Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-29-2019, 11:49 AM   #1
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 693
Thanks: 78
Thanked 161 Times in 109 Posts
Default Moultonborough boathouse case heading to Supreme Court

MOULTONBOROUGH — A local couple has encountered choppy waters after deciding to move their boathouse 10 feet back from the shoreline.

Despite having been approved — twice — by the local zoning board and the state board that oversees water pollution control, a neighbor's complaint and interdepartmental differences have the case heading to the New Hampshire Supreme Court over the issue of the building's height.


Full Article

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...b1060a036.html
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Outdoorsman For This Useful Post:
Red apple (03-30-2019)
Old 03-29-2019, 02:01 PM   #2
iw8surf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 103
Thanks: 12
Thanked 30 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Good luck to these two neighbors getting along.....
iw8surf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2019, 02:32 PM   #3
ACME on the Broads
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 38
Thanks: 57
Thanked 17 Times in 8 Posts
Default My Boat's Bigger Than Yours!

Perhaps Envy or jealousy, but clearly a case study in how not to get along with your neighbors.

I support the minor boat house set back modification; it would seem this homeowner has followed stated guidelines and one "nothing-else-to-do" jealous neighbor decides he/she/they are going to no longer be neighborly.

Pelosi vs. Trump, no one wins and civility is no where to be found....IT'S TOO BAD!
ACME on the Broads is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ACME on the Broads For This Useful Post:
gravy boat (03-29-2019)
Old 03-29-2019, 02:45 PM   #4
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 2,159
Thanks: 448
Thanked 544 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iw8surf View Post
Good luck to these two neighbors getting along.....
Not hijacking the thread but this is exactly what I was speaking about in the rental home thread. Neighbors cannot decide whether you can or cannot rent your home.

Sorry back to the regularly scheduled thread subject
joey2665 is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to joey2665 For This Useful Post:
TheRoBoat (03-29-2019), WinnisquamZ (03-29-2019)
Old 03-29-2019, 03:13 PM   #5
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

This really doesn't have a whole lot to do with the neighbor per say. Granted they blew them into DES and complained about what was going on but that's not the kicker.

The owners had in hand approval for the following:

- Town approved variance to rebuild the structure
- Town approved building permit
- Town ZBA approved building the structure 10 foot back off the water
- DES approved permit where the ABOVE was duly noted
- DES approval did NOT contain any mention or contingency on height restrictions, however the town permit did which the owner abided by.

After construction commences DES realizes they have a problem with the height of the building?

Wetlands board over rules DES's objection

DES objects AGAIN, wetlands board rejects their objection AGAIN.

I hate to say it but as a casual observer, this does not make DES look very good unless there is some other pertinent anecdotal evidence that is not mentioned in the article that proves otherwise. Furthermore I find it offensive that the owner is subject to the financial burden of defending a project that was previously approved and followed the stipulations in those approvals as documented by both the town and state. The owner should therefore be able to recover those financial losses I would think.

Oh and that neighbor is a jerk!
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
CTYankee (03-29-2019), Electric man (03-31-2019), gravy boat (03-29-2019), mhtranger (04-01-2019), radioman (03-30-2019), wolfegirl (04-06-2019)
Sponsored Links
Old 03-29-2019, 03:59 PM   #6
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 423
Thanks: 58
Thanked 306 Times in 104 Posts
Default

From the pictures, is this really a boathouse or an accessory structure? Looks pretty fancy with all those glass walls, etc.
tummyman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to tummyman For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-03-2019)
Old 03-29-2019, 04:36 PM   #7
TheTimeTraveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 199
Thanks: 31
Thanked 29 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Maybe the Corr's should establish a "Go Fund Me Page" on the internet and raise funds to help defray their court costs....
TheTimeTraveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2019, 06:38 PM   #8
DickR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 532
Thanks: 0
Thanked 158 Times in 99 Posts
Default

This structure is a walk down shore from me. I've been wondering what the story is on it's completion being in limbo. After reading the Sun article, it seems to me that this is basically a battle between two state agencies. As to how to rule, I would think that since the property owner already had received approval to proceed from both the town and "the state," then the court ought to have no choice but to adhere to the long-standing constitutional "double-jeopardy" principal and let the structure, as built, remain and be completed. Further, it should remind "the state" that its various mini-bureaucracies need to get their collective act together, so that property owners aren't subject to state agency turf battles.
DickR is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DickR For This Useful Post:
thinkxingu (03-29-2019)
Old 03-29-2019, 06:46 PM   #9
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Odd looking boat house and put in a stange place. Aren't boat houses usually placed on the water so that boats can be driven into them.

Here is the view from the lake:
Attached Images
 
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Rusty For This Useful Post:
Descant (03-30-2019), Lakegirl24 (04-03-2019), LakesLady (04-07-2019)
Old 03-29-2019, 07:33 PM   #10
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

is that a boat house, or is it a 2-bed, 2-bath, 1000 sq' income apartment for rent by the week with the owner's boat parked* below, which by the way, is off limits to the weekly renter.

Am looking for the rental listing and what's it rent for?


* A boat trailer is used to roll boat in and out of the water here.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to fatlazyless For This Useful Post:
lakewind (03-31-2019)
Old 03-29-2019, 09:48 PM   #11
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,503
Thanks: 230
Thanked 844 Times in 348 Posts
Default

There are more questions than answers here.

Did the structure that is being "replaced" have living quarters above it?
The article in the Sun says this structure is higher so it may not have. If they are adding living quarters to a "replacement" building that presents a whole different list of legal challenges.

Was the original structure on the water such that a boat could be driven into it?

Do they intend to excavate from out at the water to under the building so that a boat can be driven in and out?

If they don't, then I would assume that this is just an accessory structure and zoning laws for a new building would apply. It would seem to have no relation to a boathouse that was once there.

It should be an interesting case to follow.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2019, 09:57 PM   #12
tummyman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 423
Thanks: 58
Thanked 306 Times in 104 Posts
Default

IMHO, never going to see water inside....do they have a permit from DES to excavate deep into the lake waters and within the shore land buffer zone? Sure looks like a house...not a boat house. Maybe lots fo mistakes made by all involved. But rules are rules....
tummyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 06:57 AM   #13
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 857
Thanks: 142
Thanked 222 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
There are more questions than answers here.

Did the structure that is being "replaced" have living quarters above it?
The article in the Sun says this structure is higher so it may not have. If they are adding living quarters to a "replacement" building that presents a whole different list of legal challenges.

Was the original structure on the water such that a boat could be driven into it?

Do they intend to excavate from out at the water to under the building so that a boat can be driven in and out?

If they don't, then I would assume that this is just an accessory structure and zoning laws for a new building would apply. It would seem to have no relation to a boathouse that was once there.

It should be an interesting case to follow.
Yes, interesting questions but it seems the time to answer them would have been BEFORE approvals were given. As I understand it, the owner went to all the proper agencies and got all the proper approvals. Rules are important but the time to apply them is BEFORE approvals are granted. If height was all that important, perhaps the approval should clearly state that condition/restriction in the body of the approval, in red, BOLD, especially since this problem seems to reoccur.

What is really puzzling is that the building, not actually over the lake any longer, is possibly better for the lake? The DES is the fussing over the HEIGHT, which has WHAT to do with the environment? There are houses nearby that are close to the water so it's not like this one building is creating a big visual impact unusual to the area.

A lot of fuss over a very minor issue. For a state with pretty limited government, it sure can kick up a lot of dust from time to time.
jeffk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 07:03 AM   #14
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Here is a satellite view of the boat house. It looks bigger than the house.
Attached Images
 
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 07:41 AM   #15
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

.....gee whiz ..... looking at the whitish areas in the grass lawn between the main house and the "boat" house ..... that lawn could use a little help .... should be think'n 'bout some grass seed and fertilizer there .... just a helpful thought here ....
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 07:52 AM   #16
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
.....gee whiz ..... looking at the whitish areas in the grass lawn between the main house and the "boat" house ..... that lawn could use a little help .... should be think'n 'bout some grass seed and fertilizer there .... just a helpful thought here ....
Move the boat house back another 10-15 feet would take care of the lawn problem.
Or maybe move the house down 10-15 feet closer to the boat house.

