Shoreland Protection Rules

[Boat Doc]

Next Wed. there is a rules hearing at NH Env. Services regarding the new shoreland rules. I'm told this hearing may be nothing more than a person with a tape recorder taking input, but all of us that own lakefront property should get involved.

To that end, I suggest you all consider joining the NH Shorefront Association. This is a new group which believes in protecting water quality and private property rights. Also, one thing I really liked was simply being aware of what is going on in Concord as I did not find out about all these changes until very recently (on this Forum!).

The website is: www.nhshorefront.org (http://www.nhshorefront.org)

I want to protect the lake for my grandchildren to inherit both our property and clean water, but I also want to protect the rather hefty investment in my shorefront (not to mention value for the taxes!).

I'm all for saving the trees and reducing run-off, etc..., but why would Env. Services need to be involved in giving me a permit for my new shed which may be over 200 ft back from the water (as I understand things just about everything within 250 ft will require their blessing). I know what we went through for our relatively simple dock permit and I am very concerned this difficult and trying process will be the same now for projects on my own land.

Thanks for considering my thoughts.

[phoenix]

agree with you. i am going to join.

[AQUAMAN]

I have joined as well. The website is user friendly. It will be a great resource to keep tabs on new laws and new rule-making at DES. I have a permit application at the wetlands board now that Darlene Forst is reviewing. She has made it so difficult that I have turned it over to a lawyer. It should not be this difficult and when we hit April 1, 2008 it all becomes that much more difficult.:confused:

[Gatto Nero]

I have a permit application at the wetlands board now that Darlene Forst is reviewing. She has made it so difficult that I have turned it over to a lawyer. It should not be this difficult and when we hit April 1, 2008 it all becomes that much more difficult.

I would agree that the permitting process is a painful one and it's about to get even more painful come April 1, but don't think for a minute that the person or persons responsible for reviewing the applications are the ones making it difficult. They are just doing their jobs as best they can under the circumstances. I have had more than my fair share of the permitting process over the past few years. It has not been easy, but I have found everyone involved in the process to be nothing but professional. There are lots of rules to deal with but they didn't create those rules. They are just there to enforce them. Considering what they have to deal with and the resources they have available to them I think they do a pretty good job.

That said, I think NH Shorefront Association is a great idea, and I would bet the DES does too. If you've been reading this forum for a while you probably know that ShoreThings reached out to everyone on this forum for input. She also reached out personally to people that she thought would have some constructive input and invited them to the meetings regarding these changes. Unfortunately, I couldn't make it to the meetings myself but it would have been nice to have had representation through and organization like nhshorefront.org.

[tis]

I am with you Aquaman. Gatto, unfortunately they have different interpretations, depending on who your reviewer is. It is a damn big hassle and I only see it getting bigger. I think they have already started changing to the new rules, even though they aren't final yet. I think it is a huge mess down there and will only get worse in April. I wonder if Shore Things really cares or that was just a show. Once the going got rough she disappeared. Sorry but this whole thing gets my dander up!

[Gatto Nero]

Tis, I agree, in part.

It has been my experience that they do have different interpretations of the rules and that that can be painful. But I believe that the new rules are, in part, intended to be more finely defined so that there is less left up to individual interpretation. I'm not saying I like the rules, I just don't blame the people who enforce them for the problems those rules create.

I reread the changes again tonight and my head was spinning when when I finally got through it. I honestly can't say if they are all that much more strict or not, at least the parts that concern my situation. They may even work in my favor, but there is no doubt that the permit process will be about 10X more complicated. So far I have been able to handle everything I have gone through on my own, and I've been through a lot. I have serious doubts if I will be able to do that if/when I ever need to deal with it again.

I can't argue about other people's intentions, only my interpretation of them, and I believe the intentions of the people I have dealt with are sincere. Think about it. What motive would they have to screw you over? Why would she bother posting if she didn't want the opinions the post would produce? Do you go out of your way just to mess with people in your job? Ok, maybe once in a while, but it's usually in good fun. :D

[Onshore]

Gatto Nero, I appreciate the sentiment but it is unnecessary. You are correct that DES is happy to see the development of an organization that will help keep the people who are directly affected by our programs informed. Our only concern is the adversarial tone that seems to be developing. The NH Lakes Association is a similar organization to this new NH Shorefront organization with which we have had a cooperative working relationship for many years. We are somewhat dismayed by statements on this new organizations website that insinuate that the public was not involved in the development of that new standards since some of the membership of this new organization has been directly involved with the development of these new standards since September of 2005. Given the fact that of the five founding members of this new organization; one was a voting member of the Commission that proposed the changes to the Shoreland Act, a second was employed by a voting member, two others were personally involved in hammering out compromises during the senate hearings on the legislation, and three of the five were also directly involved in the same meetings to develop the new rule package you had been invited to attend we would hope they would wish to continue the development of the program in a positive and cooperative manner. Regardless of the approach they take from here on out the fact that they are increasing public awareness of the issues is the most important thing.

Tis, I understand your frustration and whether you choose to believe it or not I can assure you the shoreline and shoreland staff is greatly concerned with developing a program that issues its decisions in a fair, timely, and above all, consistent manner. Please understand that as an employee of the state my job is to apply the standards and requirements put in place by the legislature or through the administrative rule process. While I can answer any factual questions that people may have but I cannot answer questions relate to personal philosophy or opinions on the issues because I am required to maintain my objectivity. Simply put any opinions I may have are irrelevant and cannot be allowed to enter into these discussions.

[Lakegeezer]

Having the NH-DES particapate in this discussion is welcome and refreshing. Thanks "Shore Things" for keeping the public informed and maintaining integrity in the process.

[ApS]

"...It is a damn big hassle and I only see it getting bigger...I think it is a huge mess down there and will only get worse in April..."
Speaking of mess, one of the area's biggest spec-builders got to a "tear down" near me, bulldozed the lot, and walked away. The resulting spring flood washed tons of silt, sand, and soil downslope and into the lake—then they put up a silt fence! (And then a second—then a third silt fence, then a fourth—and a few generations of hay bales.)

The two newest neighboring homes will have to dredge the lake bottom for their boats as a result of the spec-builder's failure to mitigate their own series of cascading failures.

The problem continues uphill, which this spring will likely see a big fertilized lawn on an impossibe-to-mow slope to keep still more of the scarified lot from ending up in the lake. It's possible that wood chips will be used instead, which also get washed into the lake—then gets replenished again. This gross inattention to Mother Nature only serves to feed the algae and milfoil already in the lake.

This photo shows how the localized flooding even carried rocks downhill across the dock's surface.

Something has to be done to keep the lake healthy, and it wasn't happening in 2007.

[Onshore]

The newest draft of the proposed Shoreland Program Administrative Rules, Chapter Env-Wq 1400 has been posted on-line at:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/RuleMaking/

[mcdude]

see Citizen Article here......

SHOREFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS FORM ASSOCIATION (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080225/GJNEWS02/421943652/-1/CITIZEN)

Robinson said the shorefront owners group has already hired a lobbyist to represent it in Concord and will be keeping active in assuring its interests are heard.

[fatlazyless]

Oooohhhhh....nnnoooooo....thanks for the heads-up, McDude....this means I gotta get started like right away saw'n down those three ugly, old, large, Pin Oaks that arch out over my tiny little 55' waterfront.....since all I got is a 12" electric chain saw.....from U-know-where....and them trees need to be gone by April 1......or else....they is here .....basically forever!:(

[Skip]

Move afoot to delay implementation until July 1st.

STORY (http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080319/GJNEWS02/134573100/-1/CITIZEN) today in the Citizen on-line!

[tis]

Thanks for that post Skip. It seems they should have the rules in place before they enact it.

[Lakegeezer]

The local construction crews will be happy. This winter has been tough on business. It will be a noisy spring.

[Bear Islander]

The local construction crews will be happy. This winter has been tough on business. It will be a noisy spring.

Except of course on the islands of Meredith, where construction is at a standstill.

[fatlazyless]

Yes, good question. So, what's next for the intrepid developers on Sheep Island, Lake Wicwas? Did the 490-525, no vote on their zoning friendly article change their persona from a couple of wolves, to a couple of sheep? Ouchy ouchy...gotta be expensive....legal costs & all.... & plus the tightening of mortgage credit locally does not help..

[Onshore]

Well, here's where the Shoreland Program stands right now. We will be ready to bring the program on line on April 1 if the law still requires it. The next hearing on the shoreland rules package is this Friday, March 21. The major point of contention has been the establishment of criteria to qualify a project as "vested". Briefly, "vested" simply means that your project is sufficiently underway and thus should not have to obtain the new shoreland permit. This is a dangerously oversimplified explanation but the problem is that the State's attorneys, the attorneys serving as lobbyists for a couple of groups, and the JLCAR's attorneys are still hammering out the criteria for qualifying as "vested". When this is settled DES will have to provide guidance documents explaining what it takes to be "vested" as well as just what being "vested' means. Another significant change that may come out of the last meeting involves the requirement for a stamped surveyed plan. Originally DES only wanted a surveyed plan when there would be more than 20% impervious area. JLCAR heard testimony at the last meeting stating that a surveyed plan should be required for all projects. We frankly do not want those plans for all projects because of the cost associated with obtaining them. However we may need to take the compromise position of requiring them for projects having as little as 15 % impervious. I can not emphasize enough that people take time to go to the rulemaking website listed earlier in the thread and check for the latest version and amendments to see what's coming.

If the Legislature does manage to get the effective date moved then we will of course adjust accordingly. What the Citizen article does not explain is that there may be other changes coming that we will need to address. The amendment to HB 1151 is in large part to allow time for the legislature to debate some other possible changes (including the issue of "vesting") included in another bill. These issues had been being argued/discussed under Senate Bill 417. This bill is being terminated but the same issues will now be heard as part of Senate Bill 352.

BTW while writing this I received word that it is highly unlikely that the House will get to HB 1151 this week and therefore, it will not be heard before their next session which is April 7. That would be after the law takes effect on the 1st...

[hemlockpoint]

I guess this is not surprising considering 483Bs Legislative sponsors were all Democrats and our legislature and executive branch is now Democrat controlled.

The more complex you make these laws the more difficult(and expensive) it is to administer. DES people appear to have their ducks in a row but our legislature is screwed up.

What do I do with my project now? I am 80 percent complete. Dont ask how that is measured or the Democrats will have to come up with a new bill and a fee to calculate it for me.

[Onshore]

What does 80% complete mean?

[tis]

shore things- is it still highly unlikely (after the vote this morning by the Senate committee) to get to the house now?

[Onshore]

still highly unlikely.

[hemlockpoint]

My house is framed and roofed but not sided or finished inside. The septic is installed and seeded over with grass seed and mulch. The area between the house and 50 feet from the lake was seeded and mulched last fall. I still need to grade loam and seed
around the house which is 225 feet from the water. I also need to gravel the driveway which starts 200 feet from the water and goes by the house around 240 feet from the water. Miscellaneous things like water lines and well hookups need to be done.

[Onshore]

Hemlockpoint - Your project is if far enough along that you would be ok under every version of proposed rule, law, and policy that I've seen thus far. If your primary structure (house) foundation is in and your driveway is roughed in before April 1 then completing those structures is not going to require anything new from DES. From what we've seen so far, if a problem were to arise it would be in relation to outbuildings or not building according to the plan approved by the original building permit. If your primary structure and driveway (gravel by law is considered impervious unless specially designed and laid down) put your property at or above the new impervious surface limits, then after the date the new law takes effect, initiating construction of any new structures, such as a garage, even though they were covered by the local building permit, may still be illegal. The other thing is that you will likely only be covered for those things specifically permitted on the local building permit you are operating under. If you don't build according to the plans sent to the municipality or the permit is vague and no plans were required, then you may not be covered by any vesting provision.

[hemlockpoint]

I was looking at the website at the latest version of the rules on vesting.

What does this mean?

(3) A concrete foundation for the primary structure was installed between April 1, 2007 and April 1, 2008;

My foundation was installed in the fall of 2006. Does this mean I am not vested because I installed it too soon?

[Onshore]

The 2007 date provision wasn't intended to force people that had structures started to get a permit to finish them. It was intended to prevent individuals from claiming that secondary or accessory structures that had not been started before April 1, 2008 were part of a larger "project" and thus were somehow covered under an old permit just because the primary structure foundation was in. We have no interest in asking anyone to get permits to complete a house that is as fas along as you have described. It is better environmentally that you simply complete the project and stabilize the soils on site.

[phoenix]

I understand that structures of all kinds will require approval and it appears that tree cutting will also but will thinning out brush also require approval

[hemlockpoint]

Shore things
Thank you for your help.

[Onshore]

Phoenix

There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...)

I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

[phoenix]

thanks that will be helpful

[ITD]

Phoenix

There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...)

I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

I'm pretty sure that Moultonboro requires a permit that requires the inventory of all trees and brush and saplings within a certain zone before you cut. This is the typical knee jerk reaction caused by someone who clear cuts. We go from reasonable laws with no enforcement to unreasonable moronic laws, that I believe Moultonboro hired someone to enforce.

[tis]

shore things. What happens to the reference line if a boathouse is built? The definition I find is: "for natural fresh waterbodies it is the natural mean high water level". If you dig in for a boathouse, which you must do, does that reference line change?

[Onshore]

If you dig into the shoreline you DO move the reference line.

[ACutAbove]

Phoenix

There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...)

I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

If there is a fact sheet available it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you...

[ITD]

If there is a fact sheet available it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you...

I would be interested to know if these rules are now superceded, somehow I don't think they are.


From here:

http://www.moultonborough.org/Ordinance/ZONINGORDINANCE2007.pdf


Waterfront Property

........................

