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

Delayed again?
 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

More confusion...
 

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-

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 ?

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.

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.

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

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.

Impervious vs. pervious
 

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

Good stewards, not invisible spectators
 

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.

New Rules Started Today
 

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.

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.

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

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. :)

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.

Crap
 

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?

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Good point.


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.

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.

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.

Right on!
 

Excellent original post CanisLupusArctos!

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 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.