Shoreland Protection Rules

Boat Doc · 01-09-2008, 09:27 AM

Next Wed. there is a rules hearing at NH Env. Services regarding the new shoreland rules. I'm told this hearing may be nothing more than a person with a tape recorder taking input, but all of us that own lakefront property should get involved.

To that end, I suggest you all consider joining the NH Shorefront Association. This is a new group which believes in protecting water quality and private property rights. Also, one thing I really liked was simply being aware of what is going on in Concord as I did not find out about all these changes until very recently (on this Forum!).

The website is: www.nhshorefront.org

I want to protect the lake for my grandchildren to inherit both our property and clean water, but I also want to protect the rather hefty investment in my shorefront (not to mention value for the taxes!).

I'm all for saving the trees and reducing run-off, etc..., but why would Env. Services need to be involved in giving me a permit for my new shed which may be over 200 ft back from the water (as I understand things just about everything within 250 ft will require their blessing). I know what we went through for our relatively simple dock permit and I am very concerned this difficult and trying process will be the same now for projects on my own land.

Thanks for considering my thoughts.

phoenix · 01-12-2008, 05:09 PM

agree with you. i am going to join.

AQUAMAN · 01-12-2008, 10:13 PM

I have joined as well. The website is user friendly. It will be a great resource to keep tabs on new laws and new rule-making at DES. I have a permit application at the wetlands board now that Darlene Forst is reviewing. She has made it so difficult that I have turned it over to a lawyer. It should not be this difficult and when we hit April 1, 2008 it all becomes that much more difficult.

Gatto Nero · 01-14-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AQUAMAN

I have a permit application at the wetlands board now that Darlene Forst is reviewing. She has made it so difficult that I have turned it over to a lawyer. It should not be this difficult and when we hit April 1, 2008 it all becomes that much more difficult.

I would agree that the permitting process is a painful one and it's about to get even more painful come April 1, but don't think for a minute that the person or persons responsible for reviewing the applications are the ones making it difficult. They are just doing their jobs as best they can under the circumstances. I have had more than my fair share of the permitting process over the past few years. It has not been easy, but I have found everyone involved in the process to be nothing but professional. There are lots of rules to deal with but they didn't create those rules. They are just there to enforce them. Considering what they have to deal with and the resources they have available to them I think they do a pretty good job.

That said, I think NH Shorefront Association is a great idea, and I would bet the DES does too. If you've been reading this forum for a while you probably know that ShoreThings reached out to everyone on this forum for input. She also reached out personally to people that she thought would have some constructive input and invited them to the meetings regarding these changes. Unfortunately, I couldn't make it to the meetings myself but it would have been nice to have had representation through and organization like nhshorefront.org.

tis · 01-14-2008, 07:43 PM

I am with you Aquaman. Gatto, unfortunately they have different interpretations, depending on who your reviewer is. It is a damn big hassle and I only see it getting bigger. I think they have already started changing to the new rules, even though they aren't final yet. I think it is a huge mess down there and will only get worse in April. I wonder if Shore Things really cares or that was just a show. Once the going got rough she disappeared. Sorry but this whole thing gets my dander up!

Gatto Nero · 01-14-2008, 09:07 PM

Tis, I agree, in part.

It has been my experience that they do have different interpretations of the rules and that that can be painful. But I believe that the new rules are, in part, intended to be more finely defined so that there is less left up to individual interpretation. I'm not saying I like the rules, I just don't blame the people who enforce them for the problems those rules create.

I reread the changes again tonight and my head was spinning when when I finally got through it. I honestly can't say if they are all that much more strict or not, at least the parts that concern my situation. They may even work in my favor, but there is no doubt that the permit process will be about 10X more complicated. So far I have been able to handle everything I have gone through on my own, and I've been through a lot. I have serious doubts if I will be able to do that if/when I ever need to deal with it again.

I can't argue about other people's intentions, only my interpretation of them, and I believe the intentions of the people I have dealt with are sincere. Think about it. What motive would they have to screw you over? Why would she bother posting if she didn't want the opinions the post would produce? Do you go out of your way just to mess with people in your job? Ok, maybe once in a while, but it's usually in good fun.

Onshore · 01-14-2008, 09:52 PM

Gatto Nero, I appreciate the sentiment but it is unnecessary. You are correct that DES is happy to see the development of an organization that will help keep the people who are directly affected by our programs informed. Our only concern is the adversarial tone that seems to be developing. The NH Lakes Association is a similar organization to this new NH Shorefront organization with which we have had a cooperative working relationship for many years. We are somewhat dismayed by statements on this new organizations website that insinuate that the public was not involved in the development of that new standards since some of the membership of this new organization has been directly involved with the development of these new standards since September of 2005. Given the fact that of the five founding members of this new organization; one was a voting member of the Commission that proposed the changes to the Shoreland Act, a second was employed by a voting member, two others were personally involved in hammering out compromises during the senate hearings on the legislation, and three of the five were also directly involved in the same meetings to develop the new rule package you had been invited to attend we would hope they would wish to continue the development of the program in a positive and cooperative manner. Regardless of the approach they take from here on out the fact that they are increasing public awareness of the issues is the most important thing.

Tis, I understand your frustration and whether you choose to believe it or not I can assure you the shoreline and shoreland staff is greatly concerned with developing a program that issues its decisions in a fair, timely, and above all, consistent manner. Please understand that as an employee of the state my job is to apply the standards and requirements put in place by the legislature or through the administrative rule process. While I can answer any factual questions that people may have but I cannot answer questions relate to personal philosophy or opinions on the issues because I am required to maintain my objectivity. Simply put any opinions I may have are irrelevant and cannot be allowed to enter into these discussions.

Lakegeezer · 01-15-2008, 12:21 AM

Having the NH-DES particapate in this discussion is welcome and refreshing. Thanks "Shore Things" for keeping the public informed and maintaining integrity in the process.

ApS · 01-15-2008, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

"...It is a damn big hassle and I only see it getting bigger...I think it is a huge mess down there and will only get worse in April..."

Speaking of mess, one of the area's biggest spec-builders got to a "tear down" near me, bulldozed the lot, and walked away. The resulting spring flood washed tons of silt, sand, and soil downslope and into the lake—then they put up a silt fence! (And then a second—then a third silt fence, then a fourth—and a few generations of hay bales.)

The two newest neighboring homes will have to dredge the lake bottom for their boats as a result of the spec-builder's failure to mitigate their own series of cascading failures.

The problem continues uphill, which this spring will likely see a big fertilized lawn on an impossibe-to-mow slope to keep still more of the scarified lot from ending up in the lake. It's possible that wood chips will be used instead, which also get washed into the lake—then gets replenished again. This gross inattention to Mother Nature only serves to feed the algae and milfoil already in the lake.

This photo shows how the localized flooding even carried rocks downhill across the dock's surface.

Something has to be done to keep the lake healthy, and it wasn't happening in 2007.

Onshore · 02-06-2008, 11:50 AM

The newest draft of the proposed Shoreland Program Administrative Rules, Chapter Env-Wq 1400 has been posted on-line at:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/RuleMaking/

mcdude · 02-25-2008, 09:04 AM

see Citizen Article here......

SHOREFRONT PROPERTY OWNERS FORM ASSOCIATION

Quote:

Robinson said the shorefront owners group has already hired a lobbyist to represent it in Concord and will be keeping active in assuring its interests are heard.

fatlazyless · 02-25-2008, 09:59 AM

Oooohhhhh....nnnoooooo....thanks for the heads-up, McDude....this means I gotta get started like right away saw'n down those three ugly, old, large, Pin Oaks that arch out over my tiny little 55' waterfront.....since all I got is a 12" electric chain saw.....from U-know-where....and them trees need to be gone by April 1......or else....they is here .....basically forever!

Skip · 03-19-2008, 05:30 AM

Move afoot to delay implementation until July 1st.

STORY today in the Citizen on-line!

tis · 03-19-2008, 06:38 AM

Thanks for that post Skip. It seems they should have the rules in place before they enact it.

Lakegeezer · 03-19-2008, 07:15 AM

The local construction crews will be happy. This winter has been tough on business. It will be a noisy spring.

Bear Islander · 03-19-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

The local construction crews will be happy. This winter has been tough on business. It will be a noisy spring.

Except of course on the islands of Meredith, where construction is at a standstill.

fatlazyless · 03-19-2008, 10:03 AM

Yes, good question. So, what's next for the intrepid developers on Sheep Island, Lake Wicwas? Did the 490-525, no vote on their zoning friendly article change their persona from a couple of wolves, to a couple of sheep? Ouchy ouchy...gotta be expensive....legal costs & all.... & plus the tightening of mortgage credit locally does not help..

