Cottage Fire On Evergreen Island

[Just Sold]

From WMUR
Cabin Destroyed In Moultonborough Fire

Cause Of Fire Under Investigation
POSTED: 11:43 pm EDT June 8, 2010
UPDATED: 1:26 am EDT June 9, 2010

MOULTONBOROUGH, N.H. --

• Images: Moultonborough Fire Destroys Cabin

A massive fire destroyed a cabin and a shed in Moultonborough on Tuesday.
Moultonborough fire officials said the fire affected two structures, but only one burned. The residents had left the cabin about an hour before the fire at about 6 p.m., and there was no one else on the island at the time of the fire.
While the cause of the fire remained under investigation, officials said it did not appear suspicious.
Firefighters from Tuftonboro and Center Harbor were called to assist, and it took crews about four hours to extinguish the blaze.
The island is a short distance off land and is only accessible by boat.

[Grady223]

OMG! Every island owner's nightmare. Alton FD came to our Association meeting last year to go over island fire safety. They admitted that if a home on the Island caught fire, it could not be saved, they could never get there in time. Their objective would be to try to save the rest of the homes on the Island.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

I saw this on the news this morning and was saddened for this family. Thank goodness no one got hurt.

There is definitely a risk of fire living on an island. Sometimes it frightens me to see some of the campfires islanders have. There have times when I've been on the island in the middle of the week and I catch a whiff of smoke coming from over the island after a thunderstorm. That can be very scary and very unnerving.

[Seeker]

I am proud to say my local fire dept has never lost a foundation. I get a nice insurance discount because I'm so near the fire station. I wish the volunteers were as near.

[Jonas Pilot]

It sounds like they could use your help.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Grady223

OMG! Every island owner's nightmare. Alton FD came to our Association meeting last year to go over island fire safety. They admitted that if a home on the Island caught fire, it could not be saved, they could never get there in time. Their objective would be to try to save the rest of the homes on the Island.

I'm surprised that for any new construction that the Town doesn't require the residential sprinkler systems for an island property because of this.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I'm surprised that for any new construction that the Town doesn't require the residential sprinkler systems for an island property because of this.

I believe that the 2009 IRC states new houses built after 2012 will require sprinklers, unless the law is repealed as is being considered.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I'm surprised that for any new construction that the Town doesn't require the residential sprinkler systems for an island property because of this.

I wonder if a seasonal property would qualify under this law.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I wonder if a seasonal property would qualify under this law.

The way I read it any new single or 2 family residential house constructed after April 1st 2012 will be required to install sprinkler systems.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

I believe that the 2009 IRC states new houses built after 2012 will require sprinklers, unless the law is repealed as is being considered.

Correct after 2012. A couple of reasons this is being faught:

It can cost the average homeowner anywhere for 3K and up to have a house fitted with a sprinkler system. This means that even if you are just putting on an addition, you will have to sprinkler the entire structure, not just the new portion. It falls in line with the requirement to add wired smokes in as many places as feasible when renovating an existing home.

The code would require that the sprinklers be installed, but has no regulation on maintenance or inspection of these system. Unlike a commercial setup, the owner can literally never charge the sprinkler system to prevent the possibility of having to maintain it down the road. Even though you have to have sprinklers, you do not have to use them. So down the road you could end up buying a home that had a system installed 10 years ago, but it has never been used and would possibly need to be completely replaced because of that.

You can find out more by visiting the Home Builders and Remodelors Association of NH (HBRANH). The Remodelers Council a strong arm wing of HBRANH that deals with the legislature on new laws and regulations for the construction industry. The owner of my company just passed on the reins of Chairman of the RC three years ago, but we are still members and attend meetings. For any builders out there or almost anyone for that matter that wants to get proactive about the trade and step up to the next level should definately check it out. Membership includes opportunities to further your education and knowledge about running a successful company and helping your clients.

http://www.hbranh.com/index/index

[jrc]

In Hollis, we have no hydrants and a limited fire department, so you have to protect yourself from fire on new builds and the fire chief has to approve.

Most people either opt for a sprinkler system or for a fire water rentention pond. I went for sprinklers. It was less than 0.5% of the cost of the house. I save on my home owners insurance, but probably not enough to cover the cost. Finally it add a lot of peace of mind.

I don't think it should be a law, but I think insurance companies should be smart enough to use policy costs to drive it. Especially on properties with limited fire department protection.

[AC2717]

Anyone else see the fact that is happens very infrequent and thsi sprinkler law is jumping way out there in left field as an over re-action?
Talk about lining the pockets of contractors

The insurance way would be the way to go, cause lets face it:
a fre can or cannot be a total loss, but a fire with the activation of a sprinkler system with all the water damage resulting is almost or might as well be a total loss.
And then add on top of it the now more frequent pipe bursts an regular leakage due to the large temperature swings and expansion and retraction of the pipes

I am in the business of insurance and if people saw the number of losses due to sprinkler systems on the commercial side, please do not think I am saying that it is not a very important life saving device, it is, but sometimes after something is beaten to death, there is no point of return

[The Real BigGuy]

This requirement sounds somewhat useless. Requiring smoke detectors/alarms on islands seems like a more reasonable idea.

1) All island properties are on lake water or wells that require electric pumps and/or pressure tanks. As soon as, or very shortly after, the fire reaches the power line or the most likley PVC waterline the sprinkler is off.
2) In the winter most island residents will drain the system and shut off the power. Not much proitection there.
3) During the summer do you really want a charged sprinkler system, in a location that could be hours from your home, that may go off for any number of reasons (a pressure drop due to a leaking faucet, an uninvited furry four legged friend, etc.) not related to fire?

Once again the legislators/rule makers want to make us safe from ourselves with little indepth thought. Ready, Shoot, Aim! And I think most of us islanders know that if the fire starts at our house the best we can hope for is they save the neighbor's structures.

Sounds just like the Mineral Management board - "Yea, go ahead and drill the oil well in that well in mile deep water. You don't need to have a fail safe shut off. We trust you that there will never be a blowout."

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

This requirement sounds somewhat useless. Requiring smoke detectors/alarms on islands seems like a more reasonable idea.

1) All island properties are on lake water or wells that require electric pumps and/or pressure tanks. As soon as, or very shortly after, the fire reaches the power line or the most likley PVC waterline the sprinkler is off.
2) In the winter most island residents will drain the system and shut off the power. Not much proitection there.
3) During the summer do you really want a charged sprinkler system, in a location that could be hours from your home, that may go off for any number of reasons (a pressure drop due to a leaking faucet, an uninvited furry four legged friend, etc.) not related to fire?

Once again the legislators/rule makers want to make us safe from ourselves with little indepth thought. Ready, Shoot, Aim! And I think most of us islanders know that if the fire starts at our house the best we can hope for is they save the neighbor's structures.

