Update
 

Hi All,

I’ve been looking to find out when the Supreme Court case is and found that it won’t specifically say Corr’s....It will have DES as part of the title. This is what I need to look for: Appeal of NH Department of Environmental Services (DES)
Docket # 2018-0650

I’m really hoping DES prevails. The public can also attend ....but get this....THE SUPREME COURT CAN THEN TAKE 6-12 MONTHS TO MAKE A DECISION..... REALLY?????

Lakegirl....

I know it sucks as you want a decision ASAP, but the wheels of justice turn slowly. Given the weight & legal precedence Supreme Court decisions carry, and the research that needs to be done... 6-12 months is reasonable. If you are lucky you might get a decision in the fall.

Woodsy

Unfortuntely, this is the way these things go... Regardless of the outcome, the supreme court is here both sides is only step one. Then they will go off and do their do diligence. I agree with Woodsy, 6-12 months is reasonable... However how long will it take to get the case in front of the supreme court. Well that is a variable as well.... it could well be still 6 months for that to happen if not longer.... All said and done, I don't think there will really be definitive answers to what is going on until next year....

As a neighbor on the road, I too want to see this issue resolved...

Agree that six to twelve months is a long time but as others have mentioned the Court needs to review past rulings and use those rulings along with the Law to render a decision.

This decision is not only for this case but will be used in other cases for many, many years to come.

Good luck

Bigpatsfan,

Very true... I really hope they realize the precedence they will be setting on the lake for years to come. GREAT POINT! ���� From what was essentially to be a storage shed for a boat to NOW a house that is nonconforming and no where near with in the setbacks. —By the way my brother reminded me that this is the 2nd non conforming structure on that lot. There’s also a shed that the previous owner was up front with my Dad showed him the plans and stuck to his word. It didn’t infringed on anyone’s view so my Dad was ok with it. This guy thinks the rules don’t apply to him from building this structure to the 150ft law on the water. He takes off 10 ft off his dock. SMH

If the shed was built after the period where it would be grandfathered, or was built without a permit , or in any way constitutes a zoning violation, I know what I would do..................

And, if there was a consistent time of day he takes off from his dock, or it is a regular occurrence and the Marine Patrol received a complaint, they would have an officer stop by to speak with the offender. Pictures emailed to the Marine Patrol would be even better.

Two can play this game!

Have been looking around the Town of Meredith website for info related to this "If the fence is placed 50 feet or less to the watermark it requires a permit" and have found nothing specific except that all fences require a permit.

Can anyone give me more information or a link on this for Meredith?

Last night, my neighbor tells me with strong and serious emphasis, that he's gonna put up a fence between us that's twelve feet high!

The way I heard it, it was Tuftonboro, they paid the fine, and they are enjoying their facilities right now.

Marriott's is in Tuftonboro and they made the tiny kitchen bigger and had to remove it. There were already living quarters in it before that. I didn't know one of the Walgreen's had to remove living quarter's from a boathouse. The one in Wolfeboro doesn't live there any more. The wife of the other is still in Alton.

I guess your neighbor doesn't like you. Have you been sun bathing in your birthday suit again? :emb:

I'm with Tilton--once he decided to abuse you with the "boathouse", the gentlemens agreement on the shed was off

FlyingScott,

The shed happened MANY years ago with a prior owner who was upfront with my Dad. It was too close to the lot line but my Dad was ok with it because it didn’t obstruct anyone’s view and was not near the water. Plus it was tastefully done and only a shed exactly what was proposed.

Mr Corr got the OK from my dad to replace EXACTLY what was there from before a dry boathouse EXACTLY same dimensions. Mr. Corr is the one who took liberties and built a house instead. Like I said before a little respect goes a long way. We have been there for over 50 yrs. Never an argument with a neighbor until now. They have now had issues with AT LEAST 3 neighbors I’m aware of at this point in the little time they have been there.

FatLazyLess,

This is taking place in Moultonboro....Not Meredith. Call the Meredith zoning board. They should know.

The state is very adamant about the waterfront regulations and any construction.

Several years ago I applied to the town and the state to do some work on my property. I sent pictures and diagrams in with the application to better explain my proposal.

Within 10 days I got a letter from DES saying "It appears that there are living quarters above the boathouse." It asked for proof that the construction was done legally and with permits, before the regulations prohibiting building the structure were in place. The proposed construction had nothing to do with the boathouse.

I went to the town building inspector and we looked through the file for the property. He found a hand drawn sketch of the property from the 1950's that accompanied a permit application for a fence. It labeled the boathouse "boathouse with cottage above". I asked the Building Inspector to call DES because I knew they would never believe me if I showed them that. He did, and the issue was resolved.

These days, I don't think people who are inclined to flaunt the regulations can get away with much.

You are right Tilton. The Marriotts did NOT "get away with it". They had to remove the new construction.

