What is that in Paugus Bay??

[Retired At Last]

Hello To All,

New to the forum but not to the lake. Myself and family have been visiting the lake for well over 40 years now. The area is beautiful and is a favorite of ours for vacationing. Seen many changes throughout the years in attractions and new cottage/mansion construction but nothing like what we saw in Paugus Bay yesterday. I can't really properly describe it - seems to be a lookout tower of some kind. We were boating down the western side of the bay almost by the bigger of the two islands when we saw it on the eastern side of the bay. We have seen some odd, out of place looking buildings around the lake over the years but this one tops them all so far. You must make the journey to see this - pretty much next to the Margate resort, you can't miss it.

[LongBay]

You may have been looking at the water tower all covered up while it gets sandblasted and a new coat of paint.

[8gv]

Another Winnie sighting!

Have you any pics?

[TiltonBB]

I am guessing that it is the former Burger King, now Watermark's office and store. The penthouse office makes it look unique.

What color is it?

[Retired At Last]

I wish I did have a picture but only had my old school flip phone with me that day. It wasn't a water tower. It was a tall thin, I think yellowish, building with a very odd looking roof that can be seen from the water just left of the Margate on the shoreline.

[bman60]

Does anyone have a picture?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Woody38]

I believe it is a new structure that went up this summer. Tall and looks like one room wide, 3 stories. Drive just past Margate and look to the water. Appears there may be two buildings.

[Retired At Last]

We may venture over to Paugus Bay during the coming week. Will get over to the east side of the bay to get a better look and a hopefully a picture.

[AC2717]

all I can say is there are great views from it, no its not mine

[Retired At Last]

Hi AC2717, Capt of the "No Worries",

Your post indicates you have visited this structure - please tell us what it is and why it is there. Does it have anything to do with the fire department, as in a training tower maybe? Do you happen to have a photo to share? Any info to help identify this structure would be appreciated. My family's schedule will keep me off the lake until the following week so I will not be able to get a photo until then. Wish we had cruised across the bay when we were over there for a closer look.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Retired At Last

Hi AC2717, Capt of the "No Worries",

Your post indicates you have visited this structure - please tell us what it is and why it is there. Does it have anything to do with the fire department, as in a training tower maybe? Do you happen to have a photo to share? Any info to help identify this structure would be appreciated. My family's schedule will keep me off the lake until the following week so I will not be able to get a photo until then. Wish we had cruised across the bay when we were over there for a closer look.

It is a Friends residence in our cottage association. We are required to stay in the same footprint and Laconia allows for up to 35feet height, which that is below by a couple of feet. I went up as well, but not to the height and kept it more old school style. WE have the other two to the right in the photo that we used to call the twin towers, those have been there 9 and 5 years respectively.

I am sorry, but I will not post interior photos or anything about it without permission from the owner, also it is still under construction. Materials and workmanship is quality for sure and is probably 2-3 months away from completion

I believe you will see a lot more of this as families that grow that own cottages will go up for more space.

[KPW]

Originally Posted by AC2717

It is a Friends residence in our cottage association. We are required to stay in the same footprint and Laconia allows for up to 35feet height, which that is below by a couple of feet. I went up as well, but not to the height and kept it more old school style. WE have the other two to the right in the photo that we used to call the twin towers, those have been there 9 and 5 years respectively.

I am sorry, but I will not post interior photos or anything about it without permission from the owner, also it is still under construction. Materials and workmanship is quality for sure and is probably 2-3 months away from completion

I believe you will see a lot more of this as families that grow that own cottages will go up for more space.

Do you all have a need to insult someone's home on a public forum?

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by KPW

Do you all have a need to insult someone's home on a public forum?

KPW are you speaking to what I said or what others are saying? as I do not feel I insulted anyone's home here?

[Phantom]

AC .... I think the implication was clear that he is referring to all the folks bashing the "Ugly" house !


.

[KPW]

Originally Posted by AC2717

KPW are you speaking to what I said or what others are saying? as I do not feel I insulted anyone's home here?

Not anyone in particular. Everyone has a right to their opinion. I just feel it is insulting/hurtful to the person who is building this house. His neighbor does not seem to mind. It does not seem to matter anyway, the insults continue!!

[Descant]

A little premature aren't we? When they add the windmill and plant the tulips it will be very picturesque.

Can't wait to see the comment when "tiny houses" start to move in .

[Mr. V]

Reminds me of the alien invader in "Kronos."

It's got a good view over the bay, anyway.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Descant

Can't wait to see the comment when "tiny houses" start to move in .

A friend is sending me examples of those "tiny houses". Very intriguing, and may be possible!