Onshore · 03-19-2008, 10:39 AM

Well, here's where the Shoreland Program stands right now. We will be ready to bring the program on line on April 1 if the law still requires it. The next hearing on the shoreland rules package is this Friday, March 21. The major point of contention has been the establishment of criteria to qualify a project as "vested". Briefly, "vested" simply means that your project is sufficiently underway and thus should not have to obtain the new shoreland permit. This is a dangerously oversimplified explanation but the problem is that the State's attorneys, the attorneys serving as lobbyists for a couple of groups, and the JLCAR's attorneys are still hammering out the criteria for qualifying as "vested". When this is settled DES will have to provide guidance documents explaining what it takes to be "vested" as well as just what being "vested' means. Another significant change that may come out of the last meeting involves the requirement for a stamped surveyed plan. Originally DES only wanted a surveyed plan when there would be more than 20% impervious area. JLCAR heard testimony at the last meeting stating that a surveyed plan should be required for all projects. We frankly do not want those plans for all projects because of the cost associated with obtaining them. However we may need to take the compromise position of requiring them for projects having as little as 15 % impervious. I can not emphasize enough that people take time to go to the rulemaking website listed earlier in the thread and check for the latest version and amendments to see what's coming.

If the Legislature does manage to get the effective date moved then we will of course adjust accordingly. What the Citizen article does not explain is that there may be other changes coming that we will need to address. The amendment to HB 1151 is in large part to allow time for the legislature to debate some other possible changes (including the issue of "vesting") included in another bill. These issues had been being argued/discussed under Senate Bill 417. This bill is being terminated but the same issues will now be heard as part of Senate Bill 352.

BTW while writing this I received word that it is highly unlikely that the House will get to HB 1151 this week and therefore, it will not be heard before their next session which is April 7. That would be after the law takes effect on the 1st...

hemlockpoint · 03-20-2008, 12:24 PM

I guess this is not surprising considering 483Bs Legislative sponsors were all Democrats and our legislature and executive branch is now Democrat controlled.

The more complex you make these laws the more difficult(and expensive) it is to administer. DES people appear to have their ducks in a row but our legislature is screwed up.

What do I do with my project now? I am 80 percent complete. Dont ask how that is measured or the Democrats will have to come up with a new bill and a fee to calculate it for me.

Onshore · 03-20-2008, 12:49 PM

What does 80% complete mean?

tis · 03-20-2008, 12:58 PM

shore things- is it still highly unlikely (after the vote this morning by the Senate committee) to get to the house now?

Onshore · 03-20-2008, 01:01 PM

still highly unlikely.

hemlockpoint · 03-20-2008, 03:37 PM

My house is framed and roofed but not sided or finished inside. The septic is installed and seeded over with grass seed and mulch. The area between the house and 50 feet from the lake was seeded and mulched last fall. I still need to grade loam and seed
around the house which is 225 feet from the water. I also need to gravel the driveway which starts 200 feet from the water and goes by the house around 240 feet from the water. Miscellaneous things like water lines and well hookups need to be done.

Onshore · 03-21-2008, 07:34 AM

Hemlockpoint - Your project is if far enough along that you would be ok under every version of proposed rule, law, and policy that I've seen thus far. If your primary structure (house) foundation is in and your driveway is roughed in before April 1 then completing those structures is not going to require anything new from DES. From what we've seen so far, if a problem were to arise it would be in relation to outbuildings or not building according to the plan approved by the original building permit. If your primary structure and driveway (gravel by law is considered impervious unless specially designed and laid down) put your property at or above the new impervious surface limits, then after the date the new law takes effect, initiating construction of any new structures, such as a garage, even though they were covered by the local building permit, may still be illegal. The other thing is that you will likely only be covered for those things specifically permitted on the local building permit you are operating under. If you don't build according to the plans sent to the municipality or the permit is vague and no plans were required, then you may not be covered by any vesting provision.

hemlockpoint · 03-21-2008, 04:15 PM

I was looking at the website at the latest version of the rules on vesting.

What does this mean?

(3) A concrete foundation for the primary structure was installed between April 1, 2007 and April 1, 2008;

My foundation was installed in the fall of 2006. Does this mean I am not vested because I installed it too soon?

Onshore · 03-22-2008, 01:47 PM

The 2007 date provision wasn't intended to force people that had structures started to get a permit to finish them. It was intended to prevent individuals from claiming that secondary or accessory structures that had not been started before April 1, 2008 were part of a larger "project" and thus were somehow covered under an old permit just because the primary structure foundation was in. We have no interest in asking anyone to get permits to complete a house that is as fas along as you have described. It is better environmentally that you simply complete the project and stabilize the soils on site.

phoenix · 03-22-2008, 07:42 PM

I understand that structures of all kinds will require approval and it appears that tree cutting will also but will thinning out brush also require approval

hemlockpoint · 03-23-2008, 05:00 AM

Shore things
Thank you for your help.

Onshore · 03-23-2008, 10:58 AM

Phoenix

There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...)

I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

phoenix · 03-23-2008, 11:49 AM

thanks that will be helpful

ITD · 03-23-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

Phoenix

There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...)

I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

I'm pretty sure that Moultonboro requires a permit that requires the inventory of all trees and brush and saplings within a certain zone before you cut. This is the typical knee jerk reaction caused by someone who clear cuts. We go from reasonable laws with no enforcement to unreasonable moronic laws, that I believe Moultonboro hired someone to enforce.

tis · 03-24-2008, 06:29 AM

shore things. What happens to the reference line if a boathouse is built? The definition I find is: "for natural fresh waterbodies it is the natural mean high water level". If you dig in for a boathouse, which you must do, does that reference line change?

Onshore · 03-24-2008, 10:50 AM

If you dig into the shoreline you DO move the reference line.

ACutAbove · 03-24-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

Phoenix

There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...)

I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

If there is a fact sheet available it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you...

ITD · 03-25-2008, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACutAbove

If there is a fact sheet available it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you...

I would be interested to know if these rules are now superceded, somehow I don't think they are.

From here:

http://www.moultonborough.org/Ordina...INANCE2007.pdf

Waterfront Property

........................

