Shoreland Protection Rules

hemlockpoint · 03-20-2008, 04:37 PM

My house is framed and roofed but not sided or finished inside. The septic is installed and seeded over with grass seed and mulch. The area between the house and 50 feet from the lake was seeded and mulched last fall. I still need to grade loam and seed
around the house which is 225 feet from the water. I also need to gravel the driveway which starts 200 feet from the water and goes by the house around 240 feet from the water. Miscellaneous things like water lines and well hookups need to be done.

Onshore · 03-21-2008, 08:34 AM

Hemlockpoint - Your project is if far enough along that you would be ok under every version of proposed rule, law, and policy that I've seen thus far. If your primary structure (house) foundation is in and your driveway is roughed in before April 1 then completing those structures is not going to require anything new from DES. From what we've seen so far, if a problem were to arise it would be in relation to outbuildings or not building according to the plan approved by the original building permit. If your primary structure and driveway (gravel by law is considered impervious unless specially designed and laid down) put your property at or above the new impervious surface limits, then after the date the new law takes effect, initiating construction of any new structures, such as a garage, even though they were covered by the local building permit, may still be illegal. The other thing is that you will likely only be covered for those things specifically permitted on the local building permit you are operating under. If you don't build according to the plans sent to the municipality or the permit is vague and no plans were required, then you may not be covered by any vesting provision.

hemlockpoint · 03-21-2008, 05:15 PM

I was looking at the website at the latest version of the rules on vesting.

What does this mean?

(3) A concrete foundation for the primary structure was installed between April 1, 2007 and April 1, 2008;

My foundation was installed in the fall of 2006. Does this mean I am not vested because I installed it too soon?

Onshore · 03-22-2008, 02:47 PM

The 2007 date provision wasn't intended to force people that had structures started to get a permit to finish them. It was intended to prevent individuals from claiming that secondary or accessory structures that had not been started before April 1, 2008 were part of a larger "project" and thus were somehow covered under an old permit just because the primary structure foundation was in. We have no interest in asking anyone to get permits to complete a house that is as fas along as you have described. It is better environmentally that you simply complete the project and stabilize the soils on site.

phoenix · 03-22-2008, 08:42 PM

I understand that structures of all kinds will require approval and it appears that tree cutting will also but will thinning out brush also require approval

hemlockpoint · 03-23-2008, 06:00 AM

Shore things
Thank you for your help.

Onshore · 03-23-2008, 11:58 AM

Phoenix

There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...)

I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

phoenix · 03-23-2008, 12:49 PM

thanks that will be helpful

ITD · 03-23-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

Phoenix

There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...)

I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

I'm pretty sure that Moultonboro requires a permit that requires the inventory of all trees and brush and saplings within a certain zone before you cut. This is the typical knee jerk reaction caused by someone who clear cuts. We go from reasonable laws with no enforcement to unreasonable moronic laws, that I believe Moultonboro hired someone to enforce.

tis · 03-24-2008, 07:29 AM

shore things. What happens to the reference line if a boathouse is built? The definition I find is: "for natural fresh waterbodies it is the natural mean high water level". If you dig in for a boathouse, which you must do, does that reference line change?

Onshore · 03-24-2008, 11:50 AM

If you dig into the shoreline you DO move the reference line.

ACutAbove · 03-24-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

Phoenix

There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...)

I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

If there is a fact sheet available it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you...

ITD · 03-25-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ACutAbove

If there is a fact sheet available it would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you...

I would be interested to know if these rules are now superceded, somehow I don't think they are.

From here:

http://www.moultonborough.org/Ordina...INANCE2007.pdf

Waterfront Property

........................