Originally Posted by Descant

A little premature aren't we? When they add the windmill and plant the tulips it will be very picturesque.

Your "un-named source" and mine have different perspectives: My "un-named source" says exterior granite and ivy will be added...

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by KPW

Do you all have a need to insult someone's home on a public forum?

I had a lot of laughs when I found this site that takes making fun of homes to a new level, especially McMansions:

http://mcmansionhell.com

Their next article is about a NH McMansion. We'll see if it is in the Lakes Region.

[Descant]

I'm losing confidence in this Forum. If you can't post a picture, and answer the OP's question, I'm going to stop reading this thread.

[julietbravo]

A picture from May

[BroadHopper]

Because of the rulings, any structure within 175' (I could be wrong) has to build within the same footprint. So property owners are building up instead of out. This will become common as the years go by.

[Longtimelurker]

We call it the Tower of Terror!

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Longtimelurker

We call it the Tower of Terror!

.....that's a good name .... a lake winnipesaukee terror tower!

(Supposedly, geographic areas and bodies of water like lake winnipesaukee, the atlantic ocean, and meredith bay are not supposed to be capitalized?)

[longislander]

State Shoreland Program:

https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/...cspa/index.htm

Towns have differing zoning ordinances, which are in addition to the state regs.

I live in Moultonborough which has a 32ft. height limit:

I. Height of buildings. No building shall be constructed in the Town of Moultonborough with overall height exceeding thirty-two (32) feet above ground level measured as the average of the vertical distances between the ridge of the building and the highest ground level point, and the ridge of the building and the lowest ground level point. This provision shall not apply to church steeples, chimneys, cupolas, silos, antennas, or to unoccupied structures.



https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...03-14-17_0.pdf

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Because of the rulings, any structure within 175' (I could be wrong) has to build within the same footprint. So property owners are building up instead of out. This will become common as the years go by.

However, many (most) towns also have height bylaws that will limit how high. But you are right, as the old places come down, the replacements will go to the max allowed.

[Onshore]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Because of the rulings, any structure within 175' (I could be wrong) has to build within the same footprint. So property owners are building up instead of out. This will become common as the years go by.

There is no state level "Wetlands ruling" that would regulate this. The NH Shoreland Act (RSA 482-A) would prohibit getting closer to the water for structures closer than 50 to the water but later expansion could still be possible. The Shoreland Act was changed in either 2008 or 2009 to remove the pre-existing restrictions on expanding pre-existing primary structures upward within 50 feet of the reference line. There has been a 12 ft. limit on the height of accessory structures within 50 feet of the reference line since 1996.

[Descant]

Bravo Zulu to Juliet Bravo. Thanks for the picture.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by shore things

There is no state level "Wetlands ruling" that would regulate this. The NH Shoreland Act (RSA 482-A) would prohibit getting closer to the water for structures closer than 50 to the water but later expansion could still be possible. The Shoreland Act was changed in either 2008 or 2009 to remove the pre-existing restrictions on expanding pre-existing primary structures upward within 50 feet of the reference line. There has been a 12 ft. limit on the height of accessory structures within 50 feet of the reference line since 1996.

Thanks for the update. So it is town rulings that justify the means. In Laconia, one project build up 3 stories on the same footprint. I know of another project that went up 3 stories on the same footprint in Gilford. Another project in Tuftonboro the owner choose to tear down the existing structure, move it back 50 feet so he can build on a bigger footprint.
The one project I know in Laconia, the property owner in the back of the new 3 story building wasn't happy as he lost direct view of the lake.

The reason why I thought it was state specific is that it happened in 3 towns that bordered Lake Winnipesaukee.

[tis]

Does it look taller because it is so narrow? The one to the right looks almost as high.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by tis

Does it look taller because it is so narrow? The one to the right looks almost as high.

you are correct, also the land starts to slope down towards the other two. Everyone has their opinions and that is part of what makes this country great (for now anyways). IMO though, comparing the structures side by side and close up and not from the water where you only see one side and the lake windows, gives you a different perspective of the property.

Right now while it is not the only one that went up in the association, it is the first modern one in the area, and with the age group turning over do not think it wont evolve to more.
Rather look at that than that white building the Margate owns with teal stripes on it (the old Monaco, or the tents that are always going up and down, or that building behind our association 1 Gilford Place or the land waste between Watermark and Spinnaker Cove, or the numerous falling down boat houses on the bay).

it is like the one modern house on the block that was built in the 70's and everyone hated it because it was not traditional. Now look, tiny modern houses made out of left over crap, people bringing industrial in and the Steam Punk design, that very same street that had that one modern style house now has more on it.

At the end of the day, its not your money and not your tastes and desires, oh well

[VitaBene]

Looks better than some of the ridiculous MacMansions dotting the lake!