G. Removal of Trees, Shrubs and Vegetation
Purpose and Intent
The water quality of all lakes, ponds, rivers and streams is significantly affected by the land and its
vegetation that surrounds these water bodies. This land is constituted as “shoreland”, and a portion of
the shoreland from the water’s edge (reference line) back to 250 feet is protected by the State of New
Hampshire under legislation – i.e., RSA 483B, the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA).
Shoreland vegetation such as trees and saplings, along with shrubs and groundcover, and their
undamaged root systems, act as a natural filter of flow and runoff of surface, subsurface and deep
ground water as well as wastewater; nutrients such as fertilizer; sediment; pesticides; and pollutants. In
addition, tree and sapling canopies shade the shoreline itself, making the shoreline healthier by
moderating the temperature of the water bodies.
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
10
Once there is a disturbance of shoreland vegetation, such as excessive cutting or removal, there is no
surface filter or subsurface root system filter, and there is nothing to prevent the shoreland soil and any
pollutants from being washed into or eroding into the water body. This in turn raises the temperature
of the water body and promotes algae and weed growth, leading to a loss of water clarity and quality.
The Town of Moultonborough possesses more waterfront (Shoreland) property than any other
municipality in the state; and the protection of the public waters that abut those lands is of paramount
importance to the economic, cultural, recreational, and environmental well-being of the community.
The Town of Moultonborough adopts this article as part of its Zoning Ordinance to ensure protection
of those public resources. Where referenced, the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, New
Hampshire, RSA 483-B as it may be amended (CSPA). which seeks to protect the state’s public waters,
it hereby incorporated herein
(1) In addition to the requirements of the CSPA and not in limitation thereof, removal of any vegetation
in the Town of Moultonborough on any property within 150 feet of the mean high water mark of the
water body (“reference line”) shall be in compliance with the following:
(A) Any owner or owners of the property who desire to remove trees or saplings on the
property and who do not have a valid unexpired Permit in accordance with this ordinance, must
first apply for a Permit from the Moultonborough Land Use Office, which Permit documents
the existing trees and saplings on the property.
(i) A “tree” means any woody plant which has a diameter of 6 inches or more, as
measured at a point 4-1/2 feet above the ground, and normally grows to a mature height
greater than 20 feet.
(ii) A “sapling” means any woody plant which has a diameter less than 6 inches, as
measured at a point 4-1/2 feet above the ground, and normally grows to a mature height
greater than 20 feet.
(B) A permit shall be issued, upon payment of a fee, as may be determined from time to time
by the Board of Selectmen, and submission of an application to and acceptance by the
Moultonborough Land Use office, which application includes:
(i) A diagram of the property in contiguous 25 foot by 25 foot square sections which
indicates general property lines, existing structures, and trees and saplings.
(ii) A photograph or photographs of the property, taken from the water body and no
more than 100 feet from the reference line, which accurately depicts the entire
waterfront of the property as viewed from the water body; and
(iii) A signature by the applicant/landowner:
(a) Acknowledging receipt of copies of this town ordinance and a summary of
the CSPA;
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
11
(b) Agreeing to abide by all the requirements of this town ordinance and the
CSPA; and
(c) Giving ongoing authorization during the permit period to the Town of
Moultonborough and its designated officials, with advance notification, to enter
onto the property to view the vegetation on the property.
(C) In addition to the CSPA and not in limitation thereof, the following shall apply:
(i) Within 150 feet of the reference line there shall not be any more than 50% of trees
and saplings removed in any 25 foot by 25 foot section in a 20 year period, subject,
also, to the following:
(a) A healthy well–distributed stand of trees and saplings and their living
undamaged root systems shall be left in place in any 25 foot by 25 foot section,
and
(b) Within any 25 foot by 25 foot section, which is located within 50 feet of the
reference line, in addition to the above requirements, a minimum number of
trees equal to 12 points according to the following rating system must be
maintained:
Diameter of Trees & Saplings
At a Point 4-1/2’ Above Ground Points
4 inches to 6 inches 1
greater than 6 inches to 12 inches 2
greater than 12 inches 4
No trees shall be removed in any such 25 foot by 25 foot section if the cumulative
points of trees and saplings are less than 12.
(ii) Trees and saplings which are removed to clear an opening for building
construction, structures, driveways, and parking areas may be excluded when
computing percentage limitations, but such exclusions shall apply only beyond the 50
foot setback from the reference line. In no case, shall the building pocket, the
construction zone around the building or other structures trespass into or disturb the
area within the 50 foot setback from the reference line.
(iii) Other vegetation such as shrubs and ground cover within each 25 foot by 25 foot
section must be selectively maintained.
(a) A “shrub” means any multi-stemmed woody plant which normally grows to
a mature height of less than 20 feet.
(b) “Groundcover” means any herbaceous plant which normally grows to a
mature height of 4 feet or less.
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
12
(iv) Normal trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches to minimize the entry of
vegetative debris into the water body, to protect structures, to enhance views, or to
maintain parking areas and travel in driveways and pathways is permitted, providing
such trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches is not done to the crowns of trees or
the crowns of saplings and such trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches is not
injurious to the trees, saplings or other vegetation.
(v) Dead, diseased, unsafe, or fallen trees and saplings may be removed. Their removal
shall not be used in computing the percentage limitations; however, if their removal
results in cleared openings, then these openings shall be replanted with native tree
species unless new tree growth is present. Proof of disease can be obtained from and
certified by a licensed arborist; in addition, or as a substitute therein, photographic
evidence is also sufficient. Such proof must be kept on file by the applicant/landowner.
(vi) Stumps and their root systems which are located within the 50 foot setback from
the reference line shall be left intact in the ground.
(vii) Currently developed lots, having open areas with lawn, bare ground, or weed
cover, are encouraged to be converted and replanted with a natural vegetative cover
consisting of native species of ground cover, shrubs, saplings, and trees.
(D) Permits shall expire upon the earlier of the following:
(i) 20 years from the date of the issuance of the permit, or
(ii) Upon a change in ownership through:
(a) Sale
(b) Transfer into a trust
(c) Inheritance
(d) Inter/intra-family deed
(E) Applicants may reapply for permits after 20 years from the original date of the permit or
upon change in ownership of the property; however, in both instances, the applicant must show,
through diagrams and photographs, demonstration of compliance with the requirements of this
ordinance and the CSPA. New diagrams and photos accompanying the new application will be
compared with the originally filed application/permit to ascertain the extent of any previous
cutting and to ensure that any future cutting will be within the prescribed limitations outlined in
this ordinance and the CSPA.
(2) Any removal of vegetation which does not otherwise require a Permit by the Town of
Moultonborough, as set forth above, shall nevertheless be required to meet the limitations and
requirements set forth by the CSPA.
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
13
(3) The Code Enforcement Officer, or his designee, may, for cause, enter upon any land or parcel at
any reasonable time to perform oversight and enforcement duties provided for in this ordinance.
(4) This ordinance and any Permits issued pursuant to this ordinance shall not in any manner be
construed as being less restrictive than the CSPA.
(5) The Town of Moultonborough may impose, as set from time to time by the Selectmen, fines,
penalties, and remedies for non-compliance with this ordinance. Such fines and penalties may not
exceed those as are set forth by the CSPA for non-compliance with the CSPA. Such fines, penalties,
and remedies may be imposed against the property owner and any person or entity, removing such
trees or saplings on behalf of the property owner. The Town of Moultonborough may enforce the
CSPA and impose such fines, penalties, and remedies for non-compliance with the CSPA, as
authorized by the CSPA.
(6) Appeals from imposition of fines, penalties and remedies shall be construed as appeals of
administrative decisions and shall be submitted to, and under the jurisdiction of, the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. Requests for variances from the provisions of this section shall be treated as any other
request for variance and shall be submitted to, and under the jurisdiction of, the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. However, no variance shall be granted which would result in standards less restrictive
than the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, RSA 483-B.

[Onshore]

In accordance with RSA 483-B:3 Consistency Required, II, When the standards and practices established in this chapter conflict with other local or state laws and rules, the more stringent standard shall control.

Moultonborough's requirements must be met.

[Formula260SS]

Shore Things,

Thanks for taking the time to spend here and answer questions, I have a quick one. Are the requirements the same for an accessory structure (shed) as they are for a primary structure, such as plans and such. Will we have to submit a "full package" of information or can it be reduced. The structure will meet the 150 sq/ft rule and the 50' reference line.

Thanks

[Onshore]

Under the current rule set there is no "reduced package" for small sized projects. There needs to be one, and the development of such a process will be part of the next phase in bringing the Shoreland Program forward. One of the main problems that we need to overcome is ensuring that the Department has the information we need to verify that the sum of little projects over time doesn't result in more impervious surface than is allowed by the new CSPA standards. There has been a push to force the Department to require stamped surveyed plans with all applications. The legal argument has been made that all plans that indicate property line location must be prepared by a licensed surveyor. DES is resistant to requiring these plans for all project due to the cost that is associated with it. (Other DES programs such as Wetlands and Sub-surface have operated for years without requiring surveyed plans.) We need to find a way to get the most reliable information we can about the property and project but have it be something that the average homeowner can provide without breaking his bank account before we can take the next step. We are definately open to suggestions...

[codeman671]

We are looking at another piece of property that has a camp on it now, and is closer than 50 feet to the water. If we bought it, our intention would be that within a few years we would want to take it down and build something newer/larger. Being that the lot is already cleared there is no additional clearing of trees/vegetation necessary.

Does the footprint or current building location become grandfathered? If we want to go bigger do we have to move the building back to 50' or greater? Is there a limitation that would prevent us from building at all?

I'd hate to get too far into this to find a problem that we did not foresee.

Thanks in advance!

[Onshore]

Unless you are on sewer the first you need to take a look at the new sub-surface systems regulations. If you tear if down or modify it significantly it could run afoul of your systems permit. If you tear it down and do want to rebuild with a bigger footprint you will need to meet the setback if its possible. If you can't meet the setback then you would be looking at the possibility of getting a Redevelopment Waiver with would allow you to offer restoring or replanting areas or making other improvements to offset the increased sq ft of impervious area.

[tis]

In other words, codeman forget it. She does not want to tell you it will be a nightmare.

[Skip]

According to the on-line edition of the Union Leader, the Senate today voted to delay implementation until October 1st. Now its off to the House.

Story can be read HERE. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NH_SHORELINE_PROTECTION_NHOL-?SITE=NHMAL&SECTION=STATE&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)

[Onshore]

The earliest the House could possibly hear the amended version of HB 1151 is April 9th.

[codeman671]

Unless you are on sewer the first you need to take a look at the new sub-surface systems regulations. If you tear if down or modify it significantly it could run afoul of your systems permit. If you tear it down and do want to rebuild with a bigger footprint you will need to meet the setback if its possible. If you can't meet the setback then you would be looking at the possibility of getting a Redevelopment Waiver with would allow you to offer restoring or replanting areas or making other improvements to offset the increased sq ft of impervious area.

The property has a brand new septic (3 bedroom) so no issues with the number of bedrooms/baths. So, is it just a 50' setback then? Gilford already has a 50' so it would not be a significant change to what currently exists.

[Onshore]

I thought Gilford had a 40 ft setback?

If you have septic taken care of and the setback is no problem then your next concern is the new impervious surface limit. The new standard sets up tiers for percent impervious allowed. You can avoid any issues with this standard by staying within the bounds of the existing impervious areas. In other words if you only wanted to add or expand the second story there would be no issue. In fact, you could potentially do it without a permit. If you are going to expand the impervious area of the house then it would be helpful to know approximately how much of the lot would then be impervious. Do you have an estimate on that? Keep in mind that gravel driveway are considered impervious unless specially designed and constructed to be otherwise.

[codeman671]

Not sure, I thought 50 but if 40 even better.

Being on an island, no driveways are needed so the only section to be affected is the overall footprint size of the home. The footprint is 1100 square feet (1 floor) and I would expect that to go to 1600-1700 square feet plus attached outdoor deck space. So basically, on a 1 acre lot we would look to add 600+/- square feet of house footprint plus the deck which could encompass another 750-1k square feet outside.

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this! Hopefully it will help others as well.

[Onshore]

If Gilford is 40 it will become 50 when the new standards pass. This is not a project killer but it is something to be aware of because you should try to avoid any outward expansion (upward would still be ok) on the portions inside 50 ft.

On a 1 acre lot you can build up to a total of:

- 8,712 sqft of impervious area with no need to agree to cutting restrictions or implement a stormwater management plan.
- 10,890 sqft of impervious area if you agree to protect and not remove any healthy trees and saplings within 50 ft of the reference line. (If there are not enough trees to meet the minimum buffer standards re-planting will be required but maintenance of existing/remaining open areas and the trimming of branches and pruning of shrubs down to 3 ft is still allowed.)
- 13,068 sqft of impervious area if you agree to protect and not remove any healthy trees and saplings within 50 ft of the reference line and inmplement an approve stormwater management plan.

Decks are considered to be impervious. You could use a surface that has enough openings at a size that would qualify as pervious, but personally I would hesistate to use those surfaces in areas that may be travelled by little fingers and toes. It would be the owners call...

[Gatto Nero]

Would the sqft that you quote above be cut in half for a half acre lot?

[Onshore]

Yes. The sqft of impervious allowed is a percentage of the sqft of the lot in the protected shoreland the ratios will be consistent.

The numbers that I listed in response to Codeman were calculated under the assumption that the whole acre is inside the protected shoreland. In retrospect I should have asked first and not made that assumption. If the entire lot is within 250 of the shoreline then the numbers are right. If not then they would need to be rvised downward to reflact the area of the lot within 250 ft of the lake.

[codeman671]

The lot is probably not much more than 250' deep and has roughly 250' of frontage. Based on that, it sounds like it would take an awfully huge footprint (being on an island without a driveway) to even come close to the new law being an issue.

Thanks for the clarification!

[codeman671]

The lot is probably not much more than 250' deep and has roughly 250' of frontage. Based on that, it sounds like it would take an awfully huge footprint (being on an island without a driveway) to even come close to the new law being an issue.

