Shoreland Protection Rules

[Steveo]

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

1. Can you put a set point well in within the 50 ft area? What about the disturbance cause by digging a ditch for the supply line to the house.

2. Can you add a foundation to an existing home that is on piers now, same footprint.

3. Can you replace the decking on a crib dock.

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Steveo

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

1. Can you put a set point well in within the 50 ft area? What about the disturbance cause by digging a ditch for the supply line to the house.

2. Can you add a foundation to an existing home that is on piers now, same footprint.

3. Can you replace the decking on a crib dock.

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help

Now that the word is out, you will be the proud owner of a bony beach.

The WLB will only allow a perch beach situation; no more dumping sand in the Lake. It has been this way for some time - you have been lucky.

[eyenotall777]

The links below may answer your question in regards to sand/beach:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wetlands/guidebook/beach.htm

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/bb-15.htm

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by eyenotall777

The links below may answer your question in regards to sand/beach:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wetlands/guidebook/beach.htm

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/bb-15.htm

The original question was "Can I replace beach sand that washes out?

Here is just ONE of the questions that would need to be answered as part of your application to BEG the state to be able to maintain your property.

(7) The impact on plants, fish, and wildlife including:
a. Rare, special concern species;

b. State and federally listed threatened and endangered species;

c. Species at the extremities of their ranges;

d. Migratory fish and wildlife; and

e. Exemplary natural communities identified by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) - Department of Resources and Economic Development.

Could anyone on this forum honestly answer this question? I am a technically oriented person and I wouldn't even know where to start.
Could even an expert in Marine biology really answer this type of question properly and accurately?
Would you need to survey the lake to determine all the possible marine life and wildlife that exist in the lake in the off chance that one of them may one day wander near your beach and somehow be impacted by the cubic yard of sand you want to dump to fill in some holes?

When laws add ridiculous complexity to simple and reasonable processes people will eventually start to ignore or sidestep the laws and take their chances. Before too long only multimillionaires will be able to address the type of regulations being foisted upon us and if you think they will be satisfied with small houses, think again. For those upset with the Bahre estate, wait until there are hundreds of such properties because such owners will be the only ones that have the capability to deal with the regulations, or pay the fines when they break them.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Here is just ONE of the questions that would need to be answered as part of your application to BEG the state to be able to maintain your property.

"Sometimes, it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" -Grace Hopper.

I think Steveo will back her up on this one.

[wifi]

Originally Posted by jeffk

........When laws add ridiculous complexity to simple and reasonable processes people will eventually start to ignore or sidestep the laws and take their chances. Before too long only multimillionaires will be able to address the type of regulations being foisted upon us and if you think they will be satisfied with small houses, think again. For those upset with the Bahre estate, wait until there are hundreds of such properties because such owners will be the only ones that have the capability to deal with the regulations, or pay the fines when they break them.

Right on target, Thanks Jeff.

These laws were quickly baked up, primarily with an implementation date in mind, without considering their consequences and "collateral damage".

[idigtractors]

Originally Posted by Steveo

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help

The state has told me in the past years that any sand being put on the shore/in the water has to have a permit.($50) I did it twice and it wasn't the easiest thing to do as letters had to be sent to abutters and a map with all kinds of dimensions had to be submitted. That is just part of it. Them telling me this I would say what you have being doing in the past is wrong.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by idigtractors

The state has told me in the past years that any sand being put on the shore/in the water has to have a permit.($50) I did it twice and it wasn't the easiest thing to do as letters had to be sent to abutters and a map with all kinds of dimensions had to be submitted. That is just part of it. Them telling me this I would say what you have being doing in the past is wrong.

Steveo,

With regard to your past transgressions, kindly fill out the attached form and send it to DES immediately. By turning yourself in you can feel good about doing the right thing and, if what Aquaman says is true, you'll never have to actually pay the price.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Steveo

I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

I am struggling with the State saying that raking the area around a picnic table is a problem for the lake but placing sand that routinely washes away in the lake is OK with permission????

[ITD]

I'm struggling with the fact that this law isn't a requirement for 2.5 miles from the water instead of 250 feet. What people are doing 1 mile from the lake can have just as much impact, or even more since the numbers are greater than some poor slob who picks up sticks. We seem to be very willing to limit the rights and freedoms of small groups of people as long as it doesn't affect us. I wonder if the local town folk a little further from the water would feel the same if they had to follow these inane rules. I've said it before, I'll say it again. A few morons don't follow the rules and clear cut their land. The reaction, instead of following and enforcing the present rules, is to come up with these draconian measures that are nearly impossible to enforce and penalize all shorefront owners. Another sign of the do gooder, meddlesome mentality from down here in the Flatlands. We all know how things work out down here.......