G. Removal of Trees, Shrubs and Vegetation
Purpose and Intent
The water quality of all lakes, ponds, rivers and streams is significantly affected by the land and its
vegetation that surrounds these water bodies. This land is constituted as “shoreland”, and a portion of
the shoreland from the water’s edge (reference line) back to 250 feet is protected by the State of New
Hampshire under legislation – i.e., RSA 483B, the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA).
Shoreland vegetation such as trees and saplings, along with shrubs and groundcover, and their
undamaged root systems, act as a natural filter of flow and runoff of surface, subsurface and deep
ground water as well as wastewater; nutrients such as fertilizer; sediment; pesticides; and pollutants. In
addition, tree and sapling canopies shade the shoreline itself, making the shoreline healthier by
moderating the temperature of the water bodies.
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
10
Once there is a disturbance of shoreland vegetation, such as excessive cutting or removal, there is no
surface filter or subsurface root system filter, and there is nothing to prevent the shoreland soil and any
pollutants from being washed into or eroding into the water body. This in turn raises the temperature
of the water body and promotes algae and weed growth, leading to a loss of water clarity and quality.
The Town of Moultonborough possesses more waterfront (Shoreland) property than any other
municipality in the state; and the protection of the public waters that abut those lands is of paramount
importance to the economic, cultural, recreational, and environmental well-being of the community.
The Town of Moultonborough adopts this article as part of its Zoning Ordinance to ensure protection
of those public resources. Where referenced, the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, New
Hampshire, RSA 483-B as it may be amended (CSPA). which seeks to protect the state’s public waters,
it hereby incorporated herein
(1) In addition to the requirements of the CSPA and not in limitation thereof, removal of any vegetation
in the Town of Moultonborough on any property within 150 feet of the mean high water mark of the
water body (“reference line”) shall be in compliance with the following:
(A) Any owner or owners of the property who desire to remove trees or saplings on the
property and who do not have a valid unexpired Permit in accordance with this ordinance, must
first apply for a Permit from the Moultonborough Land Use Office, which Permit documents
the existing trees and saplings on the property.
(i) A “tree” means any woody plant which has a diameter of 6 inches or more, as
measured at a point 4-1/2 feet above the ground, and normally grows to a mature height
greater than 20 feet.
(ii) A “sapling” means any woody plant which has a diameter less than 6 inches, as
measured at a point 4-1/2 feet above the ground, and normally grows to a mature height
greater than 20 feet.
(B) A permit shall be issued, upon payment of a fee, as may be determined from time to time
by the Board of Selectmen, and submission of an application to and acceptance by the
Moultonborough Land Use office, which application includes:
(i) A diagram of the property in contiguous 25 foot by 25 foot square sections which
indicates general property lines, existing structures, and trees and saplings.
(ii) A photograph or photographs of the property, taken from the water body and no
more than 100 feet from the reference line, which accurately depicts the entire
waterfront of the property as viewed from the water body; and
(iii) A signature by the applicant/landowner:
(a) Acknowledging receipt of copies of this town ordinance and a summary of
the CSPA;
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
11
(b) Agreeing to abide by all the requirements of this town ordinance and the
CSPA; and
(c) Giving ongoing authorization during the permit period to the Town of
Moultonborough and its designated officials, with advance notification, to enter
onto the property to view the vegetation on the property.
(C) In addition to the CSPA and not in limitation thereof, the following shall apply:
(i) Within 150 feet of the reference line there shall not be any more than 50% of trees
and saplings removed in any 25 foot by 25 foot section in a 20 year period, subject,
also, to the following:
(a) A healthy well–distributed stand of trees and saplings and their living
undamaged root systems shall be left in place in any 25 foot by 25 foot section,
and
(b) Within any 25 foot by 25 foot section, which is located within 50 feet of the
reference line, in addition to the above requirements, a minimum number of
trees equal to 12 points according to the following rating system must be
maintained:
Diameter of Trees & Saplings
At a Point 4-1/2’ Above Ground Points
4 inches to 6 inches 1
greater than 6 inches to 12 inches 2
greater than 12 inches 4