One last question and I will leave you alone. Right now, the footprint being 1100+/- square feet is actually 30+/- feet from shore in the front I estimate. Would it be acceptable to build the new structure behind the existing structure (and off to the side a bit), meeting the 50' setback and when complete remove the old structure? The existing structure is on an above-ground stone foundation (nothing sub-surface). Total footage between the two even during the interim would not exceed 8712 square feet.

This basically gives us the ability to live in and use the old structure while the new one is being built.

[Onshore]

You could do that. The Department would want to see a construction sequence with timetables including the demolition of the old structure and would put condition the permit with a deadline for removal tied to the completion date of the new structure. The Department would also want to see planting plans for the restabilization of the old camp footprint after removal.

[Onshore]

According the the posted schedule for the House, HB 1151 is to be heard on April 16th.

[Boat Doc]

So I'm trying to follow this and read the rules which in some cases refers to the new law. Wow this stuff is going to be difficult. I had to print out both the new rules and the law from the NH Shorefront Assoc. website and sit down and read through them refering back and forth. This is a lot more restrictive and complicated than I first anticipated.

If our house is within the new 50 ft setback, and we want to add an addition that is at the back so it is more than 50 ft back, are we going to be required to tear down the house and move the whole thing back? A previous post seems to indicate that new buildings will have to be 50 ft back unless then absolutely cannot.

Trying to make a sketch of our own lot just to see where we stand on these new regulations and I can't figure out what is "maintained in an undisturbed state". If it is undisturbed, how can it be maintained?

Also having trouble calculating how to make our property 50% undisturbed as it already is about 80% disturbed if I am correct in assuming that the areas we mow, landscape, and garden plus the buildings, driveway and decks are disturbed area. This gets pretty confusing! Our 18,000 foot lot is already at about 25% impervious so I guess I can't do anything. Has anyone looked at what this will do to property values?

Again, I'm all for protecting the lakes, but this sure looks like it is meant to stop development without necessarily any options that will make the water cleaner. Wouldn't it make more sense to look at erosion and runoff, rather than blanket restrictions on surface areas?

Just my thoughts-

[wifi]

...... Has anyone looked at what this will do to property values?

...... rather than blanket restrictions on surface areas?...


Bingo!!! My thought is a year or two, before the buying public realizes what they are considering buying is all they will ever be able to make of it.

Dead slow to full throttle laws. Heck, in last falls revisions of the law, you weren't even allowed to rake the leaves on your lakefront property (disturbing natural vegatation).

Is this the new Democratic slant on the law, or is this just coincidence ?

[tis]

Not only will it be very difficult to improve your home in most cases, it will be hard to maintain it as mentioned. You can only use hand held tools to work on your property. I guess landscapers and those living on the lake who own them, might as well sell their ride on tractors.

[CanisLupusArctos]

Heck, in last falls revisions of the law, you weren't even allowed to rake the leaves on your lakefront property (disturbing natural vegatation).

One of two things would eventually happen:

1) A situation would arise causing such laws to get tested in the Supreme Court with national media attention, or

2) New Hampshire would learn (the hard way) that dense unmaintained woodlands with lots of dead leaves & underbrush
+ nearby houses
+ an unusually dry summer
+ a carelessly tossed cigarette or lightning strike
= the sort of 100-year disaster that NH foresters have been warning is now several years overdue... or a smaller scale: One house catches fire, and the wind carries embers along the densely wooded shoreline scorching everything in its path (including neighboring houses) until meeting with water or a change in wind direction. All that's needed is lots of dry, unmaintained woodland and the right weather conditions, which we had plenty of last summer.

[tis]

Cla, they will be happy if the houses burn down, but not happy if all the trees are gone.

[meteotrade]

One of two things would eventually happen:
One house catches fire, and the wind carries embers along the densely wooded shoreline scorching everything in its path (including neighboring houses) until meeting with water or a change in wind direction. All that's needed is lots of dry, unmaintained woodland and the right weather conditions, which we had plenty of last summer.

Wow, excellent point!

Here's another thing the authors of the SPA failed to consider: Bears. Don't they realize that dense, wooded areas are prime habitat for these soulless predators? All we need is the right weather (i.e. spring) and these ravenous beasts will emerge from their dens, terrorizing the lake side forests in their endless quest for honey and picnic baskets. Just another example of how the new SPA is bound to fail us.

[lakershaker]

hi Shore Thing,
On our island building, we don't have a dug foundation, but rather poured concrete piers with the regular old ground underneath and the house propped up above the ground. As far as runoff is concerned, rainwater is free to travel under our place and be absorbed into the ground. Does this type of structure change the calculation at all, or is it still considered the same as a dug foundation? And, if an outbuilding was added at a later date of similar elevated construction, would that be an easier process?
Thanks,
Lakershaker

[CanisLupusArctos]

In forested areas of other parts of the country (except old growth,) officials are teaching and encouraging people to maintain their forest so that only the healthiest trees stand, and to remove underbrush and debris. This is because in many locations they learned (the hard way) that their forest protection rules were actually encouraging fires (and other problems like disease and parasites) that caused the loss of forest, a huge expense in disaster relief and insurance claims, and unfortunately human life as well.

Old growth forest really does maintain itself. In most areas of the country (including NH) we have new growth because people clear-cut everything up until the 1940s. When the logging stopped, all the seeds sprang up all at once, resulting in these trees we have now... too close to each other... over-competing for nutrients... no tree reaching its full potential... lots of dead or dying stuff... it's a situation that's not good for man nor forest.

I didn't come to this area for a ritzy subdivision shoreline or I would've chosen California or Florida... and certainly not to hear rumbling bulldozers and backup alarms or else I wouldn't have moved away from the city. I'm all for protecting the NH environment for those reasons, but in the last few years I've seen nature itself show us why over-protection is just as harmful as no protection... like when a whole forest burns down because environmentalists over-protected it. Or when those same well-meaning people cause deer to become overpopulated and lure their predators into backyards where those predators discover that people are a lot easier to catch and they don't shoot, as they always used to.

The motto "leave no trace" has its time and place in the wilderness, but otherwise we need to look at ourselves as an important part of the ecosystem: Good stewards. To be a good steward requires action, like tending a garden. Environmental policy here in the northeast is slowly forcing humans to think of themselves as "Invisible spectators" rather than active stewards. Granted, some people refuse to be either good stewards nor invisible spectators; the rest of us should rise up against them and make their actions unpopular. We don't need laws in order to do that because nobody wants to be shunned.

Some areas of the country have already tried making people invisible spectators of the environment, and they've realized (at great expense to the environment and people) that it doesn't work. We should learn from them. One might say, "Stuff that happens in those places never happens here in the northeast." Such words have been spoken many times in the last few years, and nature keeps proving them wrong.

Whether we are environmentalists or corporate builders makes no difference to nature: It's constantly proving itself a step ahead of both--often painfully. Therefore the safest place is somewhere in the middle.

[Just Sold]

The "New Rules" became effective today. We had an office a meeting with one of the people who was on one of the committes that wrote a section of the rules today. There was more than one committe. He said if the lot is a new one it will be tough getting it approved if it is say <10,000 sq. ft. A lot of record will still have to comply but may not necessarily be rejected to build on.

For Islands one interesting thing is that you have to have a "plan" for bringing your construction-heavy equipment on and off shore along with a restoration plan for the first 50' it will cross. If your island is lucky enough, like on Rattlesnake's NW corner, to have a landing for such equipment that saves the expense of the plan etc.

He also said that "new" waterfront lot development will be expensive due to the new rules even if it has the frontage, setbacks and size to meet all the requirements.

Even adding a second floor without increasing the footprint of the building will require permiting from the state. One particular rule says that you can only have an impervious area equal to 20% of the total lot size. Impervious areas include the cottage/home (the area under the roof overhang and not the walls of the building) paved/stone/gravel walkways and driveways, sheds, decks, patios etc. Grass and undeveloped areas are not included. Also be aware that in the 50' set back you can only trim the low cover growth to no less than 3' in height so long as it does not cause damage to the plant. No raking or altering the 50' setbacks either. If it falls to the ground it has to stay where it fell. Trees are limited as to how much you can trim them for views. You can have a 6' wide path to the water though.

Septic requirements are tightening as well. 75' setbacks (to lot lines and water areas) and 2' above the high water table must still be met. This means smaller lots, such as <10,000 sq.ft., on some small lakes and ponds in NH may not be able to get a septic system approval which some did in the past. This could negatively effect the value of these properties and make them questionable for year round use.

Many rivers and streams are now "Protected" and fall under the Shoreland Protection Act. You may have seen these signs popping up where roads pass over them.

[codeman671]

So basically the shoreline belongs to the state while the landowners pay taxes on it. "Live Free Or Die..."

I heard that the same point was brought up in a meeting with DES and the DESpeaker did not know how to answer that when asked. This came from someone who attended. Very interesting indeed.

[meteotrade]

it's a situation that's not good for man nor forest.


And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=10003)

[meteotrade]

I heard that the same point was brought up in a meeting with DES and the DESpeaker did not know how to answer that when asked. This came from someone who attended. Very interesting indeed.

Think of it like an easement. I pay taxes on the sidewalk which runs through the front of my land, and I have to take care of it, too. Hardly seems fair, but that's life. :)

[wifi]

Think of it like an easement......

Lots of waterfront people bought their property with the expectation of using their land like everyone else has for decades. Now the state comes along and makes rules preventing people from using this property, that they have already purchased with prior reasonable expectations, without compensating said people....

Sounds like these 'said people' are not only getting screwed, but this 'expectation' is no longer valid, meaning their property is worth a LOT less should they try to sell or be forced to sell or can't afford to sit back and wait for the boat to right itself.

Another arrow in the side of the regional economy.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Makes me wonder how bright it was to purchase the adjacent lot to keep it from being immediately developed. I wonder how long it will be until we can't walk on it?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=10003)

Metrotrade,
I think they named the bill after this guy. Thanks to him for causing the spark of this bright idea. I just want to pick up a dead branch and move some leaves off the nature path so my mom does not slip. Why do I think the guy with the best lawyer will still do what ever they want.

[codeman671]

Lots of waterfront people bought their property with the expectation of using their land like everyone else has for decades. Now the state comes along and makes rules preventing people from using this property, that they have already purchased with prior reasonable expectations, without compensating said people....

Sounds like these 'said people' are not only getting screwed, but this 'expectation' is no longer valid, meaning their property is worth a LOT less should they try to sell or be forced to sell or can't afford to sit back and wait for the boat to right itself.

Another arrow in the side of the regional economy.

This is a great climax after the already wonderful "View Tax" that some have been assessed for. I heard a story about a parcel in the Pittsburg area that the town or state nailed the owner with a $6k tax increase for a view tax on an undeveloped lot.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Codeman 671
This is a great climax after the already wonderful "View Tax" that some have been assessed for. I heard a story about a parcel in the Pittsburg area that the town or state nailed the owner with a $6k tax increase for a view tax on an undeveloped lot.
If that's true then the owner of the lot should apply for "Current Use" designation on the undeveloped parcel.
Originally posted by wifi
Lots of waterfront people bought their property with the expectation of using their land like everyone else has for decades. Now the state comes along and makes rules preventing people from using this property, that they have already purchased with prior reasonable expectations, without compensating said people....
I will speculate that sooner rather than later some attorney who is caught in the trap that you describe will bring a major lawsuit against the state for what could be argued is an emminent domain landtaking without fair market compenstion.

[CanisLupusArctos]

And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=10003)

Previous posts in this thread, as well as parts of the law (as I read it) indicated that doing so much as raking leaves was against the law. So... if what you say is true, then I am now confused.

And no, I am not THAT worried about a forest fire. I stated in a previous post (and will now repeat as a summary) that my opinions are more middle-of-the-road... opposed to overdone development as posted in the photo you linked to, but also opposed to overdone laws. My thing with the forest fires was my way of illustrating the following statement: "Overdone laws often end up causing more harm than good, often to the very things they're designed to protect." I would've illustrated my opposition to overdone development if I didn't think all of us were already familiar with it.

[jrc]

Funny thing is the new law will cause more development like the Bahre Mansion, Ok maybe not that big.

But a moneyed builder can buy the necessary acerage, file all the forms, hire all the engineers, surveyors and hydrologists to build pretty much anything he wants. Except maybe a boathouse.

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes. The tax assesor will never believe it's worthless. Maybe that's a good goal but if you're effectively taking this guys property, he should be compensated.

[Merrymeeting]

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes.

Or more likely sell it to the monied buyer looking to piece 4-5 of these together to build the McMansion in your earlier paragraph.

[Onshore]

I'm going to be just a little busy here for the next couple of days, but I'll try to find time to get to as many of these questions as I can today. Quickly though, comments about the state owning the land but individuals paying taxes on it... Individuals own the land but the government (local, state, or federal) has a right to regulate the activities on it to protect and preserve the health and well-being of the general public. In this instance it would be with the intent of protecting the quality of water and preventing erosion and flooding. As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional... or so I've been told by various attorneys. The shoreland staff is not comprised of attorneys and we are not in a position to argue property rights issues. Questions about the environment or the implentation of the law we were given to enforce we can handle. We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.

[tis]

As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional...



We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.


shore things, the problem is, it IS VERY prohibitive! I think you will be seeing lots of attorneys.

[jrc]

Or more likely sell it to the monied buyer looking to piece 4-5 of these together to build the McMansion in your earlier paragraph.

Good point.


....As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional...We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers...

I'm not expecting the bureaucracy to fix this themselves, they are foot soldiers and must just follow orders. Terms like prohibitive, reasonable and constitutional are usually defined by people in robes.

My point was just watch out for unintended consequences.

[codeman671]

Funny thing is the new law will cause more development like the Bahre Mansion, Ok maybe not that big.

