Update to Lake Related Legislation

[WinnisquamZ]

Both bills will only cost waterfront homes money. A waterfront homeowner can be declared guilty without proof if a person in a kayak believes you disturbed your shoreline. The other bill requires waterfront property owners to have their septic system evaluated and repaired before a sale can be completed. Something others home are not subject too.
Say no to both bills


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Descant]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Both bills will only cost waterfront homes money. A waterfront homeowner can be declared guilty without proof if a person in a kayak believes you disturbed your shoreline. The other bill requires waterfront property owners to have their septic system evaluated and repaired before a sale can be completed. Something others home are not subject too.
Say no to both bills

Just got off the phone with my Rep. who is on the RR & D committee. These are issues that continue year after year. Agreed that if you plan to buy a shorefront property and build new, preventing the sale is counter-productive. A shorefront property near me sold last year for $875000. No septic at all, still on an outhouse. No problem. A friend on a small lake had a neighbor's septic fail. Not shorefront, but 200'-300' set back, on the other side of the circumferential road. The road really doesn't slow water runoff the way better vegetation would. Increasing the set back jurisdiction may have some merit, but there should be some consideration of vegetation, slopes and soil types, as those can be significant factors in water and runoff flow.

Wake boats: If there is concern in some areas about wake boats causing erosion damage, then DES should have some say in the regulatory process. That is not an area of expertise for MP. and DOS. (I'm generally opposed to the petition system for adding new regulations.)

[John Mercier]

Moving it from 200' to 250' is considered a rather large move by most legislators, it is very doubtful that they could get through a move to more than 300'.
Not that it isn't maybe the right thing to do... but just not legislatively feasible.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by WinnisquamZ

Both bills will only cost waterfront homes money. A waterfront homeowner can be declared guilty without proof if a person in a kayak believes you disturbed your shoreline. The other bill requires waterfront property owners to have their septic system evaluated and repaired before a sale can be completed. Something others home are not subject too.
Say no to both bills


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

The DES guys have always been quite reasonable, I can't imagine that a random kayaker with no proof of violation is going to get anywhere.

I do agree that the septic rules will cost some homeowners some money. But I think this is one of those regulations where we REALLY want to make sure our next door neighbors are in compliance. We're swimming it! The law just requires them to inspect and fix a failed septic before they sell their house for millions of dollars. Aren't responsible homeowners having their septic maintained once every 5 years or so anyway?

[John Mercier]

The way I read HB1103, the complaint of the passing kayaker wouldn't be handled any differently than now. Just the final outcome would be streamlined once a violation is found.

HB1113, I get the argument. A responsible homeowner would also be paying the cost. Maybe amending it to include everyone, not just shorefront owners, and changing it from 20 years old to a system that has not been maintained or inspected at least twice in the last ten years.

It just appears to me that HB1103 may have a chance to pass in its current form... no one wants to be soft on lawbreakers; while HB1113 seems to punish even the reasonable homeowner that is most likely in the majority to catch the small percentage of those that don't.