|
Based upon the new photo versus the old photo then I would say there is a potential use change of the newly replaced outbuilding and I can see why there could be some questions along the line (besides the height issue).
On the other side of the coin, permits were issued, so this will be interesting to see what the final outcome actually is. |
Its effectively 2 stories...
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
The permit process to "replace" a pre-existing structure seems to have made a huge leap. If it is not a "replacement" then it is new construction within the 50 foot buffer. I would bet there will be some "deconstruction" at some point in the future. I would file this under "nice try" but it didn't work. |
I see no debate in what they did and they will undoubtedly lose in court. Must be nice to have money to lose.
|
FLL: Keep your eyes open. You may see some really nice "like new" never even been opened, windows on Craigslist soon. Maybe you can upgrade your Meredith mansion.
|
Like DickR I am the same neighborhood. And I know a bit of what is going on.... While yes there was a neighbor issue, that I believe is mostly settled down.
The issues now that are being fought in court, or legal based on the structure. I don't think its is fair to comment much on what is going on, unless we have access to the permits... What little I do know, is I think there was some misleading information presented, in regards to the replacement structure. The biggest problem I have with what is going on, is that the boat house / apartment structure, is being done, so that a seasonal property become usable year around. So, has the septic been updated etc. At the end of the day, this wasn't a like for like replacement... If the owners had all the proper docuemtations and approvals, then the project wouldn't have been stopped. Somewhere along the way, some information was misleading, and it has lead to this..... The biggest thing, is why hasn't there been a successful mediation effort... likely because the home owners are not willing to compromise.... Time will tell where this one ends.... |
1 Attachment(s)
The DES has created Docket 17--16 WtC that has the official documents and all the filings for this boathouse case. Use this Docket to get the actual true history and don't depend on newspaper spins or rumors.
Here is the DES website: https://www4.des.state.nh.us/Legal/?...0Councilttaced Read this document to get why the DES won't approve the boathouse: |
Quote:
Clearly they changed the scope of their project. It's hard to believe they will prevail. |
I looked at the pics posted in this thread as well as read through the .pdf Rusty posted.
Am I missing something? Is me or is that new boathouse nowhere near the water? |
Quote:
Do I believe these people set out to build something they new wouldn't approve... No I don't feel like that.... I feel that they started something and then let the scope grow out of hand.... To much scope creep and no I have been passing by a uncompleted structure for a couple of years.... I already see more issue then originally stated with the documentation... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is one of the many discrepancies of the tail of this structure. There was once indeed a boat house capable of dry storing a boat... What is there now, will not be capable of dry storing a boat, and can be used as a place to inhabit.... I was not at all surprised when this project came to a grinding halt.... and with what I have seen, there was a lot of misrepresentation... |
I have always envied other states boat houses when I travel. I have some close friends in Texas/ Arizona/ Nevada etc with gorgeous boat houses and every time I comment on them their answer is " mines nothing you should see so and sos boat house" and then they ask about NH and I tell them our laws and they say " yea that and the miserable weather is why we live here":laugh:
|
Is it me or did this thread start by condemning the neighbors (Perhaps Envy or jealousy,) and the home owners were certainly going to prevail in Court to at the end of this thread the posts are stating that the home owners are clearly wrong and they will most certainly lose in Court?
It is amazing what knowing the entire story will do and thanks Rusty for posting the Court Docket . |
Quote:
Your response reminds me of the first time my son in law was on the lake. Long time Lake Michigan boater ask my don’t they just blast the rock out of the way instead of risking boat damage and lives. Had to chuckle Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
When a dry boat house turns into a house
Hey Guys!
