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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-07-2019, 05:15 PM   #101
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Welch-Time,

Thank you for your kind words. I speak the truth and I have pictures to prove what I say is true along with plenty of neighbors to corroborate it. Sorry that the truth seems to be upsetting you DEJ.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2019, 05:27 PM   #102
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 329
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

The truth is your opinion, I have a different opinion. Some here disagree with you. As stated, your attorney, if you have one is probably shaking his head saying STOP. The Corrs, since they are not posting here or anywhere else obviously are getting good advice from their attorney. Again good luck Lakegirl24, I suspect you will need it based on your posts here.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post:
iw8surf (04-08-2019)
Old 04-07-2019, 08:50 PM   #103
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
Trying to learn how to insert photos.
The first one was June 28th 2014
Second is when it fell July 3, 2014
NOT March of 2015 because of snowload.
This is In Moultonborough not Tuftonboro or Wolfeboro....
Thanks for the photos.
So it snowed enough in late June to cause the building to collapse, and than in early July the snow was completely gone. Can't wait to see the the expression on the judges face after they hear that.
Attached Images
  
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2019, 10:42 PM   #104
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Rusty,
It was stated that it fell a whole year LATER in March of 2015. That’s why it was past the towns statute on rebuilding. Unfortunately, the time I had to pursue this was immediately after the variance meeting. So a judge will never see these. It’s TOTALLY in the hands of the state now, as it goes to the Supreme Court. I just hope they will do the right thing. This is strictly between the state and the Corrs.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2019, 11:13 PM   #105
welch-time
Senior Member
 
welch-time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Welch Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 2
Thanked 46 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Well, it looks like the doors were left open so the building would rack under the snow load (like she said) otherwise they'd be splinters. What bothers me is what type of owner would leave an eyesore like that for the neighbors to look at. Doesn't that tell you something? Wouldn't you think there's something funny going on here? Just curious. How long did the owners leave it like that before they tore it down?
welch-time is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-07-2019, 11:32 PM   #106
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Welch Time,

Till April of 2016. So 21 months it was left like that. It fell even more over the 21 months of course. Also...it fell in the summer due to wind and neglect. NOT because of SNOW LOAD.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:09 AM   #107
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,454
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Even though it seems to be between the NH-DES and the neighbors in supreme court, you may want to look into hiring a lawyer familiar to the DES and to supreme court to be there to represent you.

Just being there at the hearing for you is money well spent. It shows both sides that you are there .... and that effects the outcome.

What the heck .... I'll even mail you a check for 50-dollars to help pay the attorney fee .... out of my monthly Social Security check from the Gov .... and maybe there's others on-board here to do like-wise.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 09:09 AM   #108
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
The truth is your opinion, I have a different opinion. Some here disagree with you. As stated, your attorney, if you have one is probably shaking his head saying STOP. The Corrs, since they are not posting here or anywhere else obviously are getting good advice from their attorney. Again good luck Lakegirl24, I suspect you will need it based on your posts here.
DEJ,

I would suggest reading some of the public court docuemnts, on this mater before deciding what the truth is. You are entitled to your opinion of course. But set what lakegirl said aside, and read the documentation, set the time frame of things aside and read the documentation...

The permits applications to the town and to the state, mention replacing the boathouse in kind... Which means it should not be an inhabitable structure, which it most certainly is...With that kind of logic, I should just get a permit to rebuild my attached shed, and turn it into additional living space....

Many things fell through the cracks because of misleading information. The Septic System in that lot is sized to sustain the current season home. I have been able to tell since the beginning that this new structure, while also get hooked into that septic system if it is not already, so there will be the opportunity for additional load... But yet no septic design details of statement of already existing capacity are list on any of the permits, because they don't divulge the true intent of the project.

Given the time frame that this structure when it, I find it very plausaable, that the owner, had intentions of deception... Do I believe they started out with this intention, no... I think somewhere along the way they realized some possibilities... and then got caught up in the excitement, and it snowballed from there....

The bottom line is they got to where they got, weather intentionally or not, and got caught. The issue they have is with a State Agency, who put a cease and desist order on them. Then they started taking their anger out on the person they believed caused there problem. And it has spiraled from there.
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
FlyingScot (04-08-2019)
Old 04-08-2019, 09:52 AM   #109
welch-time
Senior Member
 
welch-time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Welch Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 2
Thanked 46 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Also, It looks like patio doors are installed on the front and side of the new house so I would expect a nice big wrap around deck to be installed in the future (after the dust settles). Probably the reason for the 10' setback.
welch-time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 10:57 AM   #110
TheTimeTraveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 199
Thanks: 32
Thanked 29 Times in 21 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by welch-time View Post
Also, It looks like patio doors are installed on the front and side of the new house so I would expect a nice big wrap around deck to be installed in the future (after the dust settles). Probably the reason for the 10' setback.
Yes, I agree that it would very likely happen.
TheTimeTraveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 11:21 AM   #111
loonguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 115
Thanks: 28
Thanked 34 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Assuming the owner loses the case and the "boathouse" needs to be removed, which appears likely based on the information in this thread, perhaps he can sell it and relocate it to a qualifying location, thereby mitigating his monetary losses. FLL probably can find a use for it.
loonguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 12:45 PM   #112
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,617
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

So the basic argument SCNH is going to hear is does can DES overrule the Wetlands board as a jurisdictional issue? It that is the case then it really doesn't have much to do with the parties involved other than outcome. DES wins, the building will be have to be revamped... although DES does have a long history of allowing mitigation... and the ruling might force that to come into play. If Wetlands wins... Lakegirl is not going to be happy. The rest of the issues are really just fluff.

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 01:02 PM   #113
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodsy View Post
So the basic argument SCNH is going to hear is does can DES overrule the Wetlands board as a jurisdictional issue? It that is the case then it really doesn't have much to do with the parties involved other than outcome. DES wins, the building will be have to be revamped... although DES does have a long history of allowing mitigation... and the ruling might force that to come into play. If Wetlands wins... Lakegirl is not going to be happy. The rest of the issues are really just fluff.

