Alton Bay McMansion

[Major]

Contrary to what is being said, it seems to me by reading these posts that people are judgmental and jealous of the nice homes being built on the lake. That it is more virtuous to own a 700 foot, moldy, half-assed built cabin on a fully wooded lot than it is to own a nice home on a clear-cut lot having a lot of natural light revealing spectacular views of the lake. No one is saying that you cannot like or embrace the cabin. However, don't judge those who do not embrace that lifestyle. So long as the home is being built respecting environmental laws, live and let live.

[JEEPONLY]

Originally Posted by Major

Contrary to what is being said, it seems to me by reading these posts that people are judgmental and jealous of the nice homes being built on the lake. That it is more virtuous to own a 700 foot, moldy, half-assed built cabin on a fully wooded lot than it is to own a nice home on a clear-cut lot having a lot of natural light revealing spectacular views of the lake. No one is saying that you cannot like or embrace the cabin. However, don't judge those who do not embrace that lifestyle. So long as the home is being built respecting environmental laws, live and let live.

I can appreciate that you are enjoying your time on the lake, as you should.
Unfortunately, in this post you sound like a snob.

[Major]

Originally Posted by JEEPONLY

I can appreciate that you are enjoying your time on the lake, as you should.

I highly doubt it. After all, you're the one doing the judging, not me.

[JEEPONLY]

Originally Posted by Major

I highly doubt it. After all, you're the one doing the judging, not me.

You highly doubt it- well aren't you something!?!

Ahh- Proving my point!

I get it- Don't have as much money, not as sophisticated and can't appreciate, and oh, yeah ... don't own a tuxedo!

[Mr. V]

Let's not leave "ego" out of the equation.

Seems to me that people who build huge, palatial lakeside homes on large, cleared sites are doing so in order for others to see that they've finally "made it."

Insecurity, perhaps?

Dunno, don't care.

Me, I like our cabin just fine, albeit the birch trees somewhat obscure the view of the lake.

[Major]

Originally Posted by JEEPONLY

You highly doubt it- well aren't you something!?!



Ahh- Proving my point!



I get it- Don't have as much money, not as sophisticated and can't appreciate, and oh, yeah ... don't own a tuxedo!

Never said or implied any of those things. You don’t know me. And by the way, I don’t own a tuxedo, although I have my dress blues with clip-on tie from the Army!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JEEPONLY]

Originally Posted by Major

Never said or implied any of those things. You don’t know me. And by the way, I don’t own a tuxedo, although I have my dress blues with clip-on tie from the Army!

Thank you for your service!

My "snob" post was referring to what seemed a condescending remark concerning smaller, rustic style camps- the kind many were so lucky to have grown up with, and want their children, and their children to experience.

Mine is now in jeopardy due to "progress"- Maybe a bit sensitive.

No real gripe, here.

[iw8surf]

Originally Posted by JEEPONLY

Thank you for your service!

My "snob" post was referring to what seemed a condescending remark concerning smaller, rustic style camps- the kind many were so lucky to have grown up with, and want their children, and their children to experience.

Mine is now in jeopardy due to "progress"- Maybe a bit sensitive.

No real gripe, here.

I want my kids to grow up in a mansion or mcmansion on the lake (what ever is the best I can provide), and not to be subjected to rusty nails, the mold/mildew and all the other things "old camps" had that we all grew up with. Isnt that what we all want? Our kids to grow up in nicer conditions than our childhoods allowed?

[BroadHopper]

If anyone follows the real estate of Mcmansions, those who built one ended up losing big bucks I don't feel sorry for them at all!
To me its like payback for demolition of a perfectly good 'On Golden Pond' nostalgic fishing camp and putting in an 8000 foot Adirondacks that is more suitable in the Adirondacks.

Family had an 1892 fishing camp that was once a brake man's house on the old lakeshore railroad. We sold it when we can no longer pay the outrageous taxes. The new owner teared it down and built a humongeous mcmansion only to foreclose within a few years of ownership. About that time, 2007, the property did not meet minimum bid at auction and was 'abandoned' by the bank for a few years. The bank did not drain the pipes and substantial water damage was made. Vandalism took its toll. The bank eventually sold the property for less than what we sold it for. New owners tore down the 'new' mcmansion and built a bigger one at the same spot, only to find out they violated wetlands definition of building on the same footprint. Instead of fighting they left the property for the mortgage company to take care of it. Mortgage company had it off and on the market for about 1.3 mill. No takers yet. One of the mortgage executive is currently using the property. I'm surprised it wasn't torn down to satisfy wetlands.