Sounds just like the Mineral Management board - "Yea, go ahead and drill the oil well in that well in mile deep water. You don't need to have a fail safe shut off. We trust you that there will never be a blowout."

You should see how they work.....
System doesn't have to be drained.
System does not tie into your water system so faucets are irrelevant.
The system has a tank and charging pump that activates for a fixed time. It's as much about life safety as it is property protection.

If I lived in a remote location, I would not have a house without it.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Maybe "we" should just mandate that everything be built out of rock or concrete. That'll really solve the problem. Ban anything with a flame, let's use magnifying glasses to cook with. It's a wonder we're still allowed to drive boats or cars.

[The Real BigGuy]

Just curious, if system doesn't have to be drained in the winter, remember most island homes are not heated during the winter, what is the system charges with? Glycol?

How much water does the tank hold? More than you normal water pressure tank? If not, how much protection is it going to give you especially if the fire starts on the exterior.

My comments relate to island property only. If you have a place with a municipal system or the money to install a large pressure tank or a foam system I'm all for sprinklers.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Maybe "we" should just mandate that everything be built out of rock or concrete. That'll really solve the problem. Ban anything with a flame, let's use magnifying glasses to cook with. It's a wonder we're still allowed to drive boats or cars.

Have you ever seen and smelled the charred body of someone who died in a house fire?

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Have you ever seen and smelled the charred body of someone who died in a house fire?

Oh spare me the dramatics.OK,I'll bite.Yes have you?

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

Just curious, if system doesn't have to be drained in the winter, remember most island homes are not heated during the winter, what is the system charges with? Glycol?

How much water does the tank hold? More than you normal water pressure tank? If not, how much protection is it going to give you especially if the fire starts on the exterior.

My comments relate to island property only. If you have a place with a municipal system or the money to install a large pressure tank or a foam system I'm all for sprinklers.

Tanks vary in size but bigger than your little expansion tank. I think they are in the 300-500 gallon range for a typical two story house. The system designs are supposed to give 10 minutes of flow.

The system has anti-freeze but can also be a 'dry' design where the pipes are empty until the charging pump starts up.

I don't have one in my house but wish I did. My neighbor had one intalled during construction and I regret not adding it. With pets at home, anything to increase the odds of a good outcome is worth it too me. Our neighborhood has a big fire pond but getting the fire before it gets going is the better bet.

Edit: No system is going to be 100% fool-proof so we can all come up with scenarios that would render a system useless. Just like seats belts and airbags don't guarantee survival, they certainly improve your chances.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Oh spare me the dramatics.OK,I'll bite.Yes have you?

Dramatic? Yeah, you could say that. I think the smell is worse than the sight.

[Kracken]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Maybe "we" should just mandate that everything be built out of rock or concrete. That'll really solve the problem. Ban anything with a flame, let's use magnifying glasses to cook with. It's a wonder we're still allowed to drive boats or cars.

Thanks for my daily chuckle. keep em comming.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Have you ever seen and smelled the charred body of someone who died in a house fire?

Not in a house fire ... how about a car crash ? Does that qualify ? How about someones face peeled clean off after it went through a windshield ?

EDIT : Their inhuman screaming is worse than the sight.

My point ... so what. There are risks in everything we do. I don't think my goal in life is to reduce every risk to the minimum possible at whatever cost it takes to do so. Seems to me that death due to house fire is already minimized by fire detectors and escape routes. You tell me why I should be forced to pay extra thousands of $$s if I'm will to take the risk I presently have with the aforementioned items ?


But for your attempt to engage emotion over reason ...

[jmen24]

"The Drama Llama" BWAAAAAA, I can't make it stop. That is the funniest picture with caption that I have yet to see. Bravo sir, Bravo.

Seriously though, LP how long have you been waiting for a conversation to come up when you could bust out with that line?

BTW, my b-i-l was an assistant at the State Medical Examiners office while in college, does that count?

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by jmen24

"The Drama Llama" BWAAAAAA, I can't make it stop. That is the funniest picture with caption that I have yet to see. Bravo sir, Bravo.

Blame it on Kracken. I wuz just followin orderz.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jmen24

"The Drama Llama" BWAAAAAA, I can't make it stop. That is the funniest picture with caption that I have yet to see. Bravo sir, Bravo.

Seriously though, LP how long have you been waiting for a conversation to come up when you could bust out with that line?

jmen, don't even go there. This is a serious topic. Once you see the effects of a house fire and know the details about how quickly it started, the whole line of thinking changes.

If you don't want to have a sprinkler system then fine. But at least let people know the facts about what's available.

Here's something I googled fairly quickly for an overview for anyone's that's interested:
http://www.fpant.org/training/PDF/Re...%20version.pdf

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jmen24

"The Drama Llama" BWAAAAAA, I can't make it stop. That is the funniest picture with caption that I have yet to see. Bravo sir, Bravo.

Seriously though, LP how long have you been waiting for a conversation to come up when you could bust out with that line?

BTW, my b-i-l was an assistant at the State Medical Examiners office while in college, does that count?

Ask any of the victims families if they wish the house had a sprinkler system. You guys are really sad.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

jmen, don't even go there. This is a serious topic. Once you see the effects of a house fire and know the details about how quickly it started, the whole line of thinking changes.

If you don't want to have a sprinkler system then fine. But at least let people know the facts about what's available.

Here's something I googled fairly quickly for an overview for anyone's that's interested:
http://www.fpant.org/training/PDF/Re...%20version.pdf

Your right, I have never seen or been affected by a house fire. My bad, I will keep my outrageous comments to myself.

[lawn psycho]

jmen, even in the trades this is a devisive topic. For some it's more about revenue or any potential loss of revenue than anything else. At least admit you're biased.

I'm not saying a remodel should require a refit of a sprinkler system. However, if I were a homebuilder I would certainly bring this up in the list of options to consider. There are some really good systems available.

I went from city water in my prior house to a well/septic and only after building did I realize what's available for residential sprinklers.

And as far as the comments, it's all about $ until a casualty happens and then what's is about? It's not funny then, is it?

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Not in a house fire ... how about a car crash ? Does that qualify ? How about someones face peeled clean off after it went through a windshield ?

EDIT : Their inhuman screaming is worse than the sight.

My point ... so what. There are risks in everything we do. I don't think my goal in life is to reduce every risk to the minimum possible at whatever cost it takes to do so. Seems to me that death due to house fire is already minimized by fire detectors and escape routes. You tell me why I should be forced to pay extra thousands of $$s if I'm will to take the risk I presently have with the aforementioned items ?

I always wish when someone who spews this kinds of ideological rhetoric that when the unthinkable happens, you can ask them during the crisis if they still think that way...

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

jmen, even in the trades this is a devisive topic. For some it's more about revenue or any potential loss of revenue than anything else. At least admit you're biased.

