Alton Bay McMansion

[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 And how many homes around the lake still have pine needles and pine cones or have they all been replaced by green grass that pollutes the lake?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.