I am the neighbor that this has affected the most. The ONCE boathouse is only 4 feet off of my Dad’s land. The Corrs seem to have the notion we turned them in ( which I honestly would have if I knew this is what was going to be built )... There has been so much MISINFORMATION here and so much corruption, I don’t know where to begin. Let’s start with the fact that the boathouse was standing just fine until the Corrs took out the braces and left the doors wide open that the previous owner had put in place as a way to stabilize it. Then they just waited for it to fall. It did fall, but not from snow load in March 2015 as Mr. Corr has claimed ( I have pictures dated and time stamped from my iPad I just don’t know how to include them here as this is my first post). It actually fell the first weekend of July 2014 due to a wind storm . The date that it fell is important because it was past Moultonborough‘s statute of limitations as when to rebuild that’s why Mr. Corr LIED and change the date and reason for the fall to a WHOLE year later . The dry boathouse that was there was a non-conforming structure ( it’s only 4 ft off of our lot line). To make it be conforming you would have to have it 20 feet from our land and set back 50 feet from the water which would put him in the middle of the house that is currently there. The abutters needed to be notified… My dad only agreed to replacing EXACTLY what was there… Same size, same height ( simply a shed for boat storage ) Meanwhile, I asked Mr. Corr multiple times if he could show me the plan or even screenshot it, as my dad had been sick and was in the hospital at the time. He refused said he would ONLY show the plan in person. So instead of calling me, he stopped by my dads house ( knowing my dad was hospitalized ) and showed it to my brother who had a stroke 23 years ago. My family owned a lumber company so we are not strange to building plans or the process. He showed my brother what was not a boathouse, but also NOT what is standing there today. It was roughly 16 feet high according to my brother. Next, we went to the variance meeting (As it was the ONLY meeting we had been notified about). I only got to see the plan an hour before the meeting due to Mr. Corr refusing to show me ... and the plan did not even need to be at the variance meeting 🤔( not sure how that can be? ). I wrote a letter to the zoning board shortly after the minutes of the meeting draft… Stating that Mr. Ken Bickford said in the motions of the meeting that the verbiage needed to be changed about the Corrs boathouse. He stated that the boathouse remain a dry boathouse and that it was NOT to be a DWELLING . The other members agreed to it. However, it was never corrected in the minutes of the meeting. We did not fight the variance to set it 10 feet back,as we thought it was going to be a small structure, as it had been before. However, we were not happy it was going to be made into a small living space… A living space 4 feet off of our land causes privacy issues. We couldn’t even have a campfire without them hearing every word spoken. In the article Mr. Corr said that his neighbor couldn’t see the channel, and now he can. That’s another falsehood. In fact he has taken 1/3 of our view away. I used to be able to go upstairs and see the kiddos swimming a few houses over, now all I see is a roofline. Sitting at our kitchen table I could see the channel, now all I see is a 29 foot high structure. This should NEVER have happened. We were told at the variance meeting that there would be a 4 foot crawlspace under the structure for storage. It was not meant to be a living space, although Mr. Corr told me himself that not only was it going to be livable, it was going to have a kitchen, running water, electricity and plumbing whether I like it or not! It was going to be a fully functioning living space 4 feet off of our lot line. He was planning on living there while he was rebuilding the other house...Now he will have 2 dwellings on one property....REALLY? I have visions of it becoming a rental property or a guest house. This lot simply isn’t big enough to accommodate what he wants to have on this property. I was also told by DES that the abutters would be notified by mail about any meetings coming up, but no notifications came. WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED. Imagine my surprise when we came up in March to check on the cottage, and we found THIS monstrosity 4 feet off of our lot line . I don’t know exactly WHO dropped the ball here , but I DO know THAT building should NEVER have been approved and no permit should have ever been granted to begin with. Mr. Corr obtained permits through falsehoods… Flat out lies… And makes accusations that simply aren’t true. I said my peace. I wish I could show you pictures but I’m not sure how to insert them. |
Quote:
Well said Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
Who on the lake as crowded and populated as Winni can possibly have a campfire that no one else hears anything? I can hear my neighbors 8 houses away every time he asks his wife if she wants a hot dog or a hamburger off the grill.
|
Quote:
If you're going to pick at Lakegirl's excellent post, at least go after something significant. Otherwise you just seem kind of churlish that as the facts come in, they don't mesh with your Texas is better post. |
Dear Lakegirl24, you may want to check with the Planning Board or whomever ran the variance meeting as they may have an audio recording of the meeting in question.
There could also be a video recording of the meeting. You can check the Town's website and see if there is a link to it. Make sure that your side is heard by the State.. .timing of the collapse, no notification...etc. You know that your neighbor is doing everything they can to present their side hence the newspaper story. |
If all the facts come out as has been presented here, then I suspect the new structure will be ordered to be torn down.....
An abutter should not have to tolerate any of this nonsense! The Corr's should have requested a variance to start with; I would guess they never pursued a variance because their chances to obtain one would have been just about impossible. |
Lakegirl24:
Have you talked to a lawyer about this, and if so, would you mind sharing their professional opinion? If you haven't talked to a lawyer: why not? |
Great question
Mr V.
Great question. I should have a long time ago. My Dad was taking in good faith that Mr. Corr would abide by his word. My Dad is 88 and is old school “ Your word is your bond” mentality. Now it seems too late since it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. When we left there was only a foundation and when we came back in March to check on the cottage THAT’S what we found. At that point I did call the state multiple times and was assured that it was either coming ALL the way down or lowered to 17 feet. |
Quote:
Good luck and thanks for giving us your perspective about the boathouse. |
Rusty,
Thank you for your opinion. I hope you are right. He seems to just do what he wants. Apparently rules don’t apply to him. If he does prevail it will set a precedence for all other non conforming structures that are lakeside. These could pop up all over the lake.... My family has been there since 1966 without ever a problem with neighbors UNTIL NOW. So Sad. |
Lakegirl...