I don't think mcmansion owners make money selling their property.

[Susie Cougar]

BROADHOPPER, I like your story. I am sorry though that you had to sell your camp because you couldn’t afford the taxes.

My parents owned a small camp in the1950s and sold it in 1963 when we moved into our new summer home.
My father had been looking for many years for land to build the new home on. Back then, there was so much land. For years it seemed all I did as a kid was walk through the woods looking for metal markers to find the boundaries of property that my dad was looking at. Or, I was told to go into the lake and walk out so my father could see how deep the water was.

He ended up buying a lot of land and sold many lots as well after he subdivided them. He put very strong restrictions on what you could build. Back then, he put a minimum square footage on the house size. He also made the set backs further than what the town required. He stipulated that it could only be a one story house because he did not want anyone’s view to be obstructed by anybody else’s dwelling.

In other words, he wanted to make sure that everyone was happy and everyone got their moneys worth.
Today, everyone seems to only be thinking of themselves and their own enjoyment and not how what they do affects anyone else.

[tis]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

If anyone follows the real estate of Mcmansions, those who built one ended up losing big bucks I don't feel sorry for them at all!
To me its like payback for demolition of a perfectly good 'On Golden Pond' nostalgic fishing camp and putting in an 8000 foot Adirondacks that is more suitable in the Adirondacks.

Family had an 1892 fishing camp that was once a brake man's house on the old lakeshore railroad. We sold it when we can no longer pay the outrageous taxes. The new owner teared it down and built a humongeous mcmansion only to foreclose within a few years of ownership. About that time, 2007, the property did not meet minimum bid at auction and was 'abandoned' by the bank for a few years. The bank did not drain the pipes and substantial water damage was made. Vandalism took its toll. The bank eventually sold the property for less than what we sold it for. New owners tore down the 'new' mcmansion and built a bigger one at the same spot, only to find out they violated wetlands definition of building on the same footprint. Instead of fighting they left the property for the mortgage company to take care of it. Mortgage company had it off and on the market for about 1.3 mill. No takers yet. One of the mortgage executive is currently using the property. I'm surprised it wasn't torn down to satisfy wetlands.

I don't think mcmansion owners make money selling their property.

Wow, that is quite a story. That's a lot of bad luck or s-o-m-e-t-h-i-n-g.

[JEEPONLY]

Originally Posted by iw8surf

I want my kids to grow up in a mansion or mcmansion on the lake (what ever is the best I can provide), and not to be subjected to rusty nails, the mold/mildew and all the other things "old camps" had that we all grew up with. Isnt that what we all want? Our kids to grow up in nicer conditions than our childhoods allowed?

I thanked you for the fact that you want to give your kids everything you can possible afford.

One of my peeves is wondering why folks like you think that "old camps" are rusty, moldy, mildewy places. Some have been updated, yet kept up to the point of preserving the hands on, living on the land feel.

My kids looked forward to picking up all the pines cones and raking pine needles out of the way. Even though the plumbing and electrical have been updated, my kids got to experience the independence, and wonder, of figuring out what to do when things went wrong. They loved bunking together in small rooms, trading candies bought at places like The Old Country Store. They and their cousins spent time together bonding, making the whole family stronger. Their focus was on their experiences- not what they had/didn't have.

I think my family has provided the next generation with beautiful conditions for happy, healthy and experiential lives.

I guess "nicer conditions" is a state of mind!

[Susie Cougar]

Yes, Jeep, I agree with you. A camp does not have to be musty, moldy etc. Some of my best memories were in our camp. When I think back I can’t imagine how so many people slept in that tiny little place. But at the time I never thought about it, I was having too much fun. And how many homes around the lake still have pine needles and pine cones or have they all been replaced by green grass that pollutes the lake?
I still don’t understand how property can be changed from residential to commercial. There is nothing that you can do? Are you saying that anyone can buy property anywhere and just decide to put something commercial on it?

[JEEPONLY]

Originally Posted by Susie Cougar

Yes, Jeep, I agree with you. A camp does not have to be musty, moldy etc. Some of my best memories were in our camp. When I think back I can’t imagine how so many people slept in that tiny little place. But at the time I never thought about it, I was having too much fun. And how many homes around the lake still have pine needles and pine cones or have they all been replaced by green grass that pollutes the lake?
I still don’t understand how property can be changed from residential to commercial. There is nothing that you can do? Are you saying that anyone can buy property anywhere and just decide to put something commercial on it?

