Swim Raft Permits

[Boat Doc]

Just found out that there was a public hearing this AM regarding the new swim raft permit rules so I missed it but the written comment period is open until the 14th...

One more permit we'll all have to get although I am told it is free which makes me wonder how the state can afford to manage a permit program? Link to the proposed rules: www.nhshorefront.org/pdfs/raftrules6210.pdf

You can send comments to the e-mail address for rules at the Dept. of Safety: rules@safety.state.nh.us

50 ft from shore? What's the point of having a raft if it is only 50 ft out?

[LakeSnake]

9876543210

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Boat Doc

Just found out that there was a public hearing this AM regarding the new swim raft permit rules so I missed it but the written comment period is open until the 14th...

One more permit we'll all have to get although I am told it is free which makes me wonder how the state can afford to manage a permit program? Link to the proposed rules: www.nhshorefront.org/pdfs/raftrules6210.pdf

You can send comments to the e-mail address for rules at the Dept. of Safety: rules@safety.state.nh.us

50 ft from shore? What's the point of having a raft if it is only 50 ft out?

It may be free this year, but you can guarantee that if the state has a chance to charge someone for this bogus permit they will!!

[eyenotall777]

It states 50ft from shore or 8ft of water, whichever comes first.

You need to go out at least 100' to get into 6ft of water in front of our shoreline....ugh!

This is getting absurd

[Pineedles]

WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP! Sorry for being so subtle. Now I'll let the Dept. of Safety how I really feel about hearings being held when property owners are not there. At 50' I'll be nose divng into the bottom when I dive off of it.

^&&(*&^&_*(*_)**())^&##_+*&!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by eyenotall777

It states 50ft from shore or 8ft of water, whichever comes first.

You need to go out at least 100' to get into 6ft of water in front of our shoreline....ugh!

This is getting absurd

That has to be a typo!... 50' from shore and there will be a lot of people getting hurt jumping from their rafts!! It must mean 150'...

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

That has to be a typo!... 50' from shore and there will be a lot of people getting hurt jumping from their rafts!! It must mean 150'...

when was the last time one of these nanny laws made sense? it won't be long until they try to pass the swim cap and flag law again...

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by eyenotall777

It states 50ft from shore or 8ft of water, whichever comes first.

You need to go out at least 100' to get into 6ft of water in front of our shoreline....ugh!

This is getting absurd

I think I have 8' of water about 20 from shore. Does that mean I have anchor my raft mid way down my dock?

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Gatto Nero

I think I have 8' of water about 20 from shore. Does that mean I have anchor my raft mid way down my dock?

By the letter of the law that's exactly what it means! It just simply does not make any sense whatsoever...

[jrc]

...
(l) After receipt of a request for a waiver in conformance with (k) above, the
director shall conduct a visual inspection of the proposed swim raft site. A waiver shall
be granted if the director determines that the proposed swim raft placement does not
constitute a hazard or obstruction to navigation. The conditions of the waiver shall appear
on the swim raft permit when issued.
(m) A swim raft permit shall expire on December 31 of each year.

Don't worry the director will come to your house and make sure everything is OK. And BTW you can do it again next year.

Remember with bureaucrats, it's all about the process.

[jmen24]

HELP ME!! HELP ME!! Someone please save me from myself!!!

Unreal. Yea they will come out and review your site for a special exeption, you might want to get on that list early, because I think that is going to be a long list.

[tummyman]

Note the need for a tax map and lot number...... are they planning on passing this data on to the towns so they can add these items to our property taxes ? Don't know why they don't want a copy of the tax map as well. On Wetlands permits, you need to send a US Geological Survey Topographical map as well....why not here to make this even more egregious. Maybe we should also have to have a life saving ring on the raft ???? And when do you measure depth...do you have to correct for full lake level 504.32 or do you loose a foot of water in late season draw down, making the raft only in 7 feet of water?? Next will be taxes and permits for docks... just a matter of time. What difference does it make to measure to neighbors two lots or more down...if the frontage is less than 200 feet of abutters. And is it just shorefront abutters or all abutters ? What other stupid stuff could we get from the Marine Patrol....they are sure stuck on stupid.

[RailroadJoe]

Of course it's free. All they want is the information in order for them to send a permit (for X amount of dollars) next year. Works the same as the new federal salt water free permit this year and $35.00 next year. Once they got your name and place you are in for it.
Another one for the state. More to come.

[NoBozo]

It's pretty Scary when Government wraps their arms around every facet of your life. This is not just local. Who's running things now..? I stated in another post earlier.."Incrementalism Works Every Time It's Tried." Next year there WILL be a Fee for .....This Service...for your raft.

Good News: There IS a way out. Have CASH .. in your pocket when the Director..or his Representative comes by for their "Inspection". NB

PS: This is NOT really funny...........but it's where we're going....

[Sunbeam lodge]

[QUOTE=Boat Doc;129128]Just found out that there was a public hearing this AM regarding the new swim raft permit rules so I missed it but the written comment period is open until the 14th...

One more permit we'll all have to get although I am told it is free which makes me wonder how the state can afford to manage a permit program? Link to the proposed rules: [URL="http://www.nhshorefront.org


Won't these guys ever quit? Can't they find something else to do?

[trfour]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

It's pretty Scary when Government wraps their arms around every facet of your life. This is not just local. Who's running things now..? I stated in another post earlier.."Incrementalism Works Every Time It's Tried." Next year there WILL be a Fee for .....This Service...for your raft.

Good News: There IS a way out. Have CASH .. in your pocket when the Director..or his Representative comes by for their "Inspection". NB

PS: This is NOT really funny...........but it's where we're going....

"This is NOT really funny...........but it's where we're going...."

A turn around though, is a commi'n when the palm trees get greased and extinct...
I always thought that the learning process was supposed to start at birth!

