What is that in Paugus Bay??

[julietbravo]

A picture from May

[BroadHopper]

Because of the rulings, any structure within 175' (I could be wrong) has to build within the same footprint. So property owners are building up instead of out. This will become common as the years go by.

[Longtimelurker]

We call it the Tower of Terror!

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Longtimelurker

We call it the Tower of Terror!

.....that's a good name .... a lake winnipesaukee terror tower!

(Supposedly, geographic areas and bodies of water like lake winnipesaukee, the atlantic ocean, and meredith bay are not supposed to be capitalized?)

[longislander]

State Shoreland Program:

https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/...cspa/index.htm

Towns have differing zoning ordinances, which are in addition to the state regs.

I live in Moultonborough which has a 32ft. height limit:

I. Height of buildings. No building shall be constructed in the Town of Moultonborough with overall height exceeding thirty-two (32) feet above ground level measured as the average of the vertical distances between the ridge of the building and the highest ground level point, and the ridge of the building and the lowest ground level point. This provision shall not apply to church steeples, chimneys, cupolas, silos, antennas, or to unoccupied structures.



https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...03-14-17_0.pdf

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Because of the rulings, any structure within 175' (I could be wrong) has to build within the same footprint. So property owners are building up instead of out. This will become common as the years go by.

However, many (most) towns also have height bylaws that will limit how high. But you are right, as the old places come down, the replacements will go to the max allowed.

[Onshore]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Because of the rulings, any structure within 175' (I could be wrong) has to build within the same footprint. So property owners are building up instead of out. This will become common as the years go by.

There is no state level "Wetlands ruling" that would regulate this. The NH Shoreland Act (RSA 482-A) would prohibit getting closer to the water for structures closer than 50 to the water but later expansion could still be possible. The Shoreland Act was changed in either 2008 or 2009 to remove the pre-existing restrictions on expanding pre-existing primary structures upward within 50 feet of the reference line. There has been a 12 ft. limit on the height of accessory structures within 50 feet of the reference line since 1996.

[Descant]

Bravo Zulu to Juliet Bravo. Thanks for the picture.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by shore things

There is no state level "Wetlands ruling" that would regulate this. The NH Shoreland Act (RSA 482-A) would prohibit getting closer to the water for structures closer than 50 to the water but later expansion could still be possible. The Shoreland Act was changed in either 2008 or 2009 to remove the pre-existing restrictions on expanding pre-existing primary structures upward within 50 feet of the reference line. There has been a 12 ft. limit on the height of accessory structures within 50 feet of the reference line since 1996.

Thanks for the update. So it is town rulings that justify the means. In Laconia, one project build up 3 stories on the same footprint. I know of another project that went up 3 stories on the same footprint in Gilford. Another project in Tuftonboro the owner choose to tear down the existing structure, move it back 50 feet so he can build on a bigger footprint.
The one project I know in Laconia, the property owner in the back of the new 3 story building wasn't happy as he lost direct view of the lake.

The reason why I thought it was state specific is that it happened in 3 towns that bordered Lake Winnipesaukee.

[tis]

Does it look taller because it is so narrow? The one to the right looks almost as high.

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by tis

Does it look taller because it is so narrow? The one to the right looks almost as high.

you are correct, also the land starts to slope down towards the other two. Everyone has their opinions and that is part of what makes this country great (for now anyways). IMO though, comparing the structures side by side and close up and not from the water where you only see one side and the lake windows, gives you a different perspective of the property.

Right now while it is not the only one that went up in the association, it is the first modern one in the area, and with the age group turning over do not think it wont evolve to more.
Rather look at that than that white building the Margate owns with teal stripes on it (the old Monaco, or the tents that are always going up and down, or that building behind our association 1 Gilford Place or the land waste between Watermark and Spinnaker Cove, or the numerous falling down boat houses on the bay).

it is like the one modern house on the block that was built in the 70's and everyone hated it because it was not traditional. Now look, tiny modern houses made out of left over crap, people bringing industrial in and the Steam Punk design, that very same street that had that one modern style house now has more on it.

At the end of the day, its not your money and not your tastes and desires, oh well

[VitaBene]

Looks better than some of the ridiculous MacMansions dotting the lake!

[JEM]

Ummm I would not consider this to be "modern" at all. It has ruined the integrity of the shoreline in my opinion. Looks more like a prison tower and is quite an eye sore. I feel bad for the people who have to look at that consistently. I am sure the people in the perfect quaint cottage right next to that were not too happy.
Every time I see it I see this image!

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by JEM

Ummm I would not consider this to be "modern" at all. It has ruined the integrity of the shoreline in my opinion. Looks more like a prison tower and is quite an eye sore. I feel bad for the people who have to look at that consistently. I am sure the people in the perfect quaint cottage right next to that were not too happy.
Every time I see it I see this image!

see is where the country is going, its his land, his building, his money. If they chose to building this then its what they wanted, when it does not directly affect you directly, financially, why does the other person have to take your opinions and wants/desires into consideration

off Soap box now

[JEM]

Originally Posted by AC2717

see is where the country is going, its his land, his building, his money. If they chose to building this then its what they wanted, when it does not directly affect you directly, financially, why does the other person have to take your opinions and wants/desires into consideration

Of course he doesn't NEED to take anyones "opinions or want/desires into consideration" although a little common sense and common courtesy should come into play especially in a condominium complex. How that monstrosity got approved is beyond me but as you say, this "is where the COUNTRY is going". Each to their own....

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by AC2717

see is where the country is going, its his land, his building, his money. If they chose to building this then its what they wanted, when it does not directly affect you directly, financially, why does the other person have to take your opinions and wants/desires into consideration

to your point about being approved its all in what the bylaws allow and don't for the association, then onto the town where if it conforms to their requirements, how could it not.