Shoreland Protection Rules

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by wifi

Heck, in last falls revisions of the law, you weren't even allowed to rake the leaves on your lakefront property (disturbing natural vegatation).

One of two things would eventually happen:

1) A situation would arise causing such laws to get tested in the Supreme Court with national media attention, or

2) New Hampshire would learn (the hard way) that dense unmaintained woodlands with lots of dead leaves & underbrush
+ nearby houses
+ an unusually dry summer
+ a carelessly tossed cigarette or lightning strike
= the sort of 100-year disaster that NH foresters have been warning is now several years overdue... or a smaller scale: One house catches fire, and the wind carries embers along the densely wooded shoreline scorching everything in its path (including neighboring houses) until meeting with water or a change in wind direction. All that's needed is lots of dry, unmaintained woodland and the right weather conditions, which we had plenty of last summer.

[tis]

Cla, they will be happy if the houses burn down, but not happy if all the trees are gone.

[meteotrade]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

One of two things would eventually happen:
One house catches fire, and the wind carries embers along the densely wooded shoreline scorching everything in its path (including neighboring houses) until meeting with water or a change in wind direction. All that's needed is lots of dry, unmaintained woodland and the right weather conditions, which we had plenty of last summer.

Wow, excellent point!

Here's another thing the authors of the SPA failed to consider: Bears. Don't they realize that dense, wooded areas are prime habitat for these soulless predators? All we need is the right weather (i.e. spring) and these ravenous beasts will emerge from their dens, terrorizing the lake side forests in their endless quest for honey and picnic baskets. Just another example of how the new SPA is bound to fail us.

[lakershaker]

hi Shore Thing,
On our island building, we don't have a dug foundation, but rather poured concrete piers with the regular old ground underneath and the house propped up above the ground. As far as runoff is concerned, rainwater is free to travel under our place and be absorbed into the ground. Does this type of structure change the calculation at all, or is it still considered the same as a dug foundation? And, if an outbuilding was added at a later date of similar elevated construction, would that be an easier process?
Thanks,
Lakershaker

[CanisLupusArctos]

In forested areas of other parts of the country (except old growth,) officials are teaching and encouraging people to maintain their forest so that only the healthiest trees stand, and to remove underbrush and debris. This is because in many locations they learned (the hard way) that their forest protection rules were actually encouraging fires (and other problems like disease and parasites) that caused the loss of forest, a huge expense in disaster relief and insurance claims, and unfortunately human life as well.

Old growth forest really does maintain itself. In most areas of the country (including NH) we have new growth because people clear-cut everything up until the 1940s. When the logging stopped, all the seeds sprang up all at once, resulting in these trees we have now... too close to each other... over-competing for nutrients... no tree reaching its full potential... lots of dead or dying stuff... it's a situation that's not good for man nor forest.

I didn't come to this area for a ritzy subdivision shoreline or I would've chosen California or Florida... and certainly not to hear rumbling bulldozers and backup alarms or else I wouldn't have moved away from the city. I'm all for protecting the NH environment for those reasons, but in the last few years I've seen nature itself show us why over-protection is just as harmful as no protection... like when a whole forest burns down because environmentalists over-protected it. Or when those same well-meaning people cause deer to become overpopulated and lure their predators into backyards where those predators discover that people are a lot easier to catch and they don't shoot, as they always used to.

The motto "leave no trace" has its time and place in the wilderness, but otherwise we need to look at ourselves as an important part of the ecosystem: Good stewards. To be a good steward requires action, like tending a garden. Environmental policy here in the northeast is slowly forcing humans to think of themselves as "Invisible spectators" rather than active stewards. Granted, some people refuse to be either good stewards nor invisible spectators; the rest of us should rise up against them and make their actions unpopular. We don't need laws in order to do that because nobody wants to be shunned.

Some areas of the country have already tried making people invisible spectators of the environment, and they've realized (at great expense to the environment and people) that it doesn't work. We should learn from them. One might say, "Stuff that happens in those places never happens here in the northeast." Such words have been spoken many times in the last few years, and nature keeps proving them wrong.

Whether we are environmentalists or corporate builders makes no difference to nature: It's constantly proving itself a step ahead of both--often painfully. Therefore the safest place is somewhere in the middle.

[Just Sold]

The "New Rules" became effective today. We had an office a meeting with one of the people who was on one of the committes that wrote a section of the rules today. There was more than one committe. He said if the lot is a new one it will be tough getting it approved if it is say <10,000 sq. ft. A lot of record will still have to comply but may not necessarily be rejected to build on.