"Just a helpful thought here"
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 07:55 AM   #17
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,503
Thanks: 230
Thanked 844 Times in 348 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
.....gee whiz ..... looking at the whitish areas in the grass lawn between the main house and the "boat" house ..... that lawn could use a little help .... should be think'n 'bout some grass seed and fertilizer there .... just a helpful thought here ....
No Fertilizer. Too close to the lake.

What were you thinking, or were you thinking?
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
fatlazyless (03-30-2019), NH.Solar (03-30-2019)
Old 03-30-2019, 08:03 AM   #18
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 693
Thanks: 78
Thanked 161 Times in 109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimeTraveler View Post
Maybe the Corr's should establish a "Go Fund Me Page" on the internet and raise funds to help defray their court costs....
DES should be paying all the legal fees involved. It seems like they are the ones that failed and they are the ones bringing this to the Supreme Court.
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 09:18 AM   #19
trfour
Senior Member
 
trfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX.
Posts: 3,480
Blog Entries: 3
Thanks: 2,565
Thanked 424 Times in 203 Posts
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
What were you thinking, or were you thinking?
He mustah been malty tasking T BB, you know, mixing pancake batter etc. we nevah hear from him here when he's skiing and or playing tennis.
__________________
trfour

Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU!

Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html
trfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 09:48 AM   #20
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffk View Post
Yes, interesting questions but it seems the time to answer them would have been BEFORE approvals were given. As I understand it, the owner went to all the proper agencies and got all the proper approvals. Rules are important but the time to apply them is BEFORE approvals are granted. If height was all that important, perhaps the approval should clearly state that condition/restriction in the body of the approval, in red, BOLD, especially since this problem seems to reoccur.

What is really puzzling is that the building, not actually over the lake any longer, is possibly better for the lake? The DES is the fussing over the HEIGHT, which has WHAT to do with the environment? There are houses nearby that are close to the water so it's not like this one building is creating a big visual impact unusual to the area.

A lot of fuss over a very minor issue. For a state with pretty limited government, it sure can kick up a lot of dust from time to time.
Agreed 100%, in fact their stated objection makes little sense considering that the wetlands board suggested that now that the "boat house' being moved 10 foot back is and should be classified as an accessory structure which by it's very definition does not pose restrictions on height albeit the town permit did have a stated height restriction.

The fact the supreme court has to step in on this is a complete and utter waste of state resources.

I'm betting this will be ruled in favor of the land owner. They are doing what they were permitted to do. If the DES permits were issued in error the land owner should not have to pay for that after the fact especially because what they are doing is not in anyway damaging to the lake according to the review done by the wetlands board. The fact the land owner even offered to take additional mitigation steps which were rejected also makes me really question the overall DES objection and what is really the driving force behind it.

To bad, there are folks over at DES that do an outstanding job and at least in my dealings with them they have really been helpful, reasonable, and overall great to work with.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 10:50 AM   #21
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 546
Thanks: 291
Thanked 150 Times in 95 Posts
Default

I'm with Rusty and FLL--this reads like one of the stories where the owner was too clever by half, calling a second home a boathouse. He slides it by the state the first time or two, perhaps because people aren't paying quite enough attention because they believe him when he says he's just replacing the boathouse. Then he's upset when the neighbor forces the issue and everybody sees it's a second home.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post:
ApS (04-01-2019), kawishiwi (03-30-2019)
Old 03-30-2019, 11:51 AM   #22
DickR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 532
Thanks: 0
Thanked 158 Times in 99 Posts
Default

None of the old boathouse was over water and it never had a wet slip inside. The boat, a steel-hulled vessel IIRC, was winched up and inside, over dry land. The structure was quite old and never had any kind of "living" accomodations. In the 18 years I owned nearby, I don't recall ever seeing the boat out of its dry dock, although that could have occurred from time to time.

On thinking about this issue after my earlier post (#8), I am thinking that most likely the LDS article does not provide the whole story on the matter, as TiltonBB suggested. If the owners believed they had the appropriate permits in place to build what's now there, then the state ought not to be changing the rules after the fact. But if the town and state, collectively, permitted one thing and the owner went beyond that and built, say, a "party room" with bathroom, kitchen, etc, then the state has a rightful beef to resolve. If it is decided that what was built clearly was illegal (and perhaps if the owners knew and proceeded anyway), then enforcing compliance should be the outcome. A law that is not enforced is not really a law, is it? This was the problem back in the first years of the Shoreland Protection Act. Developers just did what they wished with a property, paying any later fine as just a small part of the overall cost.

This will indeed be interesting to follow.
DickR is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DickR For This Useful Post:
Stevebvt (03-31-2019)
Old 03-30-2019, 12:58 PM   #23
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,790
Thanks: 534
Thanked 542 Times in 348 Posts
Default Boathouse or other use?

Thanks DickR (#22) for the history. It seems there is a change of use, closer to being a guest house than a boathouse. Nevertheless, the driving factor here seems to be the watchdog neighbor. Reading the LDS article it seems like the phrase "same footprint and height" was part of the first approval. Not clear if the same phrase was used when the plans were approved a second time to move back 10 feet. Maybe the move back was an amendment to the first application and there was not a full second application? It's hard to cover all the details in a short newspaper article.

Should the engineer/architect have picked up this "height" discrepancy? The neighbor did.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 03:47 PM   #24
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default .... noodles to lower the height!

5" diameter foam mega-noodles would be a doable solution for lowering the overall height of the building by about 30" what with the difference between the height of a boat trailer and the noodle.

Instead of using a boat trailer here, just use about six foam noodles, all spaced out, to roll the boat in or out of the water and into the boat garage.

With the noodle, this economy of height should translate to a lower building height, overall ......... E=noodle x C squared! .... Albert Einstein, 1922 .... so very elementary!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 05:12 PM   #25
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,503
Thanks: 230
Thanked 844 Times in 348 Posts
Default

These are the requirements for an "Accessory Structure"

There is indeed a height limitation.

The size and location of accessory structures are strictly regulated within the waterfront buffer, which is the area of the property that extends 50 feet landward from the reference line.

For a comprehensive explanation of the accessory structure limitations, please see the Accessory Structure Fact Sheet. Adobe Acrobat Reader Symbol
Accessory Structure Limitations within the Waterfront Buffer:

Height: 12 feet maximum 1
Size: 1.5 square feet per linear foot of shoreland frontage 2. For example, a property with 100 feet of shoreland frontage is limited to 150 square feet of accessory structure area.
Setback: At least 20 feet from the reference line.
May not be built on or into land having greater than a 25% slope.
May not be converted to living space (e.g. closing in with windows, adding plumbing).
Must be located in a manner that minimizes impacts to natural groundcover.
If removing trees or saplings is necessary to locate the accessory structure, tree removal must meet the limitations described within the Vegetation Management Fact Sheet
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 05:20 PM   #26
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 290
Thanks: 30
Thanked 77 Times in 51 Posts
Default

An administrative order that the agency issued on Nov. 3, 2017, pointed out that the original wetlands notification included the statement, “Replace an existing shoreland structure which was collapsed by snow load with a new structure in exact location and height.

Also the abutter said he was not informed as is usual in any permit change requirement...

Seems like just another failure in government...
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 05:37 PM   #27
gwhite13
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Hanover and Moultonborough
Posts: 41
Thanks: 4
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Lets not leave the town without culpability. I believe, a few years back someone along the Balmoral canal started a four br house with an expired 3br permit. The home was over height, to close to shore, nonconforming. When the next door neighbor complained to building inspector....what he told her was to, at her own expense, have it surveyed!
gwhite13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2019, 07:36 PM   #28
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 857
Thanks: 142
Thanked 222 Times in 133 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DickR View Post
... But if the town and state, collectively, permitted one thing and the owner went beyond that and built, say, a "party room" with bathroom, kitchen, etc, then the state has a rightful beef to resolve. ...
This will indeed be interesting to follow.
The thing is, the town set height restrictions but the owner seems to have stayed within those. The town seems NOT to be complaining. The wetland bureau seems NOT to be complaining. DES is complaining but seems NOT to have called out restrictions in their original approval?

In summary, the owner seems to have abided by restrictions indicated in the approval process.