[Orion]

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Orion

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.

The problem with this rule is that the high water mark keeps changing. My small beach front has eroded over 8 feet towards my house in the past 15 years. It erodes with the wake of deep displacement craft when the lake is well above "full". I'd sure like to replenish my beach back to where it used to be. I'm concerned that my legally built property will become encumbered within the 50 foot setback as the erosion continues, and I'd like to fight it without a lot of paperwork.

The shoreline protection act should have included a clause that when the lake level is above 504.5 feet, a lake-wide no-wake rule is in effect. No-wake was declared in 1998, but not in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when we had three 100+ year floods in a row.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Today as I drove to work to help pay some taxes I passed a state park littered with tons of pine needles under the massive pines around the local lake. The needles providing a valuable filter to the rain that was falling.

Then I thought about the impending annual clean up that will remove all of that natural material in contradiction to the new rules for the states lakes.

I have decided to spend some time at the park tomorrow and get some before shots for what is sure to be a frustrating set of after pictures.

It will be interesting to see if the State feels compelled to follow the rules or will they find them as ridiculous as we do?

Maybe when one of us gets arrested for picking a flower without a permit, the pictures will at least give the jury something to laugh at.

[Onshore]

In answer to all of the comments on raking the leaves and pine needles...

RSA 483-B:9 V, (a)(2)(D)(v) "Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to April 1, 2008 may maintainbut 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..." The citations then refer to new construction resulting in more than 20 % impervious surface and modification of non-conforming structures.

RSA 483-B:9 V, (b) puts no restriction on the removal of detritus or leaf litter but keep in mind that if you excavate you will need a permit so please use a hand rake as the use of a york rake will get you into some trouble.

Rule Env-Wq 1406.04, Additional Activities in Protected Shoreland That Do Not Require a Shoreland Permit, (c) (7) Maintenance of a grandfathered open area, such as by mowing a lawn, raking leaves or pine needles, or mulching landscaped areas.

Rule Env-Wq 1406.04, Additional Activities in Protected Shoreland That Do Not Require a Shoreland Permit, (c) (8) Planting of non-invasive vegetation or maintenance of existing gardens within the allowable disturbed area using hand-held tools.

"Hand-held" tools does include power augers and roto-tillers provided they are hand-held (as in not attached to the PTO of a wheeled or tracked vehicle). The idea is if it requires equipment that is ridden or driven the potential for serious impacts is significant enough that maybe we ought to look at it.

In short, don't think for a moment that you can use the CSPA as an excuse to get out of doing your usual spring and fall yard work...

[Rattlesnake Gal]

UnionLeader.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009
By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter

A House committee yesterday was told that proposed changes to a bill relaxing the restrictions to the current state shoreland protection law do not go far enough to allow waterfront property owners to maintain and make minor adjustments to their own land. Click here for the full story.

The committee expects to review whether to adjust the bill and recommend whether the full House should pass it by April 30.

[Bear Island South]

I believe you can't even cleanup the debris (classified as natural ground cover) that has fallen over the winter month's within the 50' buffer zone.
The law has definately gone too far.

[Pineedles]

I remember one of my childhood chores was to sweep off the wharf and collect pinecones for the fireplace. I guess unless I want my grandchildren (to be), to be thrown in jail I better ammend their future lakefront chores. Its funny, but it's not.

[Onshore]

If you've been cleaning the area up all these years then you can keep doing it indefinately.

483-B:9 Minimum Shoreland Protection Standards. – Section V, paragraph (a), (v) Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to July 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 subparagraphs (g)(2) or (g)(3), or RSA 483-B:11, II.

[ACutAbove]

Hi Shore things, are you guys going to do any more of the confrences like last yr?
Ken

[Onshore]

We will be doing some full day conferences like last year but they won't be until late summer and fall. We wanted to wait unil this year's legislative session unfolds so we can incorporate any changes they make this session. We are also hoping (please keep fingers crossed) to have a new Permit by Notification process ready to roll out in the fall and we like to be able to discuss that with some amount of certainty.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by shore things

If you've been cleaning the area up all these years then you can keep doing it indefinately.

