Unfortunately, it's sold out.

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

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.

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.

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.:)

Existing Structure
 

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.:)

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.

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.

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)

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.:)

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?

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.:)

Shoreline composition
 

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.

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.

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. :)

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

Normal shore erosion
 

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.


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.

Washout Due to "Impervious Surfaces"?
 

I've borrowed this photo from the Weirs Boardwalk Washed Away 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/i1...ousSurface.jpg

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?

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.

Shore owners say NH law is all wet!
 

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.

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

Under the current law
 

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.

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. :(

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.

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

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.

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:

Supporter of DES Science, here...
 

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).

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.

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:

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.

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.

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"?

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....

"Unseen" Leaf-Litter?
 

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. :(

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/i1...otBeUnseen.jpg

;) :coolsm:

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.

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.

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

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