G. Removal of Trees, Shrubs and Vegetation
Purpose and Intent
The water quality of all lakes, ponds, rivers and streams is significantly affected by the land and its
vegetation that surrounds these water bodies. This land is constituted as “shoreland”, and a portion of
the shoreland from the water’s edge (reference line) back to 250 feet is protected by the State of New
Hampshire under legislation – i.e., RSA 483B, the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA).
Shoreland vegetation such as trees and saplings, along with shrubs and groundcover, and their
undamaged root systems, act as a natural filter of flow and runoff of surface, subsurface and deep
ground water as well as wastewater; nutrients such as fertilizer; sediment; pesticides; and pollutants. In
addition, tree and sapling canopies shade the shoreline itself, making the shoreline healthier by
moderating the temperature of the water bodies.
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
10
Once there is a disturbance of shoreland vegetation, such as excessive cutting or removal, there is no
surface filter or subsurface root system filter, and there is nothing to prevent the shoreland soil and any
pollutants from being washed into or eroding into the water body. This in turn raises the temperature
of the water body and promotes algae and weed growth, leading to a loss of water clarity and quality.
The Town of Moultonborough possesses more waterfront (Shoreland) property than any other
municipality in the state; and the protection of the public waters that abut those lands is of paramount
importance to the economic, cultural, recreational, and environmental well-being of the community.
The Town of Moultonborough adopts this article as part of its Zoning Ordinance to ensure protection
of those public resources. Where referenced, the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, New
Hampshire, RSA 483-B as it may be amended (CSPA). which seeks to protect the state’s public waters,
it hereby incorporated herein
(1) In addition to the requirements of the CSPA and not in limitation thereof, removal of any vegetation
in the Town of Moultonborough on any property within 150 feet of the mean high water mark of the
water body (“reference line”) shall be in compliance with the following:
(A) Any owner or owners of the property who desire to remove trees or saplings on the
property and who do not have a valid unexpired Permit in accordance with this ordinance, must
first apply for a Permit from the Moultonborough Land Use Office, which Permit documents
the existing trees and saplings on the property.
(i) A “tree” means any woody plant which has a diameter of 6 inches or more, as
measured at a point 4-1/2 feet above the ground, and normally grows to a mature height
greater than 20 feet.
(ii) A “sapling” means any woody plant which has a diameter less than 6 inches, as
measured at a point 4-1/2 feet above the ground, and normally grows to a mature height
greater than 20 feet.
(B) A permit shall be issued, upon payment of a fee, as may be determined from time to time
by the Board of Selectmen, and submission of an application to and acceptance by the
Moultonborough Land Use office, which application includes:
(i) A diagram of the property in contiguous 25 foot by 25 foot square sections which
indicates general property lines, existing structures, and trees and saplings.
(ii) A photograph or photographs of the property, taken from the water body and no
more than 100 feet from the reference line, which accurately depicts the entire
waterfront of the property as viewed from the water body; and
(iii) A signature by the applicant/landowner:
(a) Acknowledging receipt of copies of this town ordinance and a summary of
the CSPA;
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
11
(b) Agreeing to abide by all the requirements of this town ordinance and the
CSPA; and
(c) Giving ongoing authorization during the permit period to the Town of
Moultonborough and its designated officials, with advance notification, to enter
onto the property to view the vegetation on the property.
(C) In addition to the CSPA and not in limitation thereof, the following shall apply:
(i) Within 150 feet of the reference line there shall not be any more than 50% of trees
and saplings removed in any 25 foot by 25 foot section in a 20 year period, subject,
also, to the following:
(a) A healthy well–distributed stand of trees and saplings and their living
undamaged root systems shall be left in place in any 25 foot by 25 foot section,
and
(b) Within any 25 foot by 25 foot section, which is located within 50 feet of the
reference line, in addition to the above requirements, a minimum number of
trees equal to 12 points according to the following rating system must be
maintained:
Diameter of Trees & Saplings
At a Point 4-1/2’ Above Ground Points
4 inches to 6 inches 1
greater than 6 inches to 12 inches 2
greater than 12 inches 4
No trees shall be removed in any such 25 foot by 25 foot section if the cumulative
points of trees and saplings are less than 12.
(ii) Trees and saplings which are removed to clear an opening for building
construction, structures, driveways, and parking areas may be excluded when
computing percentage limitations, but such exclusions shall apply only beyond the 50
foot setback from the reference line. In no case, shall the building pocket, the
construction zone around the building or other structures trespass into or disturb the
area within the 50 foot setback from the reference line.
(iii) Other vegetation such as shrubs and ground cover within each 25 foot by 25 foot
section must be selectively maintained.
(a) A “shrub” means any multi-stemmed woody plant which normally grows to
a mature height of less than 20 feet.
(b) “Groundcover” means any herbaceous plant which normally grows to a
mature height of 4 feet or less.
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
12
(iv) Normal trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches to minimize the entry of
vegetative debris into the water body, to protect structures, to enhance views, or to
maintain parking areas and travel in driveways and pathways is permitted, providing
such trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches is not done to the crowns of trees or
the crowns of saplings and such trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches is not
injurious to the trees, saplings or other vegetation.
(v) Dead, diseased, unsafe, or fallen trees and saplings may be removed. Their removal
shall not be used in computing the percentage limitations; however, if their removal
results in cleared openings, then these openings shall be replanted with native tree
species unless new tree growth is present. Proof of disease can be obtained from and
certified by a licensed arborist; in addition, or as a substitute therein, photographic
evidence is also sufficient. Such proof must be kept on file by the applicant/landowner.
(vi) Stumps and their root systems which are located within the 50 foot setback from
the reference line shall be left intact in the ground.
(vii) Currently developed lots, having open areas with lawn, bare ground, or weed
cover, are encouraged to be converted and replanted with a natural vegetative cover
consisting of native species of ground cover, shrubs, saplings, and trees.
(D) Permits shall expire upon the earlier of the following:
(i) 20 years from the date of the issuance of the permit, or
(ii) Upon a change in ownership through:
(a) Sale
(b) Transfer into a trust
(c) Inheritance
(d) Inter/intra-family deed
(E) Applicants may reapply for permits after 20 years from the original date of the permit or
upon change in ownership of the property; however, in both instances, the applicant must show,
through diagrams and photographs, demonstration of compliance with the requirements of this
ordinance and the CSPA. New diagrams and photos accompanying the new application will be
compared with the originally filed application/permit to ascertain the extent of any previous
cutting and to ensure that any future cutting will be within the prescribed limitations outlined in
this ordinance and the CSPA.
(2) Any removal of vegetation which does not otherwise require a Permit by the Town of
Moultonborough, as set forth above, shall nevertheless be required to meet the limitations and
requirements set forth by the CSPA.
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
13
(3) The Code Enforcement Officer, or his designee, may, for cause, enter upon any land or parcel at
any reasonable time to perform oversight and enforcement duties provided for in this ordinance.
(4) This ordinance and any Permits issued pursuant to this ordinance shall not in any manner be
construed as being less restrictive than the CSPA.
(5) The Town of Moultonborough may impose, as set from time to time by the Selectmen, fines,
penalties, and remedies for non-compliance with this ordinance. Such fines and penalties may not
exceed those as are set forth by the CSPA for non-compliance with the CSPA. Such fines, penalties,
and remedies may be imposed against the property owner and any person or entity, removing such
trees or saplings on behalf of the property owner. The Town of Moultonborough may enforce the
CSPA and impose such fines, penalties, and remedies for non-compliance with the CSPA, as
authorized by the CSPA.
(6) Appeals from imposition of fines, penalties and remedies shall be construed as appeals of
administrative decisions and shall be submitted to, and under the jurisdiction of, the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. Requests for variances from the provisions of this section shall be treated as any other
request for variance and shall be submitted to, and under the jurisdiction of, the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. However, no variance shall be granted which would result in standards less restrictive

than the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, RSA 483-B.

Onshore · 03-25-2008, 07:34 AM

In accordance with RSA 483-B:3 Consistency Required, II, When the standards and practices established in this chapter conflict with other local or state laws and rules, the more stringent standard shall control.

Moultonborough's requirements must be met.

Formula260SS · 03-27-2008, 06:01 AM

Shore Things,

Thanks for taking the time to spend here and answer questions, I have a quick one. Are the requirements the same for an accessory structure (shed) as they are for a primary structure, such as plans and such. Will we have to submit a "full package" of information or can it be reduced. The structure will meet the 150 sq/ft rule and the 50' reference line.

Thanks

Onshore · 03-27-2008, 08:15 AM

Under the current rule set there is no "reduced package" for small sized projects. There needs to be one, and the development of such a process will be part of the next phase in bringing the Shoreland Program forward. One of the main problems that we need to overcome is ensuring that the Department has the information we need to verify that the sum of little projects over time doesn't result in more impervious surface than is allowed by the new CSPA standards. There has been a push to force the Department to require stamped surveyed plans with all applications. The legal argument has been made that all plans that indicate property line location must be prepared by a licensed surveyor. DES is resistant to requiring these plans for all project due to the cost that is associated with it. (Other DES programs such as Wetlands and Sub-surface have operated for years without requiring surveyed plans.) We need to find a way to get the most reliable information we can about the property and project but have it be something that the average homeowner can provide without breaking his bank account before we can take the next step. We are definately open to suggestions...

codeman671 · 03-27-2008, 12:51 PM

We are looking at another piece of property that has a camp on it now, and is closer than 50 feet to the water. If we bought it, our intention would be that within a few years we would want to take it down and build something newer/larger. Being that the lot is already cleared there is no additional clearing of trees/vegetation necessary.

Does the footprint or current building location become grandfathered? If we want to go bigger do we have to move the building back to 50' or greater? Is there a limitation that would prevent us from building at all?

I'd hate to get too far into this to find a problem that we did not foresee.

Thanks in advance!

Onshore · 03-27-2008, 01:35 PM

Unless you are on sewer the first you need to take a look at the new sub-surface systems regulations. If you tear if down or modify it significantly it could run afoul of your systems permit. If you tear it down and do want to rebuild with a bigger footprint you will need to meet the setback if its possible. If you can't meet the setback then you would be looking at the possibility of getting a Redevelopment Waiver with would allow you to offer restoring or replanting areas or making other improvements to offset the increased sq ft of impervious area.

tis · 03-27-2008, 03:49 PM

In other words, codeman forget it. She does not want to tell you it will be a nightmare.

Skip · 03-27-2008, 04:02 PM

According to the on-line edition of the Union Leader, the Senate today voted to delay implementation until October 1st. Now its off to the House.

Story can be read HERE.

Onshore · 03-27-2008, 04:52 PM

The earliest the House could possibly hear the amended version of HB 1151 is April 9th.

codeman671 · 03-28-2008, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

Unless you are on sewer the first you need to take a look at the new sub-surface systems regulations. If you tear if down or modify it significantly it could run afoul of your systems permit. If you tear it down and do want to rebuild with a bigger footprint you will need to meet the setback if its possible. If you can't meet the setback then you would be looking at the possibility of getting a Redevelopment Waiver with would allow you to offer restoring or replanting areas or making other improvements to offset the increased sq ft of impervious area.

