Shoreland Protection Rules
 

Next Wed. there is a rules hearing at NH Env. Services regarding the new shoreland rules. I'm told this hearing may be nothing more than a person with a tape recorder taking input, but all of us that own lakefront property should get involved.

To that end, I suggest you all consider joining the NH Shorefront Association. This is a new group which believes in protecting water quality and private property rights. Also, one thing I really liked was simply being aware of what is going on in Concord as I did not find out about all these changes until very recently (on this Forum!).

The website is: www.nhshorefront.org

I want to protect the lake for my grandchildren to inherit both our property and clean water, but I also want to protect the rather hefty investment in my shorefront (not to mention value for the taxes!).

I'm all for saving the trees and reducing run-off, etc..., but why would Env. Services need to be involved in giving me a permit for my new shed which may be over 200 ft back from the water (as I understand things just about everything within 250 ft will require their blessing). I know what we went through for our relatively simple dock permit and I am very concerned this difficult and trying process will be the same now for projects on my own land.

Thanks for considering my thoughts.

agree with you. i am going to join.

Lets get the word out to support the NHSA!
 

I have joined as well. The website is user friendly. It will be a great resource to keep tabs on new laws and new rule-making at DES. I have a permit application at the wetlands board now that Darlene Forst is reviewing. She has made it so difficult that I have turned it over to a lawyer. It should not be this difficult and when we hit April 1, 2008 it all becomes that much more difficult.:confused:

It's not the reviewier
 

I would agree that the permitting process is a painful one and it's about to get even more painful come April 1, but don't think for a minute that the person or persons responsible for reviewing the applications are the ones making it difficult. They are just doing their jobs as best they can under the circumstances. I have had more than my fair share of the permitting process over the past few years. It has not been easy, but I have found everyone involved in the process to be nothing but professional. There are lots of rules to deal with but they didn't create those rules. They are just there to enforce them. Considering what they have to deal with and the resources they have available to them I think they do a pretty good job.

That said, I think NH Shorefront Association is a great idea, and I would bet the DES does too. If you've been reading this forum for a while you probably know that ShoreThings reached out to everyone on this forum for input. She also reached out personally to people that she thought would have some constructive input and invited them to the meetings regarding these changes. Unfortunately, I couldn't make it to the meetings myself but it would have been nice to have had representation through and organization like nhshorefront.org.

I am with you Aquaman. Gatto, unfortunately they have different interpretations, depending on who your reviewer is. It is a damn big hassle and I only see it getting bigger. I think they have already started changing to the new rules, even though they aren't final yet. I think it is a huge mess down there and will only get worse in April. I wonder if Shore Things really cares or that was just a show. Once the going got rough she disappeared. Sorry but this whole thing gets my dander up!

Tis, I agree, in part.

It has been my experience that they do have different interpretations of the rules and that that can be painful. But I believe that the new rules are, in part, intended to be more finely defined so that there is less left up to individual interpretation. I'm not saying I like the rules, I just don't blame the people who enforce them for the problems those rules create.

I reread the changes again tonight and my head was spinning when when I finally got through it. I honestly can't say if they are all that much more strict or not, at least the parts that concern my situation. They may even work in my favor, but there is no doubt that the permit process will be about 10X more complicated. So far I have been able to handle everything I have gone through on my own, and I've been through a lot. I have serious doubts if I will be able to do that if/when I ever need to deal with it again.

I can't argue about other people's intentions, only my interpretation of them, and I believe the intentions of the people I have dealt with are sincere. Think about it. What motive would they have to screw you over? Why would she bother posting if she didn't want the opinions the post would produce? Do you go out of your way just to mess with people in your job? Ok, maybe once in a while, but it's usually in good fun. :D

Gatto Nero, I appreciate the sentiment but it is unnecessary. You are correct that DES is happy to see the development of an organization that will help keep the people who are directly affected by our programs informed. Our only concern is the adversarial tone that seems to be developing. The NH Lakes Association is a similar organization to this new NH Shorefront organization with which we have had a cooperative working relationship for many years. We are somewhat dismayed by statements on this new organizations website that insinuate that the public was not involved in the development of that new standards since some of the membership of this new organization has been directly involved with the development of these new standards since September of 2005. Given the fact that of the five founding members of this new organization; one was a voting member of the Commission that proposed the changes to the Shoreland Act, a second was employed by a voting member, two others were personally involved in hammering out compromises during the senate hearings on the legislation, and three of the five were also directly involved in the same meetings to develop the new rule package you had been invited to attend we would hope they would wish to continue the development of the program in a positive and cooperative manner. Regardless of the approach they take from here on out the fact that they are increasing public awareness of the issues is the most important thing.

Tis, I understand your frustration and whether you choose to believe it or not I can assure you the shoreline and shoreland staff is greatly concerned with developing a program that issues its decisions in a fair, timely, and above all, consistent manner. Please understand that as an employee of the state my job is to apply the standards and requirements put in place by the legislature or through the administrative rule process. While I can answer any factual questions that people may have but I cannot answer questions relate to personal philosophy or opinions on the issues because I am required to maintain my objectivity. Simply put any opinions I may have are irrelevant and cannot be allowed to enter into these discussions.

