Proposed HB 383 Ammending Shoreland Protection Act
 

Does anyone have any opinions regarding the ammendments to the Shoreland Protection Act contained in HB 383? I have heard that it has passed in the house and will be going to the senate. It does clarify some things (like the fact that you can trim your shrubs within limits). It does, however make it more difficult or impossible to remove trees within 50 feet of the shore if there are not already a lot of trees there. It also can provide significant limits on the amount of driveway coverage, even if the driveway is unpaved or covered with crushed stone. And if I read it literally, it makes it illegal to pick up a stone, dead stick, leaf or pine needle from within 50 feet of the shore and remove it. Is anyone concerned by this?

Below are a few excerpts from HB 383.

(C) No natural ground cover shall be removed unless removal is specifically approved by the department, pursuant to RSA 482-A.

X-a. “Natural ground cover” means any herbaceous plant or any woody seedling or shrub less than 3 feet in height. Natural ground cover shall also include naturally occurring leaf or needle litter, stumps, decaying woody debris, stones, and boulders. Natural ground cover shall not include lawns, invasive species as listed by the department of agriculture, markets and food in accordance with RSA 430:53, III or exempted by the department of environmental services in accordance with RSA 487:16-a, imported organic or stone mulches, or other artificial materials.

Sounds like a good thing to me. In fact, they should probably be more aggressive, but that will never happen.

That being said, I usually pick up big dead limbs that fall across our path from house to shore...and the big unsightly ones that fall each year. But we don't remove anything else...trees, rocks, etc. Interesting bill, and I am surprised it actually went through.

so does that mean you can not have your landscaper come in and do a spring or fall clean up? Would they need a special okay from the state to do work near the water. What about weekly mowings and you suck up some pine needles by accident? Would they have to take them out of the bagger and replace them back where it got sucked up from.
What do these people have wrong in thier heads to come up with this crap? And we the people are even dumber for voteing them into office!

Probably required
 

My first reaction to the impending law was not good, but after thinking about it for a while I came to the conclusion that it was necessary. Even with in-your-face education, too many lakeside landowners have been careless with their piece of shoreline ecology. This, along with three 100 year floods in 18 months, has resulted in a lake with declining water quality. Action is required to reverse the decline. Preserving the last 50 feet of vegetation protects the final filter for runoff, which is critical for a healthy lake. Aesthetics is a bonus - the shoreline will look more natural - but that is a secondary factor.

We need clarification of the law to understand if we may rake up pine needles on the lawn or not. I suspect that it will be OK. The law will change some of my habits. We used to rake the paths to the water once or twice a year, but then those paths became the run-off paths for rain. Leaving pine needles on the paths will look messy but provide a small piece of ecological help. I get worried when the state government starts passing new laws, but this one seems to target the right goals without being too intrusive. This law encourages each shore owner to act locally.

I agree with ACutAbove!!!! Come on!

where are the LFOD when we need them

I think this is a fantastic amendment to the SPA... of course as most of us know, enforcement is the real trick, and if history is any indication, most offenders will get off without as much as a wrist slap.

ACA c'mon, sucking up pine needles by accident? That's not what the law is meant to stop, and obviously its not enforceable on such a small scale like that. The spirit of the law is very clear- protect the shoreline and the lake water quality benefits. Overzealous clear cutting to the water's edge, planting of lakeside lawns and removal of the natural ground cover has become pervasive over the past 10 years, and the current SPA is not strong enough to deter offenders. (I believe the current law merely offers the "suggestion" that you leave the natural ground cover undisturbed) Anyone who takes regular boat rides each year can attest to this trend... just look how many homes which had previously had a natural shoreline now have a manicured landscape to the water's edge. And no, I'm not a fan of gov't coming into MBY and telling me what I can and can't do, but I feel the protection of the lake and its fragile ecosystem should always take precedence over one landowner's vanity.

