Shoreland Protection Rules

[tis]

You make a lot of good points Formula.

I do think some of these rules are too restrictive. For instance someone with a non conforming lot, who has a tiny, old, less than a 1000 Sq. foot camp, may want to improve and enlarge that-now I am not talking to 5000 feet, but maybe to a livable 1500-2000- will probably not be able to get a permit to build. And although we all love the old camps and hate to see them go, I can tell you most people do not want to live in them for long, or buy them. I had one and everyone looked at it and wanted something newer and nicer. So I think if all this stays as is, lots are going to be reduced in price dramatically on the lake.

I, of course also want to protect the lake, I have owned property on it most of my life, and probably love it more than most. I know there are many who will take advantage. I just think we have to have a reasonable balance.

The problem of course of hiring a lawyer, is not only the money but time! You could take four or five years if you have to go to court. I think the gov. should work WITH us, we should not have to fight them. We hire them, after all, shouldn't they help us, guide us without having to hire lawyers?

I feel that some of the things we were made to do on our project just didn't make sense. It did not make the lot look better, and I can't see how it protected the lake. But it is done and over and so be it.

I hope none of this offends you Formula, shore things, or anyone else. . I am just saying things the way I see them. I hope we have a right to voice our opinions on this forum.

[Formula260SS]

Originally Posted by tis

I hope none of this offends you Formula, shore things, or anyone else. . I am just saying things the way I see them. I hope we have a right to voice our opinions on this forum.

Tis, no offense taken at all

With respect to the tiny non conforming lot, at some point a line has to be drawn in the sand within reason. Someone who has owned that small lot with the tiny camp for that last 20 yrs my guess paid about nothing for it. Are restrictive rules fair for this person? not sure. If someone paid 1mm for it in the last few years that's going to hurt but common sense should tell you small lot = small structure. I'm really not trying to open a debate on this specific issue but as Shore Things mentioned in previous posts you can go up.

Again, no offense taken

[ITD]

Originally Posted by tis

You make a lot of good points Formula.

I do think some of these rules are too restrictive. For instance someone with a non conforming lot, who has a tiny, old, less than a 1000 Sq. foot camp, may want to improve and enlarge that-now I am not talking to 5000 feet, but maybe to a livable 1500-2000- will probably not be able to get a permit to build. And although we all love the old camps and hate to see them go, I can tell you most people do not want to live in them for long, or buy them. I had one and everyone looked at it and wanted something newer and nicer. So I think if all this stays as is, lots are going to be reduced in price dramatically on the lake.

I, of course also want to protect the lake, I have owned property on it most of my life, and probably love it more than most. I know there are many who will take advantage. I just think we have to have a reasonable balance.

The problem of course of hiring a lawyer, is not only the money but time! You could take four or five years if you have to go to court. I think the gov. should work WITH us, we should not have to fight them. We hire them, after all, shouldn't they help us, guide us without having to hire lawyers?

I feel that some of the things we were made to do on our project just didn't make sense. It did not make the lot look better, and I can't see how it protected the lake. But it is done and over and so be it.

I hope none of this offends you Formula, shore things, or anyone else. . I am just saying things the way I see them. I hope we have a right to voice our opinions on this forum.

Keep speaking out tis, at some point these laws become so restrictive it amounts to a land taking. The government trumps private property rights. Are we there yet, I don't know. Once again most of the problems arose out of inconsistent application of the current laws. So in typical big inefficient government fashion the rules are made way too restrictive when better application of the current law would have sufficed with maybe a tweek or two to the law.

[jeffk]

Speaking for myself I try to be reasonably environmentally conscious. I would welcome a discussion that acknowledges my right to live on, enjoy, and reasonably improve my property. I paid a lot of money for it and continue to pay excessive property taxes on it for the privilege of ownership. Fine. OK. But then it seems that the government takes an adversarial role with it's own citizens.

I'll give one example. I have a beach area that sometimes erodes. I would like to fill it in to compensate for the erosion. 75% of my shore front is absolutely natural, rock, shrubs, and various growth. I don't rake or treat it in any way. I also have no lawn around my house. I understand that sand introduces phosphorus into the water. OK, is it possible to get sand that is neutral for the lake? Could I just get a simple, one page permit that says I will get a cubic yard of "good" sand for the intention of maintaining the "beach" that has been there for the last 20 years or more? I include a simple "before" picture that indicates where I want to do the work. I file the form for $25 buck and proceed. The appropriate agency is now aware of my intentions and can do spot checks to verify I didn't exceed reasonable bounds.

If I want to get a fire permit, I go to the fire station and fill out a form and immediately get my permit. I can be roasting marshmallows in an hour. It seems to me that the vast majority of everyday shore maintenance falls into this category and that most shore front owners would be happy to comply with a straight forward procedure.

It would also be very nice to have a seminar for shore front owners that present the real concerns of managing property on the water along with straight forward and realistic suggestions as how to get improvement in water conditions.

When the state seems to take the approach of "You can't, you can't, you can't" after a while "I can't HEAR you" seems a reasonable response.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Could I just get a simple, one page permit that says I will get a cubic yard of "good" sand for the intention of maintaining the "beach" that has been there for the last 20 years or more? I include a simple "before" picture that indicates where I want to do the work. I file the form for $25 buck and proceed. The appropriate agency is now aware of my intentions and can do spot checks to verify I didn't exceed reasonable bounds.

