Swim Raft Permits

[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.

[LIforrelaxin]

So of course I see another storm brewing here. And I sit back and think to myself didn't this all come up a few years ago????

It was 3 or 4 years ago we went through this dam process with swim rafts and then it all disappeared. Well now it is back again. Now what concerns me here, is not that it has come up again. Or that it has come up again at all. Personally I look at this like a morning. I have always wondered why I had to get a morning permit but didn't have to worry about a a swim raft. It never made a sense.

The bigger question is why did this go away and now come up again. My guess is that there is someone high up in the world that has a neighbor that is ticking him off with a swim raft.... whether that it a big and ugly inflatable job, or just located poorly who knows. but the bottom line is this. Most of these laws come about because of complaints. The marine patrol, and the legislature gets tired of hearing them, and finally someone high enough up the food chain complains and bingo we get a new law.

So what is the bottom line. People especially neighbors need to talk to each other. For goodness sake, if your nieghbor puts a swim raft out that may be a hazard say something to him.... if it effects you say something to him. You don't have to be rude, or obnoxious, you just have to talk about it.

The reason, this country is turning into such a nanny state is because people can't and will not talk to each other anymore. People didn't have problems years ago because they talked. I have great nieghbors at the lake.... do we talk every weekend no.... do we all know each other YES!!!!.... are any of us afraid to approach each other about something??? NO!!!!.... why... because we all want to make our slice of heaven enjoyable.

I noticed a few years ago that some neighbors where doing somethings like fertilizing with fertilizers containing phosphorous.... no I didn't run over and yell and scream and tell them they were killing the lake.... but one afternoon while visiting and talking we got on the subject of kids getting rashes... which they immediately blamed on duck itch.... which I agreed with, and I also noted, not pointing any fingers that with all the new lawns in the area fertilizers may be causing some issues too.... The inquired as to what in fertilizers might not be good for the lake, I informed them, and they listened to what I had to say, and thanked me for the information.

I didn't point fingers, I didn't blame, I talked, I informed,..... people need to socialize... neighborhoods, need to become neighborhoods again.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

So what is the bottom line. People especially neighbors need to talk to each other. For goodness sake, if your neighbor puts a swim raft out that may be a hazard say something to him.... if it effects you say something to him. You don't have to be rude, or obnoxious, you just have to talk about it.

I could not agree more. It's the way things should be done IMO. However, I tried that with an issue I had with one of my neighbors and promptly received a call from her lawyer stating that all communication to her client should go through her.

Welcome to the neighborhood!

[RailroadJoe]

Everyone has a problem. Call in a lawyer. You can sue Google because they gave you bad walking directions. (in the news yesterday).
When are the courts going to wise up and throw these cases out and fine the lawyer.
Your right, talk to them but shoot the lawyer first. (not really , but). People are getting weird around here.

[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.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by 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.

misty, I will agree whole-heartedly that many (most?) legislators are not aware of what they are voting on a lot of bills. The same can be said for voters unfortunately.....

The constitution set the frame-work for us to establish laws as we see fit. If the people decide the laws are too burdensom, we can remove them from office and repeal those laws. That's the ability our 'new' nation gained.....

Let me just tell you that when it comes to environmental laws, I travel for work and get to see first hand the places that have little or no environmental standards. Smog, severely polluted water, and that's just the stuff you see. Nothing like going to a beach and seeing entire bags of garbage crashing into the shores. So while we can all argue about governmental intervention, I'll take the US regulations any day.

We can open an entirely different thread on "how laws get passed" and the slimy stuff that happens. I'm talking Concord and Disgusta.

The reality is that the swim raft permit is not some huge intrusion into your daily life. A raft gives you the ability to place an object on state property and stating where you are going to put it is not a huge burden. Can the procedure be streamlined, I don't know. However, allowing homeowners to put a raft where ever they please is a recipe for trouble as well. Don't believe me, lets go five years with raft locations, sizes, etc completely unregulated. Put them where ever you want. What do you think the result will be?

