Lakes Lady,

Well stated. I just can’t understand how this was allowed to happen. I know the building inspector for the town stepped down/retired/ resigned last Spring not sure why? There is a new one now.

"Intrusive"...
 

"Oversized" was my objection to this "replacement boathouse" at Millstone Point. A large segment of two neighbors' lake view was cut off. :mad:

https://i.servimg.com/u/f91/18/11/38/95/23232310.jpg

I take it Mr. Corr is not a native Granite-Stater? :confused:

LOL... an you wonder why locals despise out of staters.

Except that they or relatives own the adjoining houses so obviously it must not block their view too much.

Chances are that the boathouse pictured here was legally constructed. The Corr's so called replacement boathouse appears to be constructed as a dwelling.

.... oh, as I recall .... it was so totally legal ..... the owners of this large boat house enclosure were connected politically with their local Republican state representative, and local Republican selectmen via friendship and campaign donations.

This usually helps.;)

SWNoel,

Wow! That’s a big structure. I wish I could add pics from my iPad but don’t know how to make them into JPEG etc. You are CORRECT Mr. Corr is not a native. Neither am I, but I’ve been here all my life... This will be my 50th summer. Respect for neighbors goes a long way. You don’t buy a spot in the country to build a house 4 ft off of your neighbors property. SMH

Lakegirl. I understand the height issue but have a question about the 4 feet thing. Did they build it closer to you or is it still the same distance from your property line as the original boat house? The life threating thing seems a little over the top IMO and if it happened I hope there was a police report filed. Was there?

DEJ,

Yes the police were involved, but told me they couldn’t do much. I basically have to wait till something happens to me. The boathouse is the same distance as before.... but now it’s a house vs a shed for a boat.

Instead of tearing it down, maybe the neighbors could donate it to the Town of Moultonborough, as long as the town removes it. The town could use it as an el cheapo, quasi-community center for playing bridge or chess over at their Kraine Meadow Park recreation area, the neighbors get a tax write-off, and you get your view back ..... win-win-win!

Does it have a big room downstairs, with a nice fireplace, that would be good for a ping-pong table ..... and the town can play ping-pong in front of the warm, cheerful fireplace, all winter long ...... yeah!

Here's a NH building mover www.admiralbuildingmovers.com from Goffstown, NH ..... maybe this Admiral could navigate this building problem out of there!

I don't know what file extensions you have but if you have a .jpeg or .png extension here are the steps to upload them:

Select the Attachment paperclip. It opens a dialog box.
The top choice is to "Upload a File From Your Computer".
Click the Browse button and that opens a file search dialog.
Locate the picture file on your computer and click Open.
That closes the file search box and places the path of the file in the attachment dialog.
Then click Upload and wait for the upload process to complete. It will then list the attached image file.
Then click Close this Window.
Finish any text and hit the Preview Post button. The message should include the attached image. Click Submit Reply to actually send the message.

Someone posted these instructions a while back and I copied them for someone who might ask how to upload images.

You have mentioned several times about the 4 foot thing. Since that has not changed why keep bringing it up? It does not matter if it was a shed or a house, 4 feet is 4 feet regardless of what the structure is. I understand the height issue, but the 4 feet thing is a moot point. A shed or a house will still be 4 feet, correct?
Regarding if the police were involved, once again was a police report filed by you?
Finally, a good attorney would discourage his/her client to not post ANYTHING about this situation on social media until it has wound its way through the court. The Corrs obviously have good attorneys IMO. Not saying they are in the right here, just an observation.

..... oh ....don't be such a kill joy ..... this is a great thread ..... has lots of comments and views ....and shows how a good photograph or two can be very helpful for showing what's what ....

And, the courts and the zba's are a little different from the court of public opinion ..... just look at the crematorium across from the Meredith McDonald's ... the crematorium won its' zba decision, won its' day in superior court ..... but closed up and moved to a secret, remote location, anyway .... probably due to the court of public opinion .....

..... i rest my case!

No you didn't hear what really happened, you see the owner knew a guy who had a brother that was cousins with the secretary in town who happens to be sisters with somebody on the ZBA who is married to another guy and his uncle is a state rep who's family business is located out of state but that doesn't matter because is grandmother's second husband happens to play golf with this other guy whos brother is a state senator. Now this state senator happens to have a son who is dating the daughter of the janitor at the court house, but you see he cleans the office of one of the judges on the supreme court.