I just think it is a little to late. I mean there are people on the lake that have spent tons of money to have these propertys and are taxed to the hill. If you start trying to regulate what they can keep looking good , then there will be alot of upset landowners. Dont get me wrong, Im all for keeping the lake clean. And doing things to protect the eco system here, I guess I try and look at things from both sides and argue for both.LOL

That's probably the problem....that being overzealous landscapers. They were previously allowed generous earthmoving freedoms, which has fed grass clippings, fertilizer, leaves and silt into a lake already well fed by phosphorus and nitrogen runoff. Algae, milfoil, and duck itch are the beneficiaries of poor shoreline management. The cleanest drinkingest lakes around, have the deepest mat of pine needles surrounding them. While enforcement for individuals isn't hopeful, leaning on the local landscaping businesses may make the difference.

HB 383 as worded contains the following provisions:

(v) Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to March 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 RSA 483 B:9, V(g)(2) or RSA 483-B:9, V(g)(3), or RSA 483-B:11, II.
(vi) Normal trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches to the extent necessary to protect structures, maintain clearances, and provide views is permitted. Trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches for the purpose of providing views shall be limited to the bottom 1/3 of the trees or saplings.

These provisions should be sufficient to allow homeowners to maintain their current landscaping conditions without any problems.

Food for thought
 

THis is yet another law, to legislate common sense. It is unfortunate that people have becom obsessed with green lawns and can't understand the beauty a tree in the view adds.....add the provisions pointed out but shore things show that the law makers realize that some clearing is neccessary...

I like the intent of the law but the details are wrong. Probably written by people that did not stop to fully consider the ramifications of their wording.

The phrase "shall also include naturally occurring leaf or needle litter" is idiotic for some situations. Does this mean you can't rake up you beach? Will visitors to Weirs Beach be sitting on leaf piles.

This law will, for the most part, be unknown and unenforced. People do not abide by laws they consider silly or unworkable.

“may maintain but not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches...” thus no one will be sitting on piles of pine needles on Weirs Beach.

I fully agree..... this is one of those laws that someone writes so that they can say they wrote "important enviormental legislation"....when the next election comes around.......

The full sentence is "Owners of lots that were developed prior to the effective date of this paragraph may maintain but not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches, within the waterfront buffer."

I'm not sure you can claim that Weirs Beach has been "developed", doesn't that require construction? If a beach has been "developed" you can rake up the leaves. Otherwise you must leave them where they fall. Ridiculous!

Again, the spirit of the law is to prevent the future destruction of shoreline, not to punish you for raking leaves and pine needles off your beaches and lawns.

I agree that enforcement will be a problem as you point out- many people don't realize or understand the current regulations. (of course, ignorance is not an excuse) However, there are some that understand the regulations quite well- namely, the contractors. If Johnny McMansion hires landscaper Bob to come in, clearcut his lot, plant a lawn and build a new beach, the landscaper will inform him of the rules and regulations. Of course, Johnny McMansion may chose to break the rules, but there's nothing DES can do about that except impose the fines...

So.... how would what the town of Alton just did to their beach be handled under this law?

Developed versus development....
 

The Town of Alton would have been fine under the proposal. Shore Things has the interpretation correct.

The key in this particular proposal is the word developed. In my opinion Bear Islander is confusing developed with development.

One of the legal definitions of the word developed is : To cause (a tract of land) to serve a particular purpose....

In the case of the Town of Alton they have caused a certain tract of land to be developed as a beach, hence they can employ reasonable means to keep the beach clean and clear as HB 383 denotes, as can private beach owners across the State if & when this bill passes. :)

One free year?
 

Since it sounds like the law would not take effect until next year and the 50% over 20 year rule is going away, does that mean everyone has free reign to cut down half of the trees within 50 feet of the water and maintain them as a cleared area after that? Certainly not what is intended, but it could have that effect. It sounds like if you want a bigger clearing, you could do it this year, but never again? Am I misreading this?

