View Single Post
Old 03-04-2010, 03:03 PM   #9
Sue Doe-Nym
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,372
Thanks: 710
Thanked 758 Times in 393 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redwing View Post
I want to say in the early 1980s, Moultonborough merged our two separately, purchased lots into one large lot. No discussion... my mother learned of this merger by courier. She spent a lot of time and energy (and limited resources) fighting this merger with the powers that be in Moultonborough, but for naught.

My parents had purchased our first 100 feet of lakefront property in 1952, and the second (and adjoining) 100 feet in 1956. Since sub-divided lots are taxed at a higher rate (correct me if I am mistaken here!), the only benefit was that we were taxed at a slightly lower rate for the one merged lot. However, my mother lost her ability to ever sell that adjoining lot had she ever chosen to do so. It was her "nest egg" which was no more....

It seems as though manny people fail to understand the original purpose of merging NON-CONFORMING lots WITH COMMON OWNERSHIP. In Moultonborough for example, there are many subdivisions such as Suissevale, Toltec, Richardson Shores plus many others with hundreds of waterfront and non-waterfront lots created that were as small as .29 acres.Yes,thats two tenths of an acre or approximately 8,000+ square feet. In places such as Toltec which is mostly granite the septic systems were mostly old oil tanls or 55 gallon drums.

When zoning was enacted around 1984 the minimum lot size was 40,000 square feet, plus now there are requirements for soils and slopes, etc. In order to meet DES requirements for septic plus other considerations, the town decided to go to the involuntary merger route ONLY for NON-CONFORMING lots with common ownership. This action was not taken without the owners being notofied and given time to put lots in different names - joint on one , husband on another, and wife on another (just as was described above). Many years ago, Suissevale adopted an excellent policy that has lead to fewer but larger lots. This is done by a right of first refusal to abutters of any property, especially lots. so that the smaller lots can not be built on and are purchased by neighbors. Check the Suissevale website where I believe this policy is explained.

Basically, in Moultonborough at least, the practice has worked out quite well and I don't understand why other towns are having so much trouble.
Sue Doe-Nym is offline   Reply With Quote