If height was an issue, why didn't DES ask about the owner's plans beforehand or call out the appropriate limits? This is the PURPOSE of an approval process, to guide the owner into proper development BEFORE they sink money and time into something. It is the job of the review agencies to do this work properly, not wait until a citizen has to point out something they should have checked out BEFORE construction started.

Again I note, these types of issues keep coming up. It seems the review process is insufficient and flawed. Then the agencies want to play catch up at the owner's expense.

If an owner's plans are given a through review and they are presented with a concise approval document and THEN they color outside the lines, they should be responsible for costs to come into compliance.
jeffk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 08:49 AM   #29
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
Thanks DickR (#22) for the history. It seems there is a change of use, closer to being a guest house than a boathouse. Nevertheless, the driving factor here seems to be the watchdog neighbor. Reading the LDS article it seems like the phrase "same footprint and height" was part of the first approval. Not clear if the same phrase was used when the plans were approved a second time to move back 10 feet. Maybe the move back was an amendment to the first application and there was not a full second application? It's hard to cover all the details in a short newspaper article.

Should the engineer/architect have picked up this "height" discrepancy? The neighbor did.
That's what the zoning board approval was for, re-siting the building 10 foot back from where the existing structure was. That was approved and where the TOWN noted a height restriction upon approval which was noted as NOT height based on the water level (key distinction here). That was also the first time the neighbor found out about the entire project. Interestingly enough according to the article, the neighbor at that time could have officially filed a statutory appeal but chose not to. Instead opted to wait for the project to get well underway then say something. Despicable behavior to say the least.

Another interesting detail in all this, did the owner submit blue prints or at least a rendering of what they intended to build to the town? My guess is yes, I've never heard of a building permits being issued with no blueprints or plans attached. IF DES had any concern about the height the town should have had all that paperwork for them to review.

The fact this has gone on now for TWO years is atrocious meanwhile the owner has a partially finished building that doesn't appear to be fully weather tight and likely is being ruined while all these bureaucrats sit there and play grab ass with one another.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
mhtranger (03-31-2019)
Old 03-31-2019, 08:59 AM   #30
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,664
Thanks: 461
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default

I'm not sure who required it or what the details were but a boathouse built a few years in Winter Harbor was too high. They made them remove the top.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 09:20 AM   #31
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
IF DES had any concern about the height the town should have had all that paperwork for them to review.
It appears to me that in the beginning the DES only approved building the boathouse where the original one was. Than the owners decided to move it back 10ft and somehow the DES wasn't involved with the official review plans. Everything went smooth through the town requirements and got approved. The neighbor than notified the DES and told them that they were left out of the process and wanted them to look at where it was being built. This is where the DES rejected the height of the building because it was higher than the original one that they approved.
It is really hard to get the full picture of what went wrong because of the way it is being presented by the newspapers and the DES wesbsite approval .pdf files.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 10:08 AM   #32
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,492
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default More to the story

For those interested in more history of this situation, look at the Moultonboro's GIS system at https://www.axisgis.com/moultonboroughNH/ - Search for Corr, select the property, then click on documents and links. There are building permits, zoning board decisions, variance applications and DES correspondence.

While the location change is well documented and ZB approved, I'm left wondering where the "changes in configuration, construction type or dimensions in accordance with plans dated 11/2/15" were approved. The variance application and new building permit, dated 5/25/16 references the original building permit and raises the estimated cost but has no hint of a multi-level structure.

Unless the building is longer, which the pictures imply it may be, there shouldn't be greater impact to water quality from roof runoff. Hopefully the supreme court will focus on confirming the building was built as approved.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lakegeezer For This Useful Post:
Rusty (03-31-2019)
Old 03-31-2019, 10:33 AM   #33
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer View Post
For those interested in more history of this situation, look at the Moultonboro's GIS system at https://www.axisgis.com/moultonboroughNH/ - Search for Corr, select the property, then click on documents and links. There are building permits, zoning board decisions, variance applications and DES correspondence.

While the location change is well documented and ZB approved, I'm left wondering where the "changes in configuration, construction type or dimensions in accordance with plans dated 11/2/15" were approved. The variance application and new building permit, dated 5/25/16 references the original building permit and raises the estimated cost but has no hint of a multi-level structure.

Unless the building is longer, which the pictures imply it may be, there shouldn't be greater impact to water quality from roof runoff. Hopefully the supreme court will focus on confirming the building was built as approved.
I went to the GIS site last week and that is where I saw the .pdf files which (to me) aren't clear as to why the DES overruled the wet lands and zoning approvals of the building.
The flow is confusing to my old brain.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 10:58 AM   #34
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
It appears to me that in the beginning the DES only approved building the boathouse where the original one was. Than the owners decided to move it back 10ft and somehow the DES wasn't involved with the official review plans. Everything went smooth through the town requirements and got approved. The neighbor than notified the DES and told them that they were left out of the process and wanted them to look at where it was being built. This is where the DES rejected the height of the building because it was higher than the original one that they approved.
It is really hard to get the full picture of what went wrong because of the way it is being presented by the newspapers and the DES wesbsite approval .pdf files.
The original building permits specified clearly the dimensions of the replacement building. Furthermore and this is very interesting, the ZBA's decision in favor or allowing the building to be moved back 10 feet was contingent upon re-submitting an amended PBN to DES and getting their approval. So they, DES, knew about the change in building location. What it appears they didn't know is that by moving the building back 10 feet came with a base elevation change due to the natural contour of the land. The building itself still meets all the requirements as originally documented.

That I guess poses the question is the submitter obligated to include that level of detail (base elevation change) in the amended PBN or is the person that reviews and approves the amended application obligated to do the due diligence to find out what the result is of approving the relocation of the building?
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
Rusty (03-31-2019)
Old 03-31-2019, 11:43 AM   #35
billy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 74
Thanks: 166
Thanked 32 Times in 15 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
The original building permits specified clearly the dimensions of the replacement building. Furthermore and this is very interesting, the ZBA's decision in favor or allowing the building to be moved back 10 feet was contingent upon re-submitting an amended PBN to DES and getting their approval. So they, DES, knew about the change in building location. What it appears they didn't know is that by moving the building back 10 feet came with a base elevation change due to the natural contour of the land. The building itself still meets all the requirements as originally documented.

That I guess poses the question is the submitter obligated to include that level of detail (base elevation change) in the amended PBN or is the person that reviews and approves the amended application obligated to do the due diligence to find out what the result is of approving the relocation of the building?
...but it no longer is a one story structure as per plan?
billy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 01:04 PM   #36
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

A steep pitch of the roof which this building clearly has does not equate to a multi floor structure.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 02:34 PM   #37
sky's
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 173
Thanks: 36
Thanked 29 Times in 22 Posts
Default

another reason i wouldn't want a water front house. your're on top of your neighbors. good luck
sky's is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 03:19 PM   #38
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sky's View Post
another reason i wouldn't want a water front house. your're on top of your neighbors. good luck
.....yes, is very true for the most part on the main land, while the island lots are usually bigger, maybe 2-acres, and less money. Main land is like Somerville and Medford on the water.

So, is the "boat" house a single story, or a two floor house with bedrooms upstairs ....... anybody know? Looking at all the windows, it looks like two floors, with dormer style windows built into the roof line on the second floor .... is my guess.

Is a very nice look'n house exterior.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 04:53 PM   #39
DickR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 532
Thanks: 0
Thanked 158 Times in 99 Posts
Default

From the town online records, the pics below are of the old boathouse are part of the permitting documents. In April of 2016, the town ZBA approved (5-0) the revised plan moving the boathouse 10 feet further back from the water (https://www.axisgis.com/node/axisapi...6_TM_270-4.pdf). It is interesting to note that in that document it says that the applicant stated the structure would be one story and height would not exceed the town limitation of 32 ft. The approval also says the applicant would have to resubmit the approved plan to the state DES. I went looking through the documents associated with the property to see if there was any reference to a height restriction of 12 feet, but found nothing. The original building permit said just that the original dimensions would be kept (height is one dimension), while the amended application simply said it would conform to the plan approved by the zoning board.
Attached Images
 

Last edited by DickR; 03-31-2019 at 05:30 PM.
DickR is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DickR For This Useful Post:
Descant (03-31-2019), FlyingScot (03-31-2019), Lakegirl24 (04-04-2019), TheTimeTraveler (03-31-2019)
Old 03-31-2019, 04:56 PM   #40
welch-time
Senior Member
 
welch-time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Welch Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 2
Thanked 46 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Wow, thanks for the old pictures (like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words).
The new "boat house" looks way nicer than the house next to it. I don't think it's 2 stories but it's probably a vaulted ceiling which is nice for a boat house (let's the boat engine exhaust fumes out).
Someone is playing fast and loose with the zoning regulations. The 10 ft setback is a red herring. They've built a house where there was a collapsed boat house.
This is a huge increase in the property value. It's probably a rental house. I get it. I'd probably do the same thing. A property with an old dilapidated boat house is money in the bank.
Just don't get greedy and build a 2 story monster. It's gonna piss off the neighbors, and they will rat you out.