For Islands one interesting thing is that you have to have a "plan" for bringing your construction-heavy equipment on and off shore along with a restoration plan for the first 50' it will cross. If your island is lucky enough, like on Rattlesnake's NW corner, to have a landing for such equipment that saves the expense of the plan etc.

He also said that "new" waterfront lot development will be expensive due to the new rules even if it has the frontage, setbacks and size to meet all the requirements.

Even adding a second floor without increasing the footprint of the building will require permiting from the state. One particular rule says that you can only have an impervious area equal to 20% of the total lot size. Impervious areas include the cottage/home (the area under the roof overhang and not the walls of the building) paved/stone/gravel walkways and driveways, sheds, decks, patios etc. Grass and undeveloped areas are not included. Also be aware that in the 50' set back you can only trim the low cover growth to no less than 3' in height so long as it does not cause damage to the plant. No raking or altering the 50' setbacks either. If it falls to the ground it has to stay where it fell. Trees are limited as to how much you can trim them for views. You can have a 6' wide path to the water though.

Septic requirements are tightening as well. 75' setbacks (to lot lines and water areas) and 2' above the high water table must still be met. This means smaller lots, such as <10,000 sq.ft., on some small lakes and ponds in NH may not be able to get a septic system approval which some did in the past. This could negatively effect the value of these properties and make them questionable for year round use.

Many rivers and streams are now "Protected" and fall under the Shoreland Protection Act. You may have seen these signs popping up where roads pass over them.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

So basically the shoreline belongs to the state while the landowners pay taxes on it. "Live Free Or Die..."

I heard that the same point was brought up in a meeting with DES and the DESpeaker did not know how to answer that when asked. This came from someone who attended. Very interesting indeed.

[meteotrade]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I heard that the same point was brought up in a meeting with DES and the DESpeaker did not know how to answer that when asked. This came from someone who attended. Very interesting indeed.

Think of it like an easement. I pay taxes on the sidewalk which runs through the front of my land, and I have to take care of it, too. Hardly seems fair, but that's life.

[wifi]

Originally Posted by meteotrade

Think of it like an easement......

Lots of waterfront people bought their property with the expectation of using their land like everyone else has for decades. Now the state comes along and makes rules preventing people from using this property, that they have already purchased with prior reasonable expectations, without compensating said people....

Sounds like these 'said people' are not only getting screwed, but this 'expectation' is no longer valid, meaning their property is worth a LOT less should they try to sell or be forced to sell or can't afford to sit back and wait for the boat to right itself.

Another arrow in the side of the regional economy.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Makes me wonder how bright it was to purchase the adjacent lot to keep it from being immediately developed. I wonder how long it will be until we can't walk on it?

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by wifi

Lots of waterfront people bought their property with the expectation of using their land like everyone else has for decades. Now the state comes along and makes rules preventing people from using this property, that they have already purchased with prior reasonable expectations, without compensating said people....

Sounds like these 'said people' are not only getting screwed, but this 'expectation' is no longer valid, meaning their property is worth a LOT less should they try to sell or be forced to sell or can't afford to sit back and wait for the boat to right itself.

Another arrow in the side of the regional economy.

This is a great climax after the already wonderful "View Tax" that some have been assessed for. I heard a story about a parcel in the Pittsburg area that the town or state nailed the owner with a $6k tax increase for a view tax on an undeveloped lot.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Codeman 671
This is a great climax after the already wonderful "View Tax" that some have been assessed for. I heard a story about a parcel in the Pittsburg area that the town or state nailed the owner with a $6k tax increase for a view tax on an undeveloped lot.

If that's true then the owner of the lot should apply for "Current Use" designation on the undeveloped parcel.

Originally posted by wifi
Lots of waterfront people bought their property with the expectation of using their land like everyone else has for decades. Now the state comes along and makes rules preventing people from using this property, that they have already purchased with prior reasonable expectations, without compensating said people....

I will speculate that sooner rather than later some attorney who is caught in the trap that you describe will bring a major lawsuit against the state for what could be argued is an emminent domain landtaking without fair market compenstion.

[meteotrade]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

it's a situation that's not good for man nor forest.

And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by meteotrade

And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house

Metrotrade,
I think they named the bill after this guy. Thanks to him for causing the spark of this bright idea. I just want to pick up a dead branch and move some leaves off the nature path so my mom does not slip. Why do I think the guy with the best lawyer will still do what ever they want.