But a moneyed builder can buy the necessary acerage, file all the forms, hire all the engineers, surveyors and hydrologists to build pretty much anything he wants. Except maybe a boathouse.

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes. The tax assesor will never believe it's worthless. Maybe that's a good goal but if you're effectively taking this guys property, he should be compensated.

I may be wrong, but had heard that they cannot deem a property that WAS buildable under the previous laws to be non-buildable now.

[jrc]

OK maybe I got carried away. Time will tell, but given enough money and time with permits, exisiting 100' x 100' lots are probably buildable.

Many on this board have complained up and down about the change in the lake from working people in camps to rich people in mansions. This law can only accelerate that process. Maybe that's a good thing, it probably means less people overall and less houses per foot of shoreline. Less boats but probably bigger boats.

[Orion]

Excellent original post CanisLupusArctos!

[meteotrade]

Previous posts in this thread, as well as parts of the law (as I read it) indicated that doing so much as raking leaves was against the law. So... if what you say is true, then I am now confused.


I think the paranoia stems from the section of the act which states that 50%of the woodland buffer must be maintained in an "undisturbed state". The spirit of the phrase is to prevent the destruction of the natural habitation in favor of landscaped improvements like giant lawns, beaches, etc. example (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=1364) A few paranoid folks have interpreted this to mean that they aren't allowed to pick up dead branches or leaves, which is entirely untrue. Enforcers of the new law are going to have much bigger fish to fry than some guy who's raking his yard.

[CanisLupusArctos]

It seems almost everywhere you look, increased regulation brings the most hardship on the people with the least money. The little people who actually care about the world around them get shut out because they can't afford the cost of compliance with regulations, which allows the wealthiest take over because they can. They bring their attitude, "Fines are the cost of doing business" and buy whatever public officials they need in order to get illegal things done legally. When the cost of being here (or the cost of anything) gets high enough, it takes on a 'snob appeal' for people who like to brag about how much they pay for things. And usually, those are the same people who don't care about anyone else's environment but their own.

[jeffk]

I may be wrong, but had heard that they cannot deem a property that WAS buildable under the previous laws to be non-buildable now.

Just because they can't legally stop you from building doesn't mean that they can't throw so many roadblocks in the way that, for most people, it has the same effect.

Just from the discussion on this forum is far from clear to me exactly what the effect of these changes will be. Shore Things seems to be stating that the commission is looking for guidance. I accept that the willingness to discuss with the public is a wonderful thing but the fact that this is now the required "Law of the land" without anyone really understanding what it means is a disaster in the making.

A example to consider might be the EPA laws and regulations. Now every time a project is started there must be a massive review of the habitat. If one blue-green frog lives in the area instead of just plain green frogs, everything comes to a halt. Developers with deep pockets develop exotic and expensive plans to mitigate the "threat" to the blue-green frog. They build a blue-green frog condo and import a harem of blue-green frogs to keep it happy. Developers with less assets simply give up. What's the take away lesson? Those with big bucks pretty much get what they want.

OK maybe I got carried away. Time will tell, but given enough money and time with permits, exisiting 100' x 100' lots are probably buildable.

Many on this board have complained up and down about the change in the lake from working people in camps to rich people in mansions. This law can only accelerate that process. Maybe that's a good thing, it probably means less people overall and less houses per foot of shoreline. Less boats but probably bigger boats.

I think you are right on target jrc. The big money people will be the only ones who have the ability to deal with the confusing and shifting regulations. They will pay a lawyer lots of money to steer it through. Since the law doesn't specifically prevent them from developing but instead puts a regulatory minefield in their way, they will eventually prevail. Joe average will just throw up his hands and give up or do it on the sly. He will get caught and fined, not because he wasn't legally entitled to build what he wanted but because he couldn't afford to do the paperwork.

When a person is prevented from using their property by the state and the value of the property is diminished because of the state rules the property has effectively been seized and compensation should be paid. If the public wants the control of the land for their "protection" then they should pay for that control. How about if a lakefront property owner wants to make changes it is the state that must pay for all the regulatory work. i.e if it costs me $200,000 in legal and other fees to validate that I can modify my property as I wish to, the state pays me $200,000. If the public wants the benefit of protection, they pay the bills for it.

[idigtractors]

What I have read only here on the forum my feelings are that a good 90% of what is being tried to be done is all good. This trying to save the land and waters of the state of NH for us and the future ones that are coming along has to be done at some point. Whenever they decide to try and make a workable solution it will defiantly is not going to please everyone as they get caught up with things that they were not expecting. Is that to say, well we will let you do your project, but the next person then complains as he got caught. It just has to be done at any given point. Yes it would be great that all the changes were written in layman's terms so that everyone one knew exactly where they stand. At the present everyone is reading into everything the way they want to.
We just need to sit on our hands and let the committees do there job and hopefully everything they do helps correct our sadden conditions of our natural environment even if it does mean we do not rake our leaves. :)

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I'm going to be just a little busy here for the next couple of days, but I'll try to find time to get to as many of these questions as I can today. Quickly though, comments about the state owning the land but individuals paying taxes on it... Individuals own the land but the government (local, state, or federal) has a right to regulate the activities on it to protect and preserve the health and well-being of the general public. In this instance it would be with the intent of protecting the quality of water and preventing erosion and flooding. As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional... or so I've been told by various attorneys. The shoreland staff is not comprised of attorneys and we are not in a position to argue property rights issues. Questions about the environment or the implementation of the law we were given to enforce we can handle. We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.

If the only goal is to protect the water quality then why don't they give us the option to build closer to the lake and collect all the rain water that falls on the roof and pump it 250 feet away from the lake to take a filtered ride back to the lake or replenish the aquifer . That would make the result a net increase in water quality for the lake. I think I like reasonable limits on tree cutting as it protects all of our value and mutual enjoyment. Trying to spell everyones situation out in a house bill seems a bit of a stretch.

Not sure how we should all react the next time we see someone get around the rules that apply to the rest of us. Hope to see pictures of it here.

[Belkin]

I take the following statement within the Shoreland Protection Act to mean that you can rake leaves in areas where three are no existing fallen leaves. You might also interpret it to imply that anything that grows or falls after April 1, 2008 can be removed (i.e. you are encouraged but not required to add additional plants to areas that previously did not have any):

(v) Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to April 1, 2008 may maintain but not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches, within the waterfront buffer.

However, in areas where there is natural ground cover:

(C) No natural ground cover shall be removed except as necessary for a foot path to water as provided under RSA 483-B:9,

where natural ground cover includes:

Natural ground cover shall also include naturally occurring leaf or needle litter, stumps, decaying woody debris, stones, and boulders.


I think this is where the feeling that you can not rake your yard comes from. And if your yard is composed of "natural ground cover", I think that belief is correct. It would appear that picking up a decaying stick from wooded areas of your yard within 50 feet of the water would not be allowed.

[codeman671]

Is there going to be a limitation to future installations of perched beaches?

[AQUAMAN]

My belief is that everyone wants to protect the waters of NH. Education through lawmaking is really the only way. The real issue is the Department or more specific the persons within the Department that oversee the permitting and enforcement of the laws. With the same key people that have given the Wetlands Board the worst reputation of any DES department heading up the CSPA, it will not take long for this reputation to carry over. I attended a seminar at DES given by an in-house consultant who is responsible for fixing the lack of customer service within the Wetlands Board. The sentiment rang loud and clear; it is not the laws but the attitudes of the persons within the department. I have had two applications reviewed by the same person within 6 months of each other so the laws are the same. The first is approved after meeting certain requests for more information (RFMIs) and 6mos later the issues or RFMI's are completely different. This lack of consistency is very frustrating but most of all very expensive. So I embrace the CSPA and its intention but I am very nervous of what lies ahead.

[Merrymeeting]

Similar to what Aquaman stated, I've had direct, similar, experience with DES. Clear violation of the existing laws (a shorefront lot that cleared every piece of vegatation from the lot without permits). I went through the formal process of submitting the paperwork to report it.

Twice it was kicked back for petty, bureacratic information updates. Finally they came back and admitted that they didn't have the personnel or time to investigate. This was under the old laws.

So, other than adding an administrative and cost nightmare for "the little guy", how is this going to help?

[Steveo]

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

1. Can you put a set point well in within the 50 ft area? What about the disturbance cause by digging a ditch for the supply line to the house.

2. Can you add a foundation to an existing home that is on piers now, same footprint.

3. Can you replace the decking on a crib dock.

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help

[GWC...]

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

1. Can you put a set point well in within the 50 ft area? What about the disturbance cause by digging a ditch for the supply line to the house.

2. Can you add a foundation to an existing home that is on piers now, same footprint.

3. Can you replace the decking on a crib dock.

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help
Now that the word is out, you will be the proud owner of a bony beach.

The WLB will only allow a perch beach situation; no more dumping sand in the Lake. It has been this way for some time - you have been lucky.

[eyenotall777]

The links below may answer your question in regards to sand/beach:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wetlands/guidebook/beach.htm

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/bb-15.htm

[idigtractors]

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help

The state has told me in the past years that any sand being put on the shore/in the water has to have a permit.($50) I did it twice and it wasn't the easiest thing to do as letters had to be sent to abutters and a map with all kinds of dimensions had to be submitted. That is just part of it. Them telling me this I would say what you have being doing in the past is wrong. :)

[Gatto Nero]

The state has told me in the past years that any sand being put on the shore/in the water has to have a permit.($50) I did it twice and it wasn't the easiest thing to do as letters had to be sent to abutters and a map with all kinds of dimensions had to be submitted. That is just part of it. Them telling me this I would say what you have being doing in the past is wrong. :)

Steveo,

With regard to your past transgressions, kindly fill out the attached form and send it to DES immediately. By turning yourself in you can feel good about doing the right thing and, if what Aquaman says is true, you'll never have to actually pay the price. :rolleye2:

[jeffk]

The links below may answer your question in regards to sand/beach:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wetlands/guidebook/beach.htm

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/bb-15.htm

The original question was "Can I replace beach sand that washes out?

Here is just ONE of the questions that would need to be answered as part of your application to BEG the state to be able to maintain your property.

(7) The impact on plants, fish, and wildlife including:
a. Rare, special concern species;

b. State and federally listed threatened and endangered species;

c. Species at the extremities of their ranges;

d. Migratory fish and wildlife; and

e. Exemplary natural communities identified by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) - Department of Resources and Economic Development.

Could anyone on this forum honestly answer this question? I am a technically oriented person and I wouldn't even know where to start.
Could even an expert in Marine biology really answer this type of question properly and accurately?
Would you need to survey the lake to determine all the possible marine life and wildlife that exist in the lake in the off chance that one of them may one day wander near your beach and somehow be impacted by the cubic yard of sand you want to dump to fill in some holes?

When laws add ridiculous complexity to simple and reasonable processes people will eventually start to ignore or sidestep the laws and take their chances. Before too long only multimillionaires will be able to address the type of regulations being foisted upon us and if you think they will be satisfied with small houses, think again. For those upset with the Bahre estate, wait until there are hundreds of such properties because such owners will be the only ones that have the capability to deal with the regulations, or pay the fines when they break them.

[Gatto Nero]

Here is just ONE of the questions that would need to be answered as part of your application to BEG the state to be able to maintain your property.



"Sometimes, it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" -Grace Hopper.

I think Steveo will back her up on this one. :)

[wifi]

........When laws add ridiculous complexity to simple and reasonable processes people will eventually start to ignore or sidestep the laws and take their chances. Before too long only multimillionaires will be able to address the type of regulations being foisted upon us and if you think they will be satisfied with small houses, think again. For those upset with the Bahre estate, wait until there are hundreds of such properties because such owners will be the only ones that have the capability to deal with the regulations, or pay the fines when they break them.

Right on target, Thanks Jeff.

These laws were quickly baked up, primarily with an implementation date in mind, without considering their consequences and "collateral damage".

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?


I am struggling with the State saying that raking the area around a picnic table is a problem for the lake but placing sand that routinely washes away in the lake is OK with permission????

[ITD]

I'm struggling with the fact that this law isn't a requirement for 2.5 miles from the water instead of 250 feet. What people are doing 1 mile from the lake can have just as much impact, or even more since the numbers are greater than some poor slob who picks up sticks. We seem to be very willing to limit the rights and freedoms of small groups of people as long as it doesn't affect us. I wonder if the local town folk a little further from the water would feel the same if they had to follow these inane rules. I've said it before, I'll say it again. A few morons don't follow the rules and clear cut their land. The reaction, instead of following and enforcing the present rules, is to come up with these draconian measures that are nearly impossible to enforce and penalize all shorefront owners. Another sign of the do gooder, meddlesome mentality from down here in the Flatlands. We all know how things work out down here.......

[Orion]

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.

[Lakegeezer]

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.The problem with this rule is that the high water mark keeps changing. My small beach front has eroded over 8 feet towards my house in the past 15 years. It erodes with the wake of deep displacement craft when the lake is well above "full". I'd sure like to replenish my beach back to where it used to be. I'm concerned that my legally built property will become encumbered within the 50 foot setback as the erosion continues, and I'd like to fight it without a lot of paperwork.

The shoreline protection act should have included a clause that when the lake level is above 504.5 feet, a lake-wide no-wake rule is in effect. No-wake was declared in 1998, but not in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when we had three 100+ year floods in a row.

[codeman671]

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.

Exactly. The purpose of a perched beach is to have all sand above the high water mark. If you do not have a perched beach and your sand is below the high water mark, you are going to lose it to the lake consistently. I think that what they are trying to prevent is people just dumping loads of sand on their shoreline so that it gets washed into the lake, creating a nice sandy bottom.

[neckdweller]

The reality of the new law is that how people coexist with their neighbors will play a large part in who does what.

Obviously clearcutting a lakefront lot won't be happening but people adding sand to their beach, doing the typical landscaping they've done in the past, etc. will continue so long as they don't fear that their neighbors will be filling out one of those forms.