Woodsy
Actually Woodsy, the issue is not who wins DES or Wetlands... The state has already decided who wins that argument.

The Corrs are fighting with the state, for the right to continue with their plans. It is the Corrs against DES, according to all the Documentation I have seen... And from the sounds of it DES is very clear, make the structure conform to the permits....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 01:03 PM   #114
Shreddy
Senior Member
 
Shreddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moultonboro
Posts: 430
Thanks: 127
Thanked 168 Times in 92 Posts
Default

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...6cO/story.html

Reminds me this tale not too long ago. Will be interesting to see what unfolds but I currently take Lakegirl's side and story. As others suggested, I suspect Corr developed ambitious plans as things started to progress. It likely turned into one of those "I'm going to do this even though it's not right and I'll ask for forgiveness later when the damage is already done."
__________________
Shreddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 02:03 PM   #115
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,148
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin View Post
Actually Woodsy, the issue is not who wins DES or Wetlands... The state has already decided who wins that argument.

The Corrs are fighting with the state, for the right to continue with their plans. It is the Corrs against DES, according to all the Documentation I have seen... And from the sounds of it DES is very clear, make the structure conform to the permits....
Sure about that? Seems this is all over a split decision by the state.

DES appealed this case to the Supreme Court arguing "The Wetlands Council decided to grant the appeal based on a contradictory interpretation of RSA 483-B:11."

I believe this is what is being hotly debated, interesting items taken out of context:

I. …..Such repair or replacement may alter the interior design or existing foundation, but shall result in no expansion of the existing footprint except as authorized by the department pursuant to paragraph II.

II. When reviewing requests for the redevelopment of sites that contain nonconforming structures or any expansions of nonconforming structures the commissioner shall review proposals which are more nearly conforming than the existing structures, and may waive some of the standards specified in RSA 483-B:9, so long as there is at least the same degree of protection provided to the public waters.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 02:21 PM   #116
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,617
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

LI...

I am kind of with Maxum here... from what I gathered from the article, DES was not happy with the Wetlands ruling, and appealed it to SCNH....

So DES is driving the bus so to speak.... most likely to settle who has the final say in cases such as this. I cannot find this case on SCNH docket yet.


Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 02:53 PM   #117
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

From my understanding....YES DES and Wetlands are fighting and then what I have been told is that the Corrs have cross appealed it. I’m not EXACTLY sure what that means (to cross appeal) .... What are they cross appealing? DES wants it to be an accessory structure ( which by law are no higher than 12 ft). Wetlands wants it to be a non conforming structure. Not sure about the height for non conforming, but it should follow what was originally approved which was around 17 ft. I believe.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 03:15 PM   #118
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,512
Thanks: 230
Thanked 850 Times in 353 Posts
Default I don't think so!

It looks to me like the fact that there was once a boathouse on the property that fell down has nothing to do with what has been constructed.

They have built a totally unrelated structure, in a totally different location, with a totally different size and use, and those should be the factors that decide whether it can stay. Unless they can prevail and convince the court that it was built with all the proper permits and approvals I would still bet that it is coming down.

Also, Shore Things of DES follows this website often and seems well aware of what is going on. I have worked with her on waterfront issues on my property and she is very competent and thorough. You can assume that she is on top of this. The state is not going to let something like this happen easily as it will set a precedent that others can use to push the envelope on their projects.

In my opinion this is a blatant disregard for the regulations and an attempt to pull a fast one. Nice try, but I doubt it will succeed.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
LakesLady (04-13-2019)
Old 04-08-2019, 04:05 PM   #119
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 569
Thanks: 17
Thanked 161 Times in 102 Posts
Default

I believe Maxim is correct. While I agree and empathize with Lakegirl24, it appears that the SCNH case is to clear up the jurisdictional dispute between DES and Wetlands.

If DES wins the “boathouse” will have to be “adjusted” to meet their requirements. If Wetlands wins, either the Corrs get to complete it or other litigation follows.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 04:07 PM   #120
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 291
Thanks: 30
Thanked 77 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
In my opinion this is a blatant disregard for the regulations and an attempt to pull a fast one. Nice try, but I doubt it will succeed.
In a normal world one might believe this , but we're far from being in a normal world.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 04:21 PM   #121
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 694
Thanks: 78
Thanked 161 Times in 109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy View Post
I believe Maxim is correct..... it appears that the SCNH case is to clear up the jurisdictional dispute between DES and Wetlands.

If DES wins the “boathouse” will have to be “adjusted” to meet their requirements. If Wetlands wins, either the Corrs get to complete it or other litigation follows.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
My first thought on this was that the dispute was between DES and Wetlands. This thread took on a whole nother force once people started digging deeper.

As with (most?) everyone else, the initial thought/opinion was based on the LDS article which only shared one side of the story. Not exactly "fake news" by the paper but, definitely a derivative of such.
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 04:29 PM   #122
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default

I am sitting here chuckling...

A dispute between DES and Wetlands, and who has jurisdiction and is correct... In and off itself is not going to land in the supreme court of NH.

What has landed this in the supreme court is that the Corrs are defending their position, which is that they want to finish their project...

In order for the Corrs to finish, the dead lock between the Wetlands and DES has to be resolved.

Now depending on how you look at this you can state this case in a few different angles.

But at the end of the Day, it is the Corrs against the State of New Hampshire.... In order for the State of New Hamphsire to grant or deny the appeal, it has to decide if DES or Wetlands has made the right decision...

The Corrs had to push for this....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 05:43 PM   #123
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,790
Thanks: 534
Thanked 542 Times in 348 Posts
Default Corrs pushed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin View Post
I am sitting here chuckling...

A dispute between DES and Wetlands, and who has jurisdiction and is correct... In and off itself is not going to land in the supreme court of NH.