With enough influence, some can get the board to re-zone anything. The sad part, to me, is the owner claiming no intention of erecting storage buildings, "at this time". Eventually, the lure of the cascades of money to be made from boat storage will win out, so the claims from today really mean nothing to the abutting property owners

[tis]

Unless it's changed in the past few years, you can build closer than 50 feet if it was grandfathered. It must be on the exact same footprint. You still have the restriction on lot coverage though.

[Alton Bay Ace]

All of the above are good valid points and in force today; no, you can not add to the back of the house if you are closer than the 50' boundary. It must be the exact same footprint, height, width, etc.

Also, reducing the amount of impervious surfacing is also extremely desirable. We removed all of the asphalt and are replacing it with pervious block walkways and driveway and moved them further from the water line. I would think most would want to do all they can to protect the lake and the purity of the water.

Lastly, the comment about "with enough influence.......", the implication that the rules can be bent for the influential (wealthy? connected?) There is zero evidence that this is the case. We could not add a single square inch of space on our boathouse. It had to remain the same cubic volume (inside measurements) as the old one, period. The state - not the local zoning board - referenced that law and insisted upon it, no deviations whatsoever. We wanted to add some eye-brow windows to it which would not have added any height, width, or depth to the boathouse itself but would have slightly increased the interior volume. This was summarily rejected, even after our engineers and architects argued the point. No go.

We love Winni as much as anyone can and are happy to comply with regulations that protect her pristine waters. They weren't always that way and it took many years to bring it back to the present condition however the law allows one to build whatever their resources allow and their hearts desire, as long as it complies with the regulations.

[winterh]

"It must be the exact same footprint, height, width, etc" Are you sure about the height? I have a grand fathered ranch thats about half inside and half outside the 50 ft line. Its a relatively small lot so I am maxed out with impervious surface. I was under impression I could add a second floor over entire ranch as long as I stayed within height requirements (35 ft) and existing envelope. Can I only go up behind the line on the existing structure? That would be tough although maybe more theoretical question as I have been thinking of this forever and will never get to it.

[tis]

Originally Posted by winterh

"It must be the exact same footprint, height, width, etc" Are you sure about the height? I have a grand fathered ranch thats about half inside and half outside the 50 ft line. Its a relatively small lot so I am maxed out with impervious surface. I was under impression I could add a second floor over entire ranch as long as I stayed within height requirements (35 ft) and existing envelope. Can I only go up behind the line on the existing structure? That would be tough although maybe more theoretical question as I have been thinking of this forever and will never get to it.

You are right from what we have been told. You can go up.

[Alton Bay Ace]

There are height restrictions however your situation would require the board's input. E.G., the boathouse can not be any higher than 15' over the water's surface. You can not add "living space" over a boathouse anymore, or a sky light or anything else that would violate the 15' requirement.

And, no, JEEPONLY, I am not implying anything about my own personal wealth. I am aware of a number of very wealthy individuals on the lake that weren't able to alter their plans as a result of the violations they were hoping to avoid. They just couldn't make it happen.

Now, if you want to dredge onto your own land - and the setbacks work in your favor - you can almost do anything (within code, of course) because it isn't "over the water" as most boathouses are. There are a lot of examples of this on the lake.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Alton Bay Ace

There are height restrictions however your situation would require the board's input. E.G., the boathouse can not be any higher than 15' over the water's surface. You can not add "living space" over a boathouse anymore, or a sky light or anything else that would violate the 15' requirement.

And, no, JEEPONLY, I am not implying anything about my own personal wealth. I am aware of a number of very wealthy individuals on the lake that weren't able to alter their plans as a result of the violations they were hoping to avoid. They just couldn't make it happen.

Now, if you want to dredge onto your own land - and the setbacks work in your favor - you can almost do anything (within code, of course) because it isn't "over the water" as most boathouses are. There are a lot of examples of this on the lake.

Not sure if I understood your last paragraph but a boathouse that you dredge has the same rules as an existing boathouse that was out over the lake. Also if you dredge in your land for a boathouse, the dredged water area is now considered lake and you must build 50' from the "new" waterline.

[TiltonBB]

I have a boathouse with living quarters above it. I inquired verbally about putting another level on and was declined. I inquired about adding dormers that would be lower than the ridge line and within the existing footprint and was declined again.

If you are trying to make changes within 50 feet of the waterfront there is not much you can do unless your project reduces the impact on the waterfront.

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by winterh

"It must be the exact same footprint, height, width, etc" Are you sure about the height? I have a grand fathered ranch thats about half inside and half outside the 50 ft line. Its a relatively small lot so I am maxed out with impervious surface. I was under impression I could add a second floor over entire ranch as long as I stayed within height requirements (35 ft) and existing envelope. Can I only go up behind the line on the existing structure? That would be tough although maybe more theoretical question as I have been thinking of this forever and will never get to it.