No trees shall be removed in any such 25 foot by 25 foot section if the cumulative
points of trees and saplings are less than 12.
(ii) Trees and saplings which are removed to clear an opening for building
construction, structures, driveways, and parking areas may be excluded when
computing percentage limitations, but such exclusions shall apply only beyond the 50
foot setback from the reference line. In no case, shall the building pocket, the
construction zone around the building or other structures trespass into or disturb the
area within the 50 foot setback from the reference line.
(iii) Other vegetation such as shrubs and ground cover within each 25 foot by 25 foot
section must be selectively maintained.
(a) A “shrub” means any multi-stemmed woody plant which normally grows to
a mature height of less than 20 feet.
(b) “Groundcover” means any herbaceous plant which normally grows to a
mature height of 4 feet or less.
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
12
(iv) Normal trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches to minimize the entry of
vegetative debris into the water body, to protect structures, to enhance views, or to
maintain parking areas and travel in driveways and pathways is permitted, providing
such trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches is not done to the crowns of trees or
the crowns of saplings and such trimming, pruning, and thinning of branches is not
injurious to the trees, saplings or other vegetation.
(v) Dead, diseased, unsafe, or fallen trees and saplings may be removed. Their removal
shall not be used in computing the percentage limitations; however, if their removal
results in cleared openings, then these openings shall be replanted with native tree
species unless new tree growth is present. Proof of disease can be obtained from and
certified by a licensed arborist; in addition, or as a substitute therein, photographic
evidence is also sufficient. Such proof must be kept on file by the applicant/landowner.
(vi) Stumps and their root systems which are located within the 50 foot setback from
the reference line shall be left intact in the ground.
(vii) Currently developed lots, having open areas with lawn, bare ground, or weed
cover, are encouraged to be converted and replanted with a natural vegetative cover
consisting of native species of ground cover, shrubs, saplings, and trees.
(D) Permits shall expire upon the earlier of the following:
(i) 20 years from the date of the issuance of the permit, or
(ii) Upon a change in ownership through:
(a) Sale
(b) Transfer into a trust
(c) Inheritance
(d) Inter/intra-family deed
(E) Applicants may reapply for permits after 20 years from the original date of the permit or
upon change in ownership of the property; however, in both instances, the applicant must show,
through diagrams and photographs, demonstration of compliance with the requirements of this
ordinance and the CSPA. New diagrams and photos accompanying the new application will be
compared with the originally filed application/permit to ascertain the extent of any previous
cutting and to ensure that any future cutting will be within the prescribed limitations outlined in
this ordinance and the CSPA.
(2) Any removal of vegetation which does not otherwise require a Permit by the Town of
Moultonborough, as set forth above, shall nevertheless be required to meet the limitations and
requirements set forth by the CSPA.
March 13, 2007
Zoning Ordinance Moultonborough, NH
13
(3) The Code Enforcement Officer, or his designee, may, for cause, enter upon any land or parcel at
any reasonable time to perform oversight and enforcement duties provided for in this ordinance.
(4) This ordinance and any Permits issued pursuant to this ordinance shall not in any manner be
construed as being less restrictive than the CSPA.
(5) The Town of Moultonborough may impose, as set from time to time by the Selectmen, fines,
penalties, and remedies for non-compliance with this ordinance. Such fines and penalties may not
exceed those as are set forth by the CSPA for non-compliance with the CSPA. Such fines, penalties,
and remedies may be imposed against the property owner and any person or entity, removing such
trees or saplings on behalf of the property owner. The Town of Moultonborough may enforce the
CSPA and impose such fines, penalties, and remedies for non-compliance with the CSPA, as
authorized by the CSPA.
(6) Appeals from imposition of fines, penalties and remedies shall be construed as appeals of
administrative decisions and shall be submitted to, and under the jurisdiction of, the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. Requests for variances from the provisions of this section shall be treated as any other
request for variance and shall be submitted to, and under the jurisdiction of, the Zoning Board of
Adjustment. However, no variance shall be granted which would result in standards less restrictive