[jrc]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

... However, allowing homeowners to put a raft where ever they please is a recipe for trouble as well. Don't believe me, lets go five years with raft locations, sizes, etc completely unregulated. Put them where ever you want. What do you think the result will be?

Well as far as I can see we've had swim rafts loactions, sizes etc completely unregulated for a lot longer than five years, with only a few issues. Deal with the issues, don't pass a law that punishes everyone because of a couple of boneheads.

The idea of freedom is that you can do anything you want, unless and until it intrudes on someone elses freedom. It's not a perfect rule but it works for most things.

[KonaChick]

Haven't swim rafts been on the lake w/out permits for years? I think the 5 years w/out permits was up many many years ago. I'm sure there are problems between neighbors as to placement of swim rafts but as stated the MP can be called and they will decide if the swim raft is a navigational hazard or not and I know because I've seen this situation happen. Are swim rafts on Lake Winni so problematic that the legislatures should be spending their time trying to pass a law? IMHO....NO!

~A proud lakefront homeowner with a swimraft that is not a navigational hazard to anyone and is thoroughly enjoyed and used by all my neighbors.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by KonaChick

Haven't swim rafts been on the lake w/out permits for years? I think the 5 years w/out permits was up many many years ago. I'm sure there are problems between neighbors as to placement of swim rafts but as stated the MP can be called and they will decide if the swim raft is a navigational hazard or not and I know because I've seen this situation happen. Are swim rafts on Lake Winni so problematic that the legislatures should be spending their time trying to pass a law? IMHO....NO!

~A proud lakefront homeowner with a swimraft that is not a navigational hazard to anyone and is thoroughly enjoyed and used by all my neighbors.

I could personally care less if you have a raft or not and that's not what this is about. I just find it comical that someone would complain about having to state where they intend to put it.

By having a standard and requiring documentation stating where it's going to be placed can reduce the need to call the MP and any fueding between neighbors.

Problematic? I don't know. A huge burden? I don't think so.

[ishoot308]

L.P.;

You keep mentioning that there is no standard but there is...Swim rafts must be no more than 150' from shore and must stay within your waterfront shore boundaries. And if you own waterfront in a channel or heavily navigated area you can't put one out. You can't just put a swim raft anywhere you want like you keep alluding to.

Dan

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

L.P.;

You keep mentioning that there is no standard but there is...Swim rafts must be no more than 150' from shore and must stay within your waterfront shore boundaries. And if you own waterfront in a channel or heavily navigated area you can't put one out. You can't just put a swim raft anywhere you want like you keep alluding to.

Dan

I understand there's a "standard". I'm talking about within the 150 ft. With rocks, docks, etc I'm sure there are places where placing a raft can create conflicts.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I understand there's a "standard". I'm talking about within the 150 ft. With rocks, docks, etc I'm sure there are places where placing a raft can create conflicts.

So why not "publish" the standard and skip the permits ? Should someone complain and if the raft is found to be in violation then a remedy can be found. If no one complains ... no harm, no foul. What's with all the make work to prevent the few legit cases where someone will complain ?

BTW I like this part ...

(i) No permit for a swim raft shall be approved which :

(5) Diminishes the residential, recreational or scenic value of the public water in light of the competing uses for enjoyment of the public water.

So is a purple raft allowed ... or not ?

And if I had 41' of frontage ... would I apply for a swim tube permit ??

[Skip]

Just a few clarifications for the readers of this thread.

The proposal on the table is an Administrative Rule being proposed by the Department of Safety, specifically the New Hampshire Marine Patrol. It is not a bill or law bering proposed or introduced in the Legislature.

Administrative Rules have the effect of law if they are adopted.

Currently there are no rules or standards governing swim rafts. The Administrative Rule that covered swim rafts, Saf-C 404.09, was rescinded on April 25 of 2006, leaving no rules in place since then. As a sidenote, the current swim raft proposal mirrors in many respects the current Administrative Rule (Saf-C 404.08) that governs swim lines.

The process for adopting an Administrative Rule is lengthy and can be quite complicated. Depending on it's path it can or cannot include action by the State Legislature.

If you click HERE you can go to a page that gives you further explanations and a nifty flow chart (.pdf file) of how a rule is formulated.