For those people who have an uneasy realtionship with their neighbors, they may think twice and be looking over their shoulder before yanking that weed out of the ground.

[Orion]

The reality of the new law is that how people coexist with their neighbors will play a large part in who does what.

You nailed it!

[eyenotall777]

Would beach associations be exempt for once every 6yrs replenishment? Just wondering as I know an association who has been adding sand every year.....:laugh:

Guess they don't know the rules either.

[Gatto Nero]

The reality of the new law is that how people coexist with their neighbors will play a large part in who does what.


I believe that is very true. I'm also pretty sure my neighbor's lawyer has a complaint form partially filled out so he can save time the next time I rake the yard.

[CanisLupusArctos]

I'm also pretty sure my neighbor's lawyer has a complaint form partially filled out so he can save time the next time I rake the yard.

Of course, this sort of thing would backfire on the law itself. A system overloaded with complaints of this type would quickly become inefficient, and the workload would create an "overworked & underpaid" mentality within the DES that has already happened to many government agencies. Most recent case-in-point (this week): The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) Too much paperwork, too many planes & pilots to regulate, too little time, and they can't pay their employees enough to care.

[Gatto Nero]

Of course, this sort of thing would backfire on the law itself. A system overloaded with complaints of this type would quickly become inefficient, and the workload would create an "overworked & underpaid" mentality within the DES that has already happened to many government agencies. Most recent case-in-point (this week): The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) Too much paperwork, too many planes & pilots to regulate, too little time, and they can't pay their employees enough to care.

Exactly. That's probably already the case. I think the people at the DES really do care about what they are doing but they're overloaded, and these new rules can only make matters worse.

[neckdweller]

I'm in a good situation with my neighbors - all of us have had the houses in the families for 40 or so years. We had talked about the new Moultonborough/State rules in the fall and I don't foresee any problems between us.

At the other end of the spectrum are some of the people that live nearby. Due to the closeness of the houses there's a general tension among the homeowners. Given the relatively innocuous activities that will lead to a violation and knowing the nature of these people, I can see multiple violations being reported.

As already mentioned, this won't be good for the workload of the DES and could ultimately lead to a paperwork nightmare.

[Belkin]

Would beach associations be exempt for once every 6yrs replenishment? Just wondering as I know an association who has been adding sand every year.....:laugh:

Guess they don't know the rules either.


Based on my reading of the rules last night, replenishing sand is a "minmal" impact project only if it is for a single family home and less than 50 feet of waterfront and less than 20 percent of the total properties waterfront. I think an association replenishing sand on a significant beech would be considered a "major" impact project.

I also looked at the form that you use to complain if someone is breaking the rules. It looks like complaining of a violation may be more difficult than applying for a permit. They also specifically mention in the instructions that the complaint should not be used just for getting back at your neighbor. Hopefully, they are only interestested in flagrant violations.

[tis]

My only wish is those of you who think the DES means well and is only trying to protect the lake, have the privilege of applying for a permit from them. Then please post and tell us how delightful the process was.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Today as I drove to work to help pay some taxes I passed a state park littered with tons of pine needles under the massive pines around the local lake. The needles providing a valuable filter to the rain that was falling.

Then I thought about the impending annual clean up that will remove all of that natural material in contradiction to the new rules for the states lakes.:rolleye1:

I have decided to spend some time at the park tomorrow and get some before shots for what is sure to be a frustrating set of after pictures.:(

It will be interesting to see if the State feels compelled to follow the rules or will they find them as ridiculous as we do?

Maybe when one of us gets arrested for picking a flower without a permit, the pictures will at least give the jury something to laugh at.:laugh:

[Onshore]

In answer to all of the comments on raking the leaves and pine needles...

RSA 483-B:9 V, (a)(2)(D)(v) "Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to April 1, 2008 may maintainbut not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches, within the waterfront buffer. Conversion to or planting of cleared areas with native species of ground cover, shrubs, saplings, and trees is encouraged but shall not be required unless it is necessary to meet the requirements of..." The citations then refer to new construction resulting in more than 20 % impervious surface and modification of non-conforming structures.

RSA 483-B:9 V, (b) puts no restriction on the removal of detritus or leaf litter but keep in mind that if you excavate you will need a permit so please use a hand rake as the use of a york rake will get you into some trouble.

Rule Env-Wq 1406.04, Additional Activities in Protected Shoreland That Do Not Require a Shoreland Permit, (c) (7) Maintenance of a grandfathered open area, such as by mowing a lawn, raking leaves or pine needles, or mulching landscaped areas.

Rule Env-Wq 1406.04, Additional Activities in Protected Shoreland That Do Not Require a Shoreland Permit, (c) (8) Planting of non-invasive vegetation or maintenance of existing gardens within the allowable disturbed area using hand-held tools.

"Hand-held" tools does include power augers and roto-tillers provided they are hand-held (as in not attached to the PTO of a wheeled or tracked vehicle). The idea is if it requires equipment that is ridden or driven the potential for serious impacts is significant enough that maybe we ought to look at it.

In short, don't think for a moment that you can use the CSPA as an excuse to get out of doing your usual spring and fall yard work...

[Gatto Nero]

My only wish is those of you who think the DES means well and is only trying to protect the lake, have the privilege of applying for a permit from them. Then please post and tell us how delightful the process was.

The summer of '05 was my first as a shore front owner. Back then I knew nothing about the DES or the Shoreland Protection rules. In the 34 months since that time I have argued two appeals before the Wetlands Counsel, had three wetlands applications accepted, one of them twice, and successfully defended myself against two complaints that were filed against me by an abutter. So I think I qualify to comment.

Two of the permits were PBNs that I completed and filed on my own. They were a breeze. The third is a major impact project that I inherited from the previous owner, in the middle of the process, that had lots of unsightly hair all over it. I had to jump through more hoops then than a circus dog on that one, but none of those hoops had anything to with DES people trying to sabotage my project. In fact, they were very helpful. It all had to do with making sure I followed the letter of the law in order to prove the I qualified for requested project. It was, and still is, a huge time sink. It certainly was no bed of roses going through it all, but I understand the reasons behind it and, SHOCKER, I even agree with it.

Do I dread these new rules coming into effect? My house is a preexisting, non-conforming structure that I wish was a little bigger, so you bet. I have no doubt it's going to be a royal pain in my hind side if I ever decide to expand. I've read the changes from cover to cover more than once and I still can't figure out how it will actually affect a project that I have in mind for a few years from now. Even though I probably have more experience now than the average Joe Home Owner, I have serious doubts that I will be able to properly complete my next application on my own. But again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the people who are charged with enforcing those rules.

[tis]

So shore things, does that mean you can't use a ride on tractor to mow your lawn? We have been mowing our lawn with a ride on tractor for 25 years, now we can't?

I, also have read the act over and over and believe it is open to interpretation as most things like this are. However, it is my belief from reading it that if you have a small, old, camp and want to enlarge it, and it is an undersize lot, it is going to be almost impossible to get a permit to enlarge it. shore things?

[Onshore]

Rule Env-Wq 1406.04 (c) (7) does not specify that the mowing equipment must be "hand-held" so, no, there is nothing to say that you can't use a riding lawn mower.

As for old camps on small lots... we've been dealing with them for years now. The fact that there are lots that are so small that owners couldn't possibly meet the primary building setback isn't a new problem. RSA 483-B:10 states quite clearly that if a lot would otherwise be buildable, the CSPA cannot be used to prevent the construction of a single family dwelling on it. If you can get a septic system in on a lot and there is not some other legal restriction on the property then the law says you must be allowed to build. The law does allow DES to put conditions on the contruction but only those conditions that would be need to protect water quality to best meet the intent of the CSPA. These conditions would be things like implementing a stormwater management plan to account for the inability to meet the impervious surface requirements.

[tis]

You make it sound so nice and easy, shore things. Too bad is isn't REALLY like that to deal with you people.

[Formula260SS]

You make it sound so nice and easy, shore things. Too bad is isn't REALLY like that to deal with you people.

Tis I think thats out of line, I believe we are very fortunate to have Shore Things here responding to questions in this open forum. I feel that in prior communication feedback has been taken from this forum and at least listened to.

I have dealt with DES on a major impact project myself and found the people I have worked with to be very helpful. You may not like it but don't make comments like that to someone who is going out of their way to be helpful, Shore Things has gone above and beyond what I'm sure is required of his/her job by being here.

[ApS]

You make it sound so nice and easy, shore things. Too bad is isn't REALLY like that to deal with you people.
In defense of shore things, I've had mostly pleasant results in e-mails and speaking with her in what must be a thankless, bureaucratic job.

When shifted to a DES subordinate, however, things got dismissive. :(

In the mid-80s, the state blocked many of us from selling abutting lots, so I should be upset; however, like Gatto Nero, I understand the need to protect the lake from excessive development. Where NH lakes are "backwards", and fringed with cathedral pines, the water quality is the highest in the state.

My last contact with shore things regarded a giant mudslide into the lake, bypassing "state-of-the-art" erosion barriers. (An orange polyester mesh "log" filled with wood chips). The mudslide into the lake continued for several weeks, when shore things advised me she would shortly drive out personally to inspect the scene. (I had departed the Lakes Region that week.)

I was temporarily confounded when she advised that she did not see the violations. :eek2: :confused: :eek:

The next day, a neighbor told me that the night prior to the inspection, the mudslide had been covered with a foot of snow! :emb: (Still giving shore things a gold star for effort, though.) :)

Just another of the vexations dealing with trying to save the lake from algae, save the shoreline from excessive structure resulting in impervious soil runoff—but fully confounded by quirky NH weather—covering this moonscape:

[tis]

Formula, I am sorry you took that as a nasty comment. It wasn't meant to be. I just meant that she is certainly trying to soften the blow for us when we all find out what this is about. For instance, I truly don't think people will be allowed to enlarge their home if it is on an undersized lot. I think a lot of people are in for a shock.

It is very good of shore things to comment on here. I have gotten more answers on here, than we have gotten through her in Concord. It takes ten phone calls and then you have to find out the status of your permit online.

I am glad the people were very helpful to you. Maybe you can tell me how you did it? We did not do the permit ourselves. We never ever could have done it and I consider us to be pretty saavy.

I am just saying it was avoidance all the way with us. It drags out to over a year of stalling, sending letters saying things like it isn't complete, and you have to call them and say it is, and then it takes them a couple of months to say: " Oh, yes, it Is COMPLETER." Things like that. I don't want to give too many details right now.

Thank you shore things for responding on here. Maybe there is a better way for all of us to communicate.

[fatlazyless]

"Now just look at that big house....why that house is too big for that lot.....and that house is too big for that lot, and that one over there is also too big for its' lot, too" Where are all the trees and woods that used to be seperating the homes?

Go take a boat ride around the lake, look around....it's all wall-to-wall homes, homes and more homes.

Some good stuff is coming out of Concord these days....should have been happening twenty years ago....ayuh! What the heck were folks down in Concord doing for the past 20 years anyway?

So's the new rule is no more than 25% of a lot can be covered by an impervious material which includes driveways made of asphalt or gravel or cobbles or packed soil. Only a driveway made of alive & growing green grass is not considered an impervious driveway.:D

[Formula260SS]

Tis,

just want to make sure we are not killing the messenger. My personal feeling is we are not at an end point with these rules and think that we will see changes yet again in the future, I may be wrong but that's my thought.

I'm not sure what your project is but there are defined time lines that responses have to be made by from DES. I did get the standard "more info needed" letter from them also but responded and we moved forward from there in a timely manner. I believe it is a difficult balance between protecting the lakes and rights of owners and also think the process is skewed a little too far away from owners.

One course of action is to hire a lawyer who is familiar with the laws/practices of DES, I know people will argue the costs and such but if for example you are looking to spend 100K on a project another 5-10% on to of that could be money well spent. I know a few people who handle permits and could direct you in that direction if you want, this is how boat houses have been built for example.

Now the REAL problem, smaller projects !! this is where I have a problem. For the project that is maybe 5-20K that will still require that same amount of paperwork and effort to get a permit, this to me is unacceptable. Here is where I think we will see changes.

I completely AGREE that the "money guys gets the permit" and think it is WRONG ! But, I have also seen structures on the lake that should never have been built but were due to lack of rules and a process. Here is where balance is a major issue.

Do I think the rules have to be adjusted, Yes. Do I think some rules will change, yes. Do I think that the town I live in will let me build a 5000 sq/ft 6 bedroom house on a non conforming lot that will not meet setbacks and septic requirements, don't think so.

[Onshore]

I had read Tis' post and if anything it was frustrating but I wasn't offended by it because his point is legitimate. Wetlands spent a couple of decades earning its reputation for inconsistency; I wouldn't expect anyone to forgive and forget over night. We've been trying to pull it out of the weeds for a while now and although the situation is improving there is still a ways to go. Please keep in mind that this is not just an internal problem. There are some in the regulated community who used the situation to their advantage and don't really want to see it change. Gatto Nero's project is a prime example that we haven't fully corrected the problem yet.

Now Shorelands is under the same roof and that understandably makes people uneasy. It should. One my primary responsibilities is to develop a program that is consistent and "agenda proof". That is part of why the Department pushed to have the approval criteria stated in the law itself and not in the rules. It is also why we wanted quantitative standards such as percent of area limits rather than qualitative standards like "need" and "least impacting alternative" that lend themselves to too much interpretation.

[tis]

You make a lot of good points Formula.

I do think some of these rules are too restrictive. For instance someone with a non conforming lot, who has a tiny, old, less than a 1000 Sq. foot camp, may want to improve and enlarge that-now I am not talking to 5000 feet, but maybe to a livable 1500-2000- will probably not be able to get a permit to build. And although we all love the old camps and hate to see them go, I can tell you most people do not want to live in them for long, or buy them. I had one and everyone looked at it and wanted something newer and nicer. So I think if all this stays as is, lots are going to be reduced in price dramatically on the lake.