I'm not saying a remodel should require a refit of a sprinkler system. However, if I were a homebuilder I would certainly bring this up in the list of options to consider. There are some really good systems available.

I went from city water in my prior house to a well/septic and only after building did I realize what's available for residential sprinklers.

And as far as the comments, it's all about $ until a casualty happens and then what's is about? It's not funny then, is it?

If it is all about the money, then why wouldn't I as a builder be pushing for this with all we have. This type of regualtion would not have stopped the 1/4 million dollar kitchen addition we added to a lake side home last year.

If someone wants a sprinkler system in their home, then they will get a sprinkler system in their home.

By making it mandatory per code, they bring to the table an unanswered question. How does the state or town inspect such a system and force the owner of said system to keep it maintained?

When the orginal owner sells the property and the new owners experience a fire, but the original system was never activated and fails to keep someone from dying; Who is at fault?

I read the link you posted and it presents some good information.

On a similar subject, ask an owner of a home that is older than 1978 what they think of the EPA taking away that owner's right to waive the additional costs to renovate their home (per the EPA Lead Safe Practices) if they do not have children or elderly that reside there.

It all falls under control rather than choice.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jmen24

If it is all about the money, then why wouldn't I as a builder be pushing for this with all we have. This type of regualtion would not have stopped the 1/4 million dollar kitchen addition we added to a lake side home last year.

If someone wants a sprinkler system in their home, then they will get a sprinkler system in their home.

By making it mandatory per code, they bring to the table an unanswered question. How does the state or town inspect such a system and force the owner of said system to keep it maintained?

When the orginal owner sells the property and the new owners experience a fire, but the original system was never activated and fails to keep someone from dying; Who is at fault?

I read the link you posted and it presents some good information.

On a similar subject, ask an owner of a home that is older than 1978 what they think of the EPA taking away that owner's right to waive the additional costs to renovate their home (per the EPA Lead Safe Practices) if they do not have children or elderly that reside there.

It all falls under control rather than choice.

The average kitchen remodel is a much smaller dollar figure than $250k. For the typical house remodel if they were mandatory it could be a deal breaker. In the trades, the sprinkler guys don't like them because they view plumbers who would install some of these systems as stepping onto their turf. The list is lenghty on why residential fire systems are not standard equipment.

As far as the systems being inspected, who inspects the smoke detectors at the time of sale? I think this is a weak argument to use for opposing a system. The NFPA has some information but I have not taken the time to research what standards do or do not exist. The sprinkler head designs have been around for decades. Plumbing and pumps have been around forever. So if the system meets the requirements of 13D for flow and number of heads, there's not a whole lot too it. If the residential systems were mandated then obviously the the standards would evolve just like the plumbing and electric codes. PEX anyone?

My neighbors system recircs the water every so often (it's a light green). I don't know how often the anti-freeze has to be replaced but that would really be the only maintenance.

[jmen24]

So, why does someone in my position truely care one way or the other about what a client can and cannot do to their home.

This is my biased opinion as I am in the remodeling industry.

When a very strict code is presented and adopted that causes a homeowner to incure added cost to a project to comply, it presents that owner with three options.

Suck up the cost and move forward with a reputable builder that will adhere to the code as it is outlined.

Not do the project at all or wait until they can afford that added cost.

Work with a builder that will perform the project without proper permiting, inspections.

The last reason is the one that gives professional building firms the most heartache. Being involved with furthering the progression of the industry and practices is a constant task in a proffesional company. When you force someone to make a decision based on cost they are not given a choice in the quality of their project, they have to pray that just because the person they have choosen to perform the work that is willing to violate this one rule is not going to violate any others.

We all hear the stories presented by people we know about how terrible a project went and how bad the contractor was. When items like sprinklers and the Lead Paint program and CSPA come forward it opens up a channel that allows builders like this to prosper. Because someone will always be interested in entertaining the idea of flying under the radar and saving some money at the same time.

These practices take away from our industry as a whole and end up creating a need for even tighter controls to remidy the issues caused by sub-par work. It is a never ending cycle. The new code for attaching a deck ledger board to the internal framework of the houses flooring system is a prime example. Because contractors have been making this connection with nails or decking screws, the decks literally fall off the house. So now we are left with a new code that from a structural engineering standpoint is way overboard.

Obviously sprinklers fall under a life safety code, but just like PFD's they are not going to save every person that requires them to perform as they are designed. Yes it increases the chances, but it all ends up creating a sub-industry that is willing to circumvent the laws and codes.

The cart is leaving before the horse. Other than electricians, plumbers and gas line installers, you do not need to be licensed in this state to work in construction. That is where we need to be heading first and we are getting closer.

You wanted my opinion and it is shared by almost all of our collegues that operate at the level that we do.

[jmen24]

So, why does someone in my position truely care one way or the other about what a client can and cannot do to their home.

This is my biased opinion as I am in the remodeling industry.

When a very strict code is presented and adopted that causes a homeowner to incure added cost to a project to comply, it presents that owner with three option.

Suck up the cost and move forward with a reputable builder that will adhere to the code as it is outlined.

Not do the project at all or wait until they can afford that added cost.

Work with at builder that will perform the project without proper permiting, inspections.

The last reason is the one that gives professional building firms the most heartache. Being involved with furthering the progression of the industry and practices is a constant task in a proffesional company. When you force someone to make a decision based on cost they are not given a choice in the quality of their project, they have to pray that just because the person they have choosen to perform the work that is willing to violate this one rule is not going to violate any others.

We all hear the stories presented by people we know about how terrible a project went and how bad the contractor was. When items like sprinklers and the Lead Paint program and CSPA come forward it opens up a channel that allows builders like this to prosper. Because someone will always be interested in entertaining the idea of flying under the radar and saving some money at the same time.

These practices take away from our industry as a whole and end creating a need for even tighter controls to remidy the issues caused by sub-par work.

Obviously sprinklers fall under a life safety code, but just like PFD's they are not going to save every person that requires them to perform as they are designed. Yes it increases the chances, but it all ends up creating a sub-industry that is willing to circumvent the laws and codes.

The cart is leaving before the horse. Other than electricians, plumbers and gas line installers, you do not need to be licensed in this state to work in construction. That is where we need to be heading first and we are getting closer.

You wanted my opinion and it is shared by almost all of our collegues that operate at the level that we do.

[jrc]

It's essentially a law in Hollis, and it enforced by the Certificate of Occupancy. You need to show a working system to get the fire chief to sign a CoO. I built my house in 2002 and went through this.

Other answers:

We have sprinkler in an unheated garage, they are filled with antifreeze, so winters are not an issue.

I have a 200 gallon oil tank filled with water in the basement. The system has it's own electric pump. Once the electricity fails, I'm unprotected.