483-B:9 Minimum Shoreland Protection Standards. – Section V, paragraph (a), (v) Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to July 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 subparagraphs (g)(2) or (g)(3), or RSA 483-B:11, II.

Shore Things, Thanks for continuing to chime in on these maters..... I think people get a little to carried away sometimes and forget to understand the finer details of wording like "may maintain"..... that is the key to understanding legislation like this....

Now along these lines I have a question for you, from an enviormental stand point. If you have a cleared area that you have been maintaining and clearing every year, and then suddenly you stopped one would assume that some the pine needles leaves etc. that land in this clearing would start finding there way to the lake. Now looking at this from a commoners stand point, because the area had been cleared etc. I would think a more then normal amount would be making it to the lake because the area has been cleared and none of the natural road blocks exsist. Thus I would feel that not continuing to maintain an area would actually be worse then maintianing it? Is there any truth to this throught process?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

"...I believe you can't even cleanup the debris (classified as natural ground cover) that has fallen over the winter month's within the 50' buffer zone..."

As the owner of a one-acre lakeside property, I can vouch for the effectiveness of natural ground cover against the runoff damage that impervious surfaces bring to the water's edge.

Except for removal of "trip-over" branches, winter debris interlocks within itself, creating a perfect environment for an understory of plants to grow. (Until last year's McMansion went in, I had been unable to see any of my neighbors).

Originally Posted by shore thing

"...You can't blame the Weirs blow out on 2 roofs and a roadway...you can't overlook the extreme severity of the rain event..."

I'm aware of both issues; however, recent weather patterns (including a tornado ) support more vigilance around this huge lake's shoreline—not the status quo.

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

"...The law has definitely gone too far..."

I expect many residents arrive at the lake to see a tidy lakeside yard—unaware that their maintenance crews have been blowing leaf litter into the lake every week.

Mechanical removal of natural debris by rake (and appropriate disposition) should be acceptable to DES.

Why didn't Concord simply outlaw the lakeside use of leafblowers?

[Onshore]

LIforrelaxin-
Yup, if you stopped doing the yard work for a couple of seasons there might be an increase in the amount of pine needles and leaf litter that make it to the lake...but the fact is that for thousands of years there was no one on the lake to do yard work and the lake was just fine. It is an ecological system that developed with a consistent, annual budget of leaf litter coming into it. If you speak to someone with a fisheries background as well as many ecologists they'll tell you that the majority of northern lakes would be sterile if not for the leaf litter accumulation. It provides the base for the food chain.

Having now admitted that some organic matter is a good thing (btw - some people will COMPLETELY disagree with the idea that ANY leaf litter is good) we often get the response that if some is good, more must be better, and people should be advised to dump leaves in the water. This is not a good idea. First off, your neighbors will probably not appreciate you mucking up their swimming area with leaves that will get all icky in a couple of years. (Neighbors can be funny that way but you do have to live next to them.) Second it creates a concentration of nutrients in the deposition area that will cause localized problems such as algae blooms. A small amount of organic matter spread over a large area is a good thing; a large amount in a small area is not. Another question that we get is, "if leaf litter is ok, why is fertilizer bad?" The best way I can explain this may be with an anology. The lake needs a certain amount of nutrients to function properly as an ecological system just like people need food. Natural deposition of leaf litter is like eating a salad, whereas fertilizer is like sucking down a bottle of chocolate syrup. It might sound like a good idea but it will just mess you up in the long run.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I expect many residents arrive at the lake to see a tidy lakeside yard—unaware that their maintenance crews have been blowing leaf litter into the lake every week.

Why didn't Concord simply outlaw the lakeside use of leafblowers?

I highly doubt that maintenance crews are blowing leaf litter into the lake on a widespread basis. C'mon, give us a break...

I still maintain the position that the wake from just one plowing Carver does far more damage to the shorefront than some of these petty things that DES is trying to restrict.

[Cobalt]

If Concord wants to have a positive and immediate impact on the health of the lakes, give a 100% tax credit to shorefront homeowners who upgrade their septic systems.

And by the way, stop spending money on legal and other administrative expenses to create systems that continually require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Cobalt

If Concord wants to have a positive and immediate impact on the health of the lakes, give a 100% tax credit to shorefront homeowners who upgrade their septic systems.

And by the way, stop spending money on legal and other administrative expenses to create systems that continually require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves.