I, of course also want to protect the lake, I have owned property on it most of my life, and probably love it more than most. I know there are many who will take advantage. I just think we have to have a reasonable balance.

The problem of course of hiring a lawyer, is not only the money but time! You could take four or five years if you have to go to court. I think the gov. should work WITH us, we should not have to fight them. We hire them, after all, shouldn't they help us, guide us without having to hire lawyers?

I feel that some of the things we were made to do on our project just didn't make sense. It did not make the lot look better, and I can't see how it protected the lake. But it is done and over and so be it.

I hope none of this offends you Formula, shore things, or anyone else. . I am just saying things the way I see them. I hope we have a right to voice our opinions on this forum.

[Formula260SS]

I hope none of this offends you Formula, shore things, or anyone else. . I am just saying things the way I see them. I hope we have a right to voice our opinions on this forum.

Tis, no offense taken at all

With respect to the tiny non conforming lot, at some point a line has to be drawn in the sand within reason. Someone who has owned that small lot with the tiny camp for that last 20 yrs my guess paid about nothing for it. Are restrictive rules fair for this person? not sure. If someone paid 1mm for it in the last few years that's going to hurt but common sense should tell you small lot = small structure. I'm really not trying to open a debate on this specific issue but as Shore Things mentioned in previous posts you can go up.

Again, no offense taken

[ITD]

You make a lot of good points Formula.

I do think some of these rules are too restrictive. For instance someone with a non conforming lot, who has a tiny, old, less than a 1000 Sq. foot camp, may want to improve and enlarge that-now I am not talking to 5000 feet, but maybe to a livable 1500-2000- will probably not be able to get a permit to build. And although we all love the old camps and hate to see them go, I can tell you most people do not want to live in them for long, or buy them. I had one and everyone looked at it and wanted something newer and nicer. So I think if all this stays as is, lots are going to be reduced in price dramatically on the lake.

I, of course also want to protect the lake, I have owned property on it most of my life, and probably love it more than most. I know there are many who will take advantage. I just think we have to have a reasonable balance.

The problem of course of hiring a lawyer, is not only the money but time! You could take four or five years if you have to go to court. I think the gov. should work WITH us, we should not have to fight them. We hire them, after all, shouldn't they help us, guide us without having to hire lawyers?

I feel that some of the things we were made to do on our project just didn't make sense. It did not make the lot look better, and I can't see how it protected the lake. But it is done and over and so be it.

I hope none of this offends you Formula, shore things, or anyone else. . I am just saying things the way I see them. I hope we have a right to voice our opinions on this forum.

Keep speaking out tis, at some point these laws become so restrictive it amounts to a land taking. The government trumps private property rights. Are we there yet, I don't know. Once again most of the problems arose out of inconsistent application of the current laws. So in typical big inefficient government fashion the rules are made way too restrictive when better application of the current law would have sufficed with maybe a tweek or two to the law.

[jeffk]

Speaking for myself I try to be reasonably environmentally conscious. I would welcome a discussion that acknowledges my right to live on, enjoy, and reasonably improve my property. I paid a lot of money for it and continue to pay excessive property taxes on it for the privilege of ownership. Fine. OK. But then it seems that the government takes an adversarial role with it's own citizens.

I'll give one example. I have a beach area that sometimes erodes. I would like to fill it in to compensate for the erosion. 75% of my shore front is absolutely natural, rock, shrubs, and various growth. I don't rake or treat it in any way. I also have no lawn around my house. I understand that sand introduces phosphorus into the water. OK, is it possible to get sand that is neutral for the lake? Could I just get a simple, one page permit that says I will get a cubic yard of "good" sand for the intention of maintaining the "beach" that has been there for the last 20 years or more? I include a simple "before" picture that indicates where I want to do the work. I file the form for $25 buck and proceed. The appropriate agency is now aware of my intentions and can do spot checks to verify I didn't exceed reasonable bounds.

If I want to get a fire permit, I go to the fire station and fill out a form and immediately get my permit. I can be roasting marshmallows in an hour. It seems to me that the vast majority of everyday shore maintenance falls into this category and that most shore front owners would be happy to comply with a straight forward procedure.

It would also be very nice to have a seminar for shore front owners that present the real concerns of managing property on the water along with straight forward and realistic suggestions as how to get improvement in water conditions.

When the state seems to take the approach of "You can't, you can't, you can't" after a while "I can't HEAR you" seems a reasonable response.

[Gatto Nero]

Could I just get a simple, one page permit that says I will get a cubic yard of "good" sand for the intention of maintaining the "beach" that has been there for the last 20 years or more? I include a simple "before" picture that indicates where I want to do the work. I file the form for $25 buck and proceed. The appropriate agency is now aware of my intentions and can do spot checks to verify I didn't exceed reasonable bounds.

It's not quite one page, but a PBN is pretty much what you are describing. See section 13 of the attached. There is a little bit info gathering that needs to be done but most of it (tax map, USGS map, etc.) is available online for free.

[CanisLupusArctos]

I'd like to know if anyone in Concord considered generalized size restrictions on houses built (instead of the new laws we have now.) Seems it would've been a lot simpler and more direct and to-the-point. In many other parts of the country during the height of the housing boom, I saw several national news stories about municipalities that didn't like the number of McMansions popping up or the problems they caused the general community when they became too plentiful. So many started enacting "Enough is enough" laws intended to protect community resources along with the overall appearance of the area. In the long run, I wonder what happens to these giant dwellings when the passage of time brings the next economically-starving era. Will the lake be lined with "historic" abandoned estates rotting away because no one can afford to repair them? People in the 1920s probably never imagined that the grand hotels would be abandoned and estates turned into apartments by the time they were grandparents.

JeffK, have you considered water bars on your property? The AMC uses them on trails to divert water away from the trails and into the woods so the trails won't erode. They're usually no more than timbers or rows of rocks installed diagonally across the flow of runoff water in order to get the storm-induced stream to move over a few feet, thus protecting what's directly downhill of it.

[GWC...]

JeffK, have you considered water bars on your property? The AMC uses them on trails to divert water away from the trails and into the woods so the trails won't erode. They're usually no more than timbers or rows of rocks installed diagonally across the flow of runoff water in order to get the storm-induced stream to move over a few feet, thus protecting what's directly downhill of it.
That might prove a solution from the land-side of the beach area; but what about Mother Nature's actions from the water-side of the beach area?

Storms in the Fall do some serious erosion. The property might be well protected from the NW winds and waves; but very vulnerable to the Eastly winds and waves of the Fall storms.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Shore Things,
I agree with the sentiments here that I do not wish to shoot the messenger! I have learned more from your post than from any other source. As you clear up misunderstandings you do two things. First you help us know what the rules are and second you keep us from abandoning the concept of trying to comply.

I sincerely thank you for your contribution and hope you continue.

Rattlesnake Guy

[CanisLupusArctos]

That might prove a solution from the land-side of the beach area; but what about Mother Nature's actions from the water-side of the beach area?

Storms in the Fall do some serious erosion. The property might be well protected from the NW winds and waves; but very vulnerable to the Eastly winds and waves of the Fall storms.

Oh yeah.. I forgot about that. :look: I'd just gotten back from a hiking trip when I wrote that and apparently left my brain in the mountains! Hmmmmm... seems this might be a situation where one might ask, "What would FLL do?" Maybe start parking the boat stern-in, so every time it starts up, the propeller will blow the sand back closer to the shore? You might also be able to persuade a small army of little kids to see how much sand they can bring back up on shore... you'd be surprised how much volume even two kids with pails & plastic shovels can move on a hot summer day when they don't want to get out of the water. :laugh:

[CanisLupusArctos]

This is from a list of tips for keeping Lake Winnipesaukee's water clean. It was on the website of the Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Association (http://www.winnipesaukee.org), which states it is funded by the DES.
-----
October
Wouldn't it be so easy to just rake the leaves from the yard right into the stream behind our house? No mess, right? Wrong! Vegetative material will add phosphorus and other nutrients directly into the lake as well as create excellent habitat for leeches at your personal swimming area. Keep leaf piles and brush piles at least 250 feet from the shoreline or 50 feet from any other drainage. Never dump leaf or brush piles into the lake or any other drainage area such as a stream, river, or storm drain.
-----

[GWC...]

This is from a list of tips for keeping Lake Winnipesaukee's water clean. It was on the website of the Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Association (http://www.winnipesaukee.org), which states it is funded by the DES.
-----
October
Wouldn't it be so easy to just rake the leaves from the yard right into the stream behind our house? No mess, right? Wrong! Vegetative material will add phosphorus and other nutrients directly into the lake as well as create excellent habitat for leeches at your personal swimming area. Keep leaf piles and brush piles at least 250 feet from the shoreline or 50 feet from any other drainage. Never dump leaf or brush piles into the lake or any other drainage area such as a stream, river, or storm drain.
-----
Too funny...

Will be a busy season cutting all the trees that are within 250 feet of the shore to prevent their leaves from getting in the Lake. :D :laugh: :laugh:

[ApS]

"...Will be a busy season cutting all the trees that are within 250 feet of the shore to prevent their leaves from getting in the Lake..." :D :laugh: :laugh:
Based on the undisturbed shorelines of undeveloped local lakes, the predominating tree was the White Pine. (Which left a valuable, solid, thick mat of dropped pine needles to slow runoff—Nature's filter for the lake).

However, the first logs stacked at roadside by New Hampshire developers are the economically valuable White Pine. (Red Pine is in even more of a decline).

On my own shoreline acre, the builder removed every pine 52 years ago: I'm trying to turn that around by selectively cutting hardwoods for the woodstove. (And beat back the light-stealing Hemlocks.)

Even given another fifty years of this nurturing, our shoreline acre will never again have the filtered sunlight, girth, height, or mat that was on the lot—originally—of White Pine trees.

As a teen, I transplanted a small pine forest into a clearing—not realizing that the power company had made that clearing through our lot. Twenty years later, they cut a major swath through MY FOREST. :eek2: :blush: :fire: :rolleye2:

I'm seeing that new construction has to account for a pre-bulldozer tree inventory. What assurances are given by the Shorelands Protection Act that leafy trees won't eventually take over?
:confused:

[tis]

So has anyone heard what happened on the 16th -did the house vote on it?

[Onshore]

There was no vote on the 16th.

[steadyon]

changes to the CSPA has been laid on the table

[phoenix]

recent e mail from NHSA doubted that the house would extend the deadline or at best July 1

[tis]

Why no vote shore things? Also I heard the state has started relating the size of the house to the size of the septic which hasn't been done before. True? I also heard there is consideration of extending the amount of coverage allowed. ????

[Onshore]

I can't answer the "why"...

There are changes proposed to the impervious criteria. The upper limit would still be 30 % but the requirements associated with it are different. These changes are laid out in SB 352. Nothing on any of these issues is final though until someone puts paper in front of the Governor and it get's signed.

New Septic rules were adopted in February. The State still bases the size of the septic on the number of bedrooms. The biggest difference we are seeing is with developed, undersized lots. If you have an existing camp or house on a lot that is too small to meet the loading standards then you will not be allowed to expand the house or camp in any way. Maintaining existing conditions is allowed, expansion is not, even if it is not technically adding bedrooms. If you have a lot large enough to meet loading standards or are on municipal sewer then this is not an issue.

[tis]

I appreciate you answers, shore things.

[Onshore]

Wish I had something definative to tell you...

[Onshore]

For anyone who's read the latest Citizen article on the Shoreland Rules... The Senate voted to amend a House Bill. Nothing has actually changed yet. HB 1601 has to go back to the House and will only become effective if the House concurs with the amendment and then the Governor signs it. The Shoreland Rules ARE still in effect.

If you haven't seen the article...

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080426/GJNEWS02/199097337/-1/CITIZEN

[tis]

Thanks for that, shore things. There are not many ways to hear what is happening. I have found you and this forum to be the best way.

[Gatto Nero]

Has there been an effort on the part of the state to get the towns to adopt the state rules with regard to building on the shore front? Trying to figure out the state's rules are bad enough when considering expanding a non-conforming structure but I when I add in Meredith's rules on top that it starts to get downright painful. It sure would be nice if the rules aligned.

[tis]

I heard this morning that the Senate has agreed to go along with the House's July 1 date. So in effect, it has been put off until then. True?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Does that mean we have time to do things this spring that will not be possible after July?

[tis]

Yep. But not anything that you could get a permit for in time.

[Onshore]

Actually the Senate amended a House Bill to include a July 1 date. The question has been will the House to go along with it. It will take a few days for the House committee that the bill goes back to now to hear the bill. If they concur with the Senate's amendments then it goes full Senate for final vote, then to the Governor's desk for signature. (Funny I seem to find myself humming "I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill..." from the old Saturday morning schoolhouse rock cartoon waaayyy too often lately...) The revised CSPA is still in effect.

For those of you that want try to get projects in during the interim if it gets rolled back, please be careful. Find a copy of the old law and read it. Make sure that what you're doing does not violate the CSPA. The simple truth of the matter is that the only parts of the CSPA that are any stricter are the impervious surface limits, the fact that you need a permit, and the inclusion of the duff layer in the defination of ground cover.

For example, the removal of the shrub and herbaeceous layer has always been prohibited but was violated about as frequently as the 150 ft headway speed rule. Under the previous language of the CSPA the removal of this layer was prohibited within the full 150 ft woodland buffer. Now it is only prohibited in the first 50 ft and in the minimum, required undisturbed areas between 50 and 150 ft. So again, please make sure that whatever you're doing is not a violation of the version of the law that is in effect at the time you are doing it. When in doubt about what version of the law is in effect and what that particular version actually says, call us at (603) 271-2147. We always have a technical staff member dedicated to answering incoming phone calls.