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by meteotrade

And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house

Previous posts in this thread, as well as parts of the law (as I read it) indicated that doing so much as raking leaves was against the law. So... if what you say is true, then I am now confused.

And no, I am not THAT worried about a forest fire. I stated in a previous post (and will now repeat as a summary) that my opinions are more middle-of-the-road... opposed to overdone development as posted in the photo you linked to, but also opposed to overdone laws. My thing with the forest fires was my way of illustrating the following statement: "Overdone laws often end up causing more harm than good, often to the very things they're designed to protect." I would've illustrated my opposition to overdone development if I didn't think all of us were already familiar with it.

[jrc]

Funny thing is the new law will cause more development like the Bahre Mansion, Ok maybe not that big.

But a moneyed builder can buy the necessary acerage, file all the forms, hire all the engineers, surveyors and hydrologists to build pretty much anything he wants. Except maybe a boathouse.

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes. The tax assesor will never believe it's worthless. Maybe that's a good goal but if you're effectively taking this guys property, he should be compensated.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by jrc

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes.

Or more likely sell it to the monied buyer looking to piece 4-5 of these together to build the McMansion in your earlier paragraph.

[Onshore]

I'm going to be just a little busy here for the next couple of days, but I'll try to find time to get to as many of these questions as I can today. Quickly though, comments about the state owning the land but individuals paying taxes on it... Individuals own the land but the government (local, state, or federal) has a right to regulate the activities on it to protect and preserve the health and well-being of the general public. In this instance it would be with the intent of protecting the quality of water and preventing erosion and flooding. As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional... or so I've been told by various attorneys. The shoreland staff is not comprised of attorneys and we are not in a position to argue property rights issues. Questions about the environment or the implentation of the law we were given to enforce we can handle. We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.

[tis]

Originally Posted by shore things

As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional...



We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.

shore things, the problem is, it IS VERY prohibitive! I think you will be seeing lots of attorneys.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by shore things

I'm going to be just a little busy here for the next couple of days, but I'll try to find time to get to as many of these questions as I can today. Quickly though, comments about the state owning the land but individuals paying taxes on it... Individuals own the land but the government (local, state, or federal) has a right to regulate the activities on it to protect and preserve the health and well-being of the general public. In this instance it would be with the intent of protecting the quality of water and preventing erosion and flooding. As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional... or so I've been told by various attorneys. The shoreland staff is not comprised of attorneys and we are not in a position to argue property rights issues. Questions about the environment or the implementation of the law we were given to enforce we can handle. We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.

If the only goal is to protect the water quality then why don't they give us the option to build closer to the lake and collect all the rain water that falls on the roof and pump it 250 feet away from the lake to take a filtered ride back to the lake or replenish the aquifer . That would make the result a net increase in water quality for the lake. I think I like reasonable limits on tree cutting as it protects all of our value and mutual enjoyment. Trying to spell everyones situation out in a house bill seems a bit of a stretch.

Not sure how we should all react the next time we see someone get around the rules that apply to the rest of us. Hope to see pictures of it here.

[Belkin]

I take the following statement within the Shoreland Protection Act to mean that you can rake leaves in areas where three are no existing fallen leaves. You might also interpret it to imply that anything that grows or falls after April 1, 2008 can be removed (i.e. you are encouraged but not required to add additional plants to areas that previously did not have any):

(v) Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to April 1, 2008 may maintain but not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches, within the waterfront buffer.

However, in areas where there is natural ground cover:

(C) No natural ground cover shall be removed except as necessary for a foot path to water as provided under RSA 483-B:9,

where natural ground cover includes:

Natural ground cover shall also include naturally occurring leaf or needle litter, stumps, decaying woody debris, stones, and boulders.


I think this is where the feeling that you can not rake your yard comes from. And if your yard is composed of "natural ground cover", I think that belief is correct. It would appear that picking up a decaying stick from wooded areas of your yard within 50 feet of the water would not be allowed.

[codeman671]

Is there going to be a limitation to future installations of perched beaches?

