more destructive to the lake's environment than previously thought. DES meekly "went along" with the permits because there is no regulation against these "dug-ins". http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=55711

I overlook a McMansion boathouse nearly identical to this Union Leader's photograph, but the one I see has three fewer trees.

.

[GWC...]

Found these words of great humor:

***** Executive Councilor Peter Spaulding said…

After the meeting, Spaulding said he was hopeful the decision to reject the boathouse would lead to some sort of dialogue on the subject. He said wealthy people are altering the landscape of the state's public waters by dredging.

"They used to have boathouses built out over the lake on rocks or timbers. Now you can't do that. But what they do is they excavate on the mainland, and they are changing the shoreland of the lake. . . . That is more destructive to the environment than building them over the lake."

He described the application the board rejected yesterday as excessive, with 1,500 square feet for two boats. In the application, the representatives of the landowner argued that the boathouse was the least destructive measure that could be taken, he said.

"The least destructive way is to take the boats out of the water in the winter," he said. ***** :D


P.S.- If the boathouse in the picture is located in Alton, you should discover some interesting info about the requirements regarding the roof of a boathouse, if you were to check the code - the roof does appear to be flat in structure. :rolleye2:

[Cal]

I'm no enviromentalist or marine biologist but it stands to reason a boat house built on rocks and timbers over the water would afford more refuge for small aquatic life , but I guess that's a bad thing. After all , politicans know what's best for us :rolleye2:

[SAMIAM]

GWC I believe that in that same article he referred to shore front owners as "The idle rich".......Idle......really?.....Usually the opposite is true.

[ApS]

Now a Squam Lake resident speaks up on the same subject, stressing that the State needs to enforce its own laws.

Excerpt:
"...The time has come for a sea change in the state’s policy on boathouses. We need to consider our natural resources and what we are doing to them as we squander their beauty and function. Golden Pond and all those other wonderful and beautiful lakes and ponds will be ruined forever if this destructive development continues and the state does not enforce the law that our Legislature passed on behalf of New Hampshire citizens."

Haven't we seen this "need to enforce" problem before?

Editing 06/18/05, to add:

DES is being sued (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_BOATHOUSE_LAWSUIT_NHOL-?SITE=NHMAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT), for State to enforce its own laws by Conservation Law Foundation:

Brad Kuster, a lawyer for the foundation, said there are less destructive ways of mooring and storing boats than building boathouses.

Such construction, he said, requires extensive dredging and shoreline excavation that increases runoff of deposits and excessive nutrients, exposing lakes to invasions of nonnative plants.

(I think this means inadequate silt control).

.