Cobolt, you are on to a good idea, that being the upgrade of septic systems. However, there is so little tax revenue going to Concord (and it should stay that way) that it would take decades to work off any credit. Most property tax goes to the town and county, and they are in no financial position to be buying people's septic systems. There are many systems which can't be replaced without wavers, so a more clear process for getting wavers would be useful.

Your last statement needs some explaination. We do need the state to protect us from "the other guys" who are damaging the lake. There are still too many shoreline projects going on and too many supergreen lawns down to the water's edge. What do you mean by "require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves"?

[Cobalt]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Cobolt, you are on to a good idea, that being the upgrade of septic systems. However, there is so little tax revenue going to Concord (and it should stay that way) that it would take decades to work off any credit. Most property tax goes to the town and county, and they are in no financial position to be buying people's septic systems. There are many systems which can't be replaced without wavers, so a more clear process for getting wavers would be useful.

Your last statement needs some explaination. We do need the state to protect us from "the other guys" who are damaging the lake. There are still too many shoreline projects going on and too many supergreen lawns down to the water's edge. What do you mean by "require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves"?

Lakegeezer,

The emphasis placed on green lawns should not be a priority. It is a small part of a larger problem. I would concentrate on helping shorefront owners upgrade old septic systems which are deteriorated and do not conform to current regulations. When I see a new home constructed on the site of an old camp, at least I know that human fertilizer will not damage the lake.

How much tax revenue has been and will be spent by Concord in drafting these regulations and continually explaining them? Also, if we are truly concerned about the lakes, use some the tax revenues generated by waterfront owners for these credits. If the problem is as dire for the lake as portrayed by some, we cannot afford to ignore it and wish it away by restricting green lawns, but take decisive action on the septic issue.

You may not realize it yet, but the CSPA is having an impact on the area development. Talk to any of the local tradesmen or lumber yard, and you will hear how construction has slowed. If the intent of the Act was to slow waterfront constructon, it has succeeded. The unintended consequences of this slowdown impacts those in the construction and service trades dependent upon these projects.

A friend who lives on the shorefront asked me if he could install a flagpole within 100 feet of the lake under the current regulations without getting a permit. My short answer should be yes, but under the CSPA and the theory of protecting us from the other guy, and from ourselves....

[tis]

Originally Posted by Cobalt

Lakegeezer,

You may not realize it yet, but the CSPA is having an impact on the area development. Talk to any of the local tradesmen or lumber yard, and you will hear how construction has slowed. If the intent of the Act was to slow waterfront constructon, it has succeeded. The unintended consequences of this slowdown impacts those in the construction and service trades dependent upon these projects.

You are so right, Cobalt. I have heard this so many times lately, the latest being about an hour ago from a builder. And in this economy it is really hurting.

[ACutAbove]

Just a quick comment about the green laws down to the lake. I would not just assume that everyone is dumping chemicals on thier lawn to make it green.
There are other ways of making your lawn green,,, just by going "GREEN" that work very well.

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by Cobalt

If Concord wants to have a positive and immediate impact on the health of the lakes, give a 100% tax credit to shorefront homeowners who upgrade their septic systems.

And by the way, stop spending money on legal and other administrative expenses to create systems that continually require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves.

Not to derail this, but have you ever thought of running for office?

I wish our Reps in our district thought like this...

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Orion

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.

Exactly. The purpose of a perched beach is to have all sand above the high water mark. If you do not have a perched beach and your sand is below the high water mark, you are going to lose it to the lake consistently. I think that what they are trying to prevent is people just dumping loads of sand on their shoreline so that it gets washed into the lake, creating a nice sandy bottom.

[neckdweller]

The reality of the new law is that how people coexist with their neighbors will play a large part in who does what.

Obviously clearcutting a lakefront lot won't be happening but people adding sand to their beach, doing the typical landscaping they've done in the past, etc. will continue so long as they don't fear that their neighbors will be filling out one of those forms.

For those people who have an uneasy realtionship with their neighbors, they may think twice and be looking over their shoulder before yanking that weed out of the ground.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by neckdweller

The reality of the new law is that how people coexist with their neighbors will play a large part in who does what.

You nailed it!

[eyenotall777]

Would beach associations be exempt for once every 6yrs replenishment? Just wondering as I know an association who has been adding sand every year.....

Guess they don't know the rules either.

[Belkin]

Originally Posted by eyenotall777

Would beach associations be exempt for once every 6yrs replenishment? Just wondering as I know an association who has been adding sand every year.....