Not so much any more, MLB has left and right handed gloves. My hope is that there will be someone left in the Grandstands that just catches the line drives bare handed... And by the way, I did that once at Fenway Park during a RedSox game, Oh and yes it smarted but didn't add that much to my particular smarts. I trusted those that were supposedly in the know!

Now, I don't know about Y'all, but it seems that the older and wizer I get, that maybe I should pass some of it on to whom ever will listen.
Disclaimer;... trfour is a work in progress, ( No Comment ).

June 2010 ??
"Houston, We Are All In Deep DO DO!" DO Do Do Do Do Do Do Do}



Terry
______________________________

[kjbathe]

Lots of grousing here, but have folks called their State Reps? Or thought about replacing them next time around?

[phoenix]

our new motto "will be live free or die( permit required first)"

[Seaplane Pilot]

The snowball is rapidly rolling down the slippery slope. As with the other controversial legislation (which will remain unnamed), it's time to vote these clowns out of office - every one of them. As I've said before, I will do everything I can to support any candidate that is running against any Rep or Senator that voted for the "controversial legislation" (which will remain unnamed). This is totally out of control. When will people wake up?

[lawn psycho]

This is comical. Many (of course not all) shorefront owners want to regulate what boaters can and can't do (rafting, anchoring, etc) but then get miffed when they are regulated.

If you place a dock or a structure in the water, I think it's prudent to have a permit. What stops "homeowner bonehead" from putting a raft anywhere he/she wants?

You're placing an object on state property so I think a permit stating where it's planned to be is not unreasonable.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

This is comical. Many (of course not all) shorefront owners want to regulate what boaters can and can't do (rafting, anchoring, etc) but then get miffed when they are regulated. If you place a dock or a structure in the water, I think it's prudent to have a permit. What stops "homeowner bonehead" from putting a raft anywhere he/she wants? You're placing an object on state property so I think a permit stating where it's planned to be is not unreasonable.

Here—you've hit the nail right on the thumb—although I think everyone receiving a swim raft permit will have a "reasonable" excuse for where it is placed.

I don't have any particular objection to where swim rafts are placed presently—whatever "works" for the property owner.

However, in recent years, oversized swim rafts have sprouted all around our lake area. Some are out pretty far, which has raised complaints—by boaters who are miffed at having to observe the Unsafe Passage rule.

At least one lake solved this problem by a lake-wide NWZ, out to 600-feet!

Problem sol-ved.

But suppose you don't use it as a swim raft?

One I saw last season (near Cow Island) appeared to be an inflatable golf green.

(Complete with palm trees )

[NoBozo]

I can see why someone would not want one of those BIG Yellow, Red, and Orange plastic/rubber "Fun House" looking circus rafts anywhere in sight off their property. Talk about ruining the view..

From last june on mooring balls. Funny how things just come around again. NB

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ooring+permits

[4 for Boating]

Would it not be simpler, less expensive and less complicated to have the Marine Patrol keep an eye out for swim platforms that may be an obstruction or safety concern? Are the really going to send someone out to each site that does not comply with the standards (which are not well thought out). And this is going to happen each and every year? How bad is the issue? Is this needed or are we lowing things out of proportion?

Seems to me that a small percentage of rafts are a problem. Maybe the enforcement individuals out on the water are best to determine which are and are not a TRUE hazard. (Marine Patrol) Maybe they could leave a tag on the raft stating they the owner needs to contact the state about the placement.

As far as the state motto, the whole “Live free or Die” thing is pretty much dead don’t you think? Perhaps just adopting “The Granite State” would be more accurate and not so silly given the true nature of the way things are.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by 4 for Boating

Would it not be simpler, less expensive and less complicated to have the Marine Patrol keep an eye out for swim platforms that may be an obstruction or safety concern? Are the really going to send someone out to each site that does not comply with the standards (which are not well thought out). And this is going to happen each and every year? How bad is the issue? Is this needed or are we lowing things out of proportion?

Seems to me that a small percentage of rafts are a problem. Maybe the enforcement individuals out on the water are best to determine which are and are not a TRUE hazard. (Marine Patrol) Maybe they could leave a tag on the raft stating they the owner needs to contact the state about the placement.

As far as the state motto, the whole “Live free or Die” thing is pretty much dead don’t you think? Perhaps just adopting “The Granite State” would be more accurate and not so silly given the true nature of the way things are.

They way things are? This nation was built upon the foundation of laws. Ever read a little document known as the Constitution?

[4 for Boating]

Just a simple joke/jab about how the “Laws” continue to become more invasive.

AND Yes, I have read the Constitution. Am I not exercising my right to free speech?

[Bear Islander]

The 50' from shore or 8' of water whichever comes first is idiotic. The thing to do is click the link below and "comment" on it.


rules@safety.state.nh.us

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The 50' from shore or 8' of water whichever comes first is idiotic. The thing to do is click the link below and "comment" on it.


rules@safety.state.nh.us

Is it? So you decide to put a raft 100 ft from shore and then boaters are required to be less than headway speed now 250 ft from shore.

Why should you even be allowed to have a raft since the lake is not your property?

[RailroadJoe]

Yup, read the constitution. Printed out the Spanish version, but can't read Spanish

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by RailroadJoe

Yup, read the constitution. Printed out the Spanish version, but can't read Spanish

The constitution doesn't guarantee someone is bright enough to print the correct file

[kunamola]

Originally Posted by kjbathe

Lots of grousing here, but have folks called their State Reps? Or thought about replacing them next time around?

Ahh, if only everyone could vote where they own property. Somehow, I doubt that my State Rep. would be the least bit interested in some ridiculous NH law.

[Lake Fan]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Why should you even be allowed to have a raft since the lake is not your property?

Riparian owners have certain rights granted them that non-waterfront owners do not have. Generally:

Under the riparian principle, all landowners whose property is adjoining to a body of water have the right to make reasonable use of it. These rights cannot be sold or transferred other than with the adjoining land, and water cannot be transferred out of the watershed.