Thanks Shore Things
 

Having the NH-DES particapate in this discussion is welcome and refreshing. Thanks "Shore Things" for keeping the public informed and maintaining integrity in the process.

Whose Fault? "Nobody"
 

Speaking of mess, one of the area's biggest spec-builders got to a "tear down" near me, bulldozed the lot, and walked away. The resulting spring flood washed tons of silt, sand, and soil downslope and into the lake—then they put up a silt fence! (And then a second—then a third silt fence, then a fourth—and a few generations of hay bales.)

The two newest neighboring homes will have to dredge the lake bottom for their boats as a result of the spec-builder's failure to mitigate their own series of cascading failures.

The problem continues uphill, which this spring will likely see a big fertilized lawn on an impossibe-to-mow slope to keep still more of the scarified lot from ending up in the lake. It's possible that wood chips will be used instead, which also get washed into the lake—then gets replenished again. This gross inattention to Mother Nature only serves to feed the algae and milfoil already in the lake.

This photo shows how the localized flooding even carried rocks downhill across the dock's surface.

Something has to be done to keep the lake healthy, and it wasn't happening in 2007.

The newest draft of the proposed Shoreland Program Administrative Rules, Chapter Env-Wq 1400 has been posted on-line at:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/RuleMaking/

Citizen Article
 

see Citizen Article here......

SHOREFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS FORM ASSOCIATION

Oooohhhhh....nnnoooooo....thanks for the heads-up, McDude....this means I gotta get started like right away saw'n down those three ugly, old, large, Pin Oaks that arch out over my tiny little 55' waterfront.....since all I got is a 12" electric chain saw.....from U-know-where....and them trees need to be gone by April 1......or else....they is here .....basically forever!:(

Shoreland protection rules may be delayed
 

Move afoot to delay implementation until July 1st.

STORY today in the Citizen on-line!

Thanks for that post Skip. It seems they should have the rules in place before they enact it.

Economic boom
 

The local construction crews will be happy. This winter has been tough on business. It will be a noisy spring.

Except of course on the islands of Meredith, where construction is at a standstill.

Yes, good question. So, what's next for the intrepid developers on Sheep Island, Lake Wicwas? Did the 490-525, no vote on their zoning friendly article change their persona from a couple of wolves, to a couple of sheep? Ouchy ouchy...gotta be expensive....legal costs & all.... & plus the tightening of mortgage credit locally does not help..

Well, here's where the Shoreland Program stands right now. We will be ready to bring the program on line on April 1 if the law still requires it. The next hearing on the shoreland rules package is this Friday, March 21. The major point of contention has been the establishment of criteria to qualify a project as "vested". Briefly, "vested" simply means that your project is sufficiently underway and thus should not have to obtain the new shoreland permit. This is a dangerously oversimplified explanation but the problem is that the State's attorneys, the attorneys serving as lobbyists for a couple of groups, and the JLCAR's attorneys are still hammering out the criteria for qualifying as "vested". When this is settled DES will have to provide guidance documents explaining what it takes to be "vested" as well as just what being "vested' means. Another significant change that may come out of the last meeting involves the requirement for a stamped surveyed plan. Originally DES only wanted a surveyed plan when there would be more than 20% impervious area. JLCAR heard testimony at the last meeting stating that a surveyed plan should be required for all projects. We frankly do not want those plans for all projects because of the cost associated with obtaining them. However we may need to take the compromise position of requiring them for projects having as little as 15 % impervious. I can not emphasize enough that people take time to go to the rulemaking website listed earlier in the thread and check for the latest version and amendments to see what's coming.

If the Legislature does manage to get the effective date moved then we will of course adjust accordingly. What the Citizen article does not explain is that there may be other changes coming that we will need to address. The amendment to HB 1151 is in large part to allow time for the legislature to debate some other possible changes (including the issue of "vesting") included in another bill. These issues had been being argued/discussed under Senate Bill 417. This bill is being terminated but the same issues will now be heard as part of Senate Bill 352.

BTW while writing this I received word that it is highly unlikely that the House will get to HB 1151 this week and therefore, it will not be heard before their next session which is April 7. That would be after the law takes effect on the 1st...

Disappointing
 

I guess this is not surprising considering 483Bs Legislative sponsors were all Democrats and our legislature and executive branch is now Democrat controlled.

The more complex you make these laws the more difficult(and expensive) it is to administer. DES people appear to have their ducks in a row but our legislature is screwed up.

What do I do with my project now? I am 80 percent complete. Dont ask how that is measured or the Democrats will have to come up with a new bill and a fee to calculate it for me.

What does 80% complete mean?

shore things- is it still highly unlikely (after the vote this morning by the Senate committee) to get to the house now?

still highly unlikely.