What has landed this in the supreme court is that the Corrs are defending their position, which is that they want to finish their project...

In order for the Corrs to finish, the dead lock between the Wetlands and DES has to be resolved.

Now depending on how you look at this you can state this case in a few different angles.

But at the end of the Day, it is the Corrs against the State of New Hampshire.... In order for the State of New Hamphsire to grant or deny the appeal, it has to decide if DES or Wetlands has made the right decision...

The Corrs had to push for this....
Not sure. As I read the timeline, the Corrs followed the normal curse (Freudian typo) in the statutes. They appealed to the Wetlands Board, were approved and were all ready to go. DES issued the C & D in an appeal of the Wetlands Board Approval which basically overrode DES. That's their function as an appeals board. The Corrs already had what they wanted. Why would they be pushing DES to the SCNH?
Were there missteps along the way? It appears so, but in part the ZBA and Wetlands Board are supposed to review and make their rulings. We hear a lot about the building's (new) location, but not much about the ZBA or Wetlands Bord hearings. Presumably, DES made their case at the Wetlands Board and were unconvincing. ZBA and, I think, Wetlands, are both quasi-judicial and take sworn testimony, which none of us witnessed. We have the LDS article that was probably written over a couple of days. Considering the time constraints of the news cycle, LDS was probably reasonable in its reporting. Many days later, we have lots of speculation about various "facts", but no self-identified lawyer silly enough to weigh in here. In the meantime, I think this is great thread that lets us all know we need to pay attention and how difficult it is to pay attention when you're absent for extended periods. We'll probably all forget, but it will be interesting to see if a bill gets filed next year to clarify the current RSA.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 06:52 PM   #124
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 694
Thanks: 78
Thanked 161 Times in 109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin View Post
I am sitting here chuckling...

A dispute between DES and Wetlands, and who has jurisdiction and is correct... In and off itself is not going to land in the supreme court of NH.

What has landed this in the supreme court is that the Corrs are defending their position, which is that they want to finish their project...

In order for the Corrs to finish, the dead lock between the Wetlands and DES has to be resolved.

Now depending on how you look at this you can state this case in a few different angles.

But at the end of the Day, it is the Corrs against the State of New Hampshire.... In order for the State of New Hamphsire to grant or deny the appeal, it has to decide if DES or Wetlands has made the right decision...

The Corrs had to push for this....
What a democratic way to speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

The "dispute" between the two agencies is exactly what HAS landed before the NH Supreme Court.
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 07:10 PM   #125
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,148
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Just out of curiosity anyone know why is this going directly to the NH supreme court? Aren't there lower district courts that would be in line to hear this first?
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 07:26 PM   #126
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 686 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Outdoorsman View Post
What a democratic way to speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

The "dispute" between the two agencies is exactly what HAS landed before the NH Supreme Court.
No it isn't, the dispute is between the DES and the Corr family.

This section of the "'States Mission to dismiss" states pretty clear that the Corrs agreed to build the new boathouse to the same HEIGHT as the original one.

"1. Bryan and Linda Corr own property located on Lake Winnipesaukee at 46
Deerhaven Road, Moultonborough, New Hampshire ("Property"). Administrative Order No. 17-
028 WD, ~ 1. The two structures on the property were built in the 1950s, one a primary building
and the other near the water and frequently referred to as a "dry boathouse." See Appellant's
Petition to Appeal at~ 10-14.

2. Around March 2015, this accessory structure collapsed from snow loads. !d. at~
14.

3. On December 22, 2015 appellants sent DES a Wetlands Permit by Notification
("PBN") in which they sought to "replace an existing shoreland structure which was collapsed by
snow load with a new structure in exact location and height." AO at~ 7.

4. DES accepted this PBN as #2016-00009, conditioned upon work being completed
in accordance with an 11/2/15 plan attached to appellants' PBN. One of the project descriptions
states "REPLACE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE WHICH COLLAPSED FROM SNOW LOAD IN MARCH 2015 WITH NEW
STRUCTURE IN EXACT LOCATION AND HEIGHT." !d. (emphasis added)."
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 07:41 PM   #127
Outdoorsman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 694
Thanks: 78
Thanked 161 Times in 109 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
No it isn't, the dispute is between the DES and the Corr family.
No it is not. If you go back to the original story...

Quote:
Supreme Court appeal

The department appealed the case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, arguing that the “Wetlands Council decided to grant the appeal based on a contradictory interpretation of RSA 483-B:11, … an issue outside the scope of the hearing and not before the council to decide.”

The state Supreme Court accepted the DES appeal on Feb. 11, setting a date of April 12 for the Wetlands Council to file a certified copy of its hearing record.
This thread has had some twists and turns, but it still DES and Wetlands Council going against each other at the highest court in the State.

The end result may or may not have ramification on the property owner or the neighbor.
Outdoorsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 07:53 PM   #128
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,454
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Seems that the impinged view-ee should hire an attorney and try to get included into the court argument. Sitting back and doing nothing is never a good move.


Being a no-show is not the way to go.
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-08-2019, 08:00 PM   #129
welch-time
Senior Member
 
welch-time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Welch Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 2
Thanked 46 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Seems that the impinged view-ee should hire an attorney and try to get included into the court argument. Sitting back and doing nothing is never a good move.


Being a no-show is not a smart move.
Well, it could get costly (hiring a lawyer), and besides, the issues that Lakegirl has with the new building are all obvious to DES and have been brought up already, A: building is too tall, and B: the building has been converted to living space. I doubt the supreme court hearing would be open to Lakegirl even if she did hire a laywer. But then I could be wrong. I'm no lawyer (but I played one on T.V.). Maybe better for Lakegirl to contact DES directly and offer her input/testimony.

Last edited by welch-time; 04-09-2019 at 01:05 AM.
welch-time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 06:59 AM   #130
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,454
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default ..... why yes ..... your Honor

Yes, just being present in court is a big step up from being a no-show, and letting the DES attorney mention or introduce her would be helpful to her opinion as the aggrieved.