Riparian rights include such things as the right to access for swimming, boating and fishing; the right to wharf out to a point of navigability; the right to erect structures such as docks, piers, and boat lifts; the right to use the water for domestic purposes; the right to accretions caused by water level fluctuations.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

They way things are? This nation was built upon the foundation of laws. Ever read a little document known as the Constitution?

Post Deleted by Author as inappropriate. NB

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

.... it won't be long until they try to pass the swim cap and flag law again...

In addition to the swim cap, the rules will be updated to require seat belts on the raft and users will be required to wear a PFD

... now about the swim raft operator's permit ....

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Is it? So you decide to put a raft 100 ft from shore and then boaters are required to be less than headway speed now 250 ft from shore.

Why should you even be allowed to have a raft since the lake is not your property?

You are wrong about the lake not being my property. Owners of waterfront property are the "literal owners" of the lake in front of their property. That is why we have a RIGHT to put in docks, moorings, water intakes, swim rafts etc.

We have been through this before on the forum, and I know that many people don't understand it or even believe it. But it is the law, and always has been.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You are wrong about the lake not being my property. Owners of waterfront property are the "literal owners" of the lake in front of their property. That is why we have a RIGHT to put in docks, moorings, water intakes, swim rafts etc.

We have been through this before on the forum, and I know that many people don't understand it or even believe it. But it is the law, and always has been.

And you have the DUTY to fill out a permit application for said appertuances too.....

And your "rights" are not without bounds. If you own on Bear Is it does not give you the right to place a raft in Alton Bay. If your property is near a high boat traffic area then MP has the right to restrict where you can or can not place an item such as a dock or raft.

And for the record, you do not "own" the lake. Just like if you have an easement on or across someone's property, ownership and right of use are mutually exclusive.

[4 for Boating]

Still think the whole issue of rafts placed in locations that are a real hazard or safety concern could be handled by the Marine Patrol with some resonable guidelines and not a permit process that will generate a lot of paperwork and overhead every year.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

The 50' from shore or 8' of water whichever comes first is idiotic. The thing to do is click the link below and "comment" on it.


rules@safety.state.nh.us

Thanks for that email address. Of course those that see the dumb things that shorefront owners do can be remedied too.

Don't think those little violations are noticed? Guess again. You'd be amazed at what I can shoot with my lenses

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Thanks for that email address. Of course those that see the dumb things that shorefront owners do can be remedied too.

Don't think those little violations are noticed? Guess again. You'd be amazed at what I can shoot with my lenses

What violations are you talking about? Are you making some kind of accusation? Let's not be shy, to what are you referring?

And I already have 5 camera lenses pointed at my property and available to the public.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

What violations are you talking about? Are you making some kind of accusation? Let's not be shy, to what are you referring?

And I already have 5 camera lenses pointed at my property and available to the public.

Against you, no and I don't know which house is specifically yours. I haven't even had the chance to circle Bear Is, yet.

This spring I've been photographing some houses out of interest in landscaping and architechure. Out of interest, I have done some research on waterfront requirements for swim lines, docks, beaches, landscaping, etc. I'm waiting on feedback from the State on slope requirements as during my photo quest I stumbled onto something by chance but then see a lot of it occuring.

If I had my way, nobody should be able to build on the lake. Every shore front home contributes to water quality issues and blight of the shoreline. It's a finite resource that is being raped.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

If I had my way, nobody should be able to build on the lake. Every shore front home contributes to water quality issues and blight of the shoreline. It's a finite resource that is being raped.

It is a good thing for many of us that you don't have your way, but you are right. Each shore front home is contributing to the very evident decline of water quality. Everyone with shore front property should minimize their impact as much as possible. Perhaps a topic for a new thread, but here are the basics. Upgrade your septic system if needed, so effluents do not leach into the lake. Don't use fertilizer. Remove dog poop near the lake. Keep as much shoreline vegetation as possible. Look at how water runs off your property during heavy rains, and slow its entry into the lake where possible. For the blight problem, plant trees between buildings and the lake and camouflage your house with a woodsy color. And in an attempt to touch the topic at hand, keep your mooring balls and floats more than 150' from common boat routes.

[KonaChick]

Originally Posted by 4 for Boating

Still think the whole issue of rafts placed in locations that are a real hazard or safety concern could be handled by the Marine Patrol with some resonable guidelines and not a permit process that will generate a lot of paperwork and overhead every year.

They already do handle it. A few years ago MP came to our house stating that a neighbor complained our swim raft was an obstruction when he was docking his boat. It turned out to be a problem with someone else in our cover and their next door neighbor, not us. The point here is that MP was called and MP did respond.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

It is a good thing for many of us that you don't have your way, but you are right. Each shore front home is contributing to the very evident decline of water quality. Everyone with shore front property should minimize their impact as much as possible. Perhaps a topic for a new thread, but here are the basics. Upgrade your septic system if needed, so effluents do not leach into the lake. Don't use fertilizer. Remove dog poop near the lake. Keep as much shoreline vegetation as possible. Look at how water runs off your property during heavy rains, and slow its entry into the lake where possible. For the blight problem, plant trees between buildings and the lake and camouflage your house with a woodsy color. And in an attempt to touch the topic at hand, keep your mooring balls and floats more than 150' from common boat routes.

I disagree. I am already doing all the things you listed including, no dogs, no fertilizer, a legal septic over 200' from shore, and my house is painted to match the landscape. I can't see how my shore front home is responsible for the decline in water quality.

Now if you want to talk about my power boat, you may have a point.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I disagree. I am already doing all the things you listed including, no dogs, no fertilizer, a legal septic over 200' from shore, and my house is painted to match the landscape. I can't see how my shore front home is responsible for the decline in water quality.

Now if you want to talk about my power boat, you may have a point.