The property has a brand new septic (3 bedroom) so no issues with the number of bedrooms/baths. So, is it just a 50' setback then? Gilford already has a 50' so it would not be a significant change to what currently exists.

Onshore · 03-28-2008, 09:37 AM

I thought Gilford had a 40 ft setback?

If you have septic taken care of and the setback is no problem then your next concern is the new impervious surface limit. The new standard sets up tiers for percent impervious allowed. You can avoid any issues with this standard by staying within the bounds of the existing impervious areas. In other words if you only wanted to add or expand the second story there would be no issue. In fact, you could potentially do it without a permit. If you are going to expand the impervious area of the house then it would be helpful to know approximately how much of the lot would then be impervious. Do you have an estimate on that? Keep in mind that gravel driveway are considered impervious unless specially designed and constructed to be otherwise.

codeman671 · 03-28-2008, 10:37 AM

Not sure, I thought 50 but if 40 even better.

Being on an island, no driveways are needed so the only section to be affected is the overall footprint size of the home. The footprint is 1100 square feet (1 floor) and I would expect that to go to 1600-1700 square feet plus attached outdoor deck space. So basically, on a 1 acre lot we would look to add 600+/- square feet of house footprint plus the deck which could encompass another 750-1k square feet outside.

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this! Hopefully it will help others as well.

Onshore · 03-28-2008, 11:12 AM

If Gilford is 40 it will become 50 when the new standards pass. This is not a project killer but it is something to be aware of because you should try to avoid any outward expansion (upward would still be ok) on the portions inside 50 ft.

On a 1 acre lot you can build up to a total of:

- 8,712 sqft of impervious area with no need to agree to cutting restrictions or implement a stormwater management plan.
- 10,890 sqft of impervious area if you agree to protect and not remove any healthy trees and saplings within 50 ft of the reference line. (If there are not enough trees to meet the minimum buffer standards re-planting will be required but maintenance of existing/remaining open areas and the trimming of branches and pruning of shrubs down to 3 ft is still allowed.)
- 13,068 sqft of impervious area if you agree to protect and not remove any healthy trees and saplings within 50 ft of the reference line and inmplement an approve stormwater management plan.

Decks are considered to be impervious. You could use a surface that has enough openings at a size that would qualify as pervious, but personally I would hesistate to use those surfaces in areas that may be travelled by little fingers and toes. It would be the owners call...

Gatto Nero · 03-28-2008, 12:09 PM

Would the sqft that you quote above be cut in half for a half acre lot?

Onshore · 03-28-2008, 12:24 PM

Yes. The sqft of impervious allowed is a percentage of the sqft of the lot in the protected shoreland the ratios will be consistent.

The numbers that I listed in response to Codeman were calculated under the assumption that the whole acre is inside the protected shoreland. In retrospect I should have asked first and not made that assumption. If the entire lot is within 250 of the shoreline then the numbers are right. If not then they would need to be rvised downward to reflact the area of the lot within 250 ft of the lake.

codeman671 · 03-28-2008, 12:34 PM

The lot is probably not much more than 250' deep and has roughly 250' of frontage. Based on that, it sounds like it would take an awfully huge footprint (being on an island without a driveway) to even come close to the new law being an issue.

Thanks for the clarification!

codeman671 · 03-28-2008, 12:55 PM

The lot is probably not much more than 250' deep and has roughly 250' of frontage. Based on that, it sounds like it would take an awfully huge footprint (being on an island without a driveway) to even come close to the new law being an issue.

One last question and I will leave you alone. Right now, the footprint being 1100+/- square feet is actually 30+/- feet from shore in the front I estimate. Would it be acceptable to build the new structure behind the existing structure (and off to the side a bit), meeting the 50' setback and when complete remove the old structure? The existing structure is on an above-ground stone foundation (nothing sub-surface). Total footage between the two even during the interim would not exceed 8712 square feet.

This basically gives us the ability to live in and use the old structure while the new one is being built.

Onshore · 03-28-2008, 01:13 PM

You could do that. The Department would want to see a construction sequence with timetables including the demolition of the old structure and would put condition the permit with a deadline for removal tied to the completion date of the new structure. The Department would also want to see planting plans for the restabilization of the old camp footprint after removal.

Onshore · 03-31-2008, 09:36 AM

According the the posted schedule for the House, HB 1151 is to be heard on April 16th.

Boat Doc · 03-31-2008, 04:21 PM

So I'm trying to follow this and read the rules which in some cases refers to the new law. Wow this stuff is going to be difficult. I had to print out both the new rules and the law from the NH Shorefront Assoc. website and sit down and read through them refering back and forth. This is a lot more restrictive and complicated than I first anticipated.

If our house is within the new 50 ft setback, and we want to add an addition that is at the back so it is more than 50 ft back, are we going to be required to tear down the house and move the whole thing back? A previous post seems to indicate that new buildings will have to be 50 ft back unless then absolutely cannot.

Trying to make a sketch of our own lot just to see where we stand on these new regulations and I can't figure out what is "maintained in an undisturbed state". If it is undisturbed, how can it be maintained?

Also having trouble calculating how to make our property 50% undisturbed as it already is about 80% disturbed if I am correct in assuming that the areas we mow, landscape, and garden plus the buildings, driveway and decks are disturbed area. This gets pretty confusing! Our 18,000 foot lot is already at about 25% impervious so I guess I can't do anything. Has anyone looked at what this will do to property values?

Again, I'm all for protecting the lakes, but this sure looks like it is meant to stop development without necessarily any options that will make the water cleaner. Wouldn't it make more sense to look at erosion and runoff, rather than blanket restrictions on surface areas?

Just my thoughts-

wifi · 03-31-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boat Doc

...... Has anyone looked at what this will do to property values?

...... rather than blanket restrictions on surface areas?...

Bingo!!! My thought is a year or two, before the buying public realizes what they are considering buying is all they will ever be able to make of it.

Dead slow to full throttle laws. Heck, in last falls revisions of the law, you weren't even allowed to rake the leaves on your lakefront property (disturbing natural vegatation).

Is this the new Democratic slant on the law, or is this just coincidence ?

tis · 03-31-2008, 06:25 PM

Not only will it be very difficult to improve your home in most cases, it will be hard to maintain it as mentioned. You can only use hand held tools to work on your property. I guess landscapers and those living on the lake who own them, might as well sell their ride on tractors.

CanisLupusArctos · 03-31-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wifi

Heck, in last falls revisions of the law, you weren't even allowed to rake the leaves on your lakefront property (disturbing natural vegatation).

One of two things would eventually happen:

1) A situation would arise causing such laws to get tested in the Supreme Court with national media attention, or

2) New Hampshire would learn (the hard way) that dense unmaintained woodlands with lots of dead leaves & underbrush
+ nearby houses
+ an unusually dry summer
+ a carelessly tossed cigarette or lightning strike
= the sort of 100-year disaster that NH foresters have been warning is now several years overdue... or a smaller scale: One house catches fire, and the wind carries embers along the densely wooded shoreline scorching everything in its path (including neighboring houses) until meeting with water or a change in wind direction. All that's needed is lots of dry, unmaintained woodland and the right weather conditions, which we had plenty of last summer.

tis · 04-01-2008, 06:26 AM

Cla, they will be happy if the houses burn down, but not happy if all the trees are gone.

meteotrade · 04-01-2008, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

One of two things would eventually happen:
One house catches fire, and the wind carries embers along the densely wooded shoreline scorching everything in its path (including neighboring houses) until meeting with water or a change in wind direction. All that's needed is lots of dry, unmaintained woodland and the right weather conditions, which we had plenty of last summer.

Wow, excellent point!

Here's another thing the authors of the SPA failed to consider: Bears. Don't they realize that dense, wooded areas are prime habitat for these soulless predators? All we need is the right weather (i.e. spring) and these ravenous beasts will emerge from their dens, terrorizing the lake side forests in their endless quest for honey and picnic baskets. Just another example of how the new SPA is bound to fail us.

lakershaker · 04-01-2008, 10:57 AM

hi Shore Thing,
On our island building, we don't have a dug foundation, but rather poured concrete piers with the regular old ground underneath and the house propped up above the ground. As far as runoff is concerned, rainwater is free to travel under our place and be absorbed into the ground. Does this type of structure change the calculation at all, or is it still considered the same as a dug foundation? And, if an outbuilding was added at a later date of similar elevated construction, would that be an easier process?
Thanks,
Lakershaker

CanisLupusArctos · 04-01-2008, 12:04 PM

In forested areas of other parts of the country (except old growth,) officials are teaching and encouraging people to maintain their forest so that only the healthiest trees stand, and to remove underbrush and debris. This is because in many locations they learned (the hard way) that their forest protection rules were actually encouraging fires (and other problems like disease and parasites) that caused the loss of forest, a huge expense in disaster relief and insurance claims, and unfortunately human life as well.