Channel PERRY MASON here, and how it would go ..... Lord have mercy, your Honor, that big tall home recently built down at the water, is just such a hateful, hurtful, mean and nasty thing for them to go and do ...... like, who do they think they is .... and where do they get the right to do that ..... I have never been so upset about something ..... in all my born days ...... your Honor .... it is just so terribly terri-bobble ..... let me tell you!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 08:54 AM   #131
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 291
Thanks: 30
Thanked 77 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Any bets on who prevails?
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 08:58 AM   #132
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 2,181
Thanks: 450
Thanked 548 Times in 371 Posts
Default

I’m going to bet the Corrs will lose. Structure is just too different from the original and does not resemble a “boathouse”


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 09:45 AM   #133
loonguy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Moultonborough near the Loon Center
Posts: 115
Thanks: 28
Thanked 34 Times in 22 Posts
Default

My money, or at least my perspective on what should happen based on the equities, says the "boathouse" loses.
loonguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 09:48 AM   #134
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
Just out of curiosity anyone know why is this going directly to the NH supreme court? Aren't there lower district courts that would be in line to hear this first?
Maxum,

With all I have read, it seems like the case had gone through the lower applet courts that it needed too... Now what may be different here, is that this seems to be a state level issue, so possible there are some levels of applet court that get skipped. Unlike if this had been a issue with the Town of Moultonborough there would have been more levels of scrutiny...

In short I think some of the need for NH supreme court is the level at which the dispute is at in the fact that it is State Agencies in conflict, along with the Land owners....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 09:54 AM   #135
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2665 View Post
I’m going to bet the Corrs will lose. Structure is just too different from the original and does not resemble a “boathouse”


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
I think this is likely however, I think that there is a lot at play here.

Having my families summer place in the same vicinity, if the Corrs loose, I am wondering what is going to happen. Yes the state could order them to take it down, by they could just knock it down and leave it a pile of rubble, if they are that upset....

If they are told they have to modify it and stick to the hieght restrictions, once again they could do it in poor tastes, and leave an eyesore...

Now if they case foes for the Corrs, they finish the project and then what is next... will they try to do more?

Over all for our quiet little road, this is going to be far from over, even
once the Supreme court rules....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 10:37 AM   #136
The Real BigGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 569
Thanks: 17
Thanked 161 Times in 102 Posts
Default

Respectfully, again, I think most everyone is missing the point. The SCNH case (2018-0650) IS between the DES and the NH Wetlands Council where the DES is appealing a decision by the Council.

Maxum, the NH Wetlands council is listed as the “Lower Court/Agency” on the case. I’m assuming that NH regs allow one state agency to appeal another agency’s decision directly to the SC without going through a lower court.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
The Real BigGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to The Real BigGuy For This Useful Post:
Descant (04-09-2019)
Old 04-09-2019, 01:09 PM   #137
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 2,181
Thanks: 450
Thanked 548 Times in 371 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin View Post
I think this is likely however, I think that there is a lot at play here.

Having my families summer place in the same vicinity, if the Corrs loose, I am wondering what is going to happen. Yes the state could order them to take it down, by they could just knock it down and leave it a pile of rubble, if they are that upset....

If they are told they have to modify it and stick to the hieght restrictions, once again they could do it in poor tastes, and leave an eyesore...

Now if they case foes for the Corrs, they finish the project and then what is next... will they try to do more?

Over all for our quiet little road, this is going to be far from over, even
once the Supreme court rules....
Absolutely correct. In the end not matter the decision everyone can be on the losing end. Also if they win what will the other neighbors do? They could build similar structures if the wish sitting precedence. I real nightmare
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2019, 08:37 PM   #138
Mr. V
Senior Member
 
Mr. V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: the left coast (Portland)and West Alton
Posts: 803
Thanks: 14
Thanked 88 Times in 63 Posts
Default

I wonder whether, if they lose in court, the Corr family might have a cause of action against whomever they paid to get them through the permitting and construction process?

Heck, if it turns out the structure must be demolished I'd be out for blood, were I the home owner.

Just sayin'.
__________________
basking in the benign indifference of the universe
Mr. V is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 06:51 AM   #139
swnoel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 291
Thanks: 30
Thanked 77 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin View Post
Yes the state could order them to take it down, by they could just knock it down and leave it a pile of rubble, if they are that upset....

If they are told they have to modify it and stick to the hieght restrictions, once again they could do it in poor tastes, and leave an eyesore...
That would be illogical to do... disrespecting a court order usually doesn't end well.
swnoel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 07:04 AM   #140
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

SWNoel,

They are not logical with things that have gone on in the neighborhood since they moved in.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 07:23 AM   #141
joey2665
Senior Member
 
joey2665's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 2,181
Thanks: 450
Thanked 548 Times in 371 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by swnoel View Post
That would be illogical to do... disrespecting a court order usually doesn't end well.


Disobeying a court order will not go well, but disrespecting an order could just leave a mess and an eyesore. As lakegirl said they could just leave a pile of lumber and there is not much anyone can do about that.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
joey2665 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 07:51 AM   #142
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Joey2665,
A pile of lumber would be better than what is there now. I wouldn’t have to look at it at least. He put of a huge stockade fence across the whole property heading up into the woods a bit. It looks like hell. It extends toward the lake An extra 10 ft . The 10 ft “he claims” improves our view. I’ll see if I can add a pic.
Attached Images
  
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 08:40 AM   #143
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

iw8surf,

That was the day we took our docks out last Fall... lol. Hopefully they will be back in soon ( if ice ever goes out). I didn’t know there was a code on fencing. Enlighten me...are there rules? I don’t go on their property.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 10:56 AM   #144
iw8surf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 104
Thanks: 12
Thanked 30 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
iw8surf,