The goal of a system like this is not to put out a fire already spread through out the house. When a fire starts the sprinkler in that area is triggered by the heat and should stop the fire there, or at least slow the spread. It's not like on TV, when one sprinkler head trips, the others don't trip.

Anyone who works in an office building knows that false discharge on a system like this is vanishingly rare.

Eventually the insurance companies may drive this into universal application. They will find that any fire on an island or isolated property is a total loss. So they can refuse to write a policy for those applications until retrofitted.

I don't think this should be a law, but I'll likely put one in any house I build.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jmen24

The cart is leaving before the horse. Other than electricians, plumbers and gas line installers, you do not need to be licensed in this state to work in construction. That is where we need to be heading first and we are getting closer.

This problem is magnified in rural states like NH and Maine with small town code enforcement. Thorough inspections during construction can save a lot of headaches for builder and homeowner/buyer.

NC has an interesting technique to stop some of the operating under the radar. If you don't have building permits for certain items, you can't claim them as amenities on your real estate listing. Example: Finished basement but no permit was ever pulled for it, can't be listed as a furnished basement and square footage can't be padded.

Edit: and if you we're selling a house with a finished basement and didn't have it in the listing the questions come up about permitting......

[Sman]

In my line of work I have seen total losses from both fire and water. I wouldn't wish either one on anyone. So if you have a sprinkler system the good news is the fire may be controlled or put out which is a good thing, limiting damage to your property and other property.

As far as just your house is concerned, depending on the circumstances and the building materials in your home, be aware it still could potentially be a total loss and is at the very least a major loss and you will not be able to use it until all of the remediation and cleanup and repair work is done. I agree, you stand a better chance with the sprinkler system to save part of your house, but you still have a large claim to make, lessor of 2 evils for sure.

I feel bad for those folks.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I always wish when someone who spews this kinds of ideological rhetoric that when the unthinkable happens, you can ask them during the crisis if they still think that way...

Oh please spare us the childish rhetoric. I'd like to think people have some realistic idea that the world we live in is full of risks and that they accept, or mitigate, them as they think is proper. It would appear (perhaps I'm judging you too harshly) that you, and many others, would like to see us all live the way that makes you feel good about the risks "I" take. The problem is that I really don't care to live in a cage with bars made from your fears. You seem to think that $$s aren't a concern in the real world. Well for you perhaps not but for most of us $$s are important. You seem to want to dictate that "we" all spend the $$s neceesary to mitigate the risk of death due to fire. Frankly if I were that worried I'd find better places to spend those $$s, places that reduce my risk of death (or serious injury) by a far greater amount. I checked here for risk of death in a home fire. They didn't spell that particular risk out but let's use the overall risk of 1:1,235 (death due to exposure to smoke, fire or flames in all places) as that risk all unto itself and further assume that it would be (mostly) eliminated with sprinklers. But if I were that concerned about other peoples safety first I'd ban motorcycles (to be topical). Costs people nothing, saves them $$ even. Seems peoples odds due to death in a bike accident are 1:804. But not everyone rides a bike, most drive a car. I'd bet you do. The odds of dying in a car crash are 1:85 (behind only death by heart disease, cancer and stroke). Did you spend the extra $$ to get the safest car possible ? Should everybody ? Even better, I know that the $3000 will get you into a top flight advanced driving school wherein the lessons you learn will certainly reduce your risk of getting into any car accident. So are you ready to spend your $3000 on that ? I'll call Michelle, who was my DI at Bob Bondurant, and see if she has an opening.

Please tell me why spending $3000 on sprinklers is a better deal than $3000 at Bob's school. Which, in a perfect world, should be mandated ? In 2008 some 2,755 people died in home fires. In that same year 26,689 people died in car crashes. (only 5,290 bikers) Where should our limited $$ go ?

Now if you want to spend your $$s on sprinklers go ahead. Or not. It's your call*. Like deciding to drive a bike or go mountain climbing or skiiing or eating too much and not exercising.



*At least it will be if I have any say about it.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Sman

In my line of work I have seen total losses from both fire and water. I wouldn't wish either one on anyone. So if you have a sprinkler system the good news is the fire may be controlled or put out which is a good thing, limiting damage to your property and other property.

As far as just your house is concerned, depending on the circumstances and the building materials in your home, be aware it still could potentially be a total loss and is at the very least a major loss and you will not be able to use it until all of the remediation and cleanup and repair work is done. I agree, you stand a better chance with the sprinkler system to save part of your house, but you still have a large claim to make, lessor of 2 evils for sure.

I feel bad for those folks.

That's how I feel, you have a mess either way. We had to put a dry sprinkler system in our business and I wasn't thrilled about it. Our insurance rates DID NOT go down. I asked specifically about it and was told they would not go down. We have to have them tested yearly.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Oh please spare us the childish rhetoric. I'd like to think people have some realistic idea that the world we live in is full of risks and that they accept, or mitigate, them as they think is proper. It would appear (perhaps I'm judging you too harshly) that you, and many others, would like to see us all live the way that makes you feel good about the risks "I" take. The problem is that I really don't care to live in a cage with bars made from your fears. You seem to think that $$s aren't a concern in the real world. Well for you perhaps not but for most of us $$s are important. You seem to want to dictate that "we" all spend the $$s neceesary to mitigate the risk of death due to fire. Frankly if I were that worried I'd find better places to spend those $$s, places that reduce my risk of death (or serious injury) by a far greater amount. I checked here for risk of death in a home fire. They didn't spell that particular risk out but let's use the overall risk of 1:1,235 (death due to exposure to smoke, fire or flames in all places) as that risk all unto itself and further assume that it would be (mostly) eliminated with sprinklers. But if I were that concerned about other peoples safety first I'd ban motorcycles (to be topical). Costs people nothing, saves them $$ even. Seems peoples odds due to death in a bike accident are 1:804. But not everyone rides a bike, most drive a car. I'd bet you do. The odds of dying in a car crash are 1:85 (behind only death by heart disease, cancer and stroke). Did you spend the extra $$ to get the safest car possible ? Should everybody ? Even better, I know that the $3000 will get you into a top flight advanced driving school wherein the lessons you learn will certainly reduce your risk of getting into any car accident. So are you ready to spend your $3000 on that ? I'll call Michelle, who was my DI at Bob Bondurant, and see if she has an opening.

Please tell me why spending $3000 on sprinklers is a better deal than $3000 at Bob's school. Which, in a perfect world, should be mandated ? In 2008 some 2,755 people died in home fires. In that same year 26,689 people died in car crashes. (only 5,290 bikers) Where should our limited $$ go ?

Now if you want to spend your $$s on sprinklers go ahead. Or not. It's your call*. Like deciding to drive a bike or go mountain climbing or skiiing or eating too much and not exercising.



*At least it will be if I have any say about it.

You seem to be one of those people who doesn't want government in your life but would be the first to whine if they reduced medicaid.....