The time is now to contact the Department of Safety, using the links already provided by other posters, to let your opinions, suggestions and ideas be considered by the Department of Safety. You are also free to contact your local State Legislator if you have concerns.

hope this helps clear this up a bit....

Skip

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Skip

Just a few clarifications for the readers of this thread.

The proposal on the table is an Administrative Rule being proposed by the Department of Safety, specifically the New Hampshire Marine Patrol. It is not a bill or law bering proposed or introduced in the Legislature.

Administrative Rules have the effect of law if they are adopted.

Currently there are no rules or standards governing swim rafts. The Administrative Rule that covered swim rafts, Saf-C 404.09, was rescinded on April 25 of 2006, leaving no rules in place since then. As a sidenote, the current swim raft proposal mirrors in many respects the current Administrative Rule (Saf-C 404.08) that governs swim lines.

The process for adopting an Administrative Rule is lengthy and can be quite complicated. Depending on it's path it can or cannot include action by the State Legislature.

If you click HERE you can go to a page that gives you further explanations and a nifty flow chart (.pdf file) of how a rule is formulated.

The time is now to contact the Department of Safety, using the links already provided by other posters, to let your opinions, suggestions and ideas be considered by the Department of Safety. You are also free to contact your local State Legislator if you have concerns.

hope this helps clear this up a bit....

Skip

Skip;

I'm confused now... I just put out a swim raft last year and contacted Marine Patrol for the current regulations. I was told by them about the 150' rule and to stay within my waterfront boundaries. They also asked if i was on a channnel or highly navigable waterway and if I was I could not put out a raft. Were they just making this up??

Dan

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Skip;

I'm confused now... I just put out a swim raft last year and contacted Marine Patrol for the current regulations. I was told by them about the 150' rule and to stay within my waterfront boundaries. They also asked if i was on a channnel or highly navigable waterway and if I was I could not put out a raft. Were they just making this up??

Dan

On the latter question ... I'd say no. I believe there's an RSA that prohibits any obstructing of channels and waterways and so would include swimrafts by default.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

On the latter question ... I'd say no. I believe there's an RSA that prohibits any obstructing of channels and waterways and so would include swimrafts by default.

And by keeping it within your boundaries would prevent any dispute issues raised by neighbors.

Any closer than 150' and a boat needs to come of plane so it keeps your swimmers from the danger of boats on plane.

It sounds to me that all the things they requested are just the sense things to do to keep you and everyone around you happy, thus they are not chasing down calls for these types of issues.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by ishoot308

Skip;

I'm confused now... I just put out a swim raft last year and contacted Marine Patrol for the current regulations. I was told by them about the 150' rule and to stay within my waterfront boundaries. They also asked if i was on a channnel or highly navigable waterway and if I was I could not put out a raft. Were they just making this up??

Dan

Hi Dan,

There is a general RSA (270:26) that covers obstructions to navigation. However, there are no specific regulations governing swim rafts since the Administrative Rule lapsed four years ago.

Unfortunately the lapsing of Administrative Rules with no fall back regulation is an all too common occurence within the State.

Not being privy to the call I will assume that they have taken the stance that any raft further than 150 feet from the shore, or not in line with your property boundaries or in a channel will be removed utilizing this RSA.

HERE is the general RSA on Navigation obstructions.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Skip

Hi Dan,

There is a general RSA (270:26) that covers obstructions to navigation. However, there are no specific regulations governing swim rafts since the Administrative Rule lapsed four years ago.

Unfortunately the lapsing of Administrative Rules with no fall back regulation is an all too common occurence within the State.

Not being privy to the call I will assume that they have taken the stance that any raft further than 150 feet from the shore, or not in line with your property boundaries or in a channel will be removed utilizing this RSA.

HERE is the general RSA on Navigation obstructions.

Thanks for the clarification Skip! I thought for sure the 150' was an official rule directly relating to swim rafts.

Dan

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

(i) No permit for a swim raft shall be approved which :

(5) Diminishes the residential, recreational or scenic value of the public water in light of the competing uses for enjoyment of the public water.

