Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Webcams Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-2004, 02:19 PM   #1
NANCY L.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: CHELMSFORD, MA
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default New Condo's Next To Naswa

The new condo's that are next to the Naswa are higher than they were approved for. They were approved for 1 1/2 story (loft) but instead have a permanent staircase to a bedroom upstairs. It has blocked some of the neighbors views next door. I am sure once they are up nothing will be done by the City but can the condo owner's next door file for a reduced tax rate since their view is now partially gone? Why have a planning board if they don't enforce the rules? How did a third condo become waterfront when it wasn't before? Is it who you know in this City?
NANCY L. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2004, 09:17 PM   #2
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default Condomania

When space gets to be a premium, condo problems like yours no longer become isolated.

A friend bought into a 20-unit condo, which had the minimum 20 mandatory parking spaces provided by the developer.

Unfortunately, each parking space was only four-feet wide! Just mayhem. Most condo problems are solved by selling out. Sad it has to be this way. You'd think New Hampshire would be different.
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2004, 08:36 AM   #3
Scott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 150
Thanks: 0
Thanked 68 Times in 19 Posts
Default

I don't care for them. They look too tall/narrow and just out of whack on such a small piece of land. Had they gone for a regular loft they would have looked a lot nicer. On the bright side...it's an improvement over the dump that was there before.

I'm trying to bite my tongue on this though. They cut down all the trees that were blocking a spectacular view of the lake that I had longed for as long as I've been alive, so that was nice.

Anyways...they're built. It's too late to complain and change anything.
Scott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2004, 10:48 AM   #4
Old Chris Craft
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Weirs Beach, NH
Posts: 25
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

This is a good point. The zoning and planning process is painful but it would appear after that, you can build whatever you'd like even if it is not what you were approved for! Some friends live near the Broken Spoke Saloon and were shocked to see a second story going on the building during construction since it was only approved for one story. It seems to be no problem since they were allowed to open. Go figure.
Old Chris Craft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2004, 07:48 AM   #5
madrasahs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 381
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default If they've violated ONE rule, perhaps...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NANCY L.
The new condo's that are next to the Naswa are higher than they were approved for...I am sure once they are up nothing will be done by the City but can the condo owner's next door file for a reduced tax rate since their view is now partially gone? Why have a planning board if they don't enforce the rules? How did a third condo become waterfront when it wasn't before? Is it who you know in this City?
You didn't mention that trees were cut down, as Scott has indicated.

If this is a waterfront condo, and it's been there awhile, they may have violated NH's "basal tree count" rule.

Properly documented, a case may be made to have the State exact a fine on them. (Or compensate you for failing to bring such a complaint to the State's attention).

I'd get an attorney -- many attornies will listen to your case for free (the first visit, anyway).

Sometimes all it takes is a letter from an attorney to the right party -- about $150.

(But sometimes it takes as long as "your savings holds out").

Last edited by madrasahs; 05-16-2004 at 07:49 AM. Reason: Speling
madrasahs is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-17-2004, 12:56 PM   #6
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NH
Posts: 2,689
Thanks: 33
Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts
Default loophole?

The Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act has a loophole:

Structures ... within the natural woodland buffer shall be afforded an opening for building construction that shall be excluded when computing the percentage limitations ...

So you can cut down all the trees where a building will go and immediately around the building site for construction access. This is not include in basal calculations. See section Section 483-B:9 for more info.
jrc is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.06816 seconds