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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Why are shorefront owners treated like the enemy?
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

D'oh!
 

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:

Interesting...
 

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, 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:

White Pines=No Leaves
 

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:

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

There was no vote on the 16th.

changes to the CSPA has been laid on the table

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

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. ????

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.

I appreciate you answers, shore things.

Wish I had something definative to tell you...

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...337/-1/CITIZEN

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.

State & Town
 

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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

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

New 50'x50' rule versus old 50% basal area rule
 

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...

50x50 shorefront buffer definition
 

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?

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

Landscaping
 

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:

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.

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.

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.....