Your house, driveway, shed, chicken-coop, etc, etc. are all impervious surfaces. So yes, your home impacts water quality.

[tis]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Against you, no and I don't know which house is specifically yours. I haven't even had the chance to circle Bear Is, yet.

This spring I've been photographing some houses out of interest in landscaping and architechure. Out of interest, I have done some research on waterfront requirements for swim lines, docks, beaches, landscaping, etc. I'm waiting on feedback from the State on slope requirements as during my photo quest I stumbled onto something by chance but then see a lot of it occuring.

If I had my way, nobody should be able to build on the lake. Every shore front home contributes to water quality issues and blight of the shoreline. It's a finite resource that is being raped.

Do you own a house on the lake? I often think I feel a conflict here on those who own property on the lake and those who only have their boat in the lake. (Not all people of course.)

But back on topic, I agree, the registration is not necessary in order for MP to keep swimming rafts in order. It is just another law we don't need and won't help one darn bit.

I have been spending the last few weeks reviewing government regulations and I am so sick of them, I can't tell you. IMHO they don't do a darn thing anyway when something really happens. Consider BP and the oil mess in the Gulf. I am sure they were regulated to death and look at all the good it did.

[jrc]

It's so tempting to have a little schadenfreude with some of the people who pushed that other law, but it's a bad idea. This law is stupid for the same reason the other one is, trying to use arbitrary numbers. We have a law that covers obstructions to navigation. Anyone who puts a swim raft where it obstructs naviagation, in the opinion of the Marine Patrol (or pick another arbiter) gets a warning and then a fine. No new law needed.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by jrc

It's so tempting to have a little schadenfreude with some of the people who pushed that other law, but it's a bad idea. This law is stupid for the same reason the other one is, trying to use arbitrary numbers. We have a law that covers obstructions to navigation. Anyone who puts a swim raft where it obstructs naviagation, in the opinion of the Marine Patrol (or pick another arbiter) gets a warning and then a fine. No new law needed.

Couldn't agree more! The rule also states that swim rafts be no more than 150' from shore. The ONLY reason this law is even coming about is because the State smells blood... The blood of money!!

Dan

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Your house, driveway, shed, chicken-coop, etc, etc. are all impervious surfaces. So yes, your home impacts water quality.

Sorry, no impervious surfaces. No driveways, no patios, no sidewalks, no sheds or chicken coops. The house is on concrete pilings and rain water passes right under the house.

It is possible to build and maintain a home with little or no impact on the environment. Landscaping and green lawns are not necessary or appropriate in the vicinity of a lake. Many waterfront homeowners understand this and act accordingly. Unfortunately some people don't have a clue or don't care.

[4 for Boating]

Well, let’s look on the bright side. (The cup half full)

They could discover a large deposit of oil underneath the lake and then convince everyone that it’s safe to drill. (Another pathetic attempt at humor.)

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, no impervious surfaces. No driveways, no patios, no sidewalks, no sheds or chicken coops. The house is on concrete pilings and rain water passes right under the house.

It is possible to build and maintain a home with little or no impact on the environment. Landscaping and green lawns are not necessary or appropriate in the vicinity of a lake. Many waterfront homeowners understand this and act accordingly. Unfortunately some people don't have a clue or don't care.

BI, unfortunately, based on my time spent on the lake your last sentence needs to be flipped- some waterfront homeowners understand, many don't have a clue or care.

Thank you for being one of those that cares.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Sorry, no impervious surfaces. No driveways, no patios, no sidewalks, no sheds or chicken coops. The house is on concrete pilings and rain water passes right under the house.

It is possible to build and maintain a home with little or no impact on the environment. Landscaping and green lawns are not necessary or appropriate in the vicinity of a lake. Many waterfront homeowners understand this and act accordingly. Unfortunately some people don't have a clue or don't care.

Unless the house allows water to pass completely through the structure from roof to dirt, than it is impervious surface. This includes decks, even if they have 1/8" or more spacing between the deck boards.

Just because water can run under the house, does not mean that it is not affecting the run-off of your lot. A house consentrates rain water into specific areas (drip lines) when it hits the roof and runs off. Unless you capture all the water from your roof and any decks, then dump it all into a leaching system, but I doubt that.

Having a house on piers does not count and make sure you do not have any gravel or crushed stone for anything on the property as those materials also do not count for a pervious surface.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jmen24

Unless the house allows water to pass completely through the structure from roof to dirt, than it is impervious surface. This includes decks, even if they have 1/8" or more spacing between the deck boards.

Just because water can run under the house, does not mean that it is not affecting the run-off of your lot. A house consentrates rain water into specific areas (drip lines) when it hits the roof and runs off. Unless you capture all the water from your roof and any decks, then dump it all into a leaching system, but I doubt that.

Having a house on piers does not count and make sure you do not have any gravel or crushed stone for anything on the property as those materials also do not count for a pervious surface.

Beat me too it. If you have outside AC units on pads on the ground, that also adds up as impervious surface.

And a lot of people don't realize that a gravel/crushed stone driveway is not pervious. There's a reason the pot holes don't drain......

[Lakegeezer]

The point is, Bear Islander is trying and can point to best practices in place. The claim of "no impact" is probably not correct - but that is an impractical goal anyway. If everyone tried to reduce their impact, as appropriate to their situation, we'd be better off. Many properties were not built with ecology in mind and we can't expect everyone to make their property the way it should be. Education is the first step. Compliance with the shoreline protection act is another step.

As for swim platform permits, I'm all for small fees for the state, to help them out financially. The state is hurting for money for a variety of reasons. However, as ishoot308 points out, there is already a law that should be sufficient.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

The point is, Bear Islander is trying and can point to best practices in place. The claim of "no impact" is probably not correct - but that is an impractical goal anyway. If everyone tried to reduce their impact, as appropriate to their situation, we'd be better off. Many properties were not built with ecology in mind and we can't expect everyone to make their property the way it should be. Education is the first step. Compliance with the shoreline protection act is another step.