Last edited by welch-time; 03-31-2019 at 08:09 PM.
welch-time is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to welch-time For This Useful Post:
CaptT820 (04-01-2019), FlyingScot (03-31-2019), kawishiwi (03-31-2019)
Old 03-31-2019, 05:09 PM   #41
TheTimeTraveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 199
Thanks: 31
Thanked 29 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Based upon the new photo versus the old photo then I would say there is a potential use change of the newly replaced outbuilding and I can see why there could be some questions along the line (besides the height issue).

On the other side of the coin, permits were issued, so this will be interesting to see what the final outcome actually is.
TheTimeTraveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 06:00 PM   #42
kawishiwi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 481
Thanks: 191
Thanked 127 Times in 86 Posts
Default Its effectively 2 stories...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
A steep pitch of the roof which this building clearly has does not equate to a multi floor structure.
The pic of the new "boat house" appears to show a garage door for a boat in the "basement" of the new "boat house". Some how a clearly utilty style building for storing a boat has morphed in to a second residence cottage with parking under. Its no longer a boat house. Its a house with a garage.
__________________
...in my great and unmatched wisdom...
kawishiwi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 08:09 PM   #43
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,607
Thanks: 1,059
Thanked 430 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Both a Walgreen and Marriot residents tried to put residential living areas above their boathouse's in Wolfeboro. Both were told to remove - cease and desist all such use of the boathouse. So if the space above the boat area is for someone to stay in they will loose in court.
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2019, 08:28 PM   #44
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,503
Thanks: 230
Thanked 844 Times in 348 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Sold View Post
Both a Walgreen and Marriot residents tried to put residential living areas above their boathouse's in Wolfeboro. Both were told to remove - cease and desist all such use of the boathouse. So if the space above the boat area is for someone to stay in they will loose in court.
I agree. There is obviously a small garage door on the lower level and that is the only resemblance the new building has to the old structure. The rest of the new construction really has no relation to the old building.

The permit process to "replace" a pre-existing structure seems to have made a huge leap. If it is not a "replacement" then it is new construction within the 50 foot buffer. I would bet there will be some "deconstruction" at some point in the future.

I would file this under "nice try" but it didn't work.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
ApS (04-01-2019), Roy_Hobbs (08-14-2019)
Old 04-01-2019, 06:18 AM   #45
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 290
Thanks: 30
Thanked 77 Times in 51 Posts
Default

I see no debate in what they did and they will undoubtedly lose in court. Must be nice to have money to lose.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2019, 08:07 AM   #46
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,503
Thanks: 230
Thanked 844 Times in 348 Posts
Default

FLL: Keep your eyes open. You may see some really nice "like new" never even been opened, windows on Craigslist soon. Maybe you can upgrade your Meredith mansion.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2019, 11:03 AM   #47
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 653 Times in 354 Posts
Default

Like DickR I am the same neighborhood. And I know a bit of what is going on.... While yes there was a neighbor issue, that I believe is mostly settled down.

The issues now that are being fought in court, or legal based on the structure. I don't think its is fair to comment much on what is going on, unless we have access to the permits... What little I do know, is I think there was some misleading information presented, in regards to the replacement structure. The biggest problem I have with what is going on, is that the boat house / apartment structure, is being done, so that a seasonal property become usable year around. So, has the septic been updated etc.

At the end of the day, this wasn't a like for like replacement... If the owners had all the proper docuemtations and approvals, then the project wouldn't have been stopped. Somewhere along the way, some information was misleading, and it has lead to this.....

The biggest thing, is why hasn't there been a successful mediation effort... likely because the home owners are not willing to compromise....

Time will tell where this one ends....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2019, 11:13 AM   #48
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

The DES has created Docket 17--16 WtC that has the official documents and all the filings for this boathouse case. Use this Docket to get the actual true history and don't depend on newspaper spins or rumors.
Here is the DES website: https://www4.des.state.nh.us/Legal/?...0Councilttaced

Read this document to get why the DES won't approve the boathouse:
Attached Images
File Type: pdf 02-22-18 - State's Motion to Dismiss.pdf (1.79 MB, 273 views)
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rusty For This Useful Post:
IslandRadio (08-20-2019), Lakegirl24 (04-03-2019)
Old 04-01-2019, 11:37 AM   #49
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 290
Thanks: 30
Thanked 77 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
The DES has created Docket 17--16 WtC that has the official documents and all the filings for this boathouse case. Use this Docket to get the actual true history and don't depend on newspaper spins or rumors.
Here is the DES website: https://www4.des.state.nh.us/Legal/?...0Councilttaced

Read this document to get why the DES won't approve the boathouse:

Clearly they changed the scope of their project. It's hard to believe they will prevail.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to swnoel For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-03-2019)
Old 04-01-2019, 01:26 PM   #50
Poor Richard
Senior Member
 
Poor Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: The humbling river
Posts: 139
Thanks: 7
Thanked 26 Times in 18 Posts
Default

I looked at the pics posted in this thread as well as read through the .pdf Rusty posted.

Am I missing something? Is me or is that new boathouse nowhere near the water?
Poor Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2019, 01:28 PM   #51
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 653 Times in 354 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
Clearly they changed the scope of their project. It's hard to believe they will prevail.
There has never been any doubt about the scope of the project changing.. My personal feeling is that, the project was originally going to be just a replacement... and then as things got rolling, it was noted how easy it might be to enhance the structure...

Do I believe these people set out to build something they new wouldn't approve... No I don't feel like that.... I feel that they started something and then let the scope grow out of hand.... To much scope creep and no I have been passing by a uncompleted structure for a couple of years.... I already see more issue then originally stated with the documentation...
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2019, 01:51 PM   #52
TheTimeTraveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 199
Thanks: 31
Thanked 29 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poor Richard View Post
I looked at the pics posted in this thread as well as read through the .pdf Rusty posted.

Am I missing something? Is me or is that new boathouse nowhere near the water?
I am guessing the only thing the new boathouse will be doing is to store the boat during the winter months when the boat is hauled out of the water.
TheTimeTraveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-01-2019, 02:11 PM   #53
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 653 Times in 354 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimeTraveler View Post
I am guessing the only thing the new boathouse will be doing is to store the boat during the winter months when the boat is hauled out of the water.
Living near by, I can tell you, that the new boat house maybe able to store jetski's in the winter months, but is not capable of storing a boat....

This is one of the many discrepancies of the tail of this structure.

There was once indeed a boat house capable of dry storing a boat...

What is there now, will not be capable of dry storing a boat, and can be used as a place to inhabit....

I was not at all surprised when this project came to a grinding halt.... and with what I have seen, there was a lot of misrepresentation...
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-03-2019)
Old 04-01-2019, 02:16 PM   #54
iw8surf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 103
Thanks: 12
Thanked 30 Times in 23 Posts
Default

I have always envied other states boat houses when I travel. I have some close friends in Texas/ Arizona/ Nevada etc with gorgeous boat houses and every time I comment on them their answer is " mines nothing you should see so and sos boat house" and then they ask about NH and I tell them our laws and they say " yea that and the miserable weather is why we live here"
iw8surf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2019, 08:32 AM   #55
bigpatsfan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Thanks: 21
Thanked 15 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Is it me or did this thread start by condemning the neighbors (Perhaps Envy or jealousy,) and the home owners were certainly going to prevail in Court to at the end of this thread the posts are stating that the home owners are clearly wrong and they will most certainly lose in Court?