than the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act, RSA 483-B.

Onshore · 03-25-2008, 08:34 AM

In accordance with RSA 483-B:3 Consistency Required, II, When the standards and practices established in this chapter conflict with other local or state laws and rules, the more stringent standard shall control.

Moultonborough's requirements must be met.

Formula260SS · 03-27-2008, 07:01 AM

Shore Things,

Thanks for taking the time to spend here and answer questions, I have a quick one. Are the requirements the same for an accessory structure (shed) as they are for a primary structure, such as plans and such. Will we have to submit a "full package" of information or can it be reduced. The structure will meet the 150 sq/ft rule and the 50' reference line.

Thanks

Onshore · 03-27-2008, 09:15 AM

Under the current rule set there is no "reduced package" for small sized projects. There needs to be one, and the development of such a process will be part of the next phase in bringing the Shoreland Program forward. One of the main problems that we need to overcome is ensuring that the Department has the information we need to verify that the sum of little projects over time doesn't result in more impervious surface than is allowed by the new CSPA standards. There has been a push to force the Department to require stamped surveyed plans with all applications. The legal argument has been made that all plans that indicate property line location must be prepared by a licensed surveyor. DES is resistant to requiring these plans for all project due to the cost that is associated with it. (Other DES programs such as Wetlands and Sub-surface have operated for years without requiring surveyed plans.) We need to find a way to get the most reliable information we can about the property and project but have it be something that the average homeowner can provide without breaking his bank account before we can take the next step. We are definately open to suggestions...

codeman671 · 03-27-2008, 01:51 PM

We are looking at another piece of property that has a camp on it now, and is closer than 50 feet to the water. If we bought it, our intention would be that within a few years we would want to take it down and build something newer/larger. Being that the lot is already cleared there is no additional clearing of trees/vegetation necessary.

Does the footprint or current building location become grandfathered? If we want to go bigger do we have to move the building back to 50' or greater? Is there a limitation that would prevent us from building at all?

I'd hate to get too far into this to find a problem that we did not foresee.

Thanks in advance!

Onshore · 03-27-2008, 02:35 PM

Unless you are on sewer the first you need to take a look at the new sub-surface systems regulations. If you tear if down or modify it significantly it could run afoul of your systems permit. If you tear it down and do want to rebuild with a bigger footprint you will need to meet the setback if its possible. If you can't meet the setback then you would be looking at the possibility of getting a Redevelopment Waiver with would allow you to offer restoring or replanting areas or making other improvements to offset the increased sq ft of impervious area.

tis · 03-27-2008, 04:49 PM

In other words, codeman forget it. She does not want to tell you it will be a nightmare.

Skip · 03-27-2008, 05:02 PM

According to the on-line edition of the Union Leader, the Senate today voted to delay implementation until October 1st. Now its off to the House.

Story can be read HERE.

Onshore · 03-27-2008, 05:52 PM

The earliest the House could possibly hear the amended version of HB 1151 is April 9th.

codeman671 · 03-28-2008, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

Unless you are on sewer the first you need to take a look at the new sub-surface systems regulations. If you tear if down or modify it significantly it could run afoul of your systems permit. If you tear it down and do want to rebuild with a bigger footprint you will need to meet the setback if its possible. If you can't meet the setback then you would be looking at the possibility of getting a Redevelopment Waiver with would allow you to offer restoring or replanting areas or making other improvements to offset the increased sq ft of impervious area.

The property has a brand new septic (3 bedroom) so no issues with the number of bedrooms/baths. So, is it just a 50' setback then? Gilford already has a 50' so it would not be a significant change to what currently exists.

Onshore · 03-28-2008, 10:37 AM

I thought Gilford had a 40 ft setback?

If you have septic taken care of and the setback is no problem then your next concern is the new impervious surface limit. The new standard sets up tiers for percent impervious allowed. You can avoid any issues with this standard by staying within the bounds of the existing impervious areas. In other words if you only wanted to add or expand the second story there would be no issue. In fact, you could potentially do it without a permit. If you are going to expand the impervious area of the house then it would be helpful to know approximately how much of the lot would then be impervious. Do you have an estimate on that? Keep in mind that gravel driveway are considered impervious unless specially designed and constructed to be otherwise.

codeman671 · 03-28-2008, 11:37 AM

Not sure, I thought 50 but if 40 even better.

Being on an island, no driveways are needed so the only section to be affected is the overall footprint size of the home. The footprint is 1100 square feet (1 floor) and I would expect that to go to 1600-1700 square feet plus attached outdoor deck space. So basically, on a 1 acre lot we would look to add 600+/- square feet of house footprint plus the deck which could encompass another 750-1k square feet outside.