You are correct, as long as you are trying, you are making a difference.

[LIforrelaxin]

So of course I see another storm brewing here. And I sit back and think to myself didn't this all come up a few years ago????

It was 3 or 4 years ago we went through this dam process with swim rafts and then it all disappeared. Well now it is back again. Now what concerns me here, is not that it has come up again. Or that it has come up again at all. Personally I look at this like a morning. I have always wondered why I had to get a morning permit but didn't have to worry about a a swim raft. It never made a sense.

The bigger question is why did this go away and now come up again. My guess is that there is someone high up in the world that has a neighbor that is ticking him off with a swim raft.... whether that it a big and ugly inflatable job, or just located poorly who knows. but the bottom line is this. Most of these laws come about because of complaints. The marine patrol, and the legislature gets tired of hearing them, and finally someone high enough up the food chain complains and bingo we get a new law.

So what is the bottom line. People especially neighbors need to talk to each other. For goodness sake, if your nieghbor puts a swim raft out that may be a hazard say something to him.... if it effects you say something to him. You don't have to be rude, or obnoxious, you just have to talk about it.

The reason, this country is turning into such a nanny state is because people can't and will not talk to each other anymore. People didn't have problems years ago because they talked. I have great nieghbors at the lake.... do we talk every weekend no.... do we all know each other YES!!!!.... are any of us afraid to approach each other about something??? NO!!!!.... why... because we all want to make our slice of heaven enjoyable.

I noticed a few years ago that some neighbors where doing somethings like fertilizing with fertilizers containing phosphorous.... no I didn't run over and yell and scream and tell them they were killing the lake.... but one afternoon while visiting and talking we got on the subject of kids getting rashes... which they immediately blamed on duck itch.... which I agreed with, and I also noted, not pointing any fingers that with all the new lawns in the area fertilizers may be causing some issues too.... The inquired as to what in fertilizers might not be good for the lake, I informed them, and they listened to what I had to say, and thanked me for the information.

I didn't point fingers, I didn't blame, I talked, I informed,..... people need to socialize... neighborhoods, need to become neighborhoods again.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Here—you've hit the nail right on the thumb—although I think everyone receiving a swim raft permit will have a "reasonable" excuse for where it is placed.

I don't have any particular objection to where swim rafts are placed presently—whatever "works" for the property owner.

However, in recent years, oversized swim rafts have sprouted all around our lake area. Some are out pretty far, which has raised complaints—by boaters who are miffed at having to observe the Unsafe Passage rule.

At least one lake solved this problem by a lake-wide NWZ, out to 600-feet!

Problem sol-ved.

But suppose you don't use it as a swim raft?

One I saw last season (near Cow Island) appeared to be an inflatable golf green.

(Complete with palm trees )

Is that picture from Winni? I see too things. One is the hideous raft but you can't ban ugly. Two, I see what looks like a putting green and a rough collar that go right to the waters edge. Where is this located as you can't maintain a putting green without a high input of fertilizer, mowing, and herbicides to keep the weeds out and grass uniform?

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

So what is the bottom line. People especially neighbors need to talk to each other. For goodness sake, if your neighbor puts a swim raft out that may be a hazard say something to him.... if it effects you say something to him. You don't have to be rude, or obnoxious, you just have to talk about it.

I could not agree more. It's the way things should be done IMO. However, I tried that with an issue I had with one of my neighbors and promptly received a call from her lawyer stating that all communication to her client should go through her.

Welcome to the neighborhood!

[RailroadJoe]

Everyone has a problem. Call in a lawyer. You can sue Google because they gave you bad walking directions. (in the news yesterday).
When are the courts going to wise up and throw these cases out and fine the lawyer.
Your right, talk to them but shoot the lawyer first. (not really , but). People are getting weird around here.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by jmen24

Unless the house allows water to pass completely through the structure from roof to dirt, than it is impervious surface. This includes decks, even if they have 1/8" or more spacing between the deck boards.

Just because water can run under the house, does not mean that it is not affecting the run-off of your lot. A house consentrates rain water into specific areas (drip lines) when it hits the roof and runs off. Unless you capture all the water from your roof and any decks, then dump it all into a leaching system, but I doubt that.

Having a house on piers does not count and make sure you do not have any gravel or crushed stone for anything on the property as those materials also do not count for a pervious surface.

A house on piers and the deck in question ARE NOT impervious surfaces. They are however "considered" to be impervious surfaces when you are calculating the allowed percentage for a given property. However the bureaucratic wording of building codes intended to limit development do not prevent water from being absorbed by a surface.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A house on piers and the deck in question ARE NOT impervious surfaces. They are however "considered" to be impervious surfaces when you are calculating the allowed percentage for a given property. However the bureaucratic wording of building codes intended to limit development do not prevent water from being absorbed by a surface.

BI, can you plant grass and vegatation under your house?

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

A house on piers and the deck in question ARE NOT impervious surfaces. They are however "considered" to be impervious surfaces when you are calculating the allowed percentage for a given property. However the bureaucratic wording of building codes intended to limit development do not prevent water from being absorbed by a surface.

We are not talking about the allowable percentage of impervious surface (you most likely meet that requirement). You stated that your house is not impervious because it is on piers and that is not true. It is about water being able to fall in a straight line from the sky to the ground and its ability to be absorbed by the surface of the ground. Like I said, unless you deal with all the water coming off the house and deck they are imperious surfaces and you are correct, go toward your allowable percentage of such a surface.

The house and deck ARE NOT "pervious" surfaces. The soil below is pervious, the soil under my full foundation is also pervious, but because my house is over the top of it, it is not allowed to react to water how it should and therefore I have perimeter drains to transfer the water to a location that will allow it to leach properly. The soil under your house will not handle any form of heavy surface run off. There is simply nothing to hold it in place.