[AQUAMAN]

My belief is that everyone wants to protect the waters of NH. Education through lawmaking is really the only way. The real issue is the Department or more specific the persons within the Department that oversee the permitting and enforcement of the laws. With the same key people that have given the Wetlands Board the worst reputation of any DES department heading up the CSPA, it will not take long for this reputation to carry over. I attended a seminar at DES given by an in-house consultant who is responsible for fixing the lack of customer service within the Wetlands Board. The sentiment rang loud and clear; it is not the laws but the attitudes of the persons within the department. I have had two applications reviewed by the same person within 6 months of each other so the laws are the same. The first is approved after meeting certain requests for more information (RFMIs) and 6mos later the issues or RFMI's are completely different. This lack of consistency is very frustrating but most of all very expensive. So I embrace the CSPA and its intention but I am very nervous of what lies ahead.

[Merrymeeting]

Similar to what Aquaman stated, I've had direct, similar, experience with DES. Clear violation of the existing laws (a shorefront lot that cleared every piece of vegatation from the lot without permits). I went through the formal process of submitting the paperwork to report it.

Twice it was kicked back for petty, bureacratic information updates. Finally they came back and admitted that they didn't have the personnel or time to investigate. This was under the old laws.

So, other than adding an administrative and cost nightmare for "the little guy", how is this going to help?

[Steveo]

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

1. Can you put a set point well in within the 50 ft area? What about the disturbance cause by digging a ditch for the supply line to the house.

2. Can you add a foundation to an existing home that is on piers now, same footprint.

3. Can you replace the decking on a crib dock.

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Steveo

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

1. Can you put a set point well in within the 50 ft area? What about the disturbance cause by digging a ditch for the supply line to the house.

2. Can you add a foundation to an existing home that is on piers now, same footprint.

3. Can you replace the decking on a crib dock.

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help

Now that the word is out, you will be the proud owner of a bony beach.

The WLB will only allow a perch beach situation; no more dumping sand in the Lake. It has been this way for some time - you have been lucky.

[eyenotall777]

The links below may answer your question in regards to sand/beach:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wetlands/guidebook/beach.htm

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/bb-15.htm

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by eyenotall777

The links below may answer your question in regards to sand/beach:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wetlands/guidebook/beach.htm

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/bb-15.htm

The original question was "Can I replace beach sand that washes out?

Here is just ONE of the questions that would need to be answered as part of your application to BEG the state to be able to maintain your property.

(7) The impact on plants, fish, and wildlife including:
a. Rare, special concern species;

b. State and federally listed threatened and endangered species;

c. Species at the extremities of their ranges;

d. Migratory fish and wildlife; and

e. Exemplary natural communities identified by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) - Department of Resources and Economic Development.

Could anyone on this forum honestly answer this question? I am a technically oriented person and I wouldn't even know where to start.
Could even an expert in Marine biology really answer this type of question properly and accurately?
Would you need to survey the lake to determine all the possible marine life and wildlife that exist in the lake in the off chance that one of them may one day wander near your beach and somehow be impacted by the cubic yard of sand you want to dump to fill in some holes?

When laws add ridiculous complexity to simple and reasonable processes people will eventually start to ignore or sidestep the laws and take their chances. Before too long only multimillionaires will be able to address the type of regulations being foisted upon us and if you think they will be satisfied with small houses, think again. For those upset with the Bahre estate, wait until there are hundreds of such properties because such owners will be the only ones that have the capability to deal with the regulations, or pay the fines when they break them.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Here is just ONE of the questions that would need to be answered as part of your application to BEG the state to be able to maintain your property.

"Sometimes, it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" -Grace Hopper.

I think Steveo will back her up on this one.

[wifi]

Originally Posted by jeffk

........When laws add ridiculous complexity to simple and reasonable processes people will eventually start to ignore or sidestep the laws and take their chances. Before too long only multimillionaires will be able to address the type of regulations being foisted upon us and if you think they will be satisfied with small houses, think again. For those upset with the Bahre estate, wait until there are hundreds of such properties because such owners will be the only ones that have the capability to deal with the regulations, or pay the fines when they break them.

Right on target, Thanks Jeff.

These laws were quickly baked up, primarily with an implementation date in mind, without considering their consequences and "collateral damage".

[idigtractors]

Originally Posted by Steveo

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help

The state has told me in the past years that any sand being put on the shore/in the water has to have a permit.($50) I did it twice and it wasn't the easiest thing to do as letters had to be sent to abutters and a map with all kinds of dimensions had to be submitted. That is just part of it. Them telling me this I would say what you have being doing in the past is wrong.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by idigtractors

The state has told me in the past years that any sand being put on the shore/in the water has to have a permit.($50) I did it twice and it wasn't the easiest thing to do as letters had to be sent to abutters and a map with all kinds of dimensions had to be submitted. That is just part of it. Them telling me this I would say what you have being doing in the past is wrong.