Belkin

shhhh.... let's not be giving people any crazy ideas...

Hi Skip

Doesn't it specify that a beach developed after the law takes effect can't be cleaned up?

Skip

I think BearIslander may be correct. Cahpter 485 has its own definition.

485-A:2 Definitions. –
I. ""Developed waterfront property'' means any parcel of land which is contiguous to or within 200 feet of tidal waters or a great pond as defined in RSA 4:40-a and upon which stands a structure suitable for either seasonal or year-round human occupancy.

I don't think there is any human occupancy at Weirs beach.

But the real point here is that it is stupid. We are not talking about an obscure interpretation of the chapter. They deliberately Wrote "shall also include naturally occurring leaf or needle litter" into the law.

Reasonable people will follow the intent of this law. Others will ignore it knowing the chances of being caught are remote, and the penalties small.

And everybody will rake up their beaches!

HB 383 amends RSA 483-B not RSA 485. The definition in RSA 485:2 is not relevant.

A new beach would require a permit from wetlands under RSA 482-A. The language of HB 383 authorizes Wetlands to permit the removal of ground cover for construction. A simple provision added to the permit conditions or writing the permit description as "Construct and maintain..." would cover new construction.

Shore Things is a sure thing!
 

Once again Shore Thing's you have it right! :)

Pine needles needed
 

I've noticed some of the newer, steeper, homesites plant large areas of ground-hugging juniper, and IMPORT pine needles!

HB 383 reflects some of the findings of a Commission that studied the effectiveness of the CSPA for approximately 15 months and reported their findings in November of 2006. If anyone is interested, the Commission's report, minutes, and several other documents relative to their study are available at

http://www.des.state.nh.us/cspa/CSPACommissionReport/

Sent to me by the Shoreland Section Supervisor for posting

**********************************************

Release: DES to Discuss Proposed Legislation to Change the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act

News from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

DATE: May 14, 2007

CONTACT: Jim Martin, (603) 271-3710

DES to Discuss Proposed Legislation to Change the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act

Public Meeting May 17 at DES Auditorium in Concord

Concord, NH - The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services will host an informational meeting to discuss the proposed legislative changes to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA). The meeting will be held at the DES Auditorium in Concord, located at 29 Hazen Drive from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.

The bills to be discussed include HB 663, HB 665, HB 857 and HB 383.

5:00 to 6:00 p.m. Overview of proposed legislative changes to the CSPA

6:00 to 7:00 p.m. Question and Answer

Directions are available at: http://des.nh.gov/asp/phonedir/phone...ink=directions. For more information about the meeting, please contact the DES Wetlands Bureau at (603) 271-2147.

Pay the fines, 'cause fines "pay"?
 

Recently, (Wednesday, the 9th I think) this area had an unusual and strong Southeasterly wind. The next day was dead-calm. Every square inch of the lake was covered in vegetative litter. :eek:

While most of it was "Nature's Own", there were leaf-blowers adding still more that day. (And do so every weekday). Everything loose—leaves, cones, mulch, needles, grass clippings—gets blown onto the dock, and thence into the lake.

A McMansion owner across from me paid the modest fines for clear-cutting his property about nine years ago. (According to a friend who is "tight" with a Town mover).

Last year, he sold the place advertised as "a view of the lake from every window", for about $4.5 million—more than five times what it cost to build.

Fines pay? :confused:

CSPA -- Any News
 

Has anyone heard any news regarding the public hearing or where this bill curently stands? The Meredith News this past weekend suggested that the it was before the Senate this week.

It is scheduled to be before the Senate NEXT week on June 7th.

Does anyone know if included in this (HB 383) is also the proposed law that requires state permits rather than a town permit to build a house closer to the lake than 250'? I am hearing if this passes, it will be a real hassle to get a permit if you want to build 50' from the lake as is required now. Many lots, maybe even most lots, are not 250' deep.