Thank you for "the other side" of the story! Woodsy |
Quote:
Far as the existing building as it stands - he did adhere to the process of securing permits. It's not as if he is rebuilding this under the radar. IF indeed his intention is to turn that into living space that is an entirely different matter however the courts cannot rule on that unless modifications have been done to the structure that indicate it's use has been changed along with supporting evidence this is actively happening. He has no argument to change it's use, as permitted it is a dry "boat house" and nothing more. It's purely aesthetic appearance is irrelevant to it's actual use. Under the circumstances if it's use comes up in the course of litigation the court should, I would think, include in it's ruling that whatever is build cannot be used as living quarters. I think that the amended PBN submitted after the ZBA decision was not very well vetted, but the approval right or wrong was granted and thus really is the focus of this court case. What does that approval mean and did the applicant violate it? |
Woodsy,
You’re Welcome... There’s always 2 sides.😉 |
Maxum,
He lied in order to get the VERY first permit. It was past Moultonborough’s Statute of Limitations. It fell July of 2014 due to his neglect, and said it fell in March of 2015 in order to secure the permit. However, at that time we were still taking Mr. Corr at his word that he was just going to rebuild what was previously there....What was agreed upon, so I didn’t pursue legal action. THAT was the time that I should have. Silly me....Trusting someone with their word. 🙄 |
I find it interesting that Corr didn't want his new "boat" house on the water... pretty much proves to me his intention was not for a boat house.
|
1 Attachment(s)
This section of Moultonboro's zoning ordinance states that a building permit can not be issued until the DES gives its final approval:
"(3) No building permit shall be issued by the Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector until such time as all permits, as contemplated by the SWQPA RSA 483-B:5, are issued by the Department of Environmental Services. Should the Department of Environmental Services fail to render a decision in the time frame provided under SWQPA RSA 483-B:5-a.V. and, as a result, a permit is issued by the Department of Environmental Services, the Code Enforcement Officer shall not issue a building permit unless the Code Enforcement Officer determines that the application made to the Department of Environmental Services meets the requirements of the SWQPA." |
Quote:
Indeed there was a window of opportunity to challenge this but that was missed. For your sake, being that you are neighbors, hopefully this doesn't end up in a long term contentious relationship. That really stinks considering you want to be at the lake to enjoy it - drama free. Hard to read the tea leaves on this as to how the court will rule. It all hinges on the court's interpretation of the issued permits. A split decision within DES where the wetlands board overruled DES's objection not once but twice may hold some swing in the court's mind. |
Lakegirl24's Other Neighbor Weighs In
Dear Lakegirl24: I concur, Mr. Corr's rebuilt "boathouse" infringes on my view of the lake channel as well. When we bought our home just north of yours on the lakeside of Deer Haven Rd. in January 1992, we had wonderful views of the frozen lake.
Having grown up in a lakeside home in the Finger Lakes area of New York (that my family still owns), I was very aware of the lake shore property issues. As a consequence, when we were considering our current property, I asked about the zoning requirements and rules and was assured that they are quite firm. While some property's configurations are grandfathered, based on when they were constructed, the current setbacks and height allowances for new structures are reviewed and enforced. That assurance has not been true since the rebuilt "boathouse" has been constructed. Whenever I look out of my second floor kitchen window, facing south across the rear side of Lakegirl24's property, what used to be an open view of the lake channel across land is obstructed by the new "boathouse" except for a smidgeon of lake over the roofline. This lack of view to our south has two important effects that could impinge on other property owners. Unregulated construction of new structures can affect property values of neighboring properties as well as the esthetic values experienced by the people who live nearby. |
Quote:
C. Minimum lot dimensions for each waterfront lot shall be as follows: (1) Minimum shore frontage shall be 150 feet for the first dwelling unit to be granted access. (2) An additional 150 feet of frontage is required for each additional dwelling unit after the first unit, where the additional unit is to be located within 250 feet from the reference line established by RSA 483-B, as amended. (3) An additional 50 feet of frontage shall be required for each additional dwelling unit to be located beyond 250 feet from the reference line established by RSA 483-B, as amended. C(1) doesn't apply, as the original camp was grandfathered in. C(3) doesn't apply, since the second structure is within 250 feet of the reference (shore) line. But C(2) certainly does apply, even without state DES concerns about what the structure can be within 50 feet of the shore. |
Dick,
This guy thinks rules don’t apply to him. He is planning to have 2 dwellings on one lot. Told me to my face very smug I might add. |
Lost view?
Quote:
|
Quote:
That is true, however a new build won't be 5 feet from the lot line, and may be restricted to the current envelope of the existing dwelling (depending on zoning requirements). |
Quote:
In my mind if the land owners win, the next step will be to see how much further their luck can be pushed.... It is unfortunate that I believe the issues with this landowner are likely to continue..... |
Quote:
Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.