I have no intension of further derailing this thread as it seams to be a hot botton issue and should be discussed. I was simply correcting your statement as it was written.

[Misty Blue]

First may I say that I once served aboard the USS Constitution (Old Ironsides). Cool gig!

But the document. Psycho, we are a naion of laws but the US Constitution is a set of laws directed not at the people but at the government. The people who wrote it were affraid of too much government control, they had just gotten rid of a King.

The document was written to insure that the government (federal) would not control our lives.

But they never tought about the NH legislature in todays age.

Laws are being passed by a legislative body in Concord that effect people on NH waters yet very, very few of these legislatures have any experiance on the subject. Put an environmental or safety spin on a law and without reguard to common sence it passes. My representative has a bill in that affects the bay that I live on yet she admits that she has never been there or seen it and I noted that she can't even spell it's name correctly.

It is too easy for evasive laws to slip through the halls in Concord. IMO.

Misty Blue.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Is that picture from Winni? I see too things. One is the hideous raft but you can't ban ugly. Two, I see what looks like a putting green and a rough collar that go right to the waters edge. Where is this located as you can't maintain a putting green without a high input of fertilizer, mowing, and herbicides to keep the weeds out and grass uniform?

My point was that this raft is not technically a swim raft, and may be exempt. (For now).

The photo is not from Winnipesaukee, but the raft in the photo is identical to one you could have viewed here last summer: Even then, I can't give the actual location without embarrassing Lake Winnipesaukee residents whose clear-cut compound is in my all-too-plain-view.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Misty Blue

First may I say that I once served aboard the USS Constitution (Old Ironsides). Cool gig!

But the document. Psycho, we are a naion of laws but the US Constitution is a set of laws directed not at the people but at the government. The people who wrote it were affraid of too much government control, they had just gotten rid of a King.

The document was written to insure that the government (federal) would not control our lives.

But they never tought about the NH legislature in todays age.

Laws are being passed by a legislative body in Concord that effect people on NH waters yet very, very few of these legislatures have any experiance on the subject. Put an environmental or safety spin on a law and without reguard to common sence it passes. My representative has a bill in that affects the bay that I live on yet she admits that she has never been there or seen it and I noted that she can't even spell it's name correctly.

It is too easy for evasive laws to slip through the halls in Concord. IMO.

Misty Blue.

misty, I will agree whole-heartedly that many (most?) legislators are not aware of what they are voting on a lot of bills. The same can be said for voters unfortunately.....

The constitution set the frame-work for us to establish laws as we see fit. If the people decide the laws are too burdensom, we can remove them from office and repeal those laws. That's the ability our 'new' nation gained.....

Let me just tell you that when it comes to environmental laws, I travel for work and get to see first hand the places that have little or no environmental standards. Smog, severely polluted water, and that's just the stuff you see. Nothing like going to a beach and seeing entire bags of garbage crashing into the shores. So while we can all argue about governmental intervention, I'll take the US regulations any day.

We can open an entirely different thread on "how laws get passed" and the slimy stuff that happens. I'm talking Concord and Disgusta.

The reality is that the swim raft permit is not some huge intrusion into your daily life. A raft gives you the ability to place an object on state property and stating where you are going to put it is not a huge burden. Can the procedure be streamlined, I don't know. However, allowing homeowners to put a raft where ever they please is a recipe for trouble as well. Don't believe me, lets go five years with raft locations, sizes, etc completely unregulated. Put them where ever you want. What do you think the result will be?

[jrc]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

... However, allowing homeowners to put a raft where ever they please is a recipe for trouble as well. Don't believe me, lets go five years with raft locations, sizes, etc completely unregulated. Put them where ever you want. What do you think the result will be?

Well as far as I can see we've had swim rafts loactions, sizes etc completely unregulated for a lot longer than five years, with only a few issues. Deal with the issues, don't pass a law that punishes everyone because of a couple of boneheads.

The idea of freedom is that you can do anything you want, unless and until it intrudes on someone elses freedom. It's not a perfect rule but it works for most things.

[KonaChick]

Haven't swim rafts been on the lake w/out permits for years? I think the 5 years w/out permits was up many many years ago. I'm sure there are problems between neighbors as to placement of swim rafts but as stated the MP can be called and they will decide if the swim raft is a navigational hazard or not and I know because I've seen this situation happen. Are swim rafts on Lake Winni so problematic that the legislatures should be spending their time trying to pass a law? IMHO....NO!

~A proud lakefront homeowner with a swimraft that is not a navigational hazard to anyone and is thoroughly enjoyed and used by all my neighbors.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Haven't swim rafts been on the lake w/out permits for years? I think the 5 years w/out permits was up many many years ago. I'm sure there are problems between neighbors as to placement of swim rafts but as stated the MP can be called and they will decide if the swim raft is a navigational hazard or not and I know because I've seen this situation happen. Are swim rafts on Lake Winni so problematic that the legislatures should be spending their time trying to pass a law? IMHO....NO!

~A proud lakefront homeowner with a swimraft that is not a navigational hazard to anyone and is thoroughly enjoyed and used by all my neighbors.

I could personally care less if you have a raft or not and that's not what this is about. I just find it comical that someone would complain about having to state where they intend to put it.

By having a standard and requiring documentation stating where it's going to be placed can reduce the need to call the MP and any fueding between neighbors.

Problematic? I don't know. A huge burden? I don't think so.

[ishoot308]

L.P.;

You keep mentioning that there is no standard but there is...Swim rafts must be no more than 150' from shore and must stay within your waterfront shore boundaries. And if you own waterfront in a channel or heavily navigated area you can't put one out. You can't just put a swim raft anywhere you want like you keep alluding to.

Dan

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

L.P.;

You keep mentioning that there is no standard but there is...Swim rafts must be no more than 150' from shore and must stay within your waterfront shore boundaries. And if you own waterfront in a channel or heavily navigated area you can't put one out. You can't just put a swim raft anywhere you want like you keep alluding to.