That was the day we took our docks out last Fall... lol. Hopefully they will be back in soon ( if ice ever goes out). I didn’t know there was a code on fencing. Enlighten me...are there rules? I don’t go on their property.
Ice out is in the future! We're almost there! No idea about regulations on fences in NH. Personally unless I'm "friends" with my neighbors I enjoy a good fence to maintain some peace and quiet on a busy lake
iw8surf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2019, 11:23 AM   #145
WinnisquamZ
Senior Member
 
WinnisquamZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 247
Thanks: 79
Thanked 51 Times in 38 Posts
Default

If the fence is placed 50 feet or less to the watermark it requires a permit


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
WinnisquamZ is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to WinnisquamZ For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-10-2019)
Old 04-10-2019, 12:15 PM   #146
Poor Richard
Senior Member
 
Poor Richard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: The humbling river
Posts: 139
Thanks: 7
Thanked 26 Times in 18 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ View Post
If the fence is placed 50 feet or less to the watermark it requires a permit


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app
Judging by how the permitting process has gone, that fence will end up as a 3 car garage for the new boathouse
Poor Richard is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Poor Richard For This Useful Post:
gillygirl (04-10-2019), kawishiwi (04-10-2019), Lakegirl24 (04-11-2019), LakesLady (04-11-2019)
Old 04-12-2019, 08:56 AM   #147
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Poor Richard,

Lol.... You speak the truth, especially in this case.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2019, 11:44 AM   #148
Lakes Region Guy
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 8
Thanks: 1
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
iw8surf,

That was the day we took our docks out last Fall... lol. Hopefully they will be back in soon ( if ice ever goes out). I didn’t know there was a code on fencing. Enlighten me...are there rules? I don’t go on their property.
There are codes on fences. One is that if a fence is placed on a property line and is 6 ft or taller is can be classified as a grudge fence and can be ordered to be removed. I suggest you contact the building inspector about this fence.
Lakes Region Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2019, 01:11 PM   #149
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakes Region Guy View Post
There are codes on fences. One is that if a fence is placed on a property line and is 6 ft or taller is can be classified as a grudge fence and can be ordered to be removed. I suggest you contact the building inspector about this fence.
Fences are an interesting topic. And there are certainly many rules regarding their placement, upkeep etc. I think my first suggestion to anyone is that they make sure they understand where the boundary line is. And that the fence doesn't cross it. Because after a while, a fence in place, can become the property line.
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2019, 01:15 PM   #150
Descant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 1,790
Thanks: 534
Thanked 542 Times in 348 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakes Region Guy View Post
There are codes on fences. One is that if a fence is placed on a property line and is 6 ft or taller is can be classified as a grudge fence and can be ordered to be removed. I suggest you contact the building inspector about this fence.
Fence regulations are local zoning and are different in each town. Some towns do not address fences. It will be interesting to hear what you learn, although we're drifting off course here.
Descant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2019, 01:26 PM   #151
welch-time
Senior Member
 
welch-time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Welch Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 2
Thanked 46 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Lakegirl, I'm looking at the picture with the fence leaning on a piece of steel rebar.
Is that pin the lot line marker? Just curious.
welch-time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2019, 01:48 PM   #152
TheTimeTraveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 199
Thanks: 32
Thanked 29 Times in 21 Posts
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakes Region Guy View Post
There are codes on fences. One is that if a fence is placed on a property line and is 6 ft or taller is can be classified as a grudge fence and can be ordered to be removed. I suggest you contact the building inspector about this fence.
Maybe she enjoys having a high fence next to this particular neighbor......
TheTimeTraveler is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TheTimeTraveler For This Useful Post:
LIforrelaxin (04-12-2019)
Old 04-12-2019, 02:47 PM   #153
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 329
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default Silly

This whole discussion is getting silly. Now we are discussing fences. We all should wait until the NHSC renders their opinion on this. Ice out cannot come soon enough IMO.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2019, 03:23 PM   #154
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DEJ View Post
This whole discussion is getting silly. Now we are discussing fences. We all should wait until the NHSC renders their opinion on this. Ice out cannot come soon enough IMO.
Not sure how discussing further details of what is happening becomes silly. I actually find it interesting given the fact that there do not seem to be windows on that side of the new structure. The building itself acts as a buffer, why would one then need a fence?

I think the fence itself speaks volumes. Of course some of that maybe because I know more about what is going on because I am a resident on that road.

You are right that the NHSC will render an opinion on this. And that will be the final word. But it shouldn't mean we cant discuss and debate the issue.Given the fact that the Corrs didn't seem to be entirely truth and up front about their plans and intentions, one would tend to believe a fence went up, because they don't want to be seen doing anything else that might be interpreted-able. Such as have they been holding firm to the cease and desist order, or have they continued with minor work?

In short is that Fence really a silly little thing or could there be more too it. I think someone is maybe a little to over critical about this thread...
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-13-2019, 11:25 PM   #155
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Welch Time,

Yes, i believe it is..... it’s been there all my life.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-14-2019, 06:49 AM   #156
thinkxingu
Senior Member
 
thinkxingu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,473
Thanks: 662
Thanked 676 Times in 397 Posts
Default

Fundamentally, to me at least, is that this structure is nowhere near the original, which was what the permits said: "the original wetlands notification included the statement, “Replace an existing shoreland structure which was collapsed by snow load with a new structure in exact location and height.”

This appears to be a case of someone who keeps talking until he hears what he wants. The article is also very one-sided and makes it appear that the only issue was setting it back 10'.

It would appear to me--after reading the article, looking at the photos, and hearing people's comments--that the owners tried to get a "house" in place of a "boathouse."

I hope they have to dismantle it.



Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk
thinkxingu is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to thinkxingu For This Useful Post:
CaptT820 (08-15-2019), Lakegirl24 (04-14-2019), LakesLady (04-14-2019)
Old 04-14-2019, 08:44 AM   #157
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,148
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

The more I read the documentation submitted to the court the more likely I think the Wetlands decision will be upheld and the building will be allowed to stand as is. It's an unfortunate outcome for the neighbors but I think DES dropped the ball here not putting enough scrutiny on the amended PBN. The language on it is vague and because the building was being pushed back 10 feet which changed dramatically the base (starting elevation) where the original house was build into the landscape and embankment, the new one just plain sits on top of it. The fact they approved it and along with that approval was knowledge of what the ZBA approved of, including the plans submitted seems to infer they reviewed those plans and were OK with them. Whether or not that actually happened may be different story. The applicant can't be held to a standard that is not conveyed in the documentation clearly. See I don't think that amended PBN should have gotten approved, I think DES is kind of caught here back peddling on this trying to apply the standard they approved in the original PBN which technically can no longer apply.

Due to the pitch of the roof he may be a little higher than the original building but a couple or three foot difference is likely to get a pass (not arguing the merits of that) than if he was clearly adding a full second story etc... In other words - did he take some liberties on this, maybe, but to the point where the state orders this thing be taken down? I don't think so, because there is culpability on the part of DES and the town in regards to being clear what he could do which in DES's argument to the court makes it far clearer their position than the re-issued amended permit ever did. I could be wrong in how I read this, but that's how I see it.


End of the day nobody wins. He's drawn so much attention to himself now and this project while I think it's likely he will win this battle he's also painted himself into a corner to where he now has constructed a very expensive and fancy shed. After all every single permit labels that as a "dry boat house" not living space. Any further improvements he attempts to do should be shot down. With an emphasis on should.

Lakegirl24 - in order for this guy to live in said building he'd need a certificate of occupancy issued by the town which puts a whole lot of requirements on the building itself (mind you he is NOT permitted for) before he can "stay" in it. If he is doing this without one the town can and should ensure this is enforced. Technically just because somebody builds something doesn't mean they can just live in it. If there ever was a good example of why this law exists, this would be it and I'd make damn sure it was enforced. After all if you see him living in it go ask the town to see his COO.

He also CANNOT bring pressurized water into that building with out having it tied to a septic system. He can't just tie this into his existing septic system without a permit for starters and the system has to be sized for the additional loading which is likely not.
MAXUM is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-14-2019)
Old 04-14-2019, 02:05 PM   #158
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Thinkxingu,

I really hope you’re right. What was proposed is absolutely NOT what is there. A structure that was supposed to be a 17 ft shed for a boat “replacing IN KIND” is DEFINITELY not what happened. That’s why he was SO protective over showing the plans. When I finally did see the plan it was looking more like a house but only about 16-17 ft high.....not 28-29 ft. It’s just UGLY. Brings down property values and takes away views that have been accessible for the last 60 yrs. He has all the pipes in for septic etc in order to make it a second home on one property. I’m STILL just shaking my head. He believes he is truly untouchable. He basically laughs at the whole neighborhood, town and now the State. If they let this fly it will set a new precedent for what is allowed to be built.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lakegirl24 For This Useful Post:
LakesLady (04-14-2019)
Old 04-14-2019, 06:41 PM   #159
Woody38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 376
Thanks: 37
Thanked 55 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Lakegirl

Such a shame neighbors can be this way. Have also been some of this route with neighbors in Massachusetts. First, when fence fell down and we replaced with a stockade 6" high. However on the rear line a post and beam (i think that is what it was called) which replaced what was there. We surveyed the lot beforehand. When the rear line fence was being replaced the woman came yelling into our yard, was told the lot was surveyed. She wanted to see the survey. Ha, I told her if she wanted a survey do your own.
Fast forward.
Planning a Carriage house to complement the 108 y/o residence, everyoneon the 2 streets behind us came to the hearing. One lawyer gave each one thing to say. The one I loved was the woman behind us saying I was raping the land by taking down the trees. Now, we love trees, however, these trees were infested with ants , coming down anyway.
Construction was completed and we had an $80 thousand 2 story 3 car carriage house.
Now I should mention we love a good fight, esp. when we are right. But, will give on even when we know we are wrong. Extremely seldon.

I apologize for the length of this. Hope the issue is settled in the manner it should with the structure being removed.
Woody38 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Woody38 For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-14-2019)
Old 04-14-2019, 08:44 PM   #160
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 931
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Question Are Lawyers Involved?

I don't doubt that MAXUM's assessment is correct.

The NHSC ruled against keeping the Wolfeboro Airpark an operating airport. This was not in keeping with the NH Legislature's desire to keep small NH airports in operation. I have mixed feelings about this, as the floatplane operation could never have succeeded against the huge wakes we're seeing on Winter Harbor. (Or even the crayfish succeeding against those same wakes—for that matter).

The one Winter Harbor private floatplane ramp was taken out a handful of years ago and the property sold off.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
Thinkxingu, I really hope you’re right. What was proposed is absolutely NOT what is there. A structure that was supposed to be a 17 ft shed for a boat “replacing IN KIND” is DEFINITELY not what happened. That’s why he was SO protective over showing the plans. When I finally did see the plan it was looking more like a house but only about 16-17 ft high.....not 28-29 ft. It’s just UGLY. Brings down property values and takes away views that have been accessible for the last 60 yrs. He has all the pipes in for septic etc in order to make it a second home on one property. I’m STILL just shaking my head. He believes he is truly untouchable. He basically laughs at the whole neighborhood, town and now the State. If they let this fly it will set a new precedent for what is allowed to be built.
I have a similar situation: in order to share the septics with their neighbor, these particular neighbors kept the number of bedrooms down to two. Now that they have their CoO, they've converted the two-car garage to a bedroom.

The rare interaction with the neighbor they share the septics with has been totally one-sided; understandably, those neighbors are moving away.

I don't say "boo" to them, and have never exchanged a single word.

Can you guess why?
__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...