Based on what I have seen on Bear Island, going up is permissible (or at least was). A couple of the houses that look toward Shep Browns have gone up in recent years, but do not appear to have grown in any other direction.

[LakeTimes]

Originally Posted by winterh

"It must be the exact same footprint, height, width, etc" Are you sure about the height? I have a grand fathered ranch thats about half inside and half outside the 50 ft line. Its a relatively small lot so I am maxed out with impervious surface. I was under impression I could add a second floor over entire ranch as long as I stayed within height requirements (35 ft) and existing envelope. Can I only go up behind the line on the existing structure? That would be tough although maybe more theoretical question as I have been thinking of this forever and will never get to it.

I do know you can't go above 35 ft - Anyone know where that's measured from? I've not been able to find that answer.

For example, if your house is built on a bit of a decline (front left side of the house is ground level, but right side is much lower, call it 4 feet), is the 35 ft measured from the lowest point, high point or an average? Thought is if you are outside of 50 ft from water, and it's currently a single floor with a sloping crawl space underneath, you could dig down for a basement/walkout, have a main floot then 2nd floor all while being under 35 ft. Could essentially 3x the living space of your current house while never expanding the width or depth...

[JEEPONLY]

Originally Posted by Alton Bay Ace

All of the above are good valid points and in force today; no, you can not add to the back of the house if you are closer than the 50' boundary. It must be the exact same footprint, height, width, etc.

Also, reducing the amount of impervious surfacing is also extremely desirable. We removed all of the asphalt and are replacing it with pervious block walkways and driveway and moved them further from the water line. I would think most would want to do all they can to protect the lake and the purity of the water.

Lastly, the comment about "with enough influence.......", the implication that the rules can be bent for the influential (wealthy? connected?) There is zero evidence that this is the case. We could not add a single square inch of space on our boathouse. It had to remain the same cubic volume (inside measurements) as the old one, period. The state - not the local zoning board - referenced that law and insisted upon it, no deviations whatsoever. We wanted to add some eye-brow windows to it which would not have added any height, width, or depth to the boathouse itself but would have slightly increased the interior volume. This was summarily rejected, even after our engineers and architects argued the point. No go.

We love Winni as much as anyone can and are happy to comply with regulations that protect her pristine waters. They weren't always that way and it took many years to bring it back to the present condition however the law allows one to build whatever their resources allow and their hearts desire, as long as it complies with the regulations.

Thank you for your response.
However- you imply that you are wealthy/connected, and still "could not add a single square inch ..."

Never-the-less- my posts relate to re-zoning- off of Winni. The building part may, or may not, happen later.
Also, "influence" comes in many forms. If you were the judge, how would you sentence your brother? What would the written record show?

If I've not made my point clear, I'm sorry. I don't want to drive this into the ground. It's all very unpleasant to me.

[Lakeboater]

Originally Posted by JEEPONLY

With enough influence, some can get the board to re-zone anything. The sad part, to me, is the owner claiming no intention of erecting storage buildings, "at this time". Eventually, the lure of the cascades of money to be made from boat storage will win out, so the claims from today really mean nothing to the abutting property owners

Where is this going on?

[JEEPONLY]

Originally Posted by Lakeboater

Where is this going on?

Tuftonboro/Melvin Village.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Major

Contrary to what is being said, it seems to me by reading these posts that people are judgmental and jealous of the nice homes being built on the lake. That it is more virtuous to own a 700 foot, moldy, half-assed built cabin on a fully wooded lot than it is to own a nice home on a clear-cut lot having a lot of natural light revealing spectacular views of the lake. No one is saying that you cannot like or embrace the cabin. However, don't judge those who do not embrace that lifestyle. So long as the home is being built respecting environmental laws, live and let live.

I agree that jealousy is unattractive, but you seem to be combining two sets of issues. There's nothing wrong with dropping a few million dollars to build a wonderful home in a wonderful spot. But clear cutting and super large roofs are bad for the lake--they increase the flow of phosphorous and other contaminants which promote cyanobacteria, and algae, and hurt the fish population and water clarity. Also, trees and other natural growth are much more attractive than houses--at least to me--so I really appreciate it when people leave as many trees as possible so that the rest of us have spectacular views FROM the lake.

I hope that people continue to build their dream homes. But I also hope that DES is able to implement and enforce even tougher rules to protect the water for all.