[JEM]

Ummm I would not consider this to be "modern" at all. It has ruined the integrity of the shoreline in my opinion. Looks more like a prison tower and is quite an eye sore. I feel bad for the people who have to look at that consistently. I am sure the people in the perfect quaint cottage right next to that were not too happy.
Every time I see it I see this image!

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by JEM

Ummm I would not consider this to be "modern" at all. It has ruined the integrity of the shoreline in my opinion. Looks more like a prison tower and is quite an eye sore. I feel bad for the people who have to look at that consistently. I am sure the people in the perfect quaint cottage right next to that were not too happy.
Every time I see it I see this image!

see is where the country is going, its his land, his building, his money. If they chose to building this then its what they wanted, when it does not directly affect you directly, financially, why does the other person have to take your opinions and wants/desires into consideration

off Soap box now

[JEM]

Originally Posted by AC2717

see is where the country is going, its his land, his building, his money. If they chose to building this then its what they wanted, when it does not directly affect you directly, financially, why does the other person have to take your opinions and wants/desires into consideration

Of course he doesn't NEED to take anyones "opinions or want/desires into consideration" although a little common sense and common courtesy should come into play especially in a condominium complex. How that monstrosity got approved is beyond me but as you say, this "is where the COUNTRY is going". Each to their own....

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by AC2717

see is where the country is going, its his land, his building, his money. If they chose to building this then its what they wanted, when it does not directly affect you directly, financially, why does the other person have to take your opinions and wants/desires into consideration

to your point about being approved its all in what the bylaws allow and don't for the association, then onto the town where if it conforms to their requirements, how could it not.

[thinkxingu]

Wow, that's ugly.

Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk

[MeredithMan]

There's a place for sale in Gilford for like $1.3MM that is very narrow and tall...now I guess I understand why. Building "up" but on the same footprint as the previous structure is probably a lot less hassle than getting variances from the town to expand the footprint.

Not my taste, but what do I know? (not much, according to my kids)

[fogpixie]

Agreed...it's ugly. Gosh, I hope were not going to be seeing more like this!

Sent from my SM-N910V using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Descant

I'm losing confidence in this Forum. If you can't post a picture, and answer the OP's question, I'm going to stop reading this thread.

Ya sorry now?

Proof there's no "View Tax"...

Originally Posted by fogpixie

Agreed...it's ugly. Gosh, I hope were not going to be seeing more like this!

Agreed; however, within sight of Paugus Bay there was an ugly precedent in the Lakes Region.

(A "fence" to force an abutting farmer to move out—and wasn't as tall).

.

[Retired At Last]

THANKS julietbravo for the photo posting. YES, that is what we saw from across the bay that day. UGLY seems to a kind description now that I see it up close. Looks like a shoe box on end. Wow, what were they thinking erecting such a thing. Definitely does not fit in with the other buildings in that area. Is the roof off center or is it the photo angle? The other taller building in the picture complements the area while this building totally looks out of place. My older daughter summed it up with - " just another case of more money than common sense".

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by Retired At Last

THANKS julietbravo for the photo posting. YES, that is what we saw from across the bay that day. UGLY seems to a kind description now that I see it up close. Looks like a shoe box on end. Wow, what were they thinking erecting such a thing. Definitely does not fit in with the other buildings in that area. Is the roof off center or is it the photo angle? The other taller building in the picture complements the area while this building totally looks out of place. My older daughter summed it up with - " just another case of more money than common sense".

The Photo there is from May, and the roof is offset due to the sun. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, personally being there throughout the construction and knowing the interior and what the finished product will be, it will be a modern style base line for things to come I think, its just ahead of everything else

[kawishiwi]

The only people not having to view that elevator shaft are the people that live in it. Kinda like a giant middle finger to taste, discretion & style. Not to mention all of the neighbors, especially those behind.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by kawishiwi

The only people not having to view that elevator shaft are the people that live in it. Kinda like a giant middle finger to taste, discretion & style. Not to mention all of the neighbors, especially those behind.

Damn snowflakes!

[Rockslider]

Ugly is an understatement. The homes to the right show that a tall building, while not ideal, can at least be made visually tolerable. This one is, as a prior poster said, a statement. I hope it is not a sign of what is to come.

[Poor Richard]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Damn snowflakes!

[Retired At Last]

Hi AC2717, Capt of the "No Worries",

If this is what things to come brings, I'll pass. Remember I still have a flip phone. And unless the interior completion somehow changes the outside appearance of this building - it will still be ugly, sorry. Cheers all!

[Biggd]

If thats the look of the future I hope am not around long enough to see everything looking like that.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app