All your stuff makes good sound bites but ignores reality.

Do you realize how many products you buy have safety and quality costs built in? Why should you have to have seat belts and airbags? Why crash safety tests? Why UL listed smoke detectors? Why have circuit breakers? Why require handrails on your tall front stair? Why require bathroom fans for ventilation? Why require your house be insulated? Why require GFCI outlets in bathrooms and kitchens? We can play this game all day.

$3000? Numbers are quoted as ~$1/sq ft today and would likely go down if used by more homes.

Also, the driver training is not a good comparison of risk mitigation as that assumption would be that your driving alone is the sole variable into crashes. It's not.

This thread started about a house on an island that cuaght fire and burned.
If you want to argue with me that sprinklers are a bad idea then I say you're dense.

[Coolbreeze]

FYI, most fatalities in structural fires are caused by smoke inhalation. Therefore, smoke detectors are the most important.
I have seen more than my share of fatalities in my years on the job and my experiences have made me a believer that any device or sprinkler that is as effective as a residential sprinkler in saving a life is well worth the expense in any facet...even on an island if need be. A Fire will double in size every thirty seconds, do the math.

[jrc]

Jmen and lawn pyscho seem to be ready to blindly let the government decide for them which safety features and codes are appropriate for them. I don't trust them.

Some rules are really needed, some are motivated by other issues like supporting industries, protecting trades, by misguided and outdated ecology, some by over-reaction to a single incident, by ignorance and some by politics.

Most are a cost vs benefit trade-off, I'm smarter than some government bureaucrat, I'll make the trade-off.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jrc

Jmen and lawn pyscho seem to be ready to blindly let the government decide for them which safety features and codes are appropriate for them. I don't trust them.

Some rules are really needed, some are motivated by other issues like supporting industries, protecting trades, by misguided and outdated ecology, some by over-reaction to a single incident, by ignorance and some by politics.

Most are a cost vs benefit trade-off, I'm smarter than some government bureaucrat, I'll make the trade-off.

curious, what field do you work in?

There will be a day when the sprinklers are required in every new residential home.......

And yes, man REALLY did land on the moon.

[jrc]

I've worked for 30 years in the communications electronics industry. Why is it important what field I work in?

It's possible that sprinklers will be required in every home someday, it does not mean it's a good idea. TNSTAAFL.

And yes I know the United States of America put twelve men on the moon.

[tis]

Originally Posted by jrc

Jmen and lawn pyscho seem to be ready to blindly let the government decide for them which safety features and codes are appropriate for them. I don't trust them.

Some rules are really needed, some are motivated by other issues like supporting industries, protecting trades, by misguided and outdated ecology, some by over-reaction to a single incident, by ignorance and some by politics.

Most are a cost vs benefit trade-off, I'm smarter than some government bureaucrat, I'll make the trade-off.

I'm with you. Government rules and regulations forcing people to do things they would rather not, don't always make things better. For example, look at the BP mess, I can imagine they were loaded up with rules and regulations, but that awful spill still happened. (I don't want to start getting off topic by mentioning this, it is just and example.)

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jrc

I've worked for 30 years in the communications electronics industry. Why is it important what field I work in?

It's possible that sprinklers will be required in every home someday, it does not mean it's a good idea. TNSTAAFL.

And yes I know the United States of America put twelve men on the moon.

I ask because pic any field and there is something regulated and for all the bad things, there are good.

Communications/electronics? Talk about regulations. Some good, some bad but many are necessary. Do you really want to allow a ham to do whatever we want?

I'm not selling government as the end all be all. I actually despise some of the gravy train things that have been wrapped into the system. However I do realize that as our society has evolved, laws are necessary.

Example: I like knowing that when I go on vacation in Florida that the building has been built to higher standards for wind/hurricane resistance.

You can't base the sprinklers worth soley on fatalities either. With a residential system, it protects property as it's a finite water source (tank) and only goes off in the effected zone and has a good chance of stopping the fire or at least its spread.

I hope by requiring them that the system costs go down.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

You seem to be one of those people who doesn't want government in your life but would be the first to whine if they reduced medicaid.....

All your stuff makes good sound bites but ignores reality.

Do you realize how many products you buy have safety and quality costs built in? Why should you have to have seat belts and airbags? Why crash safety tests? Why UL listed smoke detectors? Why have circuit breakers? Why require handrails on your tall front stair? Why require bathroom fans for ventilation? Why require your house be insulated? Why require GFCI outlets in bathrooms and kitchens? We can play this game all day.

I'm not playing that game, you seem to be though. You're making a rash generalization re: my position on this topic. Can I characterize your position as being all govt regulations are good and necessary and proper and we should have even more that you can pay for ? Watch your step when getting off your horse.

But you tell me, where's your point, if you have one, where you say "hey I don't need to spend those $$ to be safe. I already am safe enough" ?

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

$3000? Numbers are quoted as ~$1/sq ft today and would likely go down if used by more homes.

Also, the driver training is not a good comparison of risk mitigation as that assumption would be that your driving alone is the sole variable into crashes. It's not.

Oooh but I say it is a good comparison. Again the concept is "we" mandate all drivers to take said training. It's not a question of "my" driving vs "your" driving and even that even if I drive with caution you're still going to hit (and kill) me. If we all get better then I'm lest likely to "off" myself and you're lest likely to "off" me. Moreover proper driving is more attitude than ability and if you don't believe that attitude (and ability) can be taught, that people can't learn, that "accidents" are all due to some mysterious "out of my ability to control" reason, then you're quite simply wrong.

But let's do some of that messy math and let's say that said training only "sticks" with 25% of the people resultying in a 25% reduction in fatalities. That saves what ... 6000+ people/yr. Tell me again how many died in all house fires ? I've still got you > 2:1 on a lives saved/$ spent basis. But you'll never admit this because to you spending $3000 to learn to do something you think you already know how to do is no doubt silly and wasteful. It's no doubt "the other guy" who is the problem. And in your particular case this may be true (I certainly hope so) but as a public policy what are "we" to do ? I dont' smoke. I'm not into lighting candles. I don't have 101 things plugged into a single extension cord. I have a fire extinguisher just outside of the kitchen. Now tell me my odds of having a house fire and me dying in it ? Why can't I say "it's the other guy, make him spend the $3000" ? I believe something like 40% of all the deaths due to home fires are in homes that don't even have smoke detectors. Tell me again why I should have a sprinkler system when I already have smoke detectors ? Just how much $$ must "I" spend so you can feel good about a few unlucky and a lot of dumb people ?

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

This thread started about a house on an island that cuaght fire and burned. If you want to argue with me that sprinklers are a bad idea then I say you're dense.

