Moultonborough boathouse case heading to Supreme Court

[Outdoorsman]

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

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

Full Article

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...b1060a036.html

[iw8surf]

Good luck to these two neighbors getting along.....

[ACME on the Broads]

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

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

Pelosi vs. Trump, no one wins and civility is no where to be found....IT'S TOO BAD!

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by iw8surf

Good luck to these two neighbors getting along.....

Not hijacking the thread but this is exactly what I was speaking about in the rental home thread. Neighbors cannot decide whether you can or cannot rent your home.

Sorry back to the regularly scheduled thread subject

[MAXUM]

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

The owners had in hand approval for the following:

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

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

Wetlands board over rules DES's objection

DES objects AGAIN, wetlands board rejects their objection AGAIN.

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

Oh and that neighbor is a jerk!

[tummyman]

From the pictures, is this really a boathouse or an accessory structure? Looks pretty fancy with all those glass walls, etc.

[TheTimeTraveler]

Maybe the Corr's should establish a "Go Fund Me Page" on the internet and raise funds to help defray their court costs....

[DickR]

This structure is a walk down shore from me. I've been wondering what the story is on it's completion being in limbo. After reading the Sun article, it seems to me that this is basically a battle between two state agencies. As to how to rule, I would think that since the property owner already had received approval to proceed from both the town and "the state," then the court ought to have no choice but to adhere to the long-standing constitutional "double-jeopardy" principal and let the structure, as built, remain and be completed. Further, it should remind "the state" that its various mini-bureaucracies need to get their collective act together, so that property owners aren't subject to state agency turf battles.

[Rusty]

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

Here is the view from the lake:

[fatlazyless]

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

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


* A boat trailer is used to roll boat in and out of the water here.

[TiltonBB]

There are more questions than answers here.

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

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

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

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

It should be an interesting case to follow.

[tummyman]

IMHO, never going to see water inside....do they have a permit from DES to excavate deep into the lake waters and within the shore land buffer zone? Sure looks like a house...not a boat house. Maybe lots fo mistakes made by all involved. But rules are rules....

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

There are more questions than answers here.

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

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

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

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

It should be an interesting case to follow.

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

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

A lot of fuss over a very minor issue. For a state with pretty limited government, it sure can kick up a lot of dust from time to time.

[Rusty]

Here is a satellite view of the boat house. It looks bigger than the house.

[fatlazyless]

.....gee whiz ..... looking at the whitish areas in the grass lawn between the main house and the "boat" house ..... that lawn could use a little help .... should be think'n 'bout some grass seed and fertilizer there .... just a helpful thought here ....

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

.....gee whiz ..... looking at the whitish areas in the grass lawn between the main house and the "boat" house ..... that lawn could use a little help .... should be think'n 'bout some grass seed and fertilizer there .... just a helpful thought here ....

Move the boat house back another 10-15 feet would take care of the lawn problem.
Or maybe move the house down 10-15 feet closer to the boat house.

"Just a helpful thought here"

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

.....gee whiz ..... looking at the whitish areas in the grass lawn between the main house and the "boat" house ..... that lawn could use a little help .... should be think'n 'bout some grass seed and fertilizer there .... just a helpful thought here ....

No Fertilizer. Too close to the lake.

What were you thinking, or were you thinking?

[trfour]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

What were you thinking, or were you thinking?

He mustah been malty tasking T BB, you know, mixing pancake batter etc. we nevah hear from him here when he's skiing and or playing tennis.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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

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

A lot of fuss over a very minor issue. For a state with pretty limited government, it sure can kick up a lot of dust from time to time.

Agreed 100%, in fact their stated objection makes little sense considering that the wetlands board suggested that now that the "boat house' being moved 10 foot back is and should be classified as an accessory structure which by it's very definition does not pose restrictions on height albeit the town permit did have a stated height restriction.

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

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

To bad, there are folks over at DES that do an outstanding job and at least in my dealings with them they have really been helpful, reasonable, and overall great to work with.

[FlyingScot]

I'm with Rusty and FLL--this reads like one of the stories where the owner was too clever by half, calling a second home a boathouse. He slides it by the state the first time or two, perhaps because people aren't paying quite enough attention because they believe him when he says he's just replacing the boathouse. Then he's upset when the neighbor forces the issue and everybody sees it's a second home.

[DickR]

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

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

This will indeed be interesting to follow.

[Descant]

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

Should the engineer/architect have picked up this "height" discrepancy? The neighbor did.

[fatlazyless]

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

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

With the noodle, this economy of height should translate to a lower building height, overall ......... E=noodle x C squared! .... Albert Einstein, 1922 .... so very elementary!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Descant

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

Should the engineer/architect have picked up this "height" discrepancy? The neighbor did.