That is in HB 663.

Thank you for the reply shore things. I am hearing that if passed that will have a great impact on the economy of the state.

The permit requirement in HB 663 should not have the negative impact that some fear. That being said, I think it is easy to understand why people would have such fears... it would be foolish not to have them.

Both bills affecting the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act were passed by the Senate yesterday. HB 663 will proceed to the Governor for signature. HB 383 will go back to the House because it was amended by the Senate.

Fees for excavation (digging a hole?)
 

So if the Governor signs HB 663 will we need to pay $100.10 to plant tulips 249 feet from the water next year? :confused:

I highly doubt that will be the case.

Where are they?
 

I apologize if I missed it somewhere in this thread but would somebody please provide a link to the full wording of HB 383 and HB 663?

Thanks

Unfortunately, the lake has already been butchered. This bill is too little, too late. There is no reversing the trend at this point with the "Live Free or Die Crowd" at the helm. If you go to some of the larger lakes in Maine such as great Pond (It is lake despite the name) it is amazing to see the difference in the shore line when compared to Winnipesaukee.

So if HB 663 passed that means that anyone who wants to get a permit to build closer than 250' to the lake must get a permit from the state, right? That will mean almost everyone. It will go into effect Jan 1? Does anyone know the details-was it changed etc.?

You can search for both bills from here:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/ie/b...defaultpwr.asp

When you pull the bill up, the two things you will probably find most helpful are the "bill text" and "docket".

If is difficult to say if it is "too late" for Winnipesaukee, but regardless there are over 400 other lakes in the state, most of which have not yet been under the pressure that the big lake has been under. They will still benefit.

Finally the effective date for the changes to the standards and the permit requirement are April 1, 2008. There is language in HB 663 that will allow DES to exempt certain projects. Not every project will need a permit.

HB 383 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...07/hb0383.html

HB 857 http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...07/hb0857.html

Now, is there a lawyer in the house that can figure out what this all means?

Are those two pictures before and after shots from the same site?

new CSPA language
 

HB 663 and HB 383 revising the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act were signed into law on June 29, 2007. The official version has not been published by the NH Office of Legislative Services yet but DES has posted unofficial version of the revised Act on it's website so that the public has something available for use as a reference. It can be found at

http://www.des.state.nh.us/cspa/pdf/...corporated.pdf

Manicured lawns, why do people want lawns at the lake anyways? Mowing the lawn is the worst thing to do in the summer. Gee let me think go swimming, go for a boat ride, sit on the dock and have a beer. Oh i can't i need to mow the lawn. I hope people start to remember that the lake is a place to get away from it all at least i thought it was. Somone said that trees are a nice part of the view. I could not agree more. You can hardly see our place from the water which is great. I hope this bill will help to maybe change the shoreline view at least on new construction.

My folks live to maintain their Wolfeboro lawn—all three acres! :eek: (And agonize over such things as lawnmower height :rolleye2: ).

I'll take 10 minutes a season to "grass-whip" the tallest ground cover; otherwise, my one-acre lakefront is all woods. :look: If I'd had been more savvy after 51 years of watching, I'd have selectively eliminated all the hemlocks and maples. (Bad duff for a lakefront, IMHO).

Yesterday (my first day on the lake after a foot injury) I saw that a new McMansion nearby is replacing a perfect little "tear-down" that had received a major makeover just eight years ago.

The new McMansion is built on the "footprint" of the old structure, so it's just 40 feet from the lake. They delivered a pile of huge steel I-beam supports last week and today looks like a Home Depot from the lake. Where there had been about a dozen trees lining the shore's edge, there are now just two. Because of a driveway easement across the abutter's single lot, it's appearance is even bigger than a Home Depot. :(

From Winnipesaukee Construction—and even with its existing fifty-foot dock—it is also receiving a second dock with at least two triple tie-off pilings. (Better than some lake associations' installations).