I'm saying that mandating sprinklers is a bad idea. Not only on an ideological basis but on a practical one as well. A few simple precautions are sufficient to save your butt in the (reduced) chance of a fire. Sprinklers may be nice, may be effective but aren't neccesary. You can decide yourself whether it's worth the cost and whether there's better ways to spend that $$ to achieve the same end (a life saved) result.

And I'm not insulting anyone who wants to differ, just disagreeing with them. That's something you'd be better off learning.

[lawn psycho]

M&M,
How much does a set of airbags and seat belts cost? They are in every new car on the road today. Compare that to the cost of a sprinkler system and total house cost (and that doesn't even figure in the contents in the house)......

You can be driving down the road at the posted speed limit and have a tire failiure, cross the center line and into an oncoming car. Hopefully the airbags and seat betls gives you that last line of defense. Same thing for house fires. Breakers can fail, connections in the walls overheat, lightening, something in an appliance fails, or any number of items that even the most prudent person would not be able to prevent. You can't base the number soley on fatalities as property damage factor into it as well.

You appear to have taken a stance that "all government regulation is bad." I say that's not the case and would even say there is a high degree of likeliehood that you benefit somewhere in your life from "the government" It's not an all or nothing argument as you seem to want to categorize sprinklers.

In the end, they will be standard.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

M&M,
How much does a set of airbags and seat belts cost? They are in every new car on the road today. Compare that to the cost of a sprinkler system and total house cost (and that doesn't even figure in the contents in the house)......

You can be driving down the road at the posted speed limit and have a tire failiure, cross the center line and into an oncoming car. Hopefully the airbags and seat betls gives you that last line of defense. Same thing for house fires. Breakers can fail, connections in the walls overheat, lightening, something in an appliance fails, or any number of items that even the most prudent person would not be able to prevent. You can't base the number soley on fatalities as property damage factor into it as well.

You appear to have taken a stance that "all government regulation is bad." I say that's not the case and would even say there is a high degree of likeliehood that you benefit somewhere in your life from "the government" It's not an all or nothing argument as you seem to want to categorize sprinklers.

In the end, they will be standard.

I've not taken the stance you've said (above) at all. I do worry we are headed into being an ever more restrictive "Nanny State" where my choice to do things will be restricted, not because I infringe on your rights, but rather because some people don't like what I do. But that's not the basis for my objection in this case.

Your statement above, "You can be driving down the road at the posted speed limit and have a tire failiure, cross the center line and into an oncoming car. Hopefully the airbags and seat betls gives you that last line of defense" is the kind of thinking that bothers me. Let me explain why. First there's the idea that somehow blowing a tire will, must, result in you crossing the lane and that there's nothing you can do about it. That just so ... wrong. If a meteor falls from the sky onto the road ahead of me ... I'll allow that as some uncontrollable circumstance but in pretty much all other circumstances I should be expected to remain in control. There's no good reason a blowout* should cause the action you describe. That people do lose control (in this example and most others) is a result of their poor driving skills and it's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind in my prior posts. I've lost tires at far greater than the posted limits and never lost control. Not because I've got some ubber fanatasic car control skillz (Michelle would no doubt confirm this ) but because I didn't panic and I had some idea of what, and what not, to do. I believe "you" can do exactly as well. There's no excuse to do any less. Heck, perhaps APS might help you if needed.

Second, you mention airbags and seatbelts. Airbags are the better corollary to sprinklers. Why ? Because once you have seatbelts, and wear them properly, airbags (at least the main frontal ones) are pretty much redundant. The seatbelt will do it's job (if properly designed) preventing your fleshy parts from hitting the hard parts of the auto. Airbags were invented (and later mandated) because people weren't wearing their seatbelts. Thus you, I and everyone else are nowing pay a few hundred $$s extra for their cars and insurance as a result of those people. $$s for the car, $$ to repair the airbag damage and $$ to pay for the extra theft due to airbags. And that's not to mention those people killed by airbags who would have been just fine with seatbelts (alone). Perhaps you don't mind spending the extra $$ because some people won't wear their seatbelts ... I do. I see no good reason to pay for them given I have the belts.

Which brings me back to sprinklers. Fires in the house are (mainly) due to a few "stupid", preventable reasons. People falls asleep when smoking or are careless in their butt disposal. The use candles next to the drapes. The overload their extension cords that they ran under the rug. The aren't prepared for the typical kitchen grease fire (like we had when I was a kid). But for most of us, who use just a modicum of commonsense and preparedness, smoke detectors do the equivalent of seatbelts. Airbags, and sprinklers, are an uneeded backup. Once in a truely great while they will have some worth but mostly they're there to protect the "stupid" from themselves. I resist spending my $$ to save people who are too lazy or stupid to bother installing or maintaining their smoke detectors. I resist public policies that take the shotgun approach to solving the issue instead of concentrating their efforts on those who are the problem. It's not that "Govt" is bad, it's that "Govt" is a blunt axe when it needs to be a rapier.

Your initial argument was along the lines of "OMG people die in fires ! How dare you oppose "us" from saving them/you". Well I do dare. I dare when "you" stick your hand into my wallet to spend my $$ when I've already done enough. Go concentrate on those people who are the root of most of the problems. I'm willing to live with the remaining small risk of failed breakers and bad wiring (from the 50's ??) and malfunctioning fire breathing appliances (really ???).

As for property damages ... OK so I'm spending my $$ to save the insurance company some $$s ? Again shouldn't this be my decision based on their price to me (hopefully based on truthful loss estimates) ?


*Recall the SUV "accidents" due to tire blowouts some years ago ? One of the car magazones went and replicated the blowouts to see if the vehicle went out of control. The showed that even with hands off the wheel, the much publically anticipated loss of control didn't happen. It was the driver who was the true root cause of the problem. Yet as a result of these "accidents" we now have a mandated Tire Pressure Monitoring System in all new cars. The direct TPMS (now the only allowed system) adds a couple of hundred $$ to the cost of the car and $5 each time a tire is changed. All because some people were too lazy to check their tires once in a great while and paniced when they blew out. Stuff happens, it's your role to deal with it when it does.


I do understand that many items have "safety costs" built into them ... really I do ! There's seemingly no end to the number of single issue people who think their issue is "the one" that needs fixing (with public $$s). Each incremental cost may be small but the effect is cumulative. Thus I think we should be vigilant when each added cost is about to be incurred and be sure that the true, added benefit is worth the $$s paid. I can only hope my "density" isn't preventing me from explaining this clearly.

[Janet]

How did this thread turn from a fire on Evergreen Island to airbags and seatbelts?! This is a tragedy for the owners of this cottage.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by jmen24

Blindly let the government decide the choices I and the people that hire me. Are you kidding me. Did you not read any of my posts, not only in this thread, but others as well.

At least I am part of an organization (noted in my first post at the top) that holds this state accountable for choices that they are making regarding my trade. What you doing to limit the governments control of YOUR life?