I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this! Hopefully it will help others as well.

03-20-2008, 04:37 PM	#1
hemlockpoint Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	To Shorethings My house is framed and roofed but not sided or finished inside. The septic is installed and seeded over with grass seed and mulch. The area between the house and 50 feet from the lake was seeded and mulched last fall. I still need to grade loam and seed around the house which is 225 feet from the water. I also need to gravel the driveway which starts 200 feet from the water and goes by the house around 240 feet from the water. Miscellaneous things like water lines and well hookups need to be done.

03-22-2008, 08:42 PM	#5
phoenix Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: phoenix and moultonboro Posts: 1,557 Thanks: 61 Thanked 276 Times in 194 Posts	I understand that structures of all kinds will require approval and it appears that tree cutting will also but will thinning out brush also require approval __________________ it's tough to make predictions specially about the future

03-23-2008, 12:49 PM	#8
phoenix Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: phoenix and moultonboro Posts: 1,557 Thanks: 61 Thanked 276 Times in 194 Posts	thanks that will be helpful __________________ it's tough to make predictions specially about the future

03-27-2008, 05:02 PM	#20
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	Delayed again? According to the on-line edition of the Union Leader, the Senate today voted to delay implementation until October 1st. Now its off to the House. Story can be read HERE.

03-21-2008, 08:34 AM	#2
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	Hemlockpoint - Your project is if far enough along that you would be ok under every version of proposed rule, law, and policy that I've seen thus far. If your primary structure (house) foundation is in and your driveway is roughed in before April 1 then completing those structures is not going to require anything new from DES. From what we've seen so far, if a problem were to arise it would be in relation to outbuildings or not building according to the plan approved by the original building permit. If your primary structure and driveway (gravel by law is considered impervious unless specially designed and laid down) put your property at or above the new impervious surface limits, then after the date the new law takes effect, initiating construction of any new structures, such as a garage, even though they were covered by the local building permit, may still be illegal. The other thing is that you will likely only be covered for those things specifically permitted on the local building permit you are operating under. If you don't build according to the plans sent to the municipality or the permit is vague and no plans were required, then you may not be covered by any vesting provision.

03-21-2008, 05:15 PM	#3
hemlockpoint Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I was looking at the website at the latest version of the rules on vesting. What does this mean? (3) A concrete foundation for the primary structure was installed between April 1, 2007 and April 1, 2008; My foundation was installed in the fall of 2006. Does this mean I am not vested because I installed it too soon?

03-22-2008, 02:47 PM	#4
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	The 2007 date provision wasn't intended to force people that had structures started to get a permit to finish them. It was intended to prevent individuals from claiming that secondary or accessory structures that had not been started before April 1, 2008 were part of a larger "project" and thus were somehow covered under an old permit just because the primary structure foundation was in. We have no interest in asking anyone to get permits to complete a house that is as fas along as you have described. It is better environmentally that you simply complete the project and stabilize the soils on site.

03-23-2008, 06:00 AM	#6
hemlockpoint Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 13 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Shore things Thank you for your help.

03-23-2008, 11:58 AM	#7
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	Phoenix There is NO permit required for the cutting of trees or brush. All of the standards for cutting vegetation are found in RSA 483-B:9 V sections (a) and (b) as long as you are cutting within the allowances of the CSPA then no paperwork is required. The fact no permit is required by the law is echoed in the rules. (Env-Wq 1406.04 I think. Don't have them with me at the moment so I'll fix this if I need to later...) I'll see if we have an available fact sheet to link to from here. If we don't already have one available online we will soon.

03-24-2008, 07:29 AM	#10
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,759 Thanks: 753 Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts	shore things. What happens to the reference line if a boathouse is built? The definition I find is: "for natural fresh waterbodies it is the natural mean high water level". If you dig in for a boathouse, which you must do, does that reference line change?

03-24-2008, 11:50 AM	#11
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	If you dig into the shoreline you DO move the reference line.

