Shorefront project questions-Shore things?

[codeman671]

We are looking at a piece of property on the lake that sits high on a hill (basically a cliff) with what I estimate 40 steps down an existing and very dangerous rock walkway cut into the face of the hill. The existing dock is an ancient, small piling dock that was put there mainly for swimming as it has rocks that come completely out of the water on both sides. This would have to be removed.

My questions are as follows:

With the new DES laws in effect (if they have any effect on this beyond the past rules), what is the rules regarding building a stairway down the hill to access the frontage/docking? Without it, the shoreline is basically unusable.

The frontage is enough to allow for 6 legal boat slips (over 400' of frontage), our intent would be to install 3 permament piling docks to permit 4 boat slips (length based on water depths and allowable slip length (25' of slip length from 3' of water at full lake if I recall as correct) with a walkway along the shoreline connecting and acting as a landing for the stairs. What is the allowable depth from shore for the landing/connecting walkway? Being that with 3 fingers/4 slips we would be well under allowable impact, can that walkway along shore be made fairly deep to provide a deck/patio area along the shore?

Is there any kind of perched beach or dug-in beach setup that you have seen used in this type of situation?

Assume the frontage to have a similar look to that of the Adirondacks near Minge Cove that sit high in the hill.

[SAMIAM]

You would be well advised to make the sale contingent on your improvements.....I understand that not a single application has been approved in Moultonborough since the law passed.Don't know about other towns but it's getting so that you can't even rake or trim brush near the lake.......thanks to gov. Lynch and the dems.

[Onshore]

The law says that you are allowed a 6 ft wide path to the water. If that path is a steep hill and you need stairs then, you need stairs. There is a Shoreland rule that prohibits construction in on a slope steeper than 25 %, but the language of the law regarding the access path shows that there was intent to protect the abilty to access the frontage and thus the rule would be waived. This rule would not be waived to construct a deck patio or beach if the slopes exceed 25 %.

Connecting walkways for docks are not supposed to exceed 6 ft. There is a provision in the Wetlands law to allow for a landing but that provision would be subject to the slope restrictions because of the language of RSA 483-B:3, Consistency Required. What are your slopes like? Is there any area that is not so steep that you could fit a landing into?

[tis]

Sam, I heard that they are finding it very hard to go through the process too. I heard everything is being stalled. (Surprise, surprise)

codeman, sounds like you have a hard road ahead of you. I am glad it is not me!

[ApS]

"...We are looking at a piece of property...(basically a cliff)..."
I was looking at a Rattlesnake Island "cliff" that would benefit from an elevator!

"...I understand that not a single application has been approved in Moultonborough since the law passed..."
It's probably to "cool" development around the lake: my new Florida location won't let you build for five years, and a chain link fence takes four years to run the permit through the hoops.

(Celebrities seem to find their way through the bureaucratic morass faster, though). :(

"...The law says that you are allowed a 6 ft wide path to the water..."
How about a four-foot-wide elevator? :confused:

[Onshore]

Moultonborough has their own ordinance which is stricter than the CSPA. I suspect that may be the source of the issues the Samiam speaks of in his post.

[tis]

Well, what I heard was not just Moultonboro.

[LIforrelaxin]

Moultonborough has their own ordinance which is stricter than the CSPA. I suspect that may be the source of the issues the Samiam speaks of in his post.

Shore Things, in a case where a town has stricter guidelines then the state, does the land owner have any right to appeal to the state if it felt the Town's guidelines are out of line or causing an issue with what the state would deam permittable? Or Do the towns win out in this kind of issue?:confused::confused: just curious here, it seems some what unfair that the state is doing is level best to try and control things and a town goes and make tough guidelines even tougher.........

[RLW]

Shore Things, in a case where a town has stricter guidelines then the state, does the land owner have any right to appeal to the state if it felt the Town's guidelines are out of line or causing an issue with what the state would deam permittable? Or Do the towns win out in this kind of issue?:confused::confused: just curious here, it seems some what unfair that the state is doing is level best to try and control things and a town goes and make tough guidelines even tougher.........

Nope, the state says that they are minimum guidelines only and that the towns can go stricter, but cannot go below the State guidelines.:)

[Onshore]

The appeal process for a town decision based on a local ordinance stricter than the CSPA would be the same as the process for any other local decision. If you wanted to challenge the legality of the ordinance itself, then that would be done through the court system. How that is done and what the standards come in to play goes WAY beyond what I know.

[DickR]

From email communication with Moultonborough's code enforcement department, it is my understanding that in March the town decided to revert to whatever the state CSPA had. The feeling was that since the new state regs mostly duplicated what the town had put in earlier, there was no longer any need to have something different.

If this is not the case, I would like to know.