Unreal, you are the first person in my life that has ever made that statement towards me. Good for you.

Sorry, re-reading your posts, I got carried away and tarred you with a brush aimed at LP. I should know better than try to apply one description to two different people.

In your post you do talk about licensing construction workers and I think that leads down a very dark alley. We have several remedies already for shoddy construction and bad actors, we don't need any more.

I'm dropping from this thread, as it's getting a little too personal. I may post on details of the fire later, but I'm dropping out of the sprinkler debate. I have them, I love them, I would never force someone to put them in their house.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by jrc

Sorry, re-reading your posts, I got carried away and tarred you with a brush aimed at LP. I should know better than try to apply one description to two different people.

In your post you do talk about licensing construction workers and I think that leads down a very dark alley. We have several remedies already for shoddy construction and bad actors, we don't need any more.

I'm dropping from this thread, as it's getting a little too personal. I may post on details of the fire later, but I'm dropping out of the sprinkler debate. I have them, I love them, I would never force someone to put them in their house.

Thank you for your response. You are correct that we have some hurddles to get over when talking about licensing.

Don't feel you need to step away, you added a great point of view to the actual discussion regarding the question of sprinklers.

My post directed at you has been removed.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Janet

How did this thread turn from a fire on Evergreen Island to airbags and seatbelts?! This is a tragedy for the owners of this cottage.

It got sidetracked when it was mentioned that new codes require residential sprinkler systems. From there the cost / benefits of this, and comparison to other risks in life, followed. In any case I've said my piece on the latter.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

At this time, Moultonborough, which has more shoreline than any other town in the Lakes Region, does not have a functioning fireboat! They have to rely on Center Harbor and Tuftonboro. They were turned down for budgetary reasons a year or so ago...at that time, their old boat was working (somewhat). It's too bad the funds needed can't be diverted from the school.
With a declining enrollment, the Board is in the process of replacing an assistant principal, at an annual cost (approximate) of $100k. Go figure!

[fatlazyless]

I have an 18 1/2' aluminum 1972 Starcraft mini cabin cruiser with a 2001 Suzuki 70hp-4-stroke & trailer, with good safe seating for four firefighters plus room for a seperate gasoline powered, high pressure waterpump set up in the enclosed forward cabin. It would make the perfect utility fireboat for a local town that's running on empty, financially. It always starts right up, will float in very shallow water, has a very reliable engine, and is big enough for the Big Lake. Bargain priced at five thousand dollars.

Sometimes, the Federal Government's General Services Administration has 22' Boston Whaler, former Coast Guard boats, available to municipalities without an outboard engine for just one dollar. The Meredith Police Dept has one and it looks to be a very functional boat for transporting maybe ten people in one trip.

[Grady223]

I think the NH MP was just auctioning an ex Coast Guard boat with a fire monitor mounted on the fore deck!

[Grady223]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Tanks vary in size but bigger than your little expansion tank. I think they are in the 300-500 gallon range for a typical two story house. The system designs are supposed to give 10 minutes of flow.

The system has anti-freeze but can also be a 'dry' design where the pipes are empty until the charging pump starts up.

I don't have one in my house but wish I did. My neighbor had one intalled during construction and I regret not adding it. With pets at home, anything to increase the odds of a good outcome is worth it too me. Our neighborhood has a big fire pond but getting the fire before it gets going is the better bet.

Edit: No system is going to be 100% fool-proof so we can all come up with scenarios that would render a system useless. Just like seats belts and airbags don't guarantee survival, they certainly improve your chances.

I agree with The Real BigGuy, you can leave the power on but The Real BigProblem is freezing in the winter when it routinely gets down to 18 degrees inside the house and the water source (lake) is frozen. Are we saying that a dry system or one charged with antifreeze is $3,000? I think not, if so I think any islander would install one, we'd save that in the reduction of insurance premiums in a few years. Can you even charge such a system with antifreeze, what kind is both non-polluting and non-flammable? Glycol sprayed all over the inside of the house - may as well burn it down! We have a wet charged system in our PA townhouse (PA state law) - very happy we do - great peace of mind.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Grady223

Glycol sprayed all over the inside of the house - may as well burn it down!

Grady, that's one of the misconceptions. If a fire breaks out, only the sprinkler that exceeds the temperture goes off, not all of them. Also, the tanks are only typically 300 gallons or so.

[Lakegeezer]

Here's a picture of the ashes. Nothing left but the dock. The trees behind where the house stood are black. Very sorry.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Here's a picture of the ashes. Nothing left but the dock. The trees behind where the house stood are black. Very sorry.

Wow, that is awful. I feel bad for the owners. Hope they can rebuild.

[Redwing]

...and let us not lose sight of the owners who have lost their beloved lake cottage, I am certain filled with many years of memories. Evergreen island is directly across from us, and although we don't know the owners well, they have been there for a long, long time. There is another smaller cottage on the island, owned by same family. So very sad.....we have not been to the lake yet this season (our son and daughter-in-law "opened camp" this year), but will be up in July. I always kayak around Evergreen Island.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I'm surprised that for any new construction that the Town doesn't require the residential sprinkler systems for an island property because of this.

The island that had the fire is owned by my family. The only problem with installing a sprinkler system is that many of the smaller islands like ours, do not have electricity or running water.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Evergreen

The island that had the fire is owned by my family. The only problem with installing a sprinkler system is that many of the smaller islands like ours, do not have electricity or running water.

Very sorry for your loss evergreen... I hope you rebuild and once again enjoy your camp at the lake!

Dan

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Redwing

...and let us not lose sight of the owners who have lost their beloved lake cottage, I am certain filled with many years of memories. Evergreen island is directly across from us, and although we don't know the owners well, they have been there for a long, long time. There is another smaller cottage on the island, owned by same family. So very sad.....we have not been to the lake yet this season (our son and daughter-in-law "opened camp" this year), but will be up in July. I always kayak around Evergreen Island.

We appreciate your kinds thoughts Redwing. It is our family that has owned Evergreen island for the past 60 years, now in the 4th generation. My mom and dad, we 5 kids, and countless numbers of friends built that brown camp together back in 1974. Our dad passed away 4 years ago, and our mom is devestated by the loss of a camp that we all shared so many happy times in. They will begin removal of the charred remains this weekend, and we do plan on rebuilding. The sad part is. . . it took one hour for fireboats to arrive after our neighbor called 911. Apparently, the town of Moultonborough does not feel it necesary to designate funding toward the maintenance of the fireboat. This leaves our local islands unprotected if a fire breaks out. We will forever be grateful to the towns of Tuftonboro and Center Harbor for sending their firemen and saving Evergreen Island.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Here's a picture of the ashes. Nothing left but the dock. The trees behind where the house stood are black. Very sorry.