Steveo,

With regard to your past transgressions, kindly fill out the attached form and send it to DES immediately. By turning yourself in you can feel good about doing the right thing and, if what Aquaman says is true, you'll never have to actually pay the price.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Steveo

I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

I am struggling with the State saying that raking the area around a picnic table is a problem for the lake but placing sand that routinely washes away in the lake is OK with permission????

[ITD]

I'm struggling with the fact that this law isn't a requirement for 2.5 miles from the water instead of 250 feet. What people are doing 1 mile from the lake can have just as much impact, or even more since the numbers are greater than some poor slob who picks up sticks. We seem to be very willing to limit the rights and freedoms of small groups of people as long as it doesn't affect us. I wonder if the local town folk a little further from the water would feel the same if they had to follow these inane rules. I've said it before, I'll say it again. A few morons don't follow the rules and clear cut their land. The reaction, instead of following and enforcing the present rules, is to come up with these draconian measures that are nearly impossible to enforce and penalize all shorefront owners. Another sign of the do gooder, meddlesome mentality from down here in the Flatlands. We all know how things work out down here.......

[Orion]

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Orion

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.

The problem with this rule is that the high water mark keeps changing. My small beach front has eroded over 8 feet towards my house in the past 15 years. It erodes with the wake of deep displacement craft when the lake is well above "full". I'd sure like to replenish my beach back to where it used to be. I'm concerned that my legally built property will become encumbered within the 50 foot setback as the erosion continues, and I'd like to fight it without a lot of paperwork.

The shoreline protection act should have included a clause that when the lake level is above 504.5 feet, a lake-wide no-wake rule is in effect. No-wake was declared in 1998, but not in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when we had three 100+ year floods in a row.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Today as I drove to work to help pay some taxes I passed a state park littered with tons of pine needles under the massive pines around the local lake. The needles providing a valuable filter to the rain that was falling.

Then I thought about the impending annual clean up that will remove all of that natural material in contradiction to the new rules for the states lakes.

I have decided to spend some time at the park tomorrow and get some before shots for what is sure to be a frustrating set of after pictures.

It will be interesting to see if the State feels compelled to follow the rules or will they find them as ridiculous as we do?

Maybe when one of us gets arrested for picking a flower without a permit, the pictures will at least give the jury something to laugh at.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

UnionLeader.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009
By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter

A House committee yesterday was told that proposed changes to a bill relaxing the restrictions to the current state shoreland protection law do not go far enough to allow waterfront property owners to maintain and make minor adjustments to their own land. Click here for the full story.

The committee expects to review whether to adjust the bill and recommend whether the full House should pass it by April 30.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Orion

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.

Exactly. The purpose of a perched beach is to have all sand above the high water mark. If you do not have a perched beach and your sand is below the high water mark, you are going to lose it to the lake consistently. I think that what they are trying to prevent is people just dumping loads of sand on their shoreline so that it gets washed into the lake, creating a nice sandy bottom.

[neckdweller]

The reality of the new law is that how people coexist with their neighbors will play a large part in who does what.

Obviously clearcutting a lakefront lot won't be happening but people adding sand to their beach, doing the typical landscaping they've done in the past, etc. will continue so long as they don't fear that their neighbors will be filling out one of those forms.

For those people who have an uneasy realtionship with their neighbors, they may think twice and be looking over their shoulder before yanking that weed out of the ground.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

Or more likely sell it to the monied buyer looking to piece 4-5 of these together to build the McMansion in your earlier paragraph.

Good point.

Originally Posted by shore things

....As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional...We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers...

I'm not expecting the bureaucracy to fix this themselves, they are foot soldiers and must just follow orders. Terms like prohibitive, reasonable and constitutional are usually defined by people in robes.

My point was just watch out for unintended consequences.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by jrc

Funny thing is the new law will cause more development like the Bahre Mansion, Ok maybe not that big.

But a moneyed builder can buy the necessary acerage, file all the forms, hire all the engineers, surveyors and hydrologists to build pretty much anything he wants. Except maybe a boathouse.

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes. The tax assesor will never believe it's worthless. Maybe that's a good goal but if you're effectively taking this guys property, he should be compensated.

I may be wrong, but had heard that they cannot deem a property that WAS buildable under the previous laws to be non-buildable now.

[jrc]

OK maybe I got carried away. Time will tell, but given enough money and time with permits, exisiting 100' x 100' lots are probably buildable.