Maybe this revision will help—it's long overdue, IMHO.

Has the official version been published yet? If so, would someone please reply with a link? I tried searching but came up empty.

Thanks

It hasn't been published yet. Legislative Services may not have it out until mid-October.

Clarification
 

Okay, here it goes....I have one of those lurkers for approx. 3yrs. now, this will be my first posting.

Is there anyone out there that can clarify this new bill?

1) I know it seems as of 4/1/08 you will not be able to do any building or excavation of any sort within 50ft of the shoreline, correct me if I am wrong.

2) What will be the minimum footage for a foundation from the shoreline after this bill goes into effect?

3) We have a beach right now that is not perched and has been on the shorefront for at least 40yrs. that we know of (we purchased the property back in 10/06.) It is not flat, but a little slope to it w/ what seems like railroad ties behind it that go into the ground approx. 2ft. The beach area is approx. (25'L x 12'W). We would like to remove the railroad ties and build a retaining wall in it's place. Is this possible? Your thoughts please. It is not Lake Winni, but 15 min. from Alton Bay.

4) If we were to have a site plan done and have a foundation poured and then capped before 4/1/08, but not really begin construction until 10/1/08, would we be okay? We would have approx. 18 months for construction completion.

:confused:

Any and all knowledge would be helpful, looking forward to hearing from you.

Hard to be correct on this one but I will stick my neck out. I heard that a town's rules can supersede the new state rules. So for example if the state says 50 foot set back from the water and Alton say 30 feet, you may get the permit for 30 feet.

When I recently did a project within 250 feet of the shore and checked what qualified for a DES permit, it seemed like just about everything requires the State's approval now. The extensive process included a check to see if any endangered species would be impacted by my project.

In case the DES follows this web site I must say, this is a fantastic system that has my full support.:) And thank you for my permit.

1) I know it seems as of 4/1/08 you will not be able to do any building or excavation of any sort within 50ft of the shoreline, correct me if I am wrong.

New primary structures (residential or commercial) can not be constructed within 50 ft of the shoreline after 4/1/08. There is still language in the law which allows DES to develop rules for the constuction of small accessory structures between the 50 ft setback and the shoreline.

2) What will be the minimum footage for a foundation from the shoreline after this bill goes into effect?

50 ft. There are provisions to allow building on undersized pre-existing lots.

3) We have a beach right now that is not perched and has been on the shorefront for at least 40yrs. that we know of (we purchased the property back in 10/06.) It is not flat, but a little slope to it w/ what seems like railroad ties behind it that go into the ground approx. 2ft. The beach area is approx. (25'L x 12'W). We would like to remove the railroad ties and build a retaining wall in it's place. Is this possible? Your thoughts please. It is not Lake Winni, but 15 min. from Alton Bay.

You can and will be able to replace the wall around the back of your beach. You should get a wetlands permit for that work. It would fall into the minimum impact category.

4) If we were to have a site plan done and have a foundation poured and then capped before 4/1/08, but not really begin construction until 10/1/08, would we be okay? We would have approx. 18 months for construction completion.

You would be ok, but you should photo document the project to show that you started earlier than 4/1/08 just in case some well-meaning, misinformed individual calls DES and logs a complaint.

Prior to the most recent changes to the Shoreland Protection Act a town could have a lesser setback that the State's 50 ft distance. This is no longer the case. The minimum setback in all towns is now 50 ft.

It'd be a great view—except for the trees?
 

Then you would probably not like this current view opposite Johnson's Cove in Wolfeboro.

(Rough wakes, pardon the photo not being "on the level".)

It was lined with trees until recently. It appears to be bulldozed for an outdoor swimming pool with a view of the lake. :rolleye2:

Correction
 

I double checked with the Town of Alton after making this original post. I asked about the set backs on the lake and was told it is changing soon. As indicated here, as of April 1, 2008 it will be 50 feet. The town's 30 feet will not matter. I asked what would be required to be OK at 30 feet as the law is now and was told that the structure would have to be built by April 1rst. Wanted to pass this updated info along as it conflicted with my earlier post.