Guess they don't know the rules either.

Based on my reading of the rules last night, replenishing sand is a "minmal" impact project only if it is for a single family home and less than 50 feet of waterfront and less than 20 percent of the total properties waterfront. I think an association replenishing sand on a significant beech would be considered a "major" impact project.

I also looked at the form that you use to complain if someone is breaking the rules. It looks like complaining of a violation may be more difficult than applying for a permit. They also specifically mention in the instructions that the complaint should not be used just for getting back at your neighbor. Hopefully, they are only interestested in flagrant violations.

[tis]

My only wish is those of you who think the DES means well and is only trying to protect the lake, have the privilege of applying for a permit from them. Then please post and tell us how delightful the process was.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by tis

My only wish is those of you who think the DES means well and is only trying to protect the lake, have the privilege of applying for a permit from them. Then please post and tell us how delightful the process was.

The summer of '05 was my first as a shore front owner. Back then I knew nothing about the DES or the Shoreland Protection rules. In the 34 months since that time I have argued two appeals before the Wetlands Counsel, had three wetlands applications accepted, one of them twice, and successfully defended myself against two complaints that were filed against me by an abutter. So I think I qualify to comment.

Two of the permits were PBNs that I completed and filed on my own. They were a breeze. The third is a major impact project that I inherited from the previous owner, in the middle of the process, that had lots of unsightly hair all over it. I had to jump through more hoops then than a circus dog on that one, but none of those hoops had anything to with DES people trying to sabotage my project. In fact, they were very helpful. It all had to do with making sure I followed the letter of the law in order to prove the I qualified for requested project. It was, and still is, a huge time sink. It certainly was no bed of roses going through it all, but I understand the reasons behind it and, SHOCKER, I even agree with it.

Do I dread these new rules coming into effect? My house is a preexisting, non-conforming structure that I wish was a little bigger, so you bet. I have no doubt it's going to be a royal pain in my hind side if I ever decide to expand. I've read the changes from cover to cover more than once and I still can't figure out how it will actually affect a project that I have in mind for a few years from now. Even though I probably have more experience now than the average Joe Home Owner, I have serious doubts that I will be able to properly complete my next application on my own. But again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the people who are charged with enforcing those rules.

[tis]

So shore things, does that mean you can't use a ride on tractor to mow your lawn? We have been mowing our lawn with a ride on tractor for 25 years, now we can't?

I, also have read the act over and over and believe it is open to interpretation as most things like this are. However, it is my belief from reading it that if you have a small, old, camp and want to enlarge it, and it is an undersize lot, it is going to be almost impossible to get a permit to enlarge it. shore things?

[Onshore]

Rule Env-Wq 1406.04 (c) (7) does not specify that the mowing equipment must be "hand-held" so, no, there is nothing to say that you can't use a riding lawn mower.

As for old camps on small lots... we've been dealing with them for years now. The fact that there are lots that are so small that owners couldn't possibly meet the primary building setback isn't a new problem. RSA 483-B:10 states quite clearly that if a lot would otherwise be buildable, the CSPA cannot be used to prevent the construction of a single family dwelling on it. If you can get a septic system in on a lot and there is not some other legal restriction on the property then the law says you must be allowed to build. The law does allow DES to put conditions on the contruction but only those conditions that would be need to protect water quality to best meet the intent of the CSPA. These conditions would be things like implementing a stormwater management plan to account for the inability to meet the impervious surface requirements.

[tis]

You make it sound so nice and easy, shore things. Too bad is isn't REALLY like that to deal with you people.

[Formula260SS]

Originally Posted by tis

You make it sound so nice and easy, shore things. Too bad is isn't REALLY like that to deal with you people.

Tis I think thats out of line, I believe we are very fortunate to have Shore Things here responding to questions in this open forum. I feel that in prior communication feedback has been taken from this forum and at least listened to.

I have dealt with DES on a major impact project myself and found the people I have worked with to be very helpful. You may not like it but don't make comments like that to someone who is going out of their way to be helpful, Shore Things has gone above and beyond what I'm sure is required of his/her job by being here.

[tis]

Formula, I am sorry you took that as a nasty comment. It wasn't meant to be. I just meant that she is certainly trying to soften the blow for us when we all find out what this is about. For instance, I truly don't think people will be allowed to enlarge their home if it is on an undersized lot. I think a lot of people are in for a shock.