Swear to God, 100% true,

Regards...

Jussie Smollett

Now that is funny!!!!! [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]. Excellent


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Yes ..... well ..... thanks for pointing that out as a rumored reason for how that large boat enclosure was approved by either the Town of Tuftonboro or Wolfeboro ..... not sure which ..... and, as you probably know ..... people tend to have their minds already made up on many different subjects, and look for examples that reinforce their personal opinions ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_exposure_theory

I haven't got time to really read this right now because today is too good of a day for raking leaves ...... but will definitely read it later on ...... later

Trying to learn how to insert photos.
The first one was June 28th 2014
Second is when it fell July 3, 2014
NOT March of 2015 because of snowload.
This is In Moultonborough not Tuftonboro or Wolfeboro....

DEJ,

Yes a shed for boat storage 4 ft off the property line offers privacy as well as a noise buffer .... However, a HOUSE 4 ft off the land is a TOTAL game changer. More noise....less privacy....and you can not build a house 4 ft off of someone’s property...Hence the reason for the 20 ft / 50 ft setbacks. SO YES DISTANCE MATTERS.

Lakegirl24, I wish you all the best going forward with this issue. I hope for your sake the Corrs attorney are not following your statements in this thread.

So what's wrong with her statements?

She's the next door neighbor and had discussions with the new owner, and is telling her side of the story (which is her right) and so far it's pretty compelling. There must be a pretty good reason DES stopped construction and the case is going to the supreme court. I wouldn't bet against her.

Welch-Time,

Thank you for your kind words. I speak the truth and I have pictures to prove what I say is true along with plenty of neighbors to corroborate it. Sorry that the truth seems to be upsetting you DEJ.

The truth is your opinion, I have a different opinion. Some here disagree with you. As stated, your attorney, if you have one is probably shaking his head saying STOP. The Corrs, since they are not posting here or anywhere else obviously are getting good advice from their attorney. Again good luck Lakegirl24, I suspect you will need it based on your posts here.

Thanks for the photos.
So it snowed enough in late June to cause the building to collapse, and than in early July the snow was completely gone. Can't wait to see the the expression on the judges face after they hear that.

Rusty,
It was stated that it fell a whole year LATER in March of 2015. That’s why it was past the towns statute on rebuilding. Unfortunately, the time I had to pursue this was immediately after the variance meeting. So a judge will never see these. It’s TOTALLY in the hands of the state now, as it goes to the Supreme Court. I just hope they will do the right thing. This is strictly between the state and the Corrs.

Well, it looks like the doors were left open so the building would rack under the snow load (like she said) otherwise they'd be splinters. What bothers me is what type of owner would leave an eyesore like that for the neighbors to look at. Doesn't that tell you something? Wouldn't you think there's something funny going on here? Just curious. How long did the owners leave it like that before they tore it down?

Welch Time,

Till April of 2016. So 21 months it was left like that. It fell even more over the 21 months of course. Also...it fell in the summer due to wind and neglect. NOT because of SNOW LOAD.

Even though it seems to be between the NH-DES and the neighbors in supreme court, you may want to look into hiring a lawyer familiar to the DES and to supreme court to be there to represent you.

Just being there at the hearing for you is money well spent. It shows both sides that you are there .... and that effects the outcome.

What the heck .... I'll even mail you a check for 50-dollars to help pay the attorney fee .... out of my monthly Social Security check from the Gov .... and maybe there's others on-board here to do like-wise.

DEJ,

I would suggest reading some of the public court docuemnts, on this mater before deciding what the truth is. You are entitled to your opinion of course. But set what lakegirl said aside, and read the documentation, set the time frame of things aside and read the documentation...

The permits applications to the town and to the state, mention replacing the boathouse in kind... Which means it should not be an inhabitable structure, which it most certainly is...With that kind of logic, I should just get a permit to rebuild my attached shed, and turn it into additional living space....