If anyone knows something different on getting a future house grandfathered to the existing rule without actually building the house it would be very valuable info.

Thank You.....
 

For all your replies. I guess you could say that is a little confusing. For example, the town our property is located is adjacent to Alton. We were told a yr. ago (by the building inspector who new the property very well), then that the setback for the Town for 50'. When we had a excavator take a look at the property (who seems to do a lot of work in the town), informed us it is 150' (and it always has been. So needless to say, we have been seeming to get conflicting answers from officials (not meaning anywhere from here, this forum is very informitive).

I'll let you know what more I find/hear as well.

Thanks.

I have a question regarding your findings. When I built in Alton in 1994 it was stated by my engineer on all paperwork to the town for layout of house and septic system that my property was "Pre 1967 and grandfathered at the distance of 30' from the water). I have no idea what is meant by Pre 1967 and never asked as all I wanted was to build a home and build it legal. Was anything like this mentioned to you when you went to the town offices??:)

Water front distance
 

I do not have an answer, but you sound as if you may have used the same engineer that we did back in 1993 as all my paperwork stated the exact same thing, "Pre 1967". I being on the safe side placed my home 50' from waters edge even knowing I could place it closer. Hey, the kids can walk the extra 20' without killing them. Am I right??? It also gives the family a bit more lawn to mow and/or take care of or just move around in playing games.

Pre 19** usually mean the lot was created (subdivided off a larger parcel) previous to that date (which is often a date of a code change or requirement) -- sometimes requirements change based on the age of the lot.

Building near the water? Not so fast......
 

There was an article in the Boston Sunday Globe (9/23) in regards to NH changing waterfront regulations. It stated how the new rules were enacted on July 1 when the State Legislature passed amendments to the 1994 Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act. The most important of the new regulations that any construction within 250' of a freshwater shore will need a permit under the Protection Act. It also stated that in the past there were certain conditions within a 250' zone that a project has to meet before it would even fall in jurisdiction fo the Protection Act where as confusion often lead to mis-understandings. The Act now has strict rules and regs. regarding construction so close to the water that they must be followed regardless. Pre-existing homes can still make renovations, BUT, you just can't down a house and build and put up a bigger one. With the new regulations to take effect in April the state is out there trying to train and educate the towns so there are no mis-understandings.

Just passing info along........

"Docks Unlimited"...
 

There seem to be a few "misunderstandings" by the Town within view of my porch.

Within the last week, two non-local builders have put in five docks: one is the conventional 40-footer, and four are 50-footers. Two are effectively 60-footers because of nine pilings driven off the ends.

And these five docks are for just two houses! :confused:

APS, have you checked to see if these "non-local builders" had the proper permits for these docks? Especially with pilings being driven in these docks sound permenant and therefore should only be 30 feet in length unless they should some hard ship like shallow water. There is a search engine on the DES page to look for permits, and if you know the location it works pretty well.

Amen to Amending!
 

Sometimes, permits are posted at the sites: in neither case did this occur.

A friend advised me that the pair of 50-footer docks nearest his place had hired an attorney who complained of shallow water there—but the depth there is no different than the depth at his place!

It seems that if you intend to put a "Really Big Boat" there, you can get any dock length you want....:rolleye1:

The other site (the triple nearest me) has plenty of depth, but the new construction's runoff of soil may require another ten feet to be added to each dock next year. :eek:

Come to think of it, runoff just before 2007's Ice-Out pushed soil, clay, gravel and rocks 250 feet down a driveway, around (and through!) a cellar, under the first "silt fence", and managed to cover the first eighteen feet of the old dock!

Have I mentioned that I'm in favor of the new Shoreland Protection Act? :laugh: