Swim Raft Permits

[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 )

[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?

[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.

[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.


[email protected]

[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.


[email protected]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.


[email protected]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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