It is very good of shore things to comment on here. I have gotten more answers on here, than we have gotten through her in Concord. It takes ten phone calls and then you have to find out the status of your permit online.

I am glad the people were very helpful to you. Maybe you can tell me how you did it? We did not do the permit ourselves. We never ever could have done it and I consider us to be pretty saavy.

I am just saying it was avoidance all the way with us. It drags out to over a year of stalling, sending letters saying things like it isn't complete, and you have to call them and say it is, and then it takes them a couple of months to say: " Oh, yes, it Is COMPLETER." Things like that. I don't want to give too many details right now.

Thank you shore things for responding on here. Maybe there is a better way for all of us to communicate.

[fatlazyless]

"Now just look at that big house....why that house is too big for that lot.....and that house is too big for that lot, and that one over there is also too big for its' lot, too" Where are all the trees and woods that used to be seperating the homes?

Go take a boat ride around the lake, look around....it's all wall-to-wall homes, homes and more homes.

Some good stuff is coming out of Concord these days....should have been happening twenty years ago....ayuh! What the heck were folks down in Concord doing for the past 20 years anyway?

So's the new rule is no more than 25% of a lot can be covered by an impervious material which includes driveways made of asphalt or gravel or cobbles or packed soil. Only a driveway made of alive & growing green grass is not considered an impervious driveway.

[Formula260SS]

Tis,

just want to make sure we are not killing the messenger. My personal feeling is we are not at an end point with these rules and think that we will see changes yet again in the future, I may be wrong but that's my thought.

I'm not sure what your project is but there are defined time lines that responses have to be made by from DES. I did get the standard "more info needed" letter from them also but responded and we moved forward from there in a timely manner. I believe it is a difficult balance between protecting the lakes and rights of owners and also think the process is skewed a little too far away from owners.

One course of action is to hire a lawyer who is familiar with the laws/practices of DES, I know people will argue the costs and such but if for example you are looking to spend 100K on a project another 5-10% on to of that could be money well spent. I know a few people who handle permits and could direct you in that direction if you want, this is how boat houses have been built for example.

Now the REAL problem, smaller projects !! this is where I have a problem. For the project that is maybe 5-20K that will still require that same amount of paperwork and effort to get a permit, this to me is unacceptable. Here is where I think we will see changes.

I completely AGREE that the "money guys gets the permit" and think it is WRONG ! But, I have also seen structures on the lake that should never have been built but were due to lack of rules and a process. Here is where balance is a major issue.

Do I think the rules have to be adjusted, Yes. Do I think some rules will change, yes. Do I think that the town I live in will let me build a 5000 sq/ft 6 bedroom house on a non conforming lot that will not meet setbacks and septic requirements, don't think so.

[Onshore]

I had read Tis' post and if anything it was frustrating but I wasn't offended by it because his point is legitimate. Wetlands spent a couple of decades earning its reputation for inconsistency; I wouldn't expect anyone to forgive and forget over night. We've been trying to pull it out of the weeds for a while now and although the situation is improving there is still a ways to go. Please keep in mind that this is not just an internal problem. There are some in the regulated community who used the situation to their advantage and don't really want to see it change. Gatto Nero's project is a prime example that we haven't fully corrected the problem yet.

Now Shorelands is under the same roof and that understandably makes people uneasy. It should. One my primary responsibilities is to develop a program that is consistent and "agenda proof". That is part of why the Department pushed to have the approval criteria stated in the law itself and not in the rules. It is also why we wanted quantitative standards such as percent of area limits rather than qualitative standards like "need" and "least impacting alternative" that lend themselves to too much interpretation.

[tis]

You make a lot of good points Formula.

I do think some of these rules are too restrictive. For instance someone with a non conforming lot, who has a tiny, old, less than a 1000 Sq. foot camp, may want to improve and enlarge that-now I am not talking to 5000 feet, but maybe to a livable 1500-2000- will probably not be able to get a permit to build. And although we all love the old camps and hate to see them go, I can tell you most people do not want to live in them for long, or buy them. I had one and everyone looked at it and wanted something newer and nicer. So I think if all this stays as is, lots are going to be reduced in price dramatically on the lake.

I, of course also want to protect the lake, I have owned property on it most of my life, and probably love it more than most. I know there are many who will take advantage. I just think we have to have a reasonable balance.