It is amazing what knowing the entire story will do and thanks Rusty for posting the Court Docket .
bigpatsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2019, 09:23 AM   #56
WinnisquamZ
Senior Member
 
WinnisquamZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 245
Thanks: 77
Thanked 51 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iw8surf View Post
I have always envied other states boat houses when I travel. I have some close friends in Texas/ Arizona/ Nevada etc with gorgeous boat houses and every time I comment on them their answer is " mines nothing you should see so and sos boat house" and then they ask about NH and I tell them our laws and they say " yea that and the miserable weather is why we live here"


Your response reminds me of the first time my son in law was on the lake. Long time Lake Michigan boater ask my don’t they just blast the rock out of the way instead of risking boat damage and lives. Had to chuckle


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
WinnisquamZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2019, 01:20 PM   #57
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 28
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default When a dry boat house turns into a house

Hey Guys!

I am the neighbor that this has affected the most. The ONCE boathouse is only 4 feet off of my Dad’s land. The Corrs seem to have the notion we turned them in ( which I honestly would have if I knew this is what was going to be built )... There has been so much MISINFORMATION here and so much corruption, I don’t know where to begin.

Let’s start with the fact that the boathouse was standing just fine until the Corrs took out the braces and left the doors wide open that the previous owner had put in place as a way to stabilize it. Then they just waited for it to fall. It did fall, but not from snow load in March 2015 as Mr. Corr has claimed ( I have pictures dated and time stamped from my iPad I just don’t know how to include them here as this is my first post). It actually fell the first weekend of July 2014 due to a wind storm . The date that it fell is important because it was past Moultonborough‘s statute of limitations as when to rebuild that’s why Mr. Corr LIED and change the date and reason for the fall to a WHOLE year later .

The dry boathouse that was there was a non-conforming structure ( it’s only 4 ft off of our lot line). To make it be conforming you would have to have it 20 feet from our land and set back 50 feet from the water which would put him in the middle of the house that is currently there. The abutters needed to be notified… My dad only agreed to replacing EXACTLY what was there… Same size, same height ( simply a shed for boat storage )

Meanwhile, I asked Mr. Corr multiple times if he could show me the plan or even screenshot it, as my dad had been sick and was in the hospital at the time. He refused said he would ONLY show the plan in person. So instead of calling me, he stopped by my dads house ( knowing my dad was hospitalized ) and showed it to my brother who had a stroke 23 years ago. My family owned a lumber company so we are not strange to building plans or the process. He showed my brother what was not a boathouse, but also NOT what is standing there today. It was roughly 16 feet high according to my brother. Next, we went to the variance meeting (As it was the ONLY meeting we had been notified about). I only got to see the plan an hour before the meeting due to Mr. Corr refusing to show me ... and the plan did not even need to be at the variance meeting 🤔( not sure how that can be? ). I wrote a letter to the zoning board shortly after the minutes of the meeting draft… Stating that Mr. Ken Bickford said in the motions of the meeting that the verbiage needed to be changed about the Corrs boathouse. He stated that the boathouse remain a dry boathouse and that it was NOT to be a DWELLING . The other members agreed to it. However, it was never corrected in the minutes of the meeting. We did not fight the variance to set it 10 feet back,as we thought it was going to be a small structure, as it had been before. However, we were not happy it was going to be made into a small living space… A living space 4 feet off of our land causes privacy issues. We couldn’t even have a campfire without them hearing every word spoken.

In the article Mr. Corr said that his neighbor couldn’t see the channel, and now he can. That’s another falsehood. In fact he has taken 1/3 of our view away. I used to be able to go upstairs and see the kiddos swimming a few houses over, now all I see is a roofline. Sitting at our kitchen table I could see the channel, now all I see is a 29 foot high structure. This should NEVER have happened. We were told at the variance meeting that there would be a 4 foot crawlspace under the structure for storage. It was not meant to be a living space, although Mr. Corr told me himself that not only was it going to be livable, it was going to have a kitchen, running water, electricity and plumbing whether I like it or not! It was going to be a fully functioning living space 4 feet off of our lot line. He was planning on living there while he was rebuilding the other house...Now he will have 2 dwellings on one property....REALLY? I have visions of it becoming a rental property or a guest house. This lot simply isn’t big enough to accommodate what he wants to have on this property.

I was also told by DES that the abutters would be notified by mail about any meetings coming up, but no notifications came. WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED. Imagine my surprise when we came up in March to check on the cottage, and we found THIS monstrosity 4 feet off of our lot line . I don’t know exactly WHO dropped the ball here , but I DO know THAT building should NEVER have been approved and no permit should have ever been granted to begin with. Mr. Corr obtained permits through falsehoods… Flat out lies… And makes accusations that simply aren’t true. I said my peace. I wish I could show you pictures but I’m not sure how to insert them.

Last edited by Lakegirl24; 04-05-2019 at 11:25 PM.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Lakegirl24 For This Useful Post:
Crusty (04-03-2019), FlyingScot (04-03-2019), IslandRadio (08-20-2019), radioman (04-03-2019), Rusty (04-04-2019), Shreddy (04-03-2019), TheBarnOnRustPond (05-06-2019)
Old 04-03-2019, 01:31 PM   #58
WinnisquamZ
Senior Member
 
WinnisquamZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 245
Thanks: 77
Thanked 51 Times in 38 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
Hey Guys!



I am the neighbor that this has affected the most. The ONCE boathouse is only 4 feet off of my Dad’s land. The Corrs seem to have the notion we turned them in ( which I honestly would have if I knew this is what was going to be built )... There has been so much MISINFORMATION here and so much corruption, I don’t know where to begin.



Let’s start with the fact that the boathouse was standing just fine until the Corrs tookout the braces and left the doors wide open that the previous owner had put in place as a way to stabilize it. Then they just waited for it to fall. It did fall, but not from snow load in March 2015 as Mr. Corr has claimed ( I have pictures dated and time stamped from my iPad I just don’t know how to include them here as this is my first post). It actually fell the first weekend of July 2014 due to a wind storm . The date that it fell is important because it was past Moultonborough‘s statute of limitations as when to rebuild that’s why Mr. Corr LIED and change the date and reason for the fall to a WHOLE year later .



The dry boathouse that was there was a non-conforming structure ( it’s only 4 ft off of our lot line). To make it be conforming you would have to have it 20 feet from our land and set back 50 feet from the water which would put him in the middle of the house that is currently there. The abutters needed to be notified… My dad only agreed to replacing EXACTLY what was there… Same size, same height ( simply a shed for boat storage )



Meanwhile, I asked Mr. Corr multiple times if he could show me the plan or even screenshot it, as my dad had been sick and was in the hospital at the time. He refused said he would ONLY show the plan in person. So instead of calling me, he stopped by my dads house ( knowing my dad was hospitalized ) and showed it to my brother who had a stroke 23 years ago. My family owned a lumber company so we are not strange to building plans or the process. He showed my brother what was not a boathouse, but also NOT what is standing there today. It was roughly 16 feet high according to my brother. Next, we went to the variance meeting (As it was the ONLY meeting we had been notified about). I only got to see the plan an hour before the meeting due to Mr. Corr refusing to show me ... and the plan did not even need to be at the variance meeting ( not sure how that can be? ). I wrote a letter to the zoning board shortly after the minutes of the meeting draft… Stating that Mr. Ken Bickford said in the motions of the meeting that the verbiage needed to be changed about the Corrs boathouse. He stated that the boathouse remain a dry boathouse and that it was NOT to be a DWELLING . The other members agreed to it. However, it was never corrected in the minutes of the meeting. We did not fight the variance to set it 10 feet back,as we thought it was going to be a small structure, as it had been before. However, we were not happy it was going to be made into a small living space… A living space 4 feet off of our land causes privacy issues. We couldn’t even have a campfire without them hearing every word spoken.