With as much as I have found out about this case. I hope that is what happens here. I don't mind people developing and improving property as long as they do it properly and on the level.

When paperwork is filed indicating one set of intentions, and the outcome is not what was originally intended, people need to be held accountable.

Living in the area, I know that there was going to re-construction of the origianl boat shed. I also believed that there would be some modification... But Arriving in the spring, and seeing what is essentially a full fledged Tiny Home was surprising to say the least. While none of the aplications indicating that living space was going to added, I don't know how this would end up being allowed to stand.....

We will see....

So this has been a very quiet thread for a month.....

Does anyone have any updates on the status of this?

Post #162 has your answer.

I would not anticipate hearing anything new until the fall, and likely almost the end of the year, before there is a decision. I have to believe that in the mater of importance, this issue is low on the supreme courts list. The have agreed to hear the case, they don't apparently have to indicate or say when they will do so...

Has there been any updates on this case that anyone knows of?

The NH Attorney General's office is prosecuting it and it is just a matter of when the court date comes up. Until then it will be pretty quiet.

I drove by it a few times....It looks so out of place. I can’t imagine they allowed that to happen after reading through this whole forum. It CLEARLY is NOT a boathouse but a house. I really hope that thing comes down. Obviously they were trying to put something over on the town and state. Why would you move a “ DRY BOATHOUSE “ away from the water? ....and what happened to replacing it “IN KIND”? This certainly isn’t “IN KIND”. I knew what was there before and this doesn’t even resemble it. In fact I don’t think a boat would even fit in the basement of this “BOATHOUSE “. Lol

Wondering if anything has been heard about this issue? I have noted it looked like they might have started working on the "Boat House" again....

Post 157

Not following this as closely as others. But this appears to be of a very technical issue or interpretation of law.

Emotions and/or common sense may have nothing to do with ultimate decision.

Anybody know of updates to this case?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

So looking at the Supreme court website and status it looks like oral Arguments where heard in early November, it the case is still pending....

By the way if you want to here what was said to the supreme court video tape the proceedings which can be found here: LINK

I watched the tape of the Supreme Court testimony. It appears that there are some things in the law that need to be clarified. I would not be surprised if after this case is decided NH DES has legislation submitted to tighten and clean up the law.

From a common sense perspective, and just from looking at the pictures, the new structure has nothing to do with the old building in either size, shape, or purpose. The decision should be very interesting.

Thanks!!
 

Thank you very much for supplying the link to the Supreme Court testimony

Any word on the Supreme Courts decision on this case?

I see nothing on the NHSC website yet...

closed?
 

I think the courts have mostly been closed, or on reduced operations.

Surprise
 

The state lost, the boathouse owner won. Given the information that has been previously discussed, I am surprised.

In its May 22 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the DES argument that it had the right to restrict the structure to the 17-foot height of the original boathouse.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...081012daf.html

This is a surprising decision, however I am very confident that LakeGirl24's house has appreciated in value during this time frame, and will likely continue doing so once all construction has been completed.

Hopefully the neighbors will all be able to get along and put all the bitterness behind them for good.

The court not only denied the DES but added this, "DES has failed to demonstrate, particularly in the circumstances of this case, how height has any relation to the protection of the public waters and the adjacent shoreland.".

This puts into question whether the DES has any future authority to regulate shoreland building HEIGHT unless they can prove that height of a building impacts the quality of public waters. I'm not sure that they can? Footprint, sure. Height?

The building "was approved by the local zoning board and the state board that oversees water pollution control, the Wetlands Council". I would argue that the Wetlands Council ALSO lacks control over building height, for the same reason.

Only the local zoning board could have control of the height of a building along the water, IF they created a shoreland zone with restricted building height. I'm not sure that would pass legal muster either but towns have a lot of discretion in zoning laws.

Jeffk: Good point.

So is the question whether the law must be proven to be necessary or fulfill it's intended purpose to make it enforceable?

If the state has a height requirement, on it's face, it cannot be enforced unless there is a proven improvement to water quality? Or does the proponent just need to prove there is no negative impact?

What will DES Wetlands do with the next submitted application that only expands vertically?

This raises a lot of questions and may result in people expanding their homes upward when they have previously been denied a permit.

This decision sets a precedent that will impact many future legal outcomes.

Sounds to me like the Court made clear that water quality and building height have nothing to do with each other. So the local ZBA will have authority when it comes to building height.

I would expect towns to change the zoning laws to clarify & control building height.

Woodsy

I mean, do we think they’re wrong. It seems the only thing truly affected on the lake was the neighbors view and feelings and I’d imagine the increase in taxes the city would get from that improvement. :laugh::laugh:

I think the NH Supreme Court got it right..... I don't have a dog in the fight but I have been concerned for a long time about government overreach disguised as environmental concerns.

Woodsy

Here is a link to the court's written decision:

https://cases.justia.com/new-hampshi...?ts=1590152637