...and you won't stink...
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 01:25 PM   #161
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default Update

Hi All,

I’ve been looking to find out when the Supreme Court case is and found that it won’t specifically say Corr’s....It will have DES as part of the title. This is what I need to look for: Appeal of NH Department of Environmental Services (DES)
Docket # 2018-0650

I’m really hoping DES prevails. The public can also attend ....but get this....THE SUPREME COURT CAN THEN TAKE 6-12 MONTHS TO MAKE A DECISION..... REALLY?????
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2019, 01:58 PM   #162
Woodsy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Weirs Beach
Posts: 1,617
Thanks: 52
Thanked 712 Times in 292 Posts
Default

Lakegirl....

I know it sucks as you want a decision ASAP, but the wheels of justice turn slowly. Given the weight & legal precedence Supreme Court decisions carry, and the research that needs to be done... 6-12 months is reasonable. If you are lucky you might get a decision in the fall.

Woodsy
__________________
The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.
Woodsy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Woodsy For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-16-2019)
Old 04-16-2019, 05:24 PM   #163
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegirl24 View Post
Hi All,

I’ve been looking to find out when the Supreme Court case is and found that it won’t specifically say Corr’s....It will have DES as part of the title. This is what I need to look for: Appeal of NH Department of Environmental Services (DES)
Docket # 2018-0650

I’m really hoping DES prevails. The public can also attend ....but get this....THE SUPREME COURT CAN THEN TAKE 6-12 MONTHS TO MAKE A DECISION..... REALLY?????
Unfortuntely, this is the way these things go... Regardless of the outcome, the supreme court is here both sides is only step one. Then they will go off and do their do diligence. I agree with Woodsy, 6-12 months is reasonable... However how long will it take to get the case in front of the supreme court. Well that is a variable as well.... it could well be still 6 months for that to happen if not longer.... All said and done, I don't think there will really be definitive answers to what is going on until next year....

As a neighbor on the road, I too want to see this issue resolved...
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-17-2019), LakesLady (04-16-2019)
Old 04-17-2019, 12:46 PM   #164
bigpatsfan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 84
Thanks: 21
Thanked 15 Times in 9 Posts
Default

Agree that six to twelve months is a long time but as others have mentioned the Court needs to review past rulings and use those rulings along with the Law to render a decision.

This decision is not only for this case but will be used in other cases for many, many years to come.

Good luck
bigpatsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to bigpatsfan For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-17-2019)
Old 04-17-2019, 07:32 PM   #165
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

Bigpatsfan,

Very true... I really hope they realize the precedence they will be setting on the lake for years to come. GREAT POINT! ���� From what was essentially to be a storage shed for a boat to NOW a house that is nonconforming and no where near with in the setbacks. —By the way my brother reminded me that this is the 2nd non conforming structure on that lot. There’s also a shed that the previous owner was up front with my Dad showed him the plans and stuck to his word. It didn’t infringed on anyone’s view so my Dad was ok with it. This guy thinks the rules don’t apply to him from building this structure to the 150ft law on the water. He takes off 10 ft off his dock. SMH

Last edited by Lakegirl24; 04-17-2019 at 09:26 PM.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2019, 07:47 PM   #166
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,512
Thanks: 230
Thanked 850 Times in 353 Posts
Default

If the shed was built after the period where it would be grandfathered, or was built without a permit , or in any way constitutes a zoning violation, I know what I would do..................

And, if there was a consistent time of day he takes off from his dock, or it is a regular occurrence and the Marine Patrol received a complaint, they would have an officer stop by to speak with the offender. Pictures emailed to the Marine Patrol would be even better.

Two can play this game!
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2019, 12:49 PM   #167
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,454
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 196
Thanked 501 Times in 374 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ View Post
If the fence is placed 50 feet or less to the watermark it requires a permit
Have been looking around the Town of Meredith website for info related to this "If the fence is placed 50 feet or less to the watermark it requires a permit" and have found nothing specific except that all fences require a permit.

Can anyone give me more information or a link on this for Meredith?

Last night, my neighbor tells me with strong and serious emphasis, that he's gonna put up a fence between us that's twelve feet high!
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2019, 01:17 PM   #168
gokart-mozart
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 161
Thanks: 2
Thanked 40 Times in 24 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Sold View Post
Both a Walgreen and Marriot residents tried to put residential living areas above their boathouse's in Wolfeboro. Both were told to remove - cease and desist all such use of the boathouse. So if the space above the boat area is for someone to stay in they will loose in court.
The way I heard it, it was Tuftonboro, they paid the fine, and they are enjoying their facilities right now.
gokart-mozart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2019, 01:43 PM   #169
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,670
Thanks: 463
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default

Marriott's is in Tuftonboro and they made the tiny kitchen bigger and had to remove it. There were already living quarters in it before that. I didn't know one of the Walgreen's had to remove living quarter's from a boathouse. The one in Wolfeboro doesn't live there any more. The wife of the other is still in Alton.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to tis For This Useful Post:
WinnisquamZ (04-18-2019)
Old 04-18-2019, 02:04 PM   #170
Biggd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Waltham Ma./Meredith NH
Posts: 1,879
Thanks: 539
Thanked 364 Times in 252 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Have been looking around the Town of Meredith website for info related to this "If the fence is placed 50 feet or less to the watermark it requires a permit" and have found nothing specific except that all fences require a permit.

Can anyone give me more information or a link on this for Meredith?

Last night, my neighbor tells me with strong and serious emphasis, that he's gonna put up a fence between us that's twelve feet high!
I guess your neighbor doesn't like you. Have you been sun bathing in your birthday suit again?
Biggd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2019, 02:37 PM   #171
FlyingScot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 546
Thanks: 291
Thanked 150 Times in 95 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
If the shed was built after the period where it would be grandfathered, or was built without a permit , or in any way constitutes a zoning violation, I know what I would do..................