Old growth forest really does maintain itself. In most areas of the country (including NH) we have new growth because people clear-cut everything up until the 1940s. When the logging stopped, all the seeds sprang up all at once, resulting in these trees we have now... too close to each other... over-competing for nutrients... no tree reaching its full potential... lots of dead or dying stuff... it's a situation that's not good for man nor forest.

I didn't come to this area for a ritzy subdivision shoreline or I would've chosen California or Florida... and certainly not to hear rumbling bulldozers and backup alarms or else I wouldn't have moved away from the city. I'm all for protecting the NH environment for those reasons, but in the last few years I've seen nature itself show us why over-protection is just as harmful as no protection... like when a whole forest burns down because environmentalists over-protected it. Or when those same well-meaning people cause deer to become overpopulated and lure their predators into backyards where those predators discover that people are a lot easier to catch and they don't shoot, as they always used to.

The motto "leave no trace" has its time and place in the wilderness, but otherwise we need to look at ourselves as an important part of the ecosystem: Good stewards. To be a good steward requires action, like tending a garden. Environmental policy here in the northeast is slowly forcing humans to think of themselves as "Invisible spectators" rather than active stewards. Granted, some people refuse to be either good stewards nor invisible spectators; the rest of us should rise up against them and make their actions unpopular. We don't need laws in order to do that because nobody wants to be shunned.

Some areas of the country have already tried making people invisible spectators of the environment, and they've realized (at great expense to the environment and people) that it doesn't work. We should learn from them. One might say, "Stuff that happens in those places never happens here in the northeast." Such words have been spoken many times in the last few years, and nature keeps proving them wrong.

Whether we are environmentalists or corporate builders makes no difference to nature: It's constantly proving itself a step ahead of both--often painfully. Therefore the safest place is somewhere in the middle.

Just Sold · 04-01-2008, 03:09 PM

The "New Rules" became effective today. We had an office a meeting with one of the people who was on one of the committes that wrote a section of the rules today. There was more than one committe. He said if the lot is a new one it will be tough getting it approved if it is say <10,000 sq. ft. A lot of record will still have to comply but may not necessarily be rejected to build on.

For Islands one interesting thing is that you have to have a "plan" for bringing your construction-heavy equipment on and off shore along with a restoration plan for the first 50' it will cross. If your island is lucky enough, like on Rattlesnake's NW corner, to have a landing for such equipment that saves the expense of the plan etc.

He also said that "new" waterfront lot development will be expensive due to the new rules even if it has the frontage, setbacks and size to meet all the requirements.

Even adding a second floor without increasing the footprint of the building will require permiting from the state. One particular rule says that you can only have an impervious area equal to 20% of the total lot size. Impervious areas include the cottage/home (the area under the roof overhang and not the walls of the building) paved/stone/gravel walkways and driveways, sheds, decks, patios etc. Grass and undeveloped areas are not included. Also be aware that in the 50' set back you can only trim the low cover growth to no less than 3' in height so long as it does not cause damage to the plant. No raking or altering the 50' setbacks either. If it falls to the ground it has to stay where it fell. Trees are limited as to how much you can trim them for views. You can have a 6' wide path to the water though.

Septic requirements are tightening as well. 75' setbacks (to lot lines and water areas) and 2' above the high water table must still be met. This means smaller lots, such as <10,000 sq.ft., on some small lakes and ponds in NH may not be able to get a septic system approval which some did in the past. This could negatively effect the value of these properties and make them questionable for year round use.

Many rivers and streams are now "Protected" and fall under the Shoreland Protection Act. You may have seen these signs popping up where roads pass over them.

codeman671 · 04-01-2008, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

So basically the shoreline belongs to the state while the landowners pay taxes on it. "Live Free Or Die..."

I heard that the same point was brought up in a meeting with DES and the DESpeaker did not know how to answer that when asked. This came from someone who attended. Very interesting indeed.

meteotrade · 04-01-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

it's a situation that's not good for man nor forest.

And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house

meteotrade · 04-01-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

I heard that the same point was brought up in a meeting with DES and the DESpeaker did not know how to answer that when asked. This came from someone who attended. Very interesting indeed.

Think of it like an easement. I pay taxes on the sidewalk which runs through the front of my land, and I have to take care of it, too. Hardly seems fair, but that's life.

wifi · 04-01-2008, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meteotrade

Think of it like an easement......

Lots of waterfront people bought their property with the expectation of using their land like everyone else has for decades. Now the state comes along and makes rules preventing people from using this property, that they have already purchased with prior reasonable expectations, without compensating said people....

Sounds like these 'said people' are not only getting screwed, but this 'expectation' is no longer valid, meaning their property is worth a LOT less should they try to sell or be forced to sell or can't afford to sit back and wait for the boat to right itself.

Another arrow in the side of the regional economy.

Rattlesnake Guy · 04-01-2008, 07:18 PM

Makes me wonder how bright it was to purchase the adjacent lot to keep it from being immediately developed. I wonder how long it will be until we can't walk on it?

Rattlesnake Guy · 04-01-2008, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meteotrade

And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house

Metrotrade,
I think they named the bill after this guy. Thanks to him for causing the spark of this bright idea. I just want to pick up a dead branch and move some leaves off the nature path so my mom does not slip. Why do I think the guy with the best lawyer will still do what ever they want.

codeman671 · 04-01-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wifi

Lots of waterfront people bought their property with the expectation of using their land like everyone else has for decades. Now the state comes along and makes rules preventing people from using this property, that they have already purchased with prior reasonable expectations, without compensating said people....

Sounds like these 'said people' are not only getting screwed, but this 'expectation' is no longer valid, meaning their property is worth a LOT less should they try to sell or be forced to sell or can't afford to sit back and wait for the boat to right itself.

Another arrow in the side of the regional economy.

This is a great climax after the already wonderful "View Tax" that some have been assessed for. I heard a story about a parcel in the Pittsburg area that the town or state nailed the owner with a $6k tax increase for a view tax on an undeveloped lot.

Airwaves · 04-01-2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Codeman 671
This is a great climax after the already wonderful "View Tax" that some have been assessed for. I heard a story about a parcel in the Pittsburg area that the town or state nailed the owner with a $6k tax increase for a view tax on an undeveloped lot.

If that's true then the owner of the lot should apply for "Current Use" designation on the undeveloped parcel.

Quote:

Originally posted by wifi
Lots of waterfront people bought their property with the expectation of using their land like everyone else has for decades. Now the state comes along and makes rules preventing people from using this property, that they have already purchased with prior reasonable expectations, without compensating said people....

I will speculate that sooner rather than later some attorney who is caught in the trap that you describe will bring a major lawsuit against the state for what could be argued is an emminent domain landtaking without fair market compenstion.

CanisLupusArctos · 04-01-2008, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meteotrade

And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house

Previous posts in this thread, as well as parts of the law (as I read it) indicated that doing so much as raking leaves was against the law. So... if what you say is true, then I am now confused.

And no, I am not THAT worried about a forest fire. I stated in a previous post (and will now repeat as a summary) that my opinions are more middle-of-the-road... opposed to overdone development as posted in the photo you linked to, but also opposed to overdone laws. My thing with the forest fires was my way of illustrating the following statement: "Overdone laws often end up causing more harm than good, often to the very things they're designed to protect." I would've illustrated my opposition to overdone development if I didn't think all of us were already familiar with it.

jrc · 04-01-2008, 08:59 PM

Funny thing is the new law will cause more development like the Bahre Mansion, Ok maybe not that big.

But a moneyed builder can buy the necessary acerage, file all the forms, hire all the engineers, surveyors and hydrologists to build pretty much anything he wants. Except maybe a boathouse.

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes. The tax assesor will never believe it's worthless. Maybe that's a good goal but if you're effectively taking this guys property, he should be compensated.

Merrymeeting · 04-01-2008, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes.

Or more likely sell it to the monied buyer looking to piece 4-5 of these together to build the McMansion in your earlier paragraph.

Onshore · 04-02-2008, 04:52 AM

I'm going to be just a little busy here for the next couple of days, but I'll try to find time to get to as many of these questions as I can today. Quickly though, comments about the state owning the land but individuals paying taxes on it... Individuals own the land but the government (local, state, or federal) has a right to regulate the activities on it to protect and preserve the health and well-being of the general public. In this instance it would be with the intent of protecting the quality of water and preventing erosion and flooding. As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional... or so I've been told by various attorneys. The shoreland staff is not comprised of attorneys and we are not in a position to argue property rights issues. Questions about the environment or the implentation of the law we were given to enforce we can handle. We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.

tis · 04-02-2008, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional...