It's not quite one page, but a PBN is pretty much what you are describing. See section 13 of the attached. There is a little bit info gathering that needs to be done but most of it (tax map, USGS map, etc.) is available online for free.

[CanisLupusArctos]

I'd like to know if anyone in Concord considered generalized size restrictions on houses built (instead of the new laws we have now.) Seems it would've been a lot simpler and more direct and to-the-point. In many other parts of the country during the height of the housing boom, I saw several national news stories about municipalities that didn't like the number of McMansions popping up or the problems they caused the general community when they became too plentiful. So many started enacting "Enough is enough" laws intended to protect community resources along with the overall appearance of the area. In the long run, I wonder what happens to these giant dwellings when the passage of time brings the next economically-starving era. Will the lake be lined with "historic" abandoned estates rotting away because no one can afford to repair them? People in the 1920s probably never imagined that the grand hotels would be abandoned and estates turned into apartments by the time they were grandparents.

JeffK, have you considered water bars on your property? The AMC uses them on trails to divert water away from the trails and into the woods so the trails won't erode. They're usually no more than timbers or rows of rocks installed diagonally across the flow of runoff water in order to get the storm-induced stream to move over a few feet, thus protecting what's directly downhill of it.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

JeffK, have you considered water bars on your property? The AMC uses them on trails to divert water away from the trails and into the woods so the trails won't erode. They're usually no more than timbers or rows of rocks installed diagonally across the flow of runoff water in order to get the storm-induced stream to move over a few feet, thus protecting what's directly downhill of it.

That might prove a solution from the land-side of the beach area; but what about Mother Nature's actions from the water-side of the beach area?

Storms in the Fall do some serious erosion. The property might be well protected from the NW winds and waves; but very vulnerable to the Eastly winds and waves of the Fall storms.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Shore Things,
I agree with the sentiments here that I do not wish to shoot the messenger! I have learned more from your post than from any other source. As you clear up misunderstandings you do two things. First you help us know what the rules are and second you keep us from abandoning the concept of trying to comply.

I sincerely thank you for your contribution and hope you continue.

Rattlesnake Guy

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by GWC...

That might prove a solution from the land-side of the beach area; but what about Mother Nature's actions from the water-side of the beach area?

Storms in the Fall do some serious erosion. The property might be well protected from the NW winds and waves; but very vulnerable to the Eastly winds and waves of the Fall storms.

Oh yeah.. I forgot about that. I'd just gotten back from a hiking trip when I wrote that and apparently left my brain in the mountains! Hmmmmm... seems this might be a situation where one might ask, "What would FLL do?" Maybe start parking the boat stern-in, so every time it starts up, the propeller will blow the sand back closer to the shore? You might also be able to persuade a small army of little kids to see how much sand they can bring back up on shore... you'd be surprised how much volume even two kids with pails & plastic shovels can move on a hot summer day when they don't want to get out of the water.

[CanisLupusArctos]

This is from a list of tips for keeping Lake Winnipesaukee's water clean. It was on the website of the Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Association, which states it is funded by the DES.
-----
October
Wouldn't it be so easy to just rake the leaves from the yard right into the stream behind our house? No mess, right? Wrong! Vegetative material will add phosphorus and other nutrients directly into the lake as well as create excellent habitat for leeches at your personal swimming area. Keep leaf piles and brush piles at least 250 feet from the shoreline or 50 feet from any other drainage. Never dump leaf or brush piles into the lake or any other drainage area such as a stream, river, or storm drain.
-----

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

This is from a list of tips for keeping Lake Winnipesaukee's water clean. It was on the website of the Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Association, which states it is funded by the DES.
-----
October
Wouldn't it be so easy to just rake the leaves from the yard right into the stream behind our house? No mess, right? Wrong! Vegetative material will add phosphorus and other nutrients directly into the lake as well as create excellent habitat for leeches at your personal swimming area. Keep leaf piles and brush piles at least 250 feet from the shoreline or 50 feet from any other drainage. Never dump leaf or brush piles into the lake or any other drainage area such as a stream, river, or storm drain.
-----

Too funny...

Will be a busy season cutting all the trees that are within 250 feet of the shore to prevent their leaves from getting in the Lake.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by GWC...

"...Will be a busy season cutting all the trees that are within 250 feet of the shore to prevent their leaves from getting in the Lake..."

Based on the undisturbed shorelines of undeveloped local lakes, the predominating tree was the White Pine. (Which left a valuable, solid, thick mat of dropped pine needles to slow runoff—Nature's filter for the lake).

However, the first logs stacked at roadside by New Hampshire developers are the economically valuable White Pine. (Red Pine is in even more of a decline).

On my own shoreline acre, the builder removed every pine 52 years ago: I'm trying to turn that around by selectively cutting hardwoods for the woodstove. (And beat back the light-stealing Hemlocks.)

Even given another fifty years of this nurturing, our shoreline acre will never again have the filtered sunlight, girth, height, or mat that was on the lot—originally—of White Pine trees.

As a teen, I transplanted a small pine forest into a clearing—not realizing that the power company had made that clearing through our lot. Twenty years later, they cut a major swath through MY FOREST.

I'm seeing that new construction has to account for a pre-bulldozer tree inventory. What assurances are given by the Shorelands Protection Act that leafy trees won't eventually take over?

[tis]

So has anyone heard what happened on the 16th -did the house vote on it?

[Onshore]

There was no vote on the 16th.

[steadyon]

changes to the CSPA has been laid on the table