The problem of course of hiring a lawyer, is not only the money but time! You could take four or five years if you have to go to court. I think the gov. should work WITH us, we should not have to fight them. We hire them, after all, shouldn't they help us, guide us without having to hire lawyers?

I feel that some of the things we were made to do on our project just didn't make sense. It did not make the lot look better, and I can't see how it protected the lake. But it is done and over and so be it.

I hope none of this offends you Formula, shore things, or anyone else. . I am just saying things the way I see them. I hope we have a right to voice our opinions on this forum.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by tis

You make it sound so nice and easy, shore things. Too bad is isn't REALLY like that to deal with you people.

In defense of shore things, I've had mostly pleasant results in e-mails and speaking with her in what must be a thankless, bureaucratic job.

When shifted to a DES subordinate, however, things got dismissive.

In the mid-80s, the state blocked many of us from selling abutting lots, so I should be upset; however, like Gatto Nero, I understand the need to protect the lake from excessive development. Where NH lakes are "backwards", and fringed with cathedral pines, the water quality is the highest in the state.

My last contact with shore things regarded a giant mudslide into the lake, bypassing "state-of-the-art" erosion barriers. (An orange polyester mesh "log" filled with wood chips). The mudslide into the lake continued for several weeks, when shore things advised me she would shortly drive out personally to inspect the scene. (I had departed the Lakes Region that week.)

I was temporarily confounded when she advised that she did not see the violations.

The next day, a neighbor told me that the night prior to the inspection, the mudslide had been covered with a foot of snow! (Still giving shore things a gold star for effort, though.)

Just another of the vexations dealing with trying to save the lake from algae, save the shoreline from excessive structure resulting in impervious soil runoff—but fully confounded by quirky NH weather—covering this moonscape:

[ApS]

Originally Posted by shore things

"...These conditions would be things like implementing a stormwater management plan to account for the inability to meet the impervious surface requirements..."

I've borrowed this photo from the Weirs Boardwalk Washed Away thread.

Wouldn't the two huge roofs across the street be good examples of "impervious surfaces"?

They are directly "upslope" from the roadway—another impervious surface—and likely produced this severe erosion result. (It would seem, IMHO.)

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Wouldn't the two huge roofs across the street be good examples of "impervious surfaces"?

They are directly "upslope" from the roadway—another impervious surface—and likely produced this severe erosion result. (It would seem, IMHO.)

That would make good sense to a spinner and probably the people in Concord who make the rules, regulations, and laws.

One problem...

They have been there for awhile, as in, when did the Civil War (War Between the States) end?

[Onshore]

You can't blame the Weirs blow out on 2 roofs and a roadway. You need to take a broader view of the development and drainage patterns of the Weirs as a whole and you can't overlook the extreme severity of the rain event.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by neckdweller

The reality of the new law is that how people coexist with their neighbors will play a large part in who does what.

I believe that is very true. I'm also pretty sure my neighbor's lawyer has a complaint form partially filled out so he can save time the next time I rake the yard.

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by Gatto Nero

I'm also pretty sure my neighbor's lawyer has a complaint form partially filled out so he can save time the next time I rake the yard.

Of course, this sort of thing would backfire on the law itself. A system overloaded with complaints of this type would quickly become inefficient, and the workload would create an "overworked & underpaid" mentality within the DES that has already happened to many government agencies. Most recent case-in-point (this week): The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) Too much paperwork, too many planes & pilots to regulate, too little time, and they can't pay their employees enough to care.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

Of course, this sort of thing would backfire on the law itself. A system overloaded with complaints of this type would quickly become inefficient, and the workload would create an "overworked & underpaid" mentality within the DES that has already happened to many government agencies. Most recent case-in-point (this week): The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) Too much paperwork, too many planes & pilots to regulate, too little time, and they can't pay their employees enough to care.

Exactly. That's probably already the case. I think the people at the DES really do care about what they are doing but they're overloaded, and these new rules can only make matters worse.

[neckdweller]

I'm in a good situation with my neighbors - all of us have had the houses in the families for 40 or so years. We had talked about the new Moultonborough/State rules in the fall and I don't foresee any problems between us.

At the other end of the spectrum are some of the people that live nearby. Due to the closeness of the houses there's a general tension among the homeowners. Given the relatively innocuous activities that will lead to a violation and knowing the nature of these people, I can see multiple violations being reported.

As already mentioned, this won't be good for the workload of the DES and could ultimately lead to a paperwork nightmare.