Thank you for your thoughts Lakegeezer. We lost the camp along with 50 trees from this fire. I am part of the Evergreen Island family located in GA. As difficult as it is to see the photos, I appreciate you posting them because I am so far away. They will begin removing the remains this wkd. Seeing the pics. keeps me in touch with what my family is going through right now.

[jmen24]

Evergreen, so sorry for your loss.

To try and save you some headaches when rebuilding. Make sure you have good documentation on the location of the building on the lot, as well as it size and footprint layout. That way you will save yourselves some hassle when notifying DES about the rebuild. You will be able to rebuild on the same footprint without issue as long as what was there was/is well documented.

Good luck,

Jmen24

[eillac@dow]

I am so sorry Evergreen. I CANNOT even imagine how you all must be feeling right now. Glad to hear that you will be rebuilding.

Again, I am sorry for the loss of your cottage.

[Redwing]

Dear Evergreen,
If there is anything we can do for you during this very sad transitional period on your island, please do let me know. I am sorry to learn that your Father died 4 years ago.....I met him a few times, and he was a very nice man. We have been at our cottage since 1953, but I know your family had been there longer. We are a small red cottage next to a red boathouse on the mainland across from you. When my parents first built, we were the only cottage on the entire shoreline. My offer holds, if you have any needs. Hopefully the smaller, yellow cottage on your island is untouched and you can continue to use it. Such a devastating loss for all of you. I am deeply saddened for you and your mother. Redwing

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by jmen24

Evergreen, so sorry for your loss.

To try and save you some headaches when rebuilding. Make sure you have good documentation on the location of the building on the lot, as well as it size and footprint layout. That way you will save yourselves some hassle when notifying DES about the rebuild. You will be able to rebuild on the same footprint without issue as long as what was there was/is well documented.

Good luck,

Jmen24

Thank you for the advice Jmen. Luckily, one of our good friends is a local builder and is helping us figure all of this out. It is quite overwhelming for my mom right now. Evergreen

[Mink Islander]

Such a terrible loss. My wife's family is 4th generation on the lake as well and I cannot imagine the sadness of losing something so priceless as the family camp.

Good luck with the rebuilding.

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Redwing

Dear Evergreen,
If there is anything we can do for you during this very sad transitional period on your island, please do let me know. I am sorry to learn that your Father died 4 years ago.....I met him a few times, and he was a very nice man. We have been at our cottage since 1953, but I know your family had been there longer. We are a small red cottage next to a red boathouse on the mainland across from you. When my parents first built, we were the only cottage on the entire shoreline. My offer holds, if you have any needs. Hopefully the smaller, yellow cottage on your island is untouched and you can continue to use it. Such a devastating loss for all of you. I am deeply saddened for you and your mother. Redwing

Thanks Redwing,

I can picture exactly where your cottage is!! Nice to know you met dad. He was the kindest man, with more integrity than anyone I have ever met. He is missed deeply by all of us. Dad would have been 74 this year, and his mother bought the island when he was 12 or 13. He said you could not see a cottage along the shoreline at that time. In fact, he did not like it up there at all. . . boring for a young teenage boy. The funny thing is, as time passed and he had a family of his own, the island became an incredible source of joy and peace for him.

Yes, the yellow cottage is fine, thanks to the Tuftonborough and Center Harbor fireman! Our family will be living there all summer as they recover and rebuild. Thank you for your offer to help. Maybe when you get back to the lake, and the dust has settled, you can stop by and give mom a visit.

Best Regards,

Evergreen (DeeDee)

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

Such a terrible loss. My wife's family is 4th generation on the lake as well and I cannot imagine the sadness of losing something so priceless as the family camp.

Good luck with the rebuilding.

Thank you for your thoughts Mink.

[Redwing]

Dear Evergreen,

So devastating what you are all going through now. I will definitely kayak over when at the lake and say hello to your Mom, once things settle a bit for her, and introduce myself to her and any of your other siblings who may be on the island. You will always cherish the memories of your amazing father, and as Father's day approaches this Sunday, I am certain he never leaves your thoughts for very long. Those memories and feelings will sustain you through the years, for sure. Best, Redwing (Sarah)

[trfour]

You're survival is first and foremost in our hearts...

MyFamily survived a fire at our home that occurred during the winter... The storm windows helped immeasurably in our case in that the fire ran out of oxygen and was out until the fire DP'nt got there and blew out the windows with water pressure being greater, at the time... We had water and smoke damage, however were able to clean it up without total loss as you have suffered. [ and by no means anything that anyone should half to go through ]...
Just a heartfelt note from another that was put to and in a place that no one wants to be.

Remember, EverGreen will be EverGreen, tested or US...

Best to you and yours...


Terry
___________________________________

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by trfour

You're survival is first and foremost in our hearts...

MyFamily survived a fire at our home that occurred during the winter... The storm windows helped immeasurably in our case in that the fire ran out of oxygen and was out until the fire DP'nt got there and blew out the windows with water pressure being greater, at the time... We had water and smoke damage, however were able to clean it up without total loss as you have suffered. [ and by no means anything that anyone should half to go through ]...
Just a heartfelt note from another that was put to and in a place that no one wants to be.

Remember, EverGreen will be EverGreen, tested or US...

Best to you and yours...






Terry
___________________________________

So true Terry. I keep telling my mom that if anybody had been hurt, the last thing we would be thinking of is the camp. That puts it in perspective, doesn't make it an easy thing, but puts it all in the right perpective. Yes, Evergreen will remain EverGreen, full of life, laughter, and love. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. DeeDee

[Evergreen]

Originally Posted by Redwing

Dear Evergreen,

So devastating what you are all going through now. I will definitely kayak over when at the lake and say hello to your Mom, once things settle a bit for her, and introduce myself to her and any of your other siblings who may be on the island. You will always cherish the memories of your amazing father, and as Father's day approaches this Sunday, I am certain he never leaves your thoughts for very long. Those memories and feelings will sustain you through the years, for sure. Best, Redwing (Sarah)

Hi Sarah,
Just spoke with my sister Tina. There are 13 people on the island with shovels, and pitchforks loading the camp on to a barge. She said they are all covered in soot from head to toe. I live in GA and would give anything to be with them right now, covered in soot working together! Irony. . . that tomorrow is Father's day. You are right on, we all cherish the memories of Dad, he was amazing, and that is why our family pulls together in difficult times. He taught us well. He was the type of man that in just knowing him, made you want to be a better person.

Mom will appreciate your visit. Tina said there have been many people, she calls them "gawkers", coming in very close with boats, canoes, and kayaks. . . just watching. I know that people are curious and may not be comfortable approaching, but I hope they understand the sadness our family feels and stops doing this.

Best to you Sarah,

DeeDee

[caloway]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Have you ever seen and smelled the charred body of someone who died in a house fire?

I saw Luke's aunt and uncle in the first Star Wars after Luke's encounter with the sand people.