[Onshore]

The full House voted to pass HB 1601 as amended to include moving the effective dates of the CSPA changes to July 1, 2008 this afternoon. Next stop is the Governor's desk...

[Onshore]

The Governor has signed HB 1061. We are back under the old law and rule language. Re-enactment date will be July 1, 2008

However, three of the new provisions remain in effect, most importantly the minimum setback for primary structures shall be at least 50 ft, town may not maintain a lesser setback. In addition the Saco an Pemigewassett Rivers are no longer exempt, nor is the Town of Sunapee.

[dpg]

What does 80% complete mean?

20% still to go. :laugh::laugh:

[Onshore]

Unless of course your name is Yogi Berra in which case you should stick to fractions because you're horrible with percentages...

[CentreHarborEric]

Wouldn't the new 50'x50'-point system rule as it relates to tree cutting also be delayed now until July 1, 2008?
Are we still under the 50% basal area in a 20 year period rule through July 1, 2008?
Of course the stifling gas prices will help curtail chainsaw operations, but I just want to be sure...

[DickR]

Shore Things:

The post-July 1 rules define the 50x50 foot grid as "starting from the northerly or easterly boundary of the property." If the shorefront runs from NW to SE, is there a choice? Or is this a case where the folks in charge will decide the opposite of whichever I pick?

I have a related question. I've begun a tree survey, in anticipation of some later tree removal. Using a long steel tape and some triangulation, I can come up with a fairly decent map of where the trees are. However, given the typical irregularity of the shoreline, terrain, and slopes, location of any tree could be a couple of feet off. This could put some trees in one grid or another if close. How picky are the Concord office types going to be? I certainly hope I won't have to have an expensive survey crew come and do a "certified tree map." Your comments?

[tis]

Having just been through all this, Dick, we have had more surveys than imaginable! Put one on the payroll right now!

[HUH]

Ive been continualy lanscaping our property for 40 years and still have much to do. Im not going to bulldoze or anything but would only like to plant some more shrubs and create some brick walkways over to the natural beach etc.. Am I allowed to do any of this without getting a permit ? What about repairing the stone wall along the waters edge that seems to tumble more into the lake every year. We have always just put the stones back in place to hold back the soil etc.. Will this now require a permit?
And when will the oxygen we breath be regulated. Im sure the state could somehow levy that to help fill the coffers :confused::confused:

[secondcurve]

I was wondering if anyone knows who I can speak to about the following: My wife and are considering purchasing a property on a pond in the Lakes region. The property in question has a screened porch that comes off of the main living area on the second floor. If we purchase the property, we would like to enclose the screen porch and make it part of the living area. There would be no foundation built under the porch since it is on the second floor. I haven't measured the distance of the porch from the water, but my guess would be that it is 40 feet. My contractor checked with the local code officer and he said that anything within 50-feet of full pond level requires state approval. Would a request such as this have a chance for approval? It doesn't seem like such a change to the structure would have an impact on the environment since we would only be enclosing the porch and not expanding the foundation, etc. If anyone has advice it would be appreciated.

[Gatto Nero]

Secondcurve,

I have no direct experience this this, and I'm certainly no lawyer, but in reading the rules regarding nonconforming structures I think I see some wiggle room.

483-B:11 Nonconforming Structures. –
I. Except as otherwise prohibited by law, nonconforming structures located within the protected shoreland may be repaired, renovated, or replaced in kind using modern technologies, provided the result is a functionally equivalent use. Such repair or replacement may alter the interior design or existing foundation, but shall result in no expansion of the existing footprint except as authorized by the department pursuant to paragraph II. An expansion that increases the sewerage load to an on-site septic system, or changes or expands the use of a septic system or converts a structure to condominiums or any other project identified under RSA 485-A:29-44 and rules adopted to implement it shall require approval by the department. Between the primary building line and the reference line, no alteration shall extend the structure closer to the public water, except that the addition of a deck or open porch is permitted up to a maximum of 12 feet towards the reference line for nonconforming structures erected prior to July 1, 1994.
II. When reviewing requests for the redevelopment of sites that contain nonconforming structures or any expansions of nonconforming structures the commissioner shall review proposals which are more nearly conforming than the existing structures, and may waive some of the standards specified in RSA 483-B:9, so long as there is at least the same degree of protection provided to the public waters. For the purposes of this section, a proposal that is "more nearly conforming'' means a proposal for significant changes to the location or size of existing structures that bring the structures into greater conformity, or a proposal for changes to other aspects of the property, including but not limited to stormwater management, wastewater treatment or traffic volume or flow, or both types of proposal which significantly improve wildlife habitat or resource protection.

It would seem to me, based on the items in bold, that since it's a covered deck it would already be part of the footprint, right? It is not adding any impervious area and there is the same degree of protection to the public waters. It's not clear cut but I would think there is a case to be made. Also, if you have a way of making the place more nearly conforming in some other way (new septic, maybe?) they might be more willing to work with you. One would hope anyway.

[ACutAbove]

Monday the 11th is the next DES show , its well worth the time spent and the $30 bucks if you want to know anything you can or can not do on the waterfront.....

[Gatto Nero]

Unfortunately, it's sold out.

[ACutAbove]

is it, well thats good news..... it means the word is getting out that this well worth the time.

[secondcurve]

Gatto:

Your argument is logical. However, these folks were adamant that we couldn't enclose a porch if it was within 50-feet of the water. It is a huge over reaction in my opinion. On one hand the state allowed an eye sore such as what Bob Bahare did in Alton several years back, but they won't let me enclose a 300 square foot porch that already has screens, a roof and is two stories off the ground.

[Audiofn]

Is there a web site that anyone knows about that tells you what you can and can not do to your waterfront. I am looking for information on tree removal, planting, errosion control..... My place is in Maine but it seems like we have a lot of knowledge on the topic hear so I thought I would give it a try.

It seems like everyone will tell me that there is this rule and that rule then I will find something online that completely contradicts that. I have talked to the code enforcement officer in our town and they are not sure and just tell me to do what ever I want. My concern is that if some one from say the DEP or something like that comes along with more authority then I could be bumming.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[RLW]

Gatto:

Your argument is logical. However, these folks were adamant that we couldn't enclose a porch if it was within 50-feet of the water. It is a huge over reaction in my opinion. On one hand the state allowed an eye sore such as what Bob Bahare did in Alton several years back, but they won't let me enclose a 300 square foot porch that already has screens, a roof and is two stories off the ground.

The Alton code officer (building inspector) is letting a boat shelter (leanto (sp)) within 15 ' of the lake be replaced without state permission so to speak. Now some say it is because he knows and does a lot of work with the contractor doing the work. Who knows.:)

[Pineedles]

I believe the law allows existing structures to be replaced as long as the new structure's "footprint" is no larger. There is alot to be considered when building in the lake region.:)

[secondcurve]

That is correct structures can be replaced within the existing footprint. However, if you are within 50 feet of the water you cannot convert a porch into new "living space". Further, anything within 50 feet of the water is out of the local building inspector's authority. The state controls/regulates building in this zone.

[tis]

I don't believe a boathouse even a lean to boat house can be replaced without a state permit. A dock needs a state permit, a boathouse needs a state permit. And of course now, anything on the water needs a state permit. I think if the state gets wind of that lean to, they will be sure to be there. I do think they will be allowed though if it is a replacement within existing footprint. You are right, secondcurve.

[chipj29]

I was watching the WMUR news this morning, and was about to flip past it, when I saw a familiar face about to come on the business/money segment. It has been a few years, but I knew I recognized Paul Goodwin. He was being interviewed as the President of the NH Shoreline Homeowners Assn. (or something like that). As a non-shorefront owner, I never knew.
Anyway Paul, if you read this, drop me a line...

Chip J. (Lynnfield, Ma)

[Gatto Nero]

Further, anything within 50 feet of the water is out of the local building inspector's authority. The state controls/regulates building in this zone.

That is not completely true. The state does have a say within that zone but the town also has a say. If the town rules are more strict than the state rules then the town rules take precedence. For instance, the state rules say I could build a 12' deck off the front of my non-conforming house but Meredith says I can not build anything closer to the water than I already am.

Now that we have the new state rules in place it would be nice if the towns would conform to them to keep things simple. Trying to meet everybody's rules is a bit ridicules.

[RLW]

That is not completely true. The state does have a say within that zone but the town also has a say. If the town rules are more strict than the state rules then the town rules take precedence. For instance, the state rules say I could build a 12' deck off the front of my non-conforming house but Meredith says I can not build anything closer to the water than I already am.

Now that we have the new state rules in place it would be nice if the towns would conform to them to keep things simple. Trying to meet everybody's rules is a bit ridicules.

This scenario is just about the same in most all states and towns/cities. The state sets the minimum and the towns can add on anything they want even above the written word of National wiring code/State building codes. Sure doesn't sound right and fair, but what in life is fair now a days.:)

[Audiofn]

What I need to do is install some "rip rap" along the waterfront. I did find some info that does say that I need to apply for a permit. Not sure how hard it is to get.... The problem is that the so many family boaters travel up and down our river WAY to fast and I have lost a lot of land these last years. Probably a foot in the last 3! :eek: I have to do something to stop it or we will be bumming! My slope is steep enough that they will allow for the permit (steeper then 33%) if they want to give it to me. I was suprised to read that if you are under 33% you need to plant vegitation to hold back the embankment. I would think that would introduce more problems for the water with the introduction of odd vegitation?

[RLW]

What I need to do is install some "rip rap" along the waterfront. I did find some info that does say that I need to apply for a permit. My slope is steep enough that they will allow for the permit (steeper then 33%) if they want to give it to me. I was suprised to read that if you are under 33% you need to plant vegitation to hold back the embankment. I would think that would introduce more problems for the water with the introduction of odd vegitation?

If I'm correct the Shoreline Protection group has a listing of the different types of trees, low growing bushes and other types of vegetation one can plant in different type of conditions. I will try and locate where that section maybe located.:)

[Pineedles]

I'm curious as to what most people, who are experiencing shoreline erosion, have as far as a shoreline composition. Our shoreline is lined with huge granite boulders of various shapes and sizes and frankly looking at pictures taken over 100 years ago there has been no erosion. The concrete dock put in about the same time is in pretty bad shape but that's more exposure to the ice. I'm not sure what the original shoreline was made up of but unless they evenly spread out the rocks they excavated to build the house, they must be just naturally lining the shore; and I would assume would be on most shorelines on the lake unless people moved them.

[Lakegeezer]

I'm curious as to what most people, who are experiencing shoreline erosion, have as far as a shoreline composition. You bring up a good point Pineedles. While the lake has pushed my beach area back 3 feet over the past 18 years, the beach represents only 11 feet width of the 200 ft frontage. The rest is boulders and seems to be doing OK. I wasn't around when the lot was created in the mid 50's; but stories from the true geezers in the neighborhood are about bulldozers in the water, moving rocks and creating beaches. Man-made structures being eroded by mad-made wake may be the natural course of things.

[Gavia immer]

Our shoreline is lined with huge granite boulders of various shapes and sizes and frankly looking at pictures taken over 100 years ago there has been no erosion.
I'd need to check with DES, but geologically speaking, it's only recently that the lake has been managed to limit damage from winter's ice. For 10,000 unmanaged years, the lake's level has seen many extremes.

I can see where thousands of years of high winter ice allowed the pressure of ice expansion to move boulders into an ancient shoreline. It would be the most extreme of those expansions that made the shoreline of "just" 100 years ago.

Ancient forest fires, modern clear cutting, and the subsidence that resulted has allowed much sand and soil to be washed through that border of boulders. The land erosion you are witnessing would be wave action pulling nutrient-rich soil out from behind those original boulders. Runoff from impervious surfaces speeds the erosion.

Depending on exposure and rock ledge borders, shorelines that have limited wave action often have the steepest slopes. Winni's lakefront lots and shallows would generally be even steeper if it wasn't for erosion. That said, I'd ask "shore things" to correct any of my assumptions. :)

[chase1]

Gatto:

Your argument is logical. However, these folks were adamant that we couldn't enclose a porch if it was within 50-feet of the water. It is a huge over reaction in my opinion. On one hand the state allowed an eye sore such as what Bob Bahare did in Alton several years back, but they won't let me enclose a 300 square foot porch that already has screens, a roof and is two stories off the ground.secondcurve,

Instead of enclosing your screen porch, why not just fix the existing structure and replace the torn screens with those new, energy efficient ones that have glass on the inside.

Chase1

[Orion]

I'd need to check with DES, but geologically speaking, it's only recently that the lake has been managed to limit damage from winter's ice. For 10,000 unmanaged years, the lake's level has seen many extremes.

I believe before the dam was built, the lake probably maintained a more consistent level, within a foot or so of the natural spillway. There were, of course, a few major geological events (such as earth surface shifts that changed the lake's outflow from Alton to Laconia) but aside from that, the levels were consistent for a long time. The dam allows a much wider range of level control, to include winter drawdown.


I can see where thousands of years of high winter ice allowed the pressure of ice expansion to move boulders into an ancient shoreline. It would be the most extreme of those expansions that made the shoreline of "just" 100 years ago.


Actually, the opposite is true. The natural wave action around the lake eroded the soil between and around the rocks exposing the granite. Where there are larger wave forces, the shoreline is more rocky. This also one of the reasons why the lake tends to be so clear since there is less suspended sediment from erosion. Ice does move the rocks around a bit, but if anything, it would tend to continue breaking up the shorline (over millenia) and decompose the rocks into sand into the lake.

[ApS]

"...These conditions would be things like implementing a stormwater management plan to account for the inability to meet the impervious surface requirements..."
I've borrowed this photo from the Weirs Boardwalk Washed Away (http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6565&highlight=boardwalk) thread.

Wouldn't the two huge roofs across the street be good examples of "impervious surfaces"?