In the article Mr. Corr said that his neighbor couldn’t see the channel, and now he can. That’s another falsehood. In fact he has taken 1/3 of our view away. I used to be able to go upstairs and see the kiddos swimming a few houses over, now all I see is a roofline. Sitting at our kitchen table I could see the channel, now all I see is a 29 foot high structure. This should NEVER have happened. We were told at the variance meeting that there would be a 4 foot crawlspace under the structure for storage. It was not meant to be a living space, although Mr. Corr told me himself that not only was it going to be livable, it was going to have a kitchen, running water, electricity and plumbing whether I like it or not! It was going to be a fully functioning living space 4 feet off of our lot line. He was planning on living there while he was rebuilding the other house...Now he will have 2 dwellings on one property....REALLY? I have visions of it becoming a rental property or a guest house. This lot simply isn’t big enough to accommodate what he wants to have on this property.



I was also told by DES that the abutters would be notified by mail about any meetings coming up, but no notifications came. WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED. Imagine my surprise when we came up in March to check on the cottage, and we found THIS monstrosity 4 feet off of our lot line . I don’t know exactly WHO dropped the ball here , but I DO know THAT building should NEVER have been approved and no permit should have ever been granted to begin with. Mr. Corr obtained permits through falsehoods… Flat out lies… And makes accusations that simply aren’t true. I said my peace. I wish I could show you pictures but I’m not sure how to insert them.

Well said



Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
WinnisquamZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2019, 01:38 PM   #59
iw8surf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 103
Thanks: 12
Thanked 30 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Who on the lake as crowded and populated as Winni can possibly have a campfire that no one else hears anything? I can hear my neighbors 8 houses away every time he asks his wife if she wants a hot dog or a hamburger off the grill.
iw8surf is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to iw8surf For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (04-03-2019)
Old 04-03-2019, 03:03 PM   #60
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 546
Thanks: 291
Thanked 150 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iw8surf View Post
Who on the lake as crowded and populated as Winni can possibly have a campfire that no one else hears anything? I can hear my neighbors 8 houses away every time he asks his wife if she wants a hot dog or a hamburger off the grill.
Oops--I did not mean to thank-you, I hit the wrong button.

If you're going to pick at Lakegirl's excellent post, at least go after something significant. Otherwise you just seem kind of churlish that as the facts come in, they don't mesh with your Texas is better post.
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post:
Reilly (04-05-2019), thinkxingu (04-03-2019), watrskir (04-03-2019)
Old 04-03-2019, 05:11 PM   #61
bigpatsfan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Thanks: 21
Thanked 15 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Dear Lakegirl24, you may want to check with the Planning Board or whomever ran the variance meeting as they may have an audio recording of the meeting in question.

There could also be a video recording of the meeting. You can check the Town's website and see if there is a link to it.

Make sure that your side is heard by the State.. .timing of the collapse, no notification...etc. You know that your neighbor is doing everything they can to present their side hence the newspaper story.
bigpatsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2019, 06:43 PM   #62
TheTimeTraveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 199
Thanks: 31
Thanked 29 Times in 21 Posts
Default

If all the facts come out as has been presented here, then I suspect the new structure will be ordered to be torn down.....

An abutter should not have to tolerate any of this nonsense!

The Corr's should have requested a variance to start with; I would guess they never pursued a variance because their chances to obtain one would have been just about impossible.
TheTimeTraveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2019, 09:40 PM   #63
Mr. V
Senior Member
 
Mr. V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: the left coast (Portland)and West Alton
Posts: 800
Thanks: 14
Thanked 87 Times in 62 Posts
Default

Lakegirl24:

Have you talked to a lawyer about this, and if so, would you mind sharing their professional opinion?

If you haven't talked to a lawyer: why not?
__________________
basking in the benign indifference of the universe
Mr. V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 10:47 AM   #64
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 28
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default Great question

Mr V.
Great question. I should have a long time ago. My Dad was taking in good faith that Mr. Corr would abide by his word. My Dad is 88 and is old school “ Your word is your bond” mentality. Now it seems too late since it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. When we left there was only a foundation and when we came back in March to check on the cottage THAT’S what we found. At that point I did call the state multiple times and was assured that it was either coming ALL the way down or lowered to 17 feet.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lakegirl24 For This Useful Post:
Rusty (04-04-2019)
Old 04-04-2019, 11:03 AM   #65
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
Mr V.
Great question. I should have a long time ago. My Dad was taking in good faith that Mr. Corr would abide by his word. My Dad is 88 and is old school “ Your word is your bond” mentality. Now it seems too late since it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. When we left there was only a foundation and when we came back in March to check on the cottage THAT’S what we found. At that point I did call the state multiple times and was assured that it was either coming ALL the way down or lowered to 17 feet.
IMO because the Corr's didn't file for a variance from the DES for the now non-conforming, non-conforming dry boathouse, they will be forced to modify it to meet the height requirement. Therefore hiring a lawyer would have just been a waste of your money.

Good luck and thanks for giving us your perspective about the boathouse.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 11:46 AM   #66
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 28
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Rusty,

Thank you for your opinion. I hope you are right. He seems to just do what he wants. Apparently rules don’t apply to him. If he does prevail it will set a precedence for all other non conforming structures that are lakeside. These could pop up all over the lake.... My family has been there since 1966 without ever a problem with neighbors UNTIL NOW. So Sad.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 12:01 PM   #67
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,614
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

Lakegirl...

Thank you for "the other side" of the story!

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Woodsy For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-04-2019)
Old 04-04-2019, 12:15 PM   #68
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
Rusty,

Thank you for your opinion. I hope you are right. He seems to just do what he wants. Apparently rules don’t apply to him. If he does prevail it will set a precedence for all other non conforming structures that are lakeside. These could pop up all over the lake.... My family has been there since 1966 without ever a problem with neighbors UNTIL NOW. So Sad.
Well yes and no.

Far as the existing building as it stands - he did adhere to the process of securing permits. It's not as if he is rebuilding this under the radar.

IF indeed his intention is to turn that into living space that is an entirely different matter however the courts cannot rule on that unless modifications have been done to the structure that indicate it's use has been changed along with supporting evidence this is actively happening. He has no argument to change it's use, as permitted it is a dry "boat house" and nothing more. It's purely aesthetic appearance is irrelevant to it's actual use. Under the circumstances if it's use comes up in the course of litigation the court should, I would think, include in it's ruling that whatever is build cannot be used as living quarters.

I think that the amended PBN submitted after the ZBA decision was not very well vetted, but the approval right or wrong was granted and thus really is the focus of this court case. What does that approval mean and did the applicant violate it?
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 12:16 PM   #69
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 28
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Woodsy,

You’re Welcome... There’s always 2 sides.😉
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 12:25 PM   #70
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 28
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Maxum,

He lied in order to get the VERY first permit. It was past Moultonborough’s Statute of Limitations. It fell July of 2014 due to his neglect, and said it fell in March of 2015 in order to secure the permit. However, at that time we were still taking Mr. Corr at his word that he was just going to rebuild what was previously there....What was agreed upon, so I didn’t pursue legal action. THAT was the time that I should have. Silly me....Trusting someone with their word. 🙄
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 01:14 PM   #71
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 290
Thanks: 30
Thanked 77 Times in 51 Posts
Default

I find it interesting that Corr didn't want his new "boat" house on the water... pretty much proves to me his intention was not for a boat house.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 01:40 PM   #72
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

This section of Moultonboro's zoning ordinance states that a building permit can not be issued until the DES gives its final approval:

"(3) No building permit shall be issued by the Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector until such time as all permits, as contemplated by the SWQPA RSA 483-B:5, are issued by the Department of Environmental Services. Should the Department of Environmental Services fail to render a decision in the time frame provided under SWQPA RSA 483-B:5-a.V. and, as a result, a permit is issued by the Department of Environmental Services, the Code Enforcement Officer shall not issue a building permit unless the Code Enforcement Officer determines that the application made to the Department of Environmental Services meets the requirements of the SWQPA."
Attached Images
File Type: pdf zoning_ordinance_2017_final_adopted_03-14-17_0.pdf (1.21 MB, 109 views)
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 01:52 PM   #73
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
Maxum,

He lied in order to get the VERY first permit. It was past Moultonborough’s Statute of Limitations. It fell July of 2014 due to his neglect, and said it fell in March of 2015 in order to secure the permit. However, at that time we were still taking Mr. Corr at his word that he was just going to rebuild what was previously there....What was agreed upon, so I didn’t pursue legal action. THAT was the time that I should have. Silly me....Trusting someone with their word. 🙄
That is truly unfortunate however the timing of the original building's demise is sort of moot.