And, if there was a consistent time of day he takes off from his dock, or it is a regular occurrence and the Marine Patrol received a complaint, they would have an officer stop by to speak with the offender. Pictures emailed to the Marine Patrol would be even better.

Two can play this game!
I'm with Tilton--once he decided to abuse you with the "boathouse", the gentlemens agreement on the shed was off
FlyingScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2019, 08:44 PM   #172
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

FlyingScott,

The shed happened MANY years ago with a prior owner who was upfront with my Dad. It was too close to the lot line but my Dad was ok with it because it didn’t obstruct anyone’s view and was not near the water. Plus it was tastefully done and only a shed exactly what was proposed.

Mr Corr got the OK from my dad to replace EXACTLY what was there from before a dry boathouse EXACTLY same dimensions. Mr. Corr is the one who took liberties and built a house instead. Like I said before a little respect goes a long way. We have been there for over 50 yrs. Never an argument with a neighbor until now. They have now had issues with AT LEAST 3 neighbors I’m aware of at this point in the little time they have been there.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2019, 08:48 PM   #173
Lakegirl24
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 26
Thanks: 29
Thanked 13 Times in 5 Posts
Default

FatLazyLess,

This is taking place in Moultonboro....Not Meredith. Call the Meredith zoning board. They should know.
Lakegirl24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 07:38 AM   #174
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,512
Thanks: 230
Thanked 850 Times in 353 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gokart-mozart View Post
The way I heard it, it was Tuftonboro, they paid the fine, and they are enjoying their facilities right now.
The state is very adamant about the waterfront regulations and any construction.

Several years ago I applied to the town and the state to do some work on my property. I sent pictures and diagrams in with the application to better explain my proposal.

Within 10 days I got a letter from DES saying "It appears that there are living quarters above the boathouse." It asked for proof that the construction was done legally and with permits, before the regulations prohibiting building the structure were in place. The proposed construction had nothing to do with the boathouse.

I went to the town building inspector and we looked through the file for the property. He found a hand drawn sketch of the property from the 1950's that accompanied a permit application for a fence. It labeled the boathouse "boathouse with cottage above". I asked the Building Inspector to call DES because I knew they would never believe me if I showed them that. He did, and the issue was resolved.

These days, I don't think people who are inclined to flaunt the regulations can get away with much.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 08:10 AM   #175
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,670
Thanks: 463
Thanked 825 Times in 574 Posts
Default

You are right Tilton. The Marriotts did NOT "get away with it". They had to remove the new construction.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 10:24 AM   #176
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
You are right Tilton. The Marriotts did NOT "get away with it". They had to remove the new construction.
With as much as I have found out about this case. I hope that is what happens here. I don't mind people developing and improving property as long as they do it properly and on the level.

When paperwork is filed indicating one set of intentions, and the outcome is not what was originally intended, people need to be held accountable.

Living in the area, I know that there was going to re-construction of the origianl boat shed. I also believed that there would be some modification... But Arriving in the spring, and seeing what is essentially a full fledged Tiny Home was surprising to say the least. While none of the aplications indicating that living space was going to added, I don't know how this would end up being allowed to stand.....

We will see....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (04-21-2019)
Old 05-19-2019, 01:53 PM   #177
TheTimeTraveler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 199
Thanks: 32
Thanked 29 Times in 21 Posts
Default

So this has been a very quiet thread for a month.....

Does anyone have any updates on the status of this?
TheTimeTraveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2019, 03:40 PM   #178
DEJ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 329
Thanks: 242
Thanked 179 Times in 80 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimeTraveler View Post
So this has been a very quiet thread for a month.....

Does anyone have any updates on the status of this?
Post #162 has your answer.
DEJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2019, 10:19 AM   #179
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimeTraveler View Post
So this has been a very quiet thread for a month.....

Does anyone have any updates on the status of this?
I would not anticipate hearing anything new until the fall, and likely almost the end of the year, before there is a decision. I have to believe that in the mater of importance, this issue is low on the supreme courts list. The have agreed to hear the case, they don't apparently have to indicate or say when they will do so...
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 12:25 PM   #180
watrskir
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 37
Thanks: 33
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Has there been any updates on this case that anyone knows of?
watrskir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2019, 04:47 PM   #181
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,512
Thanks: 230
Thanked 850 Times in 353 Posts
Default

The NH Attorney General's office is prosecuting it and it is just a matter of when the court date comes up. Until then it will be pretty quiet.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TiltonBB For This Useful Post:
watrskir (08-16-2019)
Old 08-16-2019, 02:58 PM   #182
watrskir
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 37
Thanks: 33
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

I drove by it a few times....It looks so out of place. I can’t imagine they allowed that to happen after reading through this whole forum. It CLEARLY is NOT a boathouse but a house. I really hope that thing comes down. Obviously they were trying to put something over on the town and state. Why would you move a “ DRY BOATHOUSE “ away from the water? ....and what happened to replacing it “IN KIND”? This certainly isn’t “IN KIND”. I knew what was there before and this doesn’t even resemble it. In fact I don’t think a boat would even fit in the basement of this “BOATHOUSE “. Lol
watrskir is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to watrskir For This Useful Post:
stingray (09-30-2019)
Old 09-24-2019, 11:58 AM   #183
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default

Wondering if anything has been heard about this issue? I have noted it looked like they might have started working on the "Boat House" again....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to LIforrelaxin For This Useful Post:
Lakegirl24 (10-17-2019)
Old 09-26-2019, 03:12 PM   #184
TheProfessor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 493
Thanks: 16
Thanked 124 Times in 77 Posts
Default

Post 157

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM View Post
The more I read the documentation submitted to the court the more likely I think the Wetlands decision will be upheld and the building will be allowed to stand as is.
Not following this as closely as others. But this appears to be of a very technical issue or interpretation of law.

Emotions and/or common sense may have nothing to do with ultimate decision.
TheProfessor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:30 PM.


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

This page was generated in 0.25679 seconds