They are directly "upslope" from the roadway—another impervious surface—and likely produced this severe erosion result. (It would seem, IMHO.)

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/ImperviousSurface.jpg

[GWC...]

Wouldn't the two huge roofs across the street be good examples of "impervious surfaces"?

They are directly "upslope" from the roadway—another impervious surface—and likely produced this severe erosion result. (It would seem, IMHO.)

That would make good sense to a spinner and probably the people in Concord who make the rules, regulations, and laws.

One problem...

They have been there for awhile, as in, when did the Civil War (War Between the States) end?

[Onshore]

You can't blame the Weirs blow out on 2 roofs and a roadway. You need to take a broader view of the development and drainage patterns of the Weirs as a whole and you can't overlook the extreme severity of the rain event.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

UnionLeader.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009
By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter

A House committee yesterday was told that proposed changes to a bill relaxing the restrictions to the current state shoreland protection law do not go far enough to allow waterfront property owners to maintain and make minor adjustments to their own land. Click here for the full story. (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Shore+owners+say+NH+law+is+a ll+wet&articleId=1c36faaf-88bf-4ef7-87d0-0cce5ee8358c)

The committee expects to review whether to adjust the bill and recommend whether the full House should pass it by April 30.

[Bear Island South]

I believe you can't even cleanup the debris (classified as natural ground cover) that has fallen over the winter month's within the 50' buffer zone.
The law has definately gone too far.

[Pineedles]

I remember one of my childhood chores was to sweep off the wharf and collect pinecones for the fireplace. I guess unless I want my grandchildren (to be), to be thrown in jail I better ammend their future lakefront chores. Its funny, but it's not. :(

[Onshore]

If you've been cleaning the area up all these years then you can keep doing it indefinately.

483-B:9 Minimum Shoreland Protection Standards. – Section V, paragraph (a), (v) Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to July 1, 2008 may maintain but not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches, within the waterfront buffer. Conversion to or planting of cleared areas with native species of ground cover, shrubs, saplings, and trees is encouraged but shall not be required unless it is necessary to meet the requirements of subparagraphs (g)(2) or (g)(3), or RSA 483-B:11, II.

[ACutAbove]

Hi Shore things, are you guys going to do any more of the confrences like last yr?
Ken

[Onshore]

We will be doing some full day conferences like last year but they won't be until late summer and fall. We wanted to wait unil this year's legislative session unfolds so we can incorporate any changes they make this session. We are also hoping (please keep fingers crossed) to have a new Permit by Notification process ready to roll out in the fall and we like to be able to discuss that with some amount of certainty.

[LIforrelaxin]

If you've been cleaning the area up all these years then you can keep doing it indefinately.

483-B:9 Minimum Shoreland Protection Standards. – Section V, paragraph (a), (v) Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to July 1, 2008 may maintain but not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches, within the waterfront buffer. Conversion to or planting of cleared areas with native species of ground cover, shrubs, saplings, and trees is encouraged but shall not be required unless it is necessary to meet the requirements of subparagraphs (g)(2) or (g)(3), or RSA 483-B:11, II.

Shore Things, Thanks for continuing to chime in on these maters..... I think people get a little to carried away sometimes and forget to understand the finer details of wording like "may maintain"..... that is the key to understanding legislation like this....

Now along these lines I have a question for you, from an enviormental stand point. If you have a cleared area that you have been maintaining and clearing every year, and then suddenly you stopped one would assume that some the pine needles leaves etc. that land in this clearing would start finding there way to the lake. Now looking at this from a commoners stand point, because the area had been cleared etc. I would think a more then normal amount would be making it to the lake because the area has been cleared and none of the natural road blocks exsist. Thus I would feel that not continuing to maintain an area would actually be worse then maintianing it? Is there any truth to this throught process?:confused::rolleye2::confused::rolleye2:

[ApS]

"...I believe you can't even cleanup the debris (classified as natural ground cover) that has fallen over the winter month's within the 50' buffer zone..."
As the owner of a one-acre lakeside property, I can vouch for the effectiveness of natural ground cover against the runoff damage that impervious surfaces bring to the water's edge.

Except for removal of "trip-over" branches, winter debris interlocks within itself, creating a perfect environment for an understory of plants to grow. (Until last year's McMansion went in, I had been unable to see any of my neighbors).

"...You can't blame the Weirs blow out on 2 roofs and a roadway...you can't overlook the extreme severity of the rain event..." I'm aware of both issues; however, recent weather patterns (including :eek: a tornado :eek: ) support more vigilance around this huge lake's shoreline—not the status quo.

"...The law has definitely gone too far..."
I expect many residents arrive at the lake to see a tidy lakeside yard—unaware that their maintenance crews have been blowing leaf litter into the lake every week.

Mechanical removal of natural debris by rake (and appropriate disposition) should be acceptable to DES.

Why didn't Concord simply outlaw the lakeside use of leafblowers? :confused:

[Onshore]

LIforrelaxin-
Yup, if you stopped doing the yard work for a couple of seasons there might be an increase in the amount of pine needles and leaf litter that make it to the lake...but the fact is that for thousands of years there was no one on the lake to do yard work and the lake was just fine. It is an ecological system that developed with a consistent, annual budget of leaf litter coming into it. If you speak to someone with a fisheries background as well as many ecologists they'll tell you that the majority of northern lakes would be sterile if not for the leaf litter accumulation. It provides the base for the food chain.

Having now admitted that some organic matter is a good thing (btw - some people will COMPLETELY disagree with the idea that ANY leaf litter is good) we often get the response that if some is good, more must be better, and people should be advised to dump leaves in the water. This is not a good idea. First off, your neighbors will probably not appreciate you mucking up their swimming area with leaves that will get all icky in a couple of years. (Neighbors can be funny that way but you do have to live next to them.) Second it creates a concentration of nutrients in the deposition area that will cause localized problems such as algae blooms. A small amount of organic matter spread over a large area is a good thing; a large amount in a small area is not. Another question that we get is, "if leaf litter is ok, why is fertilizer bad?" The best way I can explain this may be with an anology. The lake needs a certain amount of nutrients to function properly as an ecological system just like people need food. Natural deposition of leaf litter is like eating a salad, whereas fertilizer is like sucking down a bottle of chocolate syrup. It might sound like a good idea but it will just mess you up in the long run.

[Seaplane Pilot]

I expect many residents arrive at the lake to see a tidy lakeside yard—unaware that their maintenance crews have been blowing leaf litter into the lake every week.

Why didn't Concord simply outlaw the lakeside use of leafblowers?:confused:

I highly doubt that maintenance crews are blowing leaf litter into the lake on a widespread basis. C'mon, give us a break...:sleeping:

I still maintain the position that the wake from just one plowing Carver does far more damage to the shorefront than some of these petty things that DES is trying to restrict.

[Cobalt]

If Concord wants to have a positive and immediate impact on the health of the lakes, give a 100% tax credit to shorefront homeowners who upgrade their septic systems.

And by the way, stop spending money on legal and other administrative expenses to create systems that continually require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves.

[Lakegeezer]

If Concord wants to have a positive and immediate impact on the health of the lakes, give a 100% tax credit to shorefront homeowners who upgrade their septic systems.

And by the way, stop spending money on legal and other administrative expenses to create systems that continually require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves.Cobolt, you are on to a good idea, that being the upgrade of septic systems. However, there is so little tax revenue going to Concord (and it should stay that way) that it would take decades to work off any credit. Most property tax goes to the town and county, and they are in no financial position to be buying people's septic systems. There are many systems which can't be replaced without wavers, so a more clear process for getting wavers would be useful.

Your last statement needs some explaination. We do need the state to protect us from "the other guys" who are damaging the lake. There are still too many shoreline projects going on and too many supergreen lawns down to the water's edge. What do you mean by "require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves"?

[Cobalt]

Cobolt, you are on to a good idea, that being the upgrade of septic systems. However, there is so little tax revenue going to Concord (and it should stay that way) that it would take decades to work off any credit. Most property tax goes to the town and county, and they are in no financial position to be buying people's septic systems. There are many systems which can't be replaced without wavers, so a more clear process for getting wavers would be useful.

Your last statement needs some explaination. We do need the state to protect us from "the other guys" who are damaging the lake. There are still too many shoreline projects going on and too many supergreen lawns down to the water's edge. What do you mean by "require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves"?

Lakegeezer,

The emphasis placed on green lawns should not be a priority. It is a small part of a larger problem. I would concentrate on helping shorefront owners upgrade old septic systems which are deteriorated and do not conform to current regulations. When I see a new home constructed on the site of an old camp, at least I know that human fertilizer will not damage the lake.

How much tax revenue has been and will be spent by Concord in drafting these regulations and continually explaining them? Also, if we are truly concerned about the lakes, use some the tax revenues generated by waterfront owners for these credits. If the problem is as dire for the lake as portrayed by some, we cannot afford to ignore it and wish it away by restricting green lawns, but take decisive action on the septic issue.

You may not realize it yet, but the CSPA is having an impact on the area development. Talk to any of the local tradesmen or lumber yard, and you will hear how construction has slowed. If the intent of the Act was to slow waterfront constructon, it has succeeded. The unintended consequences of this slowdown impacts those in the construction and service trades dependent upon these projects.

A friend who lives on the shorefront asked me if he could install a flagpole within 100 feet of the lake under the current regulations without getting a permit. My short answer should be yes, but under the CSPA and the theory of protecting us from the other guy, and from ourselves....

[ApS]

"...If Concord wants to have a positive and immediate impact on the health of the lakes, give a 100% tax credit to shorefront homeowners who upgrade their septic systems..."
I'd agree with a pumpout of any system upon every sale of a real estate property.

As a homeowner who has lived here two decades before the lake's quality index was reduced from a "Class A" lake to a "Class B" lake, there are at least three major changes that have affected water quality—IMHO:

1) Thousands of new structures have been built.
2) Thousands of new homes have been built with only token regard to clay and silt depositions in rainwater runoff. (Growing milfoil and algae).
3) Even more than thousands of new homes have added dishwashers.

Dishwasher detergent:

1) Because of its nature to "grow" milfoil and algae, a high phosphorus content of certain cleansers has been banned from many watershed communities nationwide—though not banned in the "Live Free or Die" state.

2) Dishwasher detergents contain an extremely high phosphorus content.

3) Dishwasher detergents have been exempted from those nationwide bans!

Phosphorus eventually finds its way to the lake even through the newest of septic systems.

My point, if it's not clear, is that we've ringed the lake with thousands of new, previously non-existant, dishwashing appliances that add a pollutant that fertilizes algae and milfoil.

The addition of qualifying new septic systems—and upgrades to existing systems—has not allowed the Lake to approach the water's quality before those thousands of homes were constructed: In fact, it's not even close. :(

"...I highly doubt that maintenance crews are blowing leaf litter into the lake on a widespread basis. C'mon, give us a break..." :sleeping:

ETA: Sunday's Edit
Edited To Add for Today's observations:
My immediate neighbor's yard just received "yard maintenance". (Yes, on Sunday—Mother's Day :confused: ).

Since we are "green" --> :D <-- and prefer a natural New Hampshire-style woods, we have no objection that most of the leaf litter was directed to our yard by the leafblower-guy. :)

At the same time, the other guy raked leaf litter downhill towards the lake. Then, the leafblower-guy tried to send the pile into the lake.

But very few leaves ended up in the lake—only because we had gusting winds of about 30-MPH! :laugh:
(End of Edit).

(Start of another edit!)
ETA: Wednesday's Edit
Two leafblowers operated for what seemed like hours this Wednesday. (So they've changed from the usual Thursday routine of last year).

Since there was no wind, the newest leaf litter pile on the water stayed in front of the two properties. At 4PM, an east wind came up, and made a trail of leaves about 300 yards long.

I've taken a photo as proof-positive, and when the film is processed, I'll post it here for Seaplane Pilot's edification. :D

(Start of still another edit!)

ETA: Today, Tuesday's Edit:

'Went to a yard sale two weeks ago among a neighborhood of about 10 "newer" homes on Knoll Road's steep lots. Unhappily, the odor of overflowed septic tank permeated the neighborhood. (Knoll Road is a stone's throw from Lake Winnipesaukee). :(

(End of 3rd Edit—returning to original post).

It's possible that it's only my neighborhood that is getting ritzier. :rolleye2:

Just last Monday, I watched a crew blowing leaf-litter into the lake from two adjacent properties a few doors down.

One of the two properties is an immense McMansion with 181-feet of lake frontage. The trail of leaves drifted under my dock as I watched. :( (And there's nothing unusual about that occurrence, though Thursday "cleanups" are worse than Monday's).

I'd suggest you listen in your neighborhood: When the leafblowers stop, you may have to acknowledge the following phrase: :D

.

.

.

.

.

.
http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i117/chipmunkwhisperer/2009/ObamaPutinWhatIsSeenCannotBeUnseen.jpg

;) :coolsm:

[tis]

Lakegeezer,

You may not realize it yet, but the CSPA is having an impact on the area development. Talk to any of the local tradesmen or lumber yard, and you will hear how construction has slowed. If the intent of the Act was to slow waterfront constructon, it has succeeded. The unintended consequences of this slowdown impacts those in the construction and service trades dependent upon these projects.You are so right, Cobalt. I have heard this so many times lately, the latest being about an hour ago from a builder. And in this economy it is really hurting.

[ACutAbove]

Just a quick comment about the green laws down to the lake. I would not just assume that everyone is dumping chemicals on thier lawn to make it green.
There are other ways of making your lawn green,,, just by going "GREEN" that work very well.

[Argie's Wife]

If Concord wants to have a positive and immediate impact on the health of the lakes, give a 100% tax credit to shorefront homeowners who upgrade their septic systems.

And by the way, stop spending money on legal and other administrative expenses to create systems that continually require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves.

Not to derail this, but have you ever thought of running for office?

I wish our Reps in our district thought like this... :)