Indeed there was a window of opportunity to challenge this but that was missed.

For your sake, being that you are neighbors, hopefully this doesn't end up in a long term contentious relationship. That really stinks considering you want to be at the lake to enjoy it - drama free.

Hard to read the tea leaves on this as to how the court will rule. It all hinges on the court's interpretation of the issued permits. A split decision within DES where the wetlands board overruled DES's objection not once but twice may hold some swing in the court's mind.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 01:56 PM   #74
LakesLady
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 1
Thanks: 13
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
Default Lakegirl24's Other Neighbor Weighs In

Dear Lakegirl24: I concur, Mr. Corr's rebuilt "boathouse" infringes on my view of the lake channel as well. When we bought our home just north of yours on the lakeside of Deer Haven Rd. in January 1992, we had wonderful views of the frozen lake.

Having grown up in a lakeside home in the Finger Lakes area of New York (that my family still owns), I was very aware of the lake shore property issues. As a consequence, when we were considering our current property, I asked about the zoning requirements and rules and was assured that they are quite firm. While some property's configurations are grandfathered, based on when they were constructed, the current setbacks and height allowances for new structures are reviewed and enforced.

That assurance has not been true since the rebuilt "boathouse" has been constructed. Whenever I look out of my second floor kitchen window, facing south across the rear side of Lakegirl24's property, what used to be an open view of the lake channel across land is obstructed by the new "boathouse" except for a smidgeon of lake over the roofline.

This lack of view to our south has two important effects that could impinge on other property owners. Unregulated construction of new structures can affect property values of neighboring properties as well as the esthetic values experienced by the people who live nearby.
LakesLady is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to LakesLady For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (04-04-2019), Lakegirl24 (04-04-2019), LIforrelaxin (04-05-2019)
Old 04-04-2019, 03:35 PM   #75
DickR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moultonborough
Posts: 532
Thanks: 0
Thanked 158 Times in 99 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
Hey Guys!

...... He stated that the boathouse remain a dry boathouse and that it was NOT to be a DWELLING . The other members agreed to it...... However, we were not happy it was going to be made into a small living space….....
We were told at the variance meeting that there would be a 4 foot crawlspace under the structure for storage. It was not meant to be a living space, although Mr. Corr told me himself that not only was it going to be livable, it was going to have a kitchen, running water, electricity and plumbing whether I like it or not! It was going to be a fully functioning living space 4 feet off of our lot line. He was planning on living there while he was rebuilding the other house...Now he will have 2 dwellings on one property....REALLY?....
There cannot be two dwelling units on that lot, with only 100 feet of frontage, as it lacks the frontage for two units required by town bylaws. From page 12 of the reference cited by Rusty:

C. Minimum lot dimensions for each waterfront lot shall be as follows:
(1) Minimum shore frontage shall be 150 feet for the first dwelling unit to be granted access.
(2) An additional 150 feet of frontage is required for each additional dwelling unit after the first unit, where the additional unit is to be located within 250 feet from the
reference line established by RSA 483-B, as amended.
(3) An additional 50 feet of frontage shall be required for each additional dwelling
unit to be located beyond 250 feet from the reference line established by RSA 483-B,
as amended.

C(1) doesn't apply, as the original camp was grandfathered in. C(3) doesn't apply, since the second structure is within 250 feet of the reference (shore) line. But C(2) certainly does apply, even without state DES concerns about what the structure can be within 50 feet of the shore.
DickR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 03:45 PM   #76
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 28
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Dick,

This guy thinks rules don’t apply to him. He is planning to have 2 dwellings on one lot. Told me to my face very smug I might add.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 04:06 PM   #77
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,790
Thanks: 534
Thanked 542 Times in 348 Posts
Default Lost view?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LakesLady View Post
Dear Lakegirl24: I concur, Mr. Corr's rebuilt "boathouse" infringes on my view of the lake channel as well. When we bought our home just north of yours on the lakeside of Deer Haven Rd. in January 1992, we had wonderful views of the frozen lake...
I think it was stated that when the boathouse is finished, "repairs" to the main cottage would follow. It's not unusual for such lakeside repairs to start with a bulldozer. Whatever follows could obstruct your view completely, and still be completely within codes.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Descant For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (04-05-2019), WinnisquamZ (04-04-2019)
Old 04-04-2019, 04:35 PM   #78
TheTimeTraveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 199
Thanks: 31
Thanked 29 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Descant View Post
I think it was stated that when the boathouse is finished, "repairs" to the main cottage would follow. It's not unusual for such lakeside repairs to start with a bulldozer. Whatever follows could obstruct your view completely, and still be completely within codes.

That is true, however a new build won't be 5 feet from the lot line, and may be restricted to the current envelope of the existing dwelling (depending on zoning requirements).
TheTimeTraveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2019, 05:01 PM   #79
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 653 Times in 354 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
Dick,

This guy thinks rules don’t apply to him. He is planning to have 2 dwellings on one lot. Told me to my face very smug I might add.
This is where my concern comes in.... What else is planned.... When I saw the boat house that first Spring, my thought was, what is next the camp comes down and what goes up.....

In my mind if the land owners win, the next step will be to see how much further their luck can be pushed....

It is unfortunate that I believe the issues with this landowner are likely to continue.....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-04-2019)
Old 04-04-2019, 05:26 PM   #80
gillygirl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 309
Thanks: 478
Thanked 127 Times in 74 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
Dick,

This guy thinks rules don’t apply to him. He is planning to have 2 dwellings on one lot. Told me to my face very smug I might add.
Since you know his modus operandi, you might want to have a lawyer in mind when destruction/construction begins on the current house.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
__________________
GG
gillygirl is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gillygirl For This Useful Post:
DotRat (04-10-2019), Lakegirl24 (04-04-2019)
Old 04-04-2019, 10:28 PM   #81
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 28
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Lakes Lady,

Well stated. I just can’t understand how this was allowed to happen. I know the building inspector for the town stepped down/retired/ resigned last Spring not sure why? There is a new one now.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2019, 06:57 AM   #82
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,494
Thanks: 929
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Thumbs down "Intrusive"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
Mr V. Great question. I should have a long time ago. My Dad was taking in good faith that Mr. Corr would abide by his word. My Dad is 88 and is old school “ Your word is your bond” mentality. Now it seems too late since it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. When we left there was only a foundation and when we came back in March to check on the cottage THAT’S what we found. At that point I did call the state multiple times and was assured that it was either coming ALL the way down or lowered to 17 feet.
"Oversized" was my objection to this "replacement boathouse" at Millstone Point. A large segment of two neighbors' lake view was cut off.



I take it Mr. Corr is not a native Granite-Stater?
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ApS For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-06-2019)
Old 04-06-2019, 07:19 AM   #83
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 290
Thanks: 30
Thanked 77 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
"Oversized" was my objection to this "replacement boathouse" at Millstone Point. A large segment of two neighbors' lake view was cut off.



I take it Mr. Corr is not a native Granite-Stater?

LOL... an you wonder why locals despise out of staters.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2019, 08:22 AM   #84
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,664
Thanks: 461
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default

Except that they or relatives own the adjoining houses so obviously it must not block their view too much.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2019, 08:52 AM   #85
TheTimeTraveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 199
Thanks: 31
Thanked 29 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApS View Post
"Oversized" was my objection to this "replacement boathouse" at Millstone Point. A large segment of two neighbors' lake view was cut off.



I take it Mr. Corr is not a native Granite-Stater?
Chances are that the boathouse pictured here was legally constructed. The Corr's so called replacement boathouse appears to be constructed as a dwelling.
TheTimeTraveler is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TheTimeTraveler For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-06-2019), LakesLady (04-06-2019)
Old 04-06-2019, 09:03 AM   #86
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Chances are that the boathouse pictured here was legally constructed.
.... oh, as I recall .... it was so totally legal ..... the owners of this large boat house enclosure were connected politically with their local Republican state representative, and local Republican selectmen via friendship and campaign donations.