Many on this board have complained up and down about the change in the lake from working people in camps to rich people in mansions. This law can only accelerate that process. Maybe that's a good thing, it probably means less people overall and less houses per foot of shoreline. Less boats but probably bigger boats.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I may be wrong, but had heard that they cannot deem a property that WAS buildable under the previous laws to be non-buildable now.

Just because they can't legally stop you from building doesn't mean that they can't throw so many roadblocks in the way that, for most people, it has the same effect.

Just from the discussion on this forum is far from clear to me exactly what the effect of these changes will be. Shore Things seems to be stating that the commission is looking for guidance. I accept that the willingness to discuss with the public is a wonderful thing but the fact that this is now the required "Law of the land" without anyone really understanding what it means is a disaster in the making.

A example to consider might be the EPA laws and regulations. Now every time a project is started there must be a massive review of the habitat. If one blue-green frog lives in the area instead of just plain green frogs, everything comes to a halt. Developers with deep pockets develop exotic and expensive plans to mitigate the "threat" to the blue-green frog. They build a blue-green frog condo and import a harem of blue-green frogs to keep it happy. Developers with less assets simply give up. What's the take away lesson? Those with big bucks pretty much get what they want.

Originally Posted by jrc

OK maybe I got carried away. Time will tell, but given enough money and time with permits, exisiting 100' x 100' lots are probably buildable.

Many on this board have complained up and down about the change in the lake from working people in camps to rich people in mansions. This law can only accelerate that process. Maybe that's a good thing, it probably means less people overall and less houses per foot of shoreline. Less boats but probably bigger boats.

I think you are right on target jrc. The big money people will be the only ones who have the ability to deal with the confusing and shifting regulations. They will pay a lawyer lots of money to steer it through. Since the law doesn't specifically prevent them from developing but instead puts a regulatory minefield in their way, they will eventually prevail. Joe average will just throw up his hands and give up or do it on the sly. He will get caught and fined, not because he wasn't legally entitled to build what he wanted but because he couldn't afford to do the paperwork.

When a person is prevented from using their property by the state and the value of the property is diminished because of the state rules the property has effectively been seized and compensation should be paid. If the public wants the control of the land for their "protection" then they should pay for that control. How about if a lakefront property owner wants to make changes it is the state that must pay for all the regulatory work. i.e if it costs me $200,000 in legal and other fees to validate that I can modify my property as I wish to, the state pays me $200,000. If the public wants the benefit of protection, they pay the bills for it.

[idigtractors]

What I have read only here on the forum my feelings are that a good 90% of what is being tried to be done is all good. This trying to save the land and waters of the state of NH for us and the future ones that are coming along has to be done at some point. Whenever they decide to try and make a workable solution it will defiantly is not going to please everyone as they get caught up with things that they were not expecting. Is that to say, well we will let you do your project, but the next person then complains as he got caught. It just has to be done at any given point. Yes it would be great that all the changes were written in layman's terms so that everyone one knew exactly where they stand. At the present everyone is reading into everything the way they want to.
We just need to sit on our hands and let the committees do there job and hopefully everything they do helps correct our sadden conditions of our natural environment even if it does mean we do not rake our leaves.

[Orion]

Excellent original post CanisLupusArctos!

[CanisLupusArctos]

It seems almost everywhere you look, increased regulation brings the most hardship on the people with the least money. The little people who actually care about the world around them get shut out because they can't afford the cost of compliance with regulations, which allows the wealthiest take over because they can. They bring their attitude, "Fines are the cost of doing business" and buy whatever public officials they need in order to get illegal things done legally. When the cost of being here (or the cost of anything) gets high enough, it takes on a 'snob appeal' for people who like to brag about how much they pay for things. And usually, those are the same people who don't care about anyone else's environment but their own.

[meteotrade]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

Previous posts in this thread, as well as parts of the law (as I read it) indicated that doing so much as raking leaves was against the law. So... if what you say is true, then I am now confused.

I think the paranoia stems from the section of the act which states that 50%of the woodland buffer must be maintained in an "undisturbed state". The spirit of the phrase is to prevent the destruction of the natural habitation in favor of landscaped improvements like giant lawns, beaches, etc. example A few paranoid folks have interpreted this to mean that they aren't allowed to pick up dead branches or leaves, which is entirely untrue. Enforcers of the new law are going to have much bigger fish to fry than some guy who's raking his yard.