We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.

shore things, the problem is, it IS VERY prohibitive! I think you will be seeing lots of attorneys.

jrc · 04-02-2008, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

Or more likely sell it to the monied buyer looking to piece 4-5 of these together to build the McMansion in your earlier paragraph.

Good point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

....As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional...We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers...

I'm not expecting the bureaucracy to fix this themselves, they are foot soldiers and must just follow orders. Terms like prohibitive, reasonable and constitutional are usually defined by people in robes.

My point was just watch out for unintended consequences.

codeman671 · 04-02-2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

Funny thing is the new law will cause more development like the Bahre Mansion, Ok maybe not that big.

But a moneyed builder can buy the necessary acerage, file all the forms, hire all the engineers, surveyors and hydrologists to build pretty much anything he wants. Except maybe a boathouse.

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes. The tax assesor will never believe it's worthless. Maybe that's a good goal but if you're effectively taking this guys property, he should be compensated.

I may be wrong, but had heard that they cannot deem a property that WAS buildable under the previous laws to be non-buildable now.

jrc · 04-02-2008, 08:41 AM

OK maybe I got carried away. Time will tell, but given enough money and time with permits, exisiting 100' x 100' lots are probably buildable.

Many on this board have complained up and down about the change in the lake from working people in camps to rich people in mansions. This law can only accelerate that process. Maybe that's a good thing, it probably means less people overall and less houses per foot of shoreline. Less boats but probably bigger boats.

Orion · 04-02-2008, 08:48 AM

Excellent original post CanisLupusArctos!

meteotrade · 04-02-2008, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

Previous posts in this thread, as well as parts of the law (as I read it) indicated that doing so much as raking leaves was against the law. So... if what you say is true, then I am now confused.

I think the paranoia stems from the section of the act which states that 50%of the woodland buffer must be maintained in an "undisturbed state". The spirit of the phrase is to prevent the destruction of the natural habitation in favor of landscaped improvements like giant lawns, beaches, etc. example A few paranoid folks have interpreted this to mean that they aren't allowed to pick up dead branches or leaves, which is entirely untrue. Enforcers of the new law are going to have much bigger fish to fry than some guy who's raking his yard.

CanisLupusArctos · 04-02-2008, 09:48 AM

It seems almost everywhere you look, increased regulation brings the most hardship on the people with the least money. The little people who actually care about the world around them get shut out because they can't afford the cost of compliance with regulations, which allows the wealthiest take over because they can. They bring their attitude, "Fines are the cost of doing business" and buy whatever public officials they need in order to get illegal things done legally. When the cost of being here (or the cost of anything) gets high enough, it takes on a 'snob appeal' for people who like to brag about how much they pay for things. And usually, those are the same people who don't care about anyone else's environment but their own.

jeffk · 04-02-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by codeman671

I may be wrong, but had heard that they cannot deem a property that WAS buildable under the previous laws to be non-buildable now.

Just because they can't legally stop you from building doesn't mean that they can't throw so many roadblocks in the way that, for most people, it has the same effect.

Just from the discussion on this forum is far from clear to me exactly what the effect of these changes will be. Shore Things seems to be stating that the commission is looking for guidance. I accept that the willingness to discuss with the public is a wonderful thing but the fact that this is now the required "Law of the land" without anyone really understanding what it means is a disaster in the making.

A example to consider might be the EPA laws and regulations. Now every time a project is started there must be a massive review of the habitat. If one blue-green frog lives in the area instead of just plain green frogs, everything comes to a halt. Developers with deep pockets develop exotic and expensive plans to mitigate the "threat" to the blue-green frog. They build a blue-green frog condo and import a harem of blue-green frogs to keep it happy. Developers with less assets simply give up. What's the take away lesson? Those with big bucks pretty much get what they want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrc

OK maybe I got carried away. Time will tell, but given enough money and time with permits, exisiting 100' x 100' lots are probably buildable.

Many on this board have complained up and down about the change in the lake from working people in camps to rich people in mansions. This law can only accelerate that process. Maybe that's a good thing, it probably means less people overall and less houses per foot of shoreline. Less boats but probably bigger boats.

I think you are right on target jrc. The big money people will be the only ones who have the ability to deal with the confusing and shifting regulations. They will pay a lawyer lots of money to steer it through. Since the law doesn't specifically prevent them from developing but instead puts a regulatory minefield in their way, they will eventually prevail. Joe average will just throw up his hands and give up or do it on the sly. He will get caught and fined, not because he wasn't legally entitled to build what he wanted but because he couldn't afford to do the paperwork.

When a person is prevented from using their property by the state and the value of the property is diminished because of the state rules the property has effectively been seized and compensation should be paid. If the public wants the control of the land for their "protection" then they should pay for that control. How about if a lakefront property owner wants to make changes it is the state that must pay for all the regulatory work. i.e if it costs me $200,000 in legal and other fees to validate that I can modify my property as I wish to, the state pays me $200,000. If the public wants the benefit of protection, they pay the bills for it.

idigtractors · 04-02-2008, 10:45 AM

What I have read only here on the forum my feelings are that a good 90% of what is being tried to be done is all good. This trying to save the land and waters of the state of NH for us and the future ones that are coming along has to be done at some point. Whenever they decide to try and make a workable solution it will defiantly is not going to please everyone as they get caught up with things that they were not expecting. Is that to say, well we will let you do your project, but the next person then complains as he got caught. It just has to be done at any given point. Yes it would be great that all the changes were written in layman's terms so that everyone one knew exactly where they stand. At the present everyone is reading into everything the way they want to.
We just need to sit on our hands and let the committees do there job and hopefully everything they do helps correct our sadden conditions of our natural environment even if it does mean we do not rake our leaves.

Rattlesnake Guy · 04-02-2008, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

I'm going to be just a little busy here for the next couple of days, but I'll try to find time to get to as many of these questions as I can today. Quickly though, comments about the state owning the land but individuals paying taxes on it... Individuals own the land but the government (local, state, or federal) has a right to regulate the activities on it to protect and preserve the health and well-being of the general public. In this instance it would be with the intent of protecting the quality of water and preventing erosion and flooding. As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional... or so I've been told by various attorneys. The shoreland staff is not comprised of attorneys and we are not in a position to argue property rights issues. Questions about the environment or the implementation of the law we were given to enforce we can handle. We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.

If the only goal is to protect the water quality then why don't they give us the option to build closer to the lake and collect all the rain water that falls on the roof and pump it 250 feet away from the lake to take a filtered ride back to the lake or replenish the aquifer . That would make the result a net increase in water quality for the lake. I think I like reasonable limits on tree cutting as it protects all of our value and mutual enjoyment. Trying to spell everyones situation out in a house bill seems a bit of a stretch.

Not sure how we should all react the next time we see someone get around the rules that apply to the rest of us. Hope to see pictures of it here.

Belkin · 04-02-2008, 09:38 PM

I take the following statement within the Shoreland Protection Act to mean that you can rake leaves in areas where three are no existing fallen leaves. You might also interpret it to imply that anything that grows or falls after April 1, 2008 can be removed (i.e. you are encouraged but not required to add additional plants to areas that previously did not have any):

(v) Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to April 1, 2008 may maintain but not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches, within the waterfront buffer.

However, in areas where there is natural ground cover:

(C) No natural ground cover shall be removed except as necessary for a foot path to water as provided under RSA 483-B:9,

where natural ground cover includes:

Natural ground cover shall also include naturally occurring leaf or needle litter, stumps, decaying woody debris, stones, and boulders.

I think this is where the feeling that you can not rake your yard comes from. And if your yard is composed of "natural ground cover", I think that belief is correct. It would appear that picking up a decaying stick from wooded areas of your yard within 50 feet of the water would not be allowed.

codeman671 · 04-03-2008, 07:39 AM

Is there going to be a limitation to future installations of perched beaches?

AQUAMAN · 04-03-2008, 10:26 AM

My belief is that everyone wants to protect the waters of NH. Education through lawmaking is really the only way. The real issue is the Department or more specific the persons within the Department that oversee the permitting and enforcement of the laws. With the same key people that have given the Wetlands Board the worst reputation of any DES department heading up the CSPA, it will not take long for this reputation to carry over. I attended a seminar at DES given by an in-house consultant who is responsible for fixing the lack of customer service within the Wetlands Board. The sentiment rang loud and clear; it is not the laws but the attitudes of the persons within the department. I have had two applications reviewed by the same person within 6 months of each other so the laws are the same. The first is approved after meeting certain requests for more information (RFMIs) and 6mos later the issues or RFMI's are completely different. This lack of consistency is very frustrating but most of all very expensive. So I embrace the CSPA and its intention but I am very nervous of what lies ahead.