Now this is where legislators are dumb. Writing a 'rule' that is nearly impossible to enforce simply because of the way it was written. Does anyone do idiot checks on these before they go up for a vote.... wait, don't answer that.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Now this is where legislators are dumb. Writing a 'rule' that is nearly impossible to enforce simply because of the way it was written. Does anyone do idiot checks on these before they go up for a vote.... wait, don't answer that.

Once again, this is an Administrative Rules proposal being made by the Department of Safety, the Executive Branch of the State government. This proposal is not before the Legislature or up for a vote by that, the Legislative body.

Also, while one can easily argue the verbiage of the portion of the rule in question, the burden would be on the State to prove the diminishment of "residential, recreational or scenic value ", a very tough threshold to cross in Court.

In short, there is no shortage of things to criticize the NH State Legislature about. But this proposal is not of their doing....

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Skip

Once again, this is an Administrative Rules proposal being made by the Department of Safety, the Executive Branch of the State government. This proposal is not before the Legislature or up for a vote by that, the Legislative body.

Also, while one can easily argue the verbiage of the portion of the rule in question, the burden would be on the State to prove the diminishment of "residential, recreational or scenic value ", a very tough threshold to cross in Court.

In short, there is no shortage of things to criticize the NH State Legislature about. But this proposal is not of their doing....

So who sat down and wrote the rule?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

So who sat down and wrote the rule?

The proposal was drafted by Staff Counsel at the Department of Safety at the request and with input of the NHMP.

This rule change was is part of a package of several changes being recommended this year by the Marine Patrol. I have attached the entire package below.

Again, this is purely an executive branch proposal.

[Misty Blue]

Skip, LP:

Thanks for a good debate! Your inputs are useful.

Misty Blue.

[lawn psycho]

skip, what's driving the rule proposal? Is the MP having to deal with complaints and issues with rafts?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

skip, what's driving the rule proposal? Is the MP having to deal with complaints and issues with rafts?

I think you have hit the proverbial nail right on the head.

This issue you would not be coming forward if there was not substantial complaint going on behind the scene.

Everyone has better things to do but chase raft complaints.

But the complaints have obviously risen to the level to require extraordinary action.

And that's a shame...

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

skip, what's driving the rule proposal? Is the MP having to deal with complaints and issues with rafts?

I am going to back Skip up here... Not that Skip needs back up.... BTW Skip good to see you back on the Forum....

Anyways where was I, oh yes.... I do indeed believe the MP have been dealing with more complaints on Swim Rafts. Over the last several years at least in my area of the lake I have seen the number of swim raft multiply exponentially. Whats been worse is not everyone goes for the nice 8X8 platform that used to be the standard. We now have inflatable trampolines, complete with slides and logs sticking out from them. I have seen a couple of these that cover a good 40' in length... now I know personally I can't put something like that in front of my place with out imposing on my neighbors or completely obstructing my dock access.

To top that off we have moorings which are permitted.... So what happens when someones raft starts interfering with the a boat on a already permitted mooring next door. The guy with the mooring calls the MP... who has to mediate. The guy who has placed a mooring has an approved documented permit. the guy with the raft has a stated right to have a raft.... If you are the Marine Patrol your stuck in the middle.

Example two... Property owner puts a god awful green pitching green out as a swim raft... MP comes, owner says it is a swim raft... The Marine Patrol is stuck unless they can prove otherwise....Mean while property own pitches balls in the direction of the green at passing boaters.... And when he hits one, claims innocence.....

They are trying to fix a problem that was created when mooring permits where required. As I remember there was a lot of fuss over that too... But now that it is instituted everyone just deals with it. They are also trying to give some definition and regulation to what is a swim raft and what isn't, so that they can deal with problem B.............

[trfour]

[Quote] "So who sat down and wrote the rule?

It fur'shore wasn't U_ _ _ I_ Alton.

[Quote] "Now this is where legislators are dumb. Writing a 'rule' that is nearly impossible to enforce simply because of the way it was written. Does anyone do idiot checks on these before they go up for a vote.... wait, don't answer that. "

OKay.



Terry
_____________________