To Shorethings
 

My house is framed and roofed but not sided or finished inside. The septic is installed and seeded over with grass seed and mulch. The area between the house and 50 feet from the lake was seeded and mulched last fall. I still need to grade loam and seed
around the house which is 225 feet from the water. I also need to gravel the driveway which starts 200 feet from the water and goes by the house around 240 feet from the water. Miscellaneous things like water lines and well hookups need to be done.

Hemlockpoint - Your project is if far enough along that you would be ok under every version of proposed rule, law, and policy that I've seen thus far. If your primary structure (house) foundation is in and your driveway is roughed in before April 1 then completing those structures is not going to require anything new from DES. From what we've seen so far, if a problem were to arise it would be in relation to outbuildings or not building according to the plan approved by the original building permit. If your primary structure and driveway (gravel by law is considered impervious unless specially designed and laid down) put your property at or above the new impervious surface limits, then after the date the new law takes effect, initiating construction of any new structures, such as a garage, even though they were covered by the local building permit, may still be illegal. The other thing is that you will likely only be covered for those things specifically permitted on the local building permit you are operating under. If you don't build according to the plans sent to the municipality or the permit is vague and no plans were required, then you may not be covered by any vesting provision.

I was looking at the website at the latest version of the rules on vesting.

What does this mean?

(3) A concrete foundation for the primary structure was installed between April 1, 2007 and April 1, 2008;

My foundation was installed in the fall of 2006. Does this mean I am not vested because I installed it too soon?

The 2007 date provision wasn't intended to force people that had structures started to get a permit to finish them. It was intended to prevent individuals from claiming that secondary or accessory structures that had not been started before April 1, 2008 were part of a larger "project" and thus were somehow covered under an old permit just because the primary structure foundation was in. We have no interest in asking anyone to get permits to complete a house that is as fas along as you have described. It is better environmentally that you simply complete the project and stabilize the soils on site.

I understand that structures of all kinds will require approval and it appears that tree cutting will also but will thinning out brush also require approval

Shore things
Thank you for your help.

Phoenix

There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...)

I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

thanks that will be helpful

I'm pretty sure that Moultonboro requires a permit that requires the inventory of all trees and brush and saplings within a certain zone before you cut. This is the typical knee jerk reaction caused by someone who clear cuts. We go from reasonable laws with no enforcement to unreasonable moronic laws, that I believe Moultonboro hired someone to enforce.

shore things. What happens to the reference line if a boathouse is built? The definition I find is: "for natural fresh waterbodies it is the natural mean high water level". If you dig in for a boathouse, which you must do, does that reference line change?

If you dig into the shoreline you DO move the reference line.

If there is a fact sheet available it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you...

I would be interested to know if these rules are now superceded, somehow I don't think they are.


From here:

http://www.moultonborough.org/Ordina...INANCE2007.pdf




than the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, RSA 483-B.

In accordance with RSA 483-B:3 Consistency Required, II, When the standards and practices established in this chapter conflict with other local or state laws and rules, the more stringent standard shall control.

Moultonborough's requirements must be met.

Shore Things,

Thanks for taking the time to spend here and answer questions, I have a quick one. Are the requirements the same for an accessory structure (shed) as they are for a primary structure, such as plans and such. Will we have to submit a "full package" of information or can it be reduced. The structure will meet the 150 sq/ft rule and the 50' reference line.

Thanks

Under the current rule set there is no "reduced package" for small sized projects. There needs to be one, and the development of such a process will be part of the next phase in bringing the Shoreland Program forward. One of the main problems that we need to overcome is ensuring that the Department has the information we need to verify that the sum of little projects over time doesn't result in more impervious surface than is allowed by the new CSPA standards. There has been a push to force the Department to require stamped surveyed plans with all applications. The legal argument has been made that all plans that indicate property line location must be prepared by a licensed surveyor. DES is resistant to requiring these plans for all project due to the cost that is associated with it. (Other DES programs such as Wetlands and Sub-surface have operated for years without requiring surveyed plans.) We need to find a way to get the most reliable information we can about the property and project but have it be something that the average homeowner can provide without breaking his bank account before we can take the next step. We are definately open to suggestions...

We are looking at another piece of property that has a camp on it now, and is closer than 50 feet to the water. If we bought it, our intention would be that within a few years we would want to take it down and build something newer/larger. Being that the lot is already cleared there is no additional clearing of trees/vegetation necessary.

Does the footprint or current building location become grandfathered? If we want to go bigger do we have to move the building back to 50' or greater? Is there a limitation that would prevent us from building at all?

I'd hate to get too far into this to find a problem that we did not foresee.

Thanks in advance!

Unless you are on sewer the first you need to take a look at the new sub-surface systems regulations. If you tear if down or modify it significantly it could run afoul of your systems permit. If you tear it down and do want to rebuild with a bigger footprint you will need to meet the setback if its possible. If you can't meet the setback then you would be looking at the possibility of getting a Redevelopment Waiver with would allow you to offer restoring or replanting areas or making other improvements to offset the increased sq ft of impervious area.