Merrymeeting · 04-03-2008, 12:54 PM

Similar to what Aquaman stated, I've had direct, similar, experience with DES. Clear violation of the existing laws (a shorefront lot that cleared every piece of vegatation from the lot without permits). I went through the formal process of submitting the paperwork to report it.

Twice it was kicked back for petty, bureacratic information updates. Finally they came back and admitted that they didn't have the personnel or time to investigate. This was under the old laws.

So, other than adding an administrative and cost nightmare for "the little guy", how is this going to help?

Steveo · 04-03-2008, 01:11 PM

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for any help

GWC... · 04-03-2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steveo

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for any help

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

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

eyenotall777 · 04-03-2008, 02:29 PM

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

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

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

idigtractors · 04-03-2008, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steveo

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

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

Thank you for any help

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

Gatto Nero · 04-03-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idigtractors

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

Steveo,

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

jeffk · 04-03-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyenotall777

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

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

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

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

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

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

b. State and federally listed threatened and endangered species;

c. Species at the extremities of their ranges;

d. Migratory fish and wildlife; and

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

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

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

Gatto Nero · 04-03-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk

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

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

I think Steveo will back her up on this one.

wifi · 04-03-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk

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

Right on target, Thanks Jeff.

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

Rattlesnake Guy · 04-03-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steveo

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

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

ITD · 04-04-2008, 06:53 AM

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

Orion · 04-04-2008, 06:57 AM

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

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

Lakegeezer · 04-04-2008, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orion

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

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

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

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

01-09-2008, 09:27 AM	#1
Boat Doc Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 14 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Shoreland Protection Rules Next Wed. there is a rules hearing at NH Env. Services regarding the new shoreland rules. I'm told this hearing may be nothing more than a person with a tape recorder taking input, but all of us that own lakefront property should get involved. To that end, I suggest you all consider joining the NH Shorefront Association. This is a new group which believes in protecting water quality and private property rights. Also, one thing I really liked was simply being aware of what is going on in Concord as I did not find out about all these changes until very recently (on this Forum!). The website is: www.nhshorefront.org I want to protect the lake for my grandchildren to inherit both our property and clean water, but I also want to protect the rather hefty investment in my shorefront (not to mention value for the taxes!). I'm all for saving the trees and reducing run-off, etc..., but why would Env. Services need to be involved in giving me a permit for my new shed which may be over 200 ft back from the water (as I understand things just about everything within 250 ft will require their blessing). I know what we went through for our relatively simple dock permit and I am very concerned this difficult and trying process will be the same now for projects on my own land. Thanks for considering my thoughts.

01-12-2008, 05:09 PM	#2
phoenix Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: phoenix and moultonboro Posts: 1,520 Thanks: 58 Thanked 266 Times in 187 Posts	agree with you. i am going to join. __________________ it's tough to make predictions specially about the future

01-12-2008, 10:13 PM	#3
AQUAMAN Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 14 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Lets get the word out to support the NHSA! I have joined as well. The website is user friendly. It will be a great resource to keep tabs on new laws and new rule-making at DES. I have a permit application at the wetlands board now that Darlene Forst is reviewing. She has made it so difficult that I have turned it over to a lawyer. It should not be this difficult and when we hit April 1, 2008 it all becomes that much more difficult.

01-14-2008, 09:07 PM	#6
Gatto Nero Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Isola Gatto Nero Posts: 696 Thanks: 162 Thanked 263 Times in 81 Posts	Tis, I agree, in part. It has been my experience that they do have different interpretations of the rules and that that can be painful. But I believe that the new rules are, in part, intended to be more finely defined so that there is less left up to individual interpretation. I'm not saying I like the rules, I just don't blame the people who enforce them for the problems those rules create. I reread the changes again tonight and my head was spinning when when I finally got through it. I honestly can't say if they are all that much more strict or not, at least the parts that concern my situation. They may even work in my favor, but there is no doubt that the permit process will be about 10X more complicated. So far I have been able to handle everything I have gone through on my own, and I've been through a lot. I have serious doubts if I will be able to do that if/when I ever need to deal with it again. I can't argue about other people's intentions, only my interpretation of them, and I believe the intentions of the people I have dealt with are sincere. Think about it. What motive would they have to screw you over? Why would she bother posting if she didn't want the opinions the post would produce? Do you go out of your way just to mess with people in your job? Ok, maybe once in a while, but it's usually in good fun. __________________ La vita è buona su Isola Gatto Nero

01-15-2008, 12:21 AM	#8
Lakegeezer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 1,657 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 342 Thanked 618 Times in 278 Posts	Thanks Shore Things Having the NH-DES particapate in this discussion is welcome and refreshing. Thanks "Shore Things" for keeping the public informed and maintaining integrity in the process. __________________ -lg

01-14-2008, 07:43 PM	#5
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,410 Thanks: 719 Thanked 1,381 Times in 957 Posts	I am with you Aquaman. Gatto, unfortunately they have different interpretations, depending on who your reviewer is. It is a damn big hassle and I only see it getting bigger. I think they have already started changing to the new rules, even though they aren't final yet. I think it is a huge mess down there and will only get worse in April. I wonder if Shore Things really cares or that was just a show. Once the going got rough she disappeared. Sorry but this whole thing gets my dander up!

01-14-2008, 09:52 PM	#7
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Gatto Nero, I appreciate the sentiment but it is unnecessary. You are correct that DES is happy to see the development of an organization that will help keep the people who are directly affected by our programs informed. Our only concern is the adversarial tone that seems to be developing. The NH Lakes Association is a similar organization to this new NH Shorefront organization with which we have had a cooperative working relationship for many years. We are somewhat dismayed by statements on this new organizations website that insinuate that the public was not involved in the development of that new standards since some of the membership of this new organization has been directly involved with the development of these new standards since September of 2005. Given the fact that of the five founding members of this new organization; one was a voting member of the Commission that proposed the changes to the Shoreland Act, a second was employed by a voting member, two others were personally involved in hammering out compromises during the senate hearings on the legislation, and three of the five were also directly involved in the same meetings to develop the new rule package you had been invited to attend we would hope they would wish to continue the development of the program in a positive and cooperative manner. Regardless of the approach they take from here on out the fact that they are increasing public awareness of the issues is the most important thing. Tis, I understand your frustration and whether you choose to believe it or not I can assure you the shoreline and shoreland staff is greatly concerned with developing a program that issues its decisions in a fair, timely, and above all, consistent manner. Please understand that as an employee of the state my job is to apply the standards and requirements put in place by the legislature or through the administrative rule process. While I can answer any factual questions that people may have but I cannot answer questions relate to personal philosophy or opinions on the issues because I am required to maintain my objectivity. Simply put any opinions I may have are irrelevant and cannot be allowed to enter into these discussions.

02-06-2008, 11:50 AM	#10
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	The newest draft of the proposed Shoreland Program Administrative Rules, Chapter Env-Wq 1400 has been posted on-line at: http://www.des.state.nh.us/RuleMaking/

02-25-2008, 09:59 AM	#12
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,527 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	Oooohhhhh....nnnoooooo....thanks for the heads-up, McDude....this means I gotta get started like right away saw'n down those three ugly, old, large, Pin Oaks that arch out over my tiny little 55' waterfront.....since all I got is a 12" electric chain saw.....from U-know-where....and them trees need to be gone by April 1......or else....they is here .....basically forever! __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

03-19-2008, 05:30 AM	#13
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	Shoreland protection rules may be delayed Move afoot to delay implementation until July 1st. STORY today in the Citizen on-line!

03-19-2008, 06:38 AM	#14
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,410 Thanks: 719 Thanked 1,381 Times in 957 Posts	Thanks for that post Skip. It seems they should have the rules in place before they enact it.