This usually helps.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to fatlazyless For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-06-2019), LakesLady (04-06-2019)
Old 04-06-2019, 11:06 AM   #87
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 28
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

SWNoel,

Wow! That’s a big structure. I wish I could add pics from my iPad but don’t know how to make them into JPEG etc. You are CORRECT Mr. Corr is not a native. Neither am I, but I’ve been here all my life... This will be my 50th summer. Respect for neighbors goes a long way. You don’t buy a spot in the country to build a house 4 ft off of your neighbors property. SMH

Last edited by Lakegirl24; 04-06-2019 at 09:53 PM.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2019, 01:58 PM   #88
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 328
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Lakegirl. I understand the height issue but have a question about the 4 feet thing. Did they build it closer to you or is it still the same distance from your property line as the original boat house? The life threating thing seems a little over the top IMO and if it happened I hope there was a police report filed. Was there?
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2019, 03:07 PM   #89
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 28
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

DEJ,

Yes the police were involved, but told me they couldn’t do much. I basically have to wait till something happens to me. The boathouse is the same distance as before.... but now it’s a house vs a shed for a boat.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lakegirl24 For This Useful Post:
LakesLady (04-06-2019)
Old 04-06-2019, 03:16 PM   #90
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Instead of tearing it down, maybe the neighbors could donate it to the Town of Moultonborough, as long as the town removes it. The town could use it as an el cheapo, quasi-community center for playing bridge or chess over at their Kraine Meadow Park recreation area, the neighbors get a tax write-off, and you get your view back ..... win-win-win!

Does it have a big room downstairs, with a nice fireplace, that would be good for a ping-pong table ..... and the town can play ping-pong in front of the warm, cheerful fireplace, all winter long ...... yeah!

Here's a NH building mover www.admiralbuildingmovers.com from Goffstown, NH ..... maybe this Admiral could navigate this building problem out of there!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-06-2019, 03:53 PM   #91
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
SWNoel,

Wow! That’s a big structure. I wish I could add pics from my iPad but don’t know how to make them into JPEG etc. You are CORRECT Mr. Corr is not a native. Neither am I, but I’ve been here all my life... This will be my 50th summer. Respect for neighbors goes a long way. You don’t buy a spot in the country to build a house 4 ft off of your neighbors property. SMH I have actually had my life threatened by Mr. Corrs wife!!! IMAGINE????
I don't know what file extensions you have but if you have a .jpeg or .png extension here are the steps to upload them:

Select the Attachment paperclip. It opens a dialog box.
The top choice is to "Upload a File From Your Computer".
Click the Browse button and that opens a file search dialog.
Locate the picture file on your computer and click Open.
That closes the file search box and places the path of the file in the attachment dialog.
Then click Upload and wait for the upload process to complete. It will then list the attached image file.
Then click Close this Window.
Finish any text and hit the Preview Post button. The message should include the attached image. Click Submit Reply to actually send the message.

Someone posted these instructions a while back and I copied them for someone who might ask how to upload images.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Rusty For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-06-2019)
Old 04-06-2019, 06:36 PM   #92
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 328
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
DEJ,

Yes the police were involved, but told me they couldn’t do much. I basically have to wait till something happens to me. The boathouse is the same distance as before.... but now it’s a house vs a shed for a boat.
You have mentioned several times about the 4 foot thing. Since that has not changed why keep bringing it up? It does not matter if it was a shed or a house, 4 feet is 4 feet regardless of what the structure is. I understand the height issue, but the 4 feet thing is a moot point. A shed or a house will still be 4 feet, correct?
Regarding if the police were involved, once again was a police report filed by you?
Finally, a good attorney would discourage his/her client to not post ANYTHING about this situation on social media until it has wound its way through the court. The Corrs obviously have good attorneys IMO. Not saying they are in the right here, just an observation.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
mhtranger (04-06-2019)
Old 04-07-2019, 06:57 AM   #93
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
Finally, a good attorney would discourage his/her client to not post ANYTHING about this situation on social media until it has wound its way through the court.
..... oh ....don't be such a kill joy ..... this is a great thread ..... has lots of comments and views ....and shows how a good photograph or two can be very helpful for showing what's what ....

And, the courts and the zba's are a little different from the court of public opinion ..... just look at the crematorium across from the Meredith McDonald's ... the crematorium won its' zba decision, won its' day in superior court ..... but closed up and moved to a secret, remote location, anyway .... probably due to the court of public opinion .....

..... i rest my case!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2019, 07:42 AM   #94
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,147
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
..... oh ....don't be such a kill joy ..... this is a great thread ..... has lots of comments and views ....and shows how a good photograph or two can be very helpful for showing what's what ....

And, the courts and the zba's are a little different from the court of public opinion ..... just look at the crematorium across from the Meredith McDonald's ... the crematorium won its' zba decision, won its' day in superior court ..... but closed up and moved to a secret, remote location, anyway .... probably due to the court of public opinion .....

..... i rest my case!
No you didn't hear what really happened, you see the owner knew a guy who had a brother that was cousins with the secretary in town who happens to be sisters with somebody on the ZBA who is married to another guy and his uncle is a state rep who's family business is located out of state but that doesn't matter because is grandmother's second husband happens to play golf with this other guy whos brother is a state senator. Now this state senator happens to have a son who is dating the daughter of the janitor at the court house, but you see he cleans the office of one of the judges on the supreme court.

Swear to God, 100% true,

Regards...

Jussie Smollett
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-07-2019), stingray (04-07-2019)
Old 04-07-2019, 08:31 AM   #95
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 2,159
Thanks: 448
Thanked 544 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
No you didn't hear what really happened, you see the owner knew a guy who had a brother that was cousins with the secretary in town who happens to be sisters with somebody on the ZBA who is married to another guy and his uncle is a state rep who's family business is located out of state but that doesn't matter because is grandmother's second husband happens to play golf with this other guy whos brother is a state senator. Now this state senator happens to have a son who is dating the daughter of the janitor at the court house, but you see he cleans the office of one of the judges on the supreme court.

Swear to God, 100% true,

Regards...

Jussie Smollett


Now that is funny!!!!! . Excellent


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
joey2665 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2019, 10:48 AM   #96
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,436
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Yes ..... well ..... thanks for pointing that out as a rumored reason for how that large boat enclosure was approved by either the Town of Tuftonboro or Wolfeboro ..... not sure which ..... and, as you probably know ..... people tend to have their minds already made up on many different subjects, and look for examples that reinforce their personal opinions ....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_exposure_theory

I haven't got time to really read this right now because today is too good of a day for raking leaves ...... but will definitely read it later on ...... later
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2019, 12:29 PM   #97
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 28
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Trying to learn how to insert photos.
The first one was June 28th 2014
Second is when it fell July 3, 2014
NOT March of 2015 because of snowload.
This is In Moultonborough not Tuftonboro or Wolfeboro....
Attached Images
  
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lakegirl24 For This Useful Post:
IslandRadio (08-20-2019), LakesLady (04-07-2019), Rusty (04-07-2019)
Old 04-07-2019, 12:35 PM   #98
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 28
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

DEJ,

Yes a shed for boat storage 4 ft off the property line offers privacy as well as a noise buffer .... However, a HOUSE 4 ft off the land is a TOTAL game changer. More noise....less privacy....and you can not build a house 4 ft off of someone’s property...Hence the reason for the 20 ft / 50 ft setbacks. SO YES DISTANCE MATTERS.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2019, 12:52 PM   #99
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 328
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Lakegirl24, I wish you all the best going forward with this issue. I hope for your sake the Corrs attorney are not following your statements in this thread.

Last edited by DEJ; 04-07-2019 at 03:38 PM.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-07-2019)
Old 04-07-2019, 04:01 PM   #100
welch-time
Senior Member
 
welch-time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Welch Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 2
Thanked 46 Times in 22 Posts
Default

So what's wrong with her statements?

She's the next door neighbor and had discussions with the new owner, and is telling her side of the story (which is her right) and so far it's pretty compelling. There must be a pretty good reason DES stopped construction and the case is going to the supreme court. I wouldn't bet against her.

Last edited by welch-time; 04-07-2019 at 10:53 PM.
welch-time is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to welch-time For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-07-2019), Rusty (04-07-2019), Shreddy (04-08-2019), TiltonBB (04-08-2019)
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.52466 seconds