Dan

I understand there's a "standard". I'm talking about within the 150 ft. With rocks, docks, etc I'm sure there are places where placing a raft can create conflicts.

[Pineedles]

Originally Posted by Boat Doc

Just found out that there was a public hearing this AM regarding the new swim raft permit rules so I missed it but the written comment period is open until the 14th...

One more permit we'll all have to get although I am told it is free which makes me wonder how the state can afford to manage a permit program? Link to the proposed rules: www.nhshorefront.org/pdfs/raftrules6210.pdf

You can send comments to the e-mail address for rules at the Dept. of Safety: rules@safety.state.nh.us

50 ft from shore? What's the point of having a raft if it is only 50 ft out?

Just wanted to remind everyone where to write to express your opinion about the swim raft regulation. And remember, the regulation says 50 feet!

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I understand there's a "standard". I'm talking about within the 150 ft. With rocks, docks, etc I'm sure there are places where placing a raft can create conflicts.

So why not "publish" the standard and skip the permits ? Should someone complain and if the raft is found to be in violation then a remedy can be found. If no one complains ... no harm, no foul. What's with all the make work to prevent the few legit cases where someone will complain ?

BTW I like this part ...

(i) No permit for a swim raft shall be approved which :

(5) Diminishes the residential, recreational or scenic value of the public water in light of the competing uses for enjoyment of the public water.

So is a purple raft allowed ... or not ?

And if I had 41' of frontage ... would I apply for a swim tube permit ??

[Skip]

Just a few clarifications for the readers of this thread.

The proposal on the table is an Administrative Rule being proposed by the Department of Safety, specifically the New Hampshire Marine Patrol. It is not a bill or law bering proposed or introduced in the Legislature.

Administrative Rules have the effect of law if they are adopted.

Currently there are no rules or standards governing swim rafts. The Administrative Rule that covered swim rafts, Saf-C 404.09, was rescinded on April 25 of 2006, leaving no rules in place since then. As a sidenote, the current swim raft proposal mirrors in many respects the current Administrative Rule (Saf-C 404.08) that governs swim lines.

The process for adopting an Administrative Rule is lengthy and can be quite complicated. Depending on it's path it can or cannot include action by the State Legislature.

If you click HERE you can go to a page that gives you further explanations and a nifty flow chart (.pdf file) of how a rule is formulated.

The time is now to contact the Department of Safety, using the links already provided by other posters, to let your opinions, suggestions and ideas be considered by the Department of Safety. You are also free to contact your local State Legislator if you have concerns.

hope this helps clear this up a bit....

Skip

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Skip

Just a few clarifications for the readers of this thread.

The proposal on the table is an Administrative Rule being proposed by the Department of Safety, specifically the New Hampshire Marine Patrol. It is not a bill or law bering proposed or introduced in the Legislature.

Administrative Rules have the effect of law if they are adopted.

Currently there are no rules or standards governing swim rafts. The Administrative Rule that covered swim rafts, Saf-C 404.09, was rescinded on April 25 of 2006, leaving no rules in place since then. As a sidenote, the current swim raft proposal mirrors in many respects the current Administrative Rule (Saf-C 404.08) that governs swim lines.

The process for adopting an Administrative Rule is lengthy and can be quite complicated. Depending on it's path it can or cannot include action by the State Legislature.

If you click HERE you can go to a page that gives you further explanations and a nifty flow chart (.pdf file) of how a rule is formulated.

The time is now to contact the Department of Safety, using the links already provided by other posters, to let your opinions, suggestions and ideas be considered by the Department of Safety. You are also free to contact your local State Legislator if you have concerns.

hope this helps clear this up a bit....

Skip

Skip;

I'm confused now... I just put out a swim raft last year and contacted Marine Patrol for the current regulations. I was told by them about the 150' rule and to stay within my waterfront boundaries. They also asked if i was on a channnel or highly navigable waterway and if I was I could not put out a raft. Were they just making this up??

Dan

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Skip;

I'm confused now... I just put out a swim raft last year and contacted Marine Patrol for the current regulations. I was told by them about the 150' rule and to stay within my waterfront boundaries. They also asked if i was on a channnel or highly navigable waterway and if I was I could not put out a raft. Were they just making this up??

Dan

On the latter question ... I'd say no. I believe there's an RSA that prohibits any obstructing of channels and waterways and so would include swimrafts by default.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

On the latter question ... I'd say no. I believe there's an RSA that prohibits any obstructing of channels and waterways and so would include swimrafts by default.

And by keeping it within your boundaries would prevent any dispute issues raised by neighbors.

Any closer than 150' and a boat needs to come of plane so it keeps your swimmers from the danger of boats on plane.

It sounds to me that all the things they requested are just the sense things to do to keep you and everyone around you happy, thus they are not chasing down calls for these types of issues.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Skip;

I'm confused now... I just put out a swim raft last year and contacted Marine Patrol for the current regulations. I was told by them about the 150' rule and to stay within my waterfront boundaries. They also asked if i was on a channnel or highly navigable waterway and if I was I could not put out a raft. Were they just making this up??

Dan

Hi Dan,

There is a general RSA (270:26) that covers obstructions to navigation. However, there are no specific regulations governing swim rafts since the Administrative Rule lapsed four years ago.

Unfortunately the lapsing of Administrative Rules with no fall back regulation is an all too common occurence within the State.

Not being privy to the call I will assume that they have taken the stance that any raft further than 150 feet from the shore, or not in line with your property boundaries or in a channel will be removed utilizing this RSA.

HERE is the general RSA on Navigation obstructions.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Skip

Hi Dan,

There is a general RSA (270:26) that covers obstructions to navigation. However, there are no specific regulations governing swim rafts since the Administrative Rule lapsed four years ago.