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

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

The fact this has gone on now for TWO years is atrocious meanwhile the owner has a partially finished building that doesn't appear to be fully weather tight and likely is being ruined while all these bureaucrats sit there and play grab ass with one another.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by DickR

... But if the town and state, collectively, permitted one thing and the owner went beyond that and built, say, a "party room" with bathroom, kitchen, etc, then the state has a rightful beef to resolve. ...
This will indeed be interesting to follow.

The thing is, the town set height restrictions but the owner seems to have stayed within those. The town seems NOT to be complaining. The wetland bureau seems NOT to be complaining. DES is complaining but seems NOT to have called out restrictions in their original approval?

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

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

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

If an owner's plans are given a through review and they are presented with a concise approval document and THEN they color outside the lines, they should be responsible for costs to come into compliance.

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by TheTimeTraveler

Maybe the Corr's should establish a "Go Fund Me Page" on the internet and raise funds to help defray their court costs....

DES should be paying all the legal fees involved. It seems like they are the ones that failed and they are the ones bringing this to the Supreme Court.

[Lakegirl24]

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.

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Hey Guys!



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



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



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



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



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



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

Well said



Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[iw8surf]

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.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by iw8surf

Who on the lake as crowded and populated as Winni can possibly have a campfire that no one else hears anything? I can hear my neighbors 8 houses away every time he asks his wife if she wants a hot dog or a hamburger off the grill.

Oops--I did not mean to thank-you, I hit the wrong button.

If you're going to pick at Lakegirl's excellent post, at least go after something significant. Otherwise you just seem kind of churlish that as the facts come in, they don't mesh with your Texas is better post.

[bigpatsfan]

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.

[TheTimeTraveler]

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.

[Mr. V]

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?

[Lakegirl24]

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.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Mr V.
Great question. I should have a long time ago. My Dad was taking in good faith that Mr. Corr would abide by his word. My Dad is 88 and is old school “ Your word is your bond” mentality. Now it seems too late since it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. When we left there was only a foundation and when we came back in March to check on the cottage THAT’S what we found. At that point I did call the state multiple times and was assured that it was either coming ALL the way down or lowered to 17 feet.

IMO because the Corr's didn't file for a variance from the DES for the now non-conforming, non-conforming dry boathouse, they will be forced to modify it to meet the height requirement. Therefore hiring a lawyer would have just been a waste of your money.

Good luck and thanks for giving us your perspective about the boathouse.

[Lakegirl24]

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.

[Woodsy]

Lakegirl...

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

Woodsy

[Lakegirl24]

Woodsy,

You’re Welcome... There’s always 2 sides.😉

[Lakegirl24]

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. 🙄

[swnoel]

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.

[Rusty]

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."

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Maxum,

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

That is truly unfortunate however the timing of the original building's demise is sort of moot.

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

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

Hard to read the tea leaves on this as to how the court will rule. It all hinges on the court's interpretation of the issued permits. A split decision within DES where the wetlands board overruled DES's objection not once but twice may hold some swing in the court's mind.

[LakesLady]

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.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by LakesLady

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

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

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Rusty,

Thank you for your opinion. I hope you are right. He seems to just do what he wants. Apparently rules don’t apply to him. If he does prevail it will set a precedence for all other non conforming structures that are lakeside. These could pop up all over the lake.... My family has been there since 1966 without ever a problem with neighbors UNTIL NOW. So Sad.

Well yes and no.

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

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

I think that the amended PBN submitted after the ZBA decision was not very well vetted, but the approval right or wrong was granted and thus really is the focus of this court case. What does that approval mean and did the applicant violate it?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Mr V. Great question. I should have a long time ago. My Dad was taking in good faith that Mr. Corr would abide by his word. My Dad is 88 and is old school “ Your word is your bond” mentality. Now it seems too late since it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. When we left there was only a foundation and when we came back in March to check on the cottage THAT’S what we found. At that point I did call the state multiple times and was assured that it was either coming ALL the way down or lowered to 17 feet.

"Oversized" was my objection to this "replacement boathouse" at Millstone Point. A large segment of two neighbors' lake view was cut off.



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

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by ApS

"Oversized" was my objection to this "replacement boathouse" at Millstone Point. A large segment of two neighbors' lake view was cut off.



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

LOL... an you wonder why locals despise out of staters.

[tis]

Except that they or relatives own the adjoining houses so obviously it must not block their view too much.

[TheTimeTraveler]

Originally Posted by ApS

"Oversized" was my objection to this "replacement boathouse" at Millstone Point. A large segment of two neighbors' lake view was cut off.



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

Chances are that the boathouse pictured here was legally constructed. The Corr's so called replacement boathouse appears to be constructed as a dwelling.

[fatlazyless]

Chances are that the boathouse pictured here was legally constructed.

.... oh, as I recall .... it was so totally legal ..... the owners of this large boat house enclosure were connected politically with their local Republican state representative, and local Republican selectmen via friendship and campaign donations.

This usually helps.

[Lakegirl24]

SWNoel,

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

[DEJ]

Lakegirl. I understand the height issue but have a question about the 4 feet thing. Did they build it closer to you or is it still the same distance from your property line as the original boat house? The life threating thing seems a little over the top IMO and if it happened I hope there was a police report filed. Was there?

[Lakegirl24]

DEJ,

Yes the police were involved, but told me they couldn’t do much. I basically have to wait till something happens to me. The boathouse is the same distance as before.... but now it’s a house vs a shed for a boat.

[fatlazyless]

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

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

Here's a NH building mover www.admiralbuildingmovers.com from Goffstown, NH ..... maybe this Admiral could navigate this building problem out of there!

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

DEJ,

Yes the police were involved, but told me they couldn’t do much. I basically have to wait till something happens to me. The boathouse is the same distance as before.... but now it’s a house vs a shed for a boat.

You have mentioned several times about the 4 foot thing. Since that has not changed why keep bringing it up? It does not matter if it was a shed or a house, 4 feet is 4 feet regardless of what the structure is. I understand the height issue, but the 4 feet thing is a moot point. A shed or a house will still be 4 feet, correct?
Regarding if the police were involved, once again was a police report filed by you?
Finally, a good attorney would discourage his/her client to not post ANYTHING about this situation on social media until it has wound its way through the court. The Corrs obviously have good attorneys IMO. Not saying they are in the right here, just an observation.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

SWNoel,

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

I don't know what file extensions you have but if you have a .jpeg or .png extension here are the steps to upload them:

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

Someone posted these instructions a while back and I copied them for someone who might ask how to upload images.

[DickR]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Hey Guys!

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

There cannot be two dwelling units on that lot, with only 100 feet of frontage, as it lacks the frontage for two units required by town bylaws. From page 12 of the reference cited by Rusty:

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

C(1) doesn't apply, as the original camp was grandfathered in. C(3) doesn't apply, since the second structure is within 250 feet of the reference (shore) line. But C(2) certainly does apply, even without state DES concerns about what the structure can be within 50 feet of the shore.

[Lakegirl24]

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.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Dick,

This guy thinks rules don’t apply to him. He is planning to have 2 dwellings on one lot. Told me to my face very smug I might add.

This is where my concern comes in.... What else is planned.... When I saw the boat house that first Spring, my thought was, what is next the camp comes down and what goes up.....

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

It is unfortunate that I believe the issues with this landowner are likely to continue.....

[gillygirl]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Dick,

This guy thinks rules don’t apply to him. He is planning to have 2 dwellings on one lot. Told me to my face very smug I might add.

Since you know his modus operandi, you might want to have a lawyer in mind when destruction/construction begins on the current house.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Lakegirl24]

Lakes Lady,

Well stated. I just can’t understand how this was allowed to happen. I know the building inspector for the town stepped down/retired/ resigned last Spring not sure why? There is a new one now.

[The Real BigGuy]

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

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by The Real BigGuy

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.

[joey2665]

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

[loonguy]

My money, or at least my perspective on what should happen based on the equities, says the "boathouse" loses.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by joey2665

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....

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

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

[Mr. V]

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'.

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

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.

[Lakegirl24]

SWNoel,

They are not logical with things that have gone on in the neighborhood since they moved in.

[joey2665]

Originally Posted by swnoel

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

[Lakegirl24]

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.

[Lakegirl24]

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.

[iw8surf]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

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

[Lakes Region Guy]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

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.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Lakes Region Guy

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.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Lakes Region Guy

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.

[welch-time]

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.

[TheTimeTraveler]

Originally Posted by Lakes Region Guy

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......

[DEJ]

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.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by DEJ

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...

[Lakegirl24]

Welch Time,

Yes, i believe it is..... it’s been there all my life.

[The Real BigGuy]

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

[WinnisquamZ]

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

[Poor Richard]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

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

[Lakegirl24]

Poor Richard,

Lol.... You speak the truth, especially in this case.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

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!

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

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?

[thinkxingu]

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

[MAXUM]

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.

[Lakegirl24]

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.

[Woody38]

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.

[ApS]

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.

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

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?

[Lakegirl24]

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?????

[Woodsy]

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

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

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...

[bigpatsfan]

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

[Lakegirl24]

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

[TiltonBB]

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!

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

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