03-25-2008, 08:34 AM	#14
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	In accordance with RSA 483-B:3 Consistency Required, II, When the standards and practices established in this chapter conflict with other local or state laws and rules, the more stringent standard shall control. Moultonborough's requirements must be met.

03-27-2008, 07:01 AM	#15
Formula260SS Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NH Posts: 384 Thanks: 11 Thanked 76 Times in 51 Posts	Shore Things, Thanks for taking the time to spend here and answer questions, I have a quick one. Are the requirements the same for an accessory structure (shed) as they are for a primary structure, such as plans and such. Will we have to submit a "full package" of information or can it be reduced. The structure will meet the 150 sq/ft rule and the 50' reference line. Thanks

03-27-2008, 09:15 AM	#16
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	Under the current rule set there is no "reduced package" for small sized projects. There needs to be one, and the development of such a process will be part of the next phase in bringing the Shoreland Program forward. One of the main problems that we need to overcome is ensuring that the Department has the information we need to verify that the sum of little projects over time doesn't result in more impervious surface than is allowed by the new CSPA standards. There has been a push to force the Department to require stamped surveyed plans with all applications. The legal argument has been made that all plans that indicate property line location must be prepared by a licensed surveyor. DES is resistant to requiring these plans for all project due to the cost that is associated with it. (Other DES programs such as Wetlands and Sub-surface have operated for years without requiring surveyed plans.) We need to find a way to get the most reliable information we can about the property and project but have it be something that the average homeowner can provide without breaking his bank account before we can take the next step. We are definately open to suggestions...

03-27-2008, 01:51 PM	#17
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,507 Thanks: 221 Thanked 818 Times in 491 Posts	We are looking at another piece of property that has a camp on it now, and is closer than 50 feet to the water. If we bought it, our intention would be that within a few years we would want to take it down and build something newer/larger. Being that the lot is already cleared there is no additional clearing of trees/vegetation necessary. Does the footprint or current building location become grandfathered? If we want to go bigger do we have to move the building back to 50' or greater? Is there a limitation that would prevent us from building at all? I'd hate to get too far into this to find a problem that we did not foresee. Thanks in advance!

03-27-2008, 02:35 PM	#18
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	Unless you are on sewer the first you need to take a look at the new sub-surface systems regulations. If you tear if down or modify it significantly it could run afoul of your systems permit. If you tear it down and do want to rebuild with a bigger footprint you will need to meet the setback if its possible. If you can't meet the setback then you would be looking at the possibility of getting a Redevelopment Waiver with would allow you to offer restoring or replanting areas or making other improvements to offset the increased sq ft of impervious area.

03-27-2008, 04:49 PM	#19
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,759 Thanks: 753 Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts	In other words, codeman forget it. She does not want to tell you it will be a nightmare.

03-27-2008, 05:52 PM	#21
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	The earliest the House could possibly hear the amended version of HB 1151 is April 9th.

03-28-2008, 10:37 AM	#23
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	I thought Gilford had a 40 ft setback? If you have septic taken care of and the setback is no problem then your next concern is the new impervious surface limit. The new standard sets up tiers for percent impervious allowed. You can avoid any issues with this standard by staying within the bounds of the existing impervious areas. In other words if you only wanted to add or expand the second story there would be no issue. In fact, you could potentially do it without a permit. If you are going to expand the impervious area of the house then it would be helpful to know approximately how much of the lot would then be impervious. Do you have an estimate on that? Keep in mind that gravel driveway are considered impervious unless specially designed and constructed to be otherwise.

03-28-2008, 11:37 AM	#24
codeman671 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 3,507 Thanks: 221 Thanked 818 Times in 491 Posts	Not sure, I thought 50 but if 40 even better. Being on an island, no driveways are needed so the only section to be affected is the overall footprint size of the home. The footprint is 1100 square feet (1 floor) and I would expect that to go to 1600-1700 square feet plus attached outdoor deck space. So basically, on a 1 acre lot we would look to add 600+/- square feet of house footprint plus the deck which could encompass another 750-1k square feet outside. I appreciate you taking the time to clarify this! Hopefully it will help others as well.