Unfortunately the lapsing of Administrative Rules with no fall back regulation is an all too common occurence within the State.

Not being privy to the call I will assume that they have taken the stance that any raft further than 150 feet from the shore, or not in line with your property boundaries or in a channel will be removed utilizing this RSA.

HERE is the general RSA on Navigation obstructions.

Thanks for the clarification Skip! I thought for sure the 150' was an official rule directly relating to swim rafts.

Dan

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

(i) No permit for a swim raft shall be approved which :

(5) Diminishes the residential, recreational or scenic value of the public water in light of the competing uses for enjoyment of the public water.

Now this is where legislators are dumb. Writing a 'rule' that is nearly impossible to enforce simply because of the way it was written. Does anyone do idiot checks on these before they go up for a vote.... wait, don't answer that.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Now this is where legislators are dumb. Writing a 'rule' that is nearly impossible to enforce simply because of the way it was written. Does anyone do idiot checks on these before they go up for a vote.... wait, don't answer that.

Once again, this is an Administrative Rules proposal being made by the Department of Safety, the Executive Branch of the State government. This proposal is not before the Legislature or up for a vote by that, the Legislative body.

Also, while one can easily argue the verbiage of the portion of the rule in question, the burden would be on the State to prove the diminishment of "residential, recreational or scenic value ", a very tough threshold to cross in Court.

In short, there is no shortage of things to criticize the NH State Legislature about. But this proposal is not of their doing....

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Skip

Once again, this is an Administrative Rules proposal being made by the Department of Safety, the Executive Branch of the State government. This proposal is not before the Legislature or up for a vote by that, the Legislative body.

Also, while one can easily argue the verbiage of the portion of the rule in question, the burden would be on the State to prove the diminishment of "residential, recreational or scenic value ", a very tough threshold to cross in Court.

In short, there is no shortage of things to criticize the NH State Legislature about. But this proposal is not of their doing....

So who sat down and wrote the rule?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

So who sat down and wrote the rule?

The proposal was drafted by Staff Counsel at the Department of Safety at the request and with input of the NHMP.

This rule change was is part of a package of several changes being recommended this year by the Marine Patrol. I have attached the entire package below.

Again, this is purely an executive branch proposal.

[trfour]

[Quote] "So who sat down and wrote the rule?

It fur'shore wasn't U_ _ _ I_ Alton.

[Quote] "Now this is where legislators are dumb. Writing a 'rule' that is nearly impossible to enforce simply because of the way it was written. Does anyone do idiot checks on these before they go up for a vote.... wait, don't answer that. "

OKay.



Terry
_____________________

[Misty Blue]

Skip, LP:

Thanks for a good debate! Your inputs are useful.

Misty Blue.

[lawn psycho]

skip, what's driving the rule proposal? Is the MP having to deal with complaints and issues with rafts?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

skip, what's driving the rule proposal? Is the MP having to deal with complaints and issues with rafts?

I think you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

This issue you would not be coming forward if there was not substantial complaint going on behind the scene.

Everyone has better things to do but chase raft complaints.

But the complaints have obviously risen to the level to require extraordinary action.

And that's a shame...

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Question:
A raft is 100 feet from shore. How close can a boat come from the swim platform while on plane?

A) 50 Feet
B) 150 Feet
C) What swim raft? (I thought it was a pressure treated Kayak)

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

skip, what's driving the rule proposal? Is the MP having to deal with complaints and issues with rafts?

I am going to back Skip up here... Not that Skip needs back up.... BTW Skip good to see you back on the Forum....

Anyways where was I, oh yes.... I do indeed believe the MP have been dealing with more complaints on Swim Rafts. Over the last several years at least in my area of the lake I have seen the number of swim raft multiply exponentially. Whats been worse is not everyone goes for the nice 8X8 platform that used to be the standard. We now have inflatable trampolines, complete with slides and logs sticking out from them. I have seen a couple of these that cover a good 40' in length... now I know personally I can't put something like that in front of my place with out imposing on my neighbors or completely obstructing my dock access.

To top that off we have moorings which are permitted.... So what happens when someones raft starts interfering with the a boat on a already permitted mooring next door. The guy with the mooring calls the MP... who has to mediate. The guy who has placed a mooring has an approved documented permit. the guy with the raft has a stated right to have a raft.... If you are the Marine Patrol your stuck in the middle.

Example two... Property owner puts a god awful green pitching green out as a swim raft... MP comes, owner says it is a swim raft... The Marine Patrol is stuck unless they can prove otherwise....Mean while property own pitches balls in the direction of the green at passing boaters.... And when he hits one, claims innocence.....

They are trying to fix a problem that was created when mooring permits where required. As I remember there was a lot of fuss over that too... But now that it is instituted everyone just deals with it. They are also trying to give some definition and regulation to what is a swim raft and what isn't, so that they can deal with problem B.............

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

. I do indeed believe the MP have been dealing with more complaints on Swim Rafts. Over the last several years at least in my area of the lake I have seen the number of swim raft multiply exponentially. Whats been worse is not everyone goes for the nice 8X8 platform that used to be the standard. We now have inflatable trampolines, complete with slides and logs sticking out from them. I have seen a couple of these that cover a good 40' in length

Pretty sure it's all those "flatlanders" causing all the problems

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Skip

I think you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

This issue you would not be coming forward if there was not substantial complaint going on behind the scene.

Everyone has better things to do but chase raft complaints.

But the complaints have obviously risen to the level to require extraordinary action.

And that's a shame...

I asked as there were people who seemed to imply that things were going along without issues. There had to be a reason for something like this to come along.

That fact that people are placing things on something that is not a physical piece of their property. I can only imagine how shore front owners can get wound up if a raft is blocking this or that, blocking this view, too tall, too wide, too bright, too dark, etc would lead to conflicts. Hence you need a permit.

Now, if you do write something at least make sure it's clear and objective as to what the standard is.