Many things fell through the cracks because of misleading information. The Septic System in that lot is sized to sustain the current season home. I have been able to tell since the beginning that this new structure, while also get hooked into that septic system if it is not already, so there will be the opportunity for additional load... But yet no septic design details of statement of already existing capacity are list on any of the permits, because they don't divulge the true intent of the project.

Given the time frame that this structure when it, I find it very plausaable, that the owner, had intentions of deception... Do I believe they started out with this intention, no... I think somewhere along the way they realized some possibilities... and then got caught up in the excitement, and it snowballed from there....

The bottom line is they got to where they got, weather intentionally or not, and got caught. The issue they have is with a State Agency, who put a cease and desist order on them. Then they started taking their anger out on the person they believed caused there problem. And it has spiraled from there.

Also, It looks like patio doors are installed on the front and side of the new house so I would expect a nice big wrap around deck to be installed in the future (after the dust settles). Probably the reason for the 10' setback.

Yes, I agree that it would very likely happen.

Assuming the owner loses the case and the "boathouse" needs to be removed, which appears likely based on the information in this thread, perhaps he can sell it and relocate it to a qualifying location, thereby mitigating his monetary losses. FLL probably can find a use for it.

So the basic argument SCNH is going to hear is does can DES overrule the Wetlands board as a jurisdictional issue? It that is the case then it really doesn't have much to do with the parties involved other than outcome. DES wins, the building will be have to be revamped... although DES does have a long history of allowing mitigation... and the ruling might force that to come into play. If Wetlands wins... Lakegirl is not going to be happy. The rest of the issues are really just fluff.

Woodsy

Actually Woodsy, the issue is not who wins DES or Wetlands... The state has already decided who wins that argument.

The Corrs are fighting with the state, for the right to continue with their plans. It is the Corrs against DES, according to all the Documentation I have seen... And from the sounds of it DES is very clear, make the structure conform to the permits....

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...6cO/story.html

Reminds me this tale not too long ago. Will be interesting to see what unfolds but I currently take Lakegirl's side and story. As others suggested, I suspect Corr developed ambitious plans as things started to progress. It likely turned into one of those "I'm going to do this even though it's not right and I'll ask for forgiveness later when the damage is already done."

Sure about that? Seems this is all over a split decision by the state.

DES appealed this case to the Supreme Court arguing "The Wetlands Council decided to grant the appeal based on a contradictory interpretation of RSA 483-B:11."

I believe this is what is being hotly debated, interesting items taken out of context:

I. …..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.

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.

LI...

I am kind of with Maxum here... from what I gathered from the article, DES was not happy with the Wetlands ruling, and appealed it to SCNH....

So DES is driving the bus so to speak.... most likely to settle who has the final say in cases such as this. I cannot find this case on SCNH docket yet.


Woodsy

From my understanding....YES DES and Wetlands are fighting and then what I have been told is that the Corrs have cross appealed it. I’m not EXACTLY sure what that means (to cross appeal) .... What are they cross appealing? DES wants it to be an accessory structure ( which by law are no higher than 12 ft). Wetlands wants it to be a non conforming structure. Not sure about the height for non conforming, but it should follow what was originally approved which was around 17 ft. I believe.

I don't think so!
 

It looks to me like the fact that there was once a boathouse on the property that fell down has nothing to do with what has been constructed.

They have built a totally unrelated structure, in a totally different location, with a totally different size and use, and those should be the factors that decide whether it can stay. Unless they can prevail and convince the court that it was built with all the proper permits and approvals I would still bet that it is coming down.

Also, Shore Things of DES follows this website often and seems well aware of what is going on. I have worked with her on waterfront issues on my property and she is very competent and thorough. You can assume that she is on top of this. The state is not going to let something like this happen easily as it will set a precedent that others can use to push the envelope on their projects.

In my opinion this is a blatant disregard for the regulations and an attempt to pull a fast one. Nice try, but I doubt it will succeed.

I believe Maxim is correct. While I agree and empathize with Lakegirl24, it appears that the SCNH case is to clear up the jurisdictional dispute between DES and Wetlands.

If DES wins the “boathouse” will have to be “adjusted” to meet their requirements. If Wetlands wins, either the Corrs get to complete it or other litigation follows.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

In a normal world one might believe this , but we're far from being in a normal world.