03-19-2008, 07:15 AM	#15
Lakegeezer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 1,657 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 342 Thanked 618 Times in 278 Posts	Economic boom The local construction crews will be happy. This winter has been tough on business. It will be a noisy spring. __________________ -lg

03-19-2008, 10:03 AM	#17
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,527 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 295 Thanked 957 Times in 698 Posts	Yes, good question. So, what's next for the intrepid developers on Sheep Island, Lake Wicwas? Did the 490-525, no vote on their zoning friendly article change their persona from a couple of wolves, to a couple of sheep? Ouchy ouchy...gotta be expensive....legal costs & all.... & plus the tightening of mortgage credit locally does not help.. __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

03-19-2008, 10:39 AM	#18
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Well, here's where the Shoreland Program stands right now. We will be ready to bring the program on line on April 1 if the law still requires it. The next hearing on the shoreland rules package is this Friday, March 21. The major point of contention has been the establishment of criteria to qualify a project as "vested". Briefly, "vested" simply means that your project is sufficiently underway and thus should not have to obtain the new shoreland permit. This is a dangerously oversimplified explanation but the problem is that the State's attorneys, the attorneys serving as lobbyists for a couple of groups, and the JLCAR's attorneys are still hammering out the criteria for qualifying as "vested". When this is settled DES will have to provide guidance documents explaining what it takes to be "vested" as well as just what being "vested' means. Another significant change that may come out of the last meeting involves the requirement for a stamped surveyed plan. Originally DES only wanted a surveyed plan when there would be more than 20% impervious area. JLCAR heard testimony at the last meeting stating that a surveyed plan should be required for all projects. We frankly do not want those plans for all projects because of the cost associated with obtaining them. However we may need to take the compromise position of requiring them for projects having as little as 15 % impervious. I can not emphasize enough that people take time to go to the rulemaking website listed earlier in the thread and check for the latest version and amendments to see what's coming. If the Legislature does manage to get the effective date moved then we will of course adjust accordingly. What the Citizen article does not explain is that there may be other changes coming that we will need to address. The amendment to HB 1151 is in large part to allow time for the legislature to debate some other possible changes (including the issue of "vesting") included in another bill. These issues had been being argued/discussed under Senate Bill 417. This bill is being terminated but the same issues will now be heard as part of Senate Bill 352. BTW while writing this I received word that it is highly unlikely that the House will get to HB 1151 this week and therefore, it will not be heard before their next session which is April 7. That would be after the law takes effect on the 1st...

03-20-2008, 12:24 PM	#19
hemlockpoint Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Disappointing I guess this is not surprising considering 483Bs Legislative sponsors were all Democrats and our legislature and executive branch is now Democrat controlled. The more complex you make these laws the more difficult(and expensive) it is to administer. DES people appear to have their ducks in a row but our legislature is screwed up. What do I do with my project now? I am 80 percent complete. Dont ask how that is measured or the Democrats will have to come up with a new bill and a fee to calculate it for me.

03-20-2008, 12:49 PM	#20
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	What does 80% complete mean?

03-20-2008, 12:58 PM	#21
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,410 Thanks: 719 Thanked 1,381 Times in 957 Posts	shore things- is it still highly unlikely (after the vote this morning by the Senate committee) to get to the house now?

03-20-2008, 01:01 PM	#22
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	still highly unlikely.

03-20-2008, 03:37 PM	#23
hemlockpoint Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	To Shorethings My house is framed and roofed but not sided or finished inside. The septic is installed and seeded over with grass seed and mulch. The area between the house and 50 feet from the lake was seeded and mulched last fall. I still need to grade loam and seed around the house which is 225 feet from the water. I also need to gravel the driveway which starts 200 feet from the water and goes by the house around 240 feet from the water. Miscellaneous things like water lines and well hookups need to be done.

03-21-2008, 07:34 AM	#24
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Hemlockpoint - Your project is if far enough along that you would be ok under every version of proposed rule, law, and policy that I've seen thus far. If your primary structure (house) foundation is in and your driveway is roughed in before April 1 then completing those structures is not going to require anything new from DES. From what we've seen so far, if a problem were to arise it would be in relation to outbuildings or not building according to the plan approved by the original building permit. If your primary structure and driveway (gravel by law is considered impervious unless specially designed and laid down) put your property at or above the new impervious surface limits, then after the date the new law takes effect, initiating construction of any new structures, such as a garage, even though they were covered by the local building permit, may still be illegal. The other thing is that you will likely only be covered for those things specifically permitted on the local building permit you are operating under. If you don't build according to the plans sent to the municipality or the permit is vague and no plans were required, then you may not be covered by any vesting provision.

03-21-2008, 04:15 PM	#25
hemlockpoint Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I was looking at the website at the latest version of the rules on vesting. What does this mean? (3) A concrete foundation for the primary structure was installed between April 1, 2007 and April 1, 2008; My foundation was installed in the fall of 2006. Does this mean I am not vested because I installed it too soon?

03-22-2008, 01:47 PM	#26
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	The 2007 date provision wasn't intended to force people that had structures started to get a permit to finish them. It was intended to prevent individuals from claiming that secondary or accessory structures that had not been started before April 1, 2008 were part of a larger "project" and thus were somehow covered under an old permit just because the primary structure foundation was in. We have no interest in asking anyone to get permits to complete a house that is as fas along as you have described. It is better environmentally that you simply complete the project and stabilize the soils on site.

03-22-2008, 07:42 PM	#27
phoenix Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: phoenix and moultonboro Posts: 1,520 Thanks: 58 Thanked 266 Times in 187 Posts	I understand that structures of all kinds will require approval and it appears that tree cutting will also but will thinning out brush also require approval __________________ it's tough to make predictions specially about the future

03-23-2008, 05:00 AM	#28
hemlockpoint Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Shore things Thank you for your help.

03-23-2008, 10:58 AM	#29
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Phoenix There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...) I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

03-23-2008, 11:49 AM	#30
phoenix Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: phoenix and moultonboro Posts: 1,520 Thanks: 58 Thanked 266 Times in 187 Posts	thanks that will be helpful __________________ it's tough to make predictions specially about the future

03-24-2008, 06:29 AM	#32
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,410 Thanks: 719 Thanked 1,381 Times in 957 Posts	shore things. What happens to the reference line if a boathouse is built? The definition I find is: "for natural fresh waterbodies it is the natural mean high water level". If you dig in for a boathouse, which you must do, does that reference line change?

03-24-2008, 10:50 AM	#33
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	If you dig into the shoreline you DO move the reference line.

03-25-2008, 07:34 AM	#36
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	In accordance with RSA 483-B:3 Consistency Required, II, When the standards and practices established in this chapter conflict with other local or state laws and rules, the more stringent standard shall control. Moultonborough's requirements must be met.

03-27-2008, 06:01 AM	#37
Formula260SS Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NH Posts: 384 Thanks: 11 Thanked 76 Times in 51 Posts	Shore Things, Thanks for taking the time to spend here and answer questions, I have a quick one. Are the requirements the same for an accessory structure (shed) as they are for a primary structure, such as plans and such. Will we have to submit a "full package" of information or can it be reduced. The structure will meet the 150 sq/ft rule and the 50' reference line. Thanks

03-27-2008, 08:15 AM	#38
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Under the current rule set there is no "reduced package" for small sized projects. There needs to be one, and the development of such a process will be part of the next phase in bringing the Shoreland Program forward. One of the main problems that we need to overcome is ensuring that the Department has the information we need to verify that the sum of little projects over time doesn't result in more impervious surface than is allowed by the new CSPA standards. There has been a push to force the Department to require stamped surveyed plans with all applications. The legal argument has been made that all plans that indicate property line location must be prepared by a licensed surveyor. DES is resistant to requiring these plans for all project due to the cost that is associated with it. (Other DES programs such as Wetlands and Sub-surface have operated for years without requiring surveyed plans.) We need to find a way to get the most reliable information we can about the property and project but have it be something that the average homeowner can provide without breaking his bank account before we can take the next step. We are definately open to suggestions...

03-27-2008, 12:51 PM	#39
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,360 Thanks: 210 Thanked 764 Times in 448 Posts	We are looking at another piece of property that has a camp on it now, and is closer than 50 feet to the water. If we bought it, our intention would be that within a few years we would want to take it down and build something newer/larger. Being that the lot is already cleared there is no additional clearing of trees/vegetation necessary. Does the footprint or current building location become grandfathered? If we want to go bigger do we have to move the building back to 50' or greater? Is there a limitation that would prevent us from building at all? I'd hate to get too far into this to find a problem that we did not foresee. Thanks in advance!

03-27-2008, 01:35 PM	#40
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 500 Thanks: 12 Thanked 400 Times in 143 Posts	Unless you are on sewer the first you need to take a look at the new sub-surface systems regulations. If you tear if down or modify it significantly it could run afoul of your systems permit. If you tear it down and do want to rebuild with a bigger footprint you will need to meet the setback if its possible. If you can't meet the setback then you would be looking at the possibility of getting a Redevelopment Waiver with would allow you to offer restoring or replanting areas or making other improvements to offset the increased sq ft of impervious area.

03-27-2008, 03:49 PM	#41
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,410 Thanks: 719 Thanked 1,381 Times in 957 Posts	In other words, codeman forget it. She does not want to tell you it will be a nightmare.

03-27-2008, 04:02 PM	#42
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	Delayed again? According to the on-line edition of the Union Leader, the Senate today voted to delay implementation until October 1st. Now its off to the House. Story can be read HERE.