New construction in Alton Bay
 

I took my first cruise of the season around Alton Bay. There seems to be a lot of new construction and expansion construction (additions, decks, docks) going on. Many of these were done on raised homes, burned down homes, or existing homes. In almost every case the new buildings were quite a bit greater than the original footprint and were within 50Ft of shoreline. I don't understand how these places get the necessary permits. I'd hate to think there is some significant "cash flow permissions" going on. Part of me doesn't mind since I live in Alton and it raises the tax base.

If the original footprint was within 50ft of the shoreline they can build there again while expanding the rest of the house. We took our first little ride Sunday and thought there was more dock damage than usual.

I don't believe you can make it any more non-conforming. So yes, if the existing building was within 50 feet you can rebuild on that footprint but cannot increase the dimension within the 50 foot setback. Height is a dimension so that means you cannot increase the height either.

Any addition would have to conform to existing town and state setbacks and regulations.

Indeed
 

That certainly is the case in Gilford.

A number of folks have come before the Planning Board or Town Planner's office over the past few years wanting to do just that and were told they couldn't. Some complained but they were told to take it up with the state since we couldn't override the state.

I guess some folks don't like hearing "No".

Also using the same outdated septic systems . Money talks !

Not necessarily. If you rebuild you have to put in a new septic system.

I have done some building and improvements on waterfront properties in Laconia and Gilford and have never seen any evidence that "money talks". I wouldn't be so quick to jump to that conclusion.

Several times, I have gone to Concord and sat down with DES people, including one who posts here, to go over plans and seek approvals. The answers were informative and direct and I was told what was, and what was not, permissible. They are always willing to answer questions and I think that is a good place to start if you seek to make changes on a waterfront property.

It was not always what I wanted to hear but I left understanding exactly what was allowed.

Unless you have direct knowledge that something illegal has happened I would refrain from making reckless allegations.

There are houses where it is clear that they go beyond the footprint within the 50 foot setback. I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything, just trying to find out how they do it.

There are times and ways that you can trade off non conforming to make it more conforming. In other words, if you remove say 200 Sq. feet that is non conforming and expand something else by 190 Sq feet it is my understanding that would be allowed, within reason, as they see it as overall better and the result is a building that is more conforming than prior to construction.

For example: I think, if you had a 10 X 15 tool shed within the setback and said you would remove it to add 110 Sq feet to the house they might look favorably on it.

That is my opinion but I think every situation is evaluated based on its merits.

Our island property is non-conforming to both town and state standards, the front wall is 30 feet from the water. Due to the age of the property, we were able to file with DES to add a 12' deep by 40' wide deck spanning the front. DES had no problem as there is an RSA that allows this (age built). The real battle was with Meredith, we had to go for a variance. We had our surveyor pleaded the case, they argued and finally granted it.

Meredith has a 75' setback, and being that the house is 30' deep the entire structure is non-confirming in their eyes.

I will say the building inspector in Meredith was great to deal with.

I think they look at decks different than buildings. I would think if you asked to put the same size living space addition to the house the answer would be a firm no.

Going through it now and this exactly what they do. You make tradeoffs that get both parties closer to what they want.

That Depends
 

If sewer is available you may be required to connect rather than putting in a new septic system if you rebuild. The federally funded system was built to come into compliance with the federal Clean Water Act. Too many septic systems were not well maintained and were contaminating the lake, hence the Winnipesaukee River Basin Program sewer system.

Winnipesaukee river project
 

Agreed. The Winnipesaukee River Basin Project from ~1965 was a great step forward. A similar project on the east side of the lake going down towards Dover would be wonderful. After the next elections, write to your federal delegation. Stewart Lamprey, a past Rep and Senator was the one who pushed that project. I think NH state Senator Chuck Morse also supports clean water projects. I served on a related committee with him a few years ago. Smart man.

That construction boom in Alton Bay sounds a lot like what happened in my neighbourhood last summer. I was actually working on adding a deck to my own house at the time. Getting the permits was a real headache, so I can imagine the process for those larger projects must be even more complex, especially close to the shoreline.

For my deck project, I had to rent a couple of heavy-duty trucks to bring in the timber and other materials. Those trucks were lifesavers, considering the amount of stuff we needed. It was my first time handling such a big DIY project, and seeing those big trucks pull up with all the supplies made it all feel very real. It definitely gave me a new appreciation for the scale of these larger construction projects around the lake.