Shoreland Protection Rules

[meteotrade]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

it's a situation that's not good for man nor forest.

And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by meteotrade

And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house

Metrotrade,
I think they named the bill after this guy. Thanks to him for causing the spark of this bright idea. I just want to pick up a dead branch and move some leaves off the nature path so my mom does not slip. Why do I think the guy with the best lawyer will still do what ever they want.

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by meteotrade

And here I was thinking you were joking. (you're not joking, right?)

There are no provisions in the SPA that prohibit you from removing dead or dying trees, leaves, branches, tinder, etc. Additionally, the law still allows for thinning of a stand by an appropriate amount. The new law, in no way, contradicts fire prevention recommendations given by the Ad council or the USFS.

Of course, if you're really THAT worried about a forest fire, I guess you could take this guy's approach: "Smokey the Bear Approved" fire resistant lake house

Previous posts in this thread, as well as parts of the law (as I read it) indicated that doing so much as raking leaves was against the law. So... if what you say is true, then I am now confused.

And no, I am not THAT worried about a forest fire. I stated in a previous post (and will now repeat as a summary) that my opinions are more middle-of-the-road... opposed to overdone development as posted in the photo you linked to, but also opposed to overdone laws. My thing with the forest fires was my way of illustrating the following statement: "Overdone laws often end up causing more harm than good, often to the very things they're designed to protect." I would've illustrated my opposition to overdone development if I didn't think all of us were already familiar with it.

[jrc]

Funny thing is the new law will cause more development like the Bahre Mansion, Ok maybe not that big.

But a moneyed builder can buy the necessary acerage, file all the forms, hire all the engineers, surveyors and hydrologists to build pretty much anything he wants. Except maybe a boathouse.

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes. The tax assesor will never believe it's worthless. Maybe that's a good goal but if you're effectively taking this guys property, he should be compensated.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by jrc

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes.

Or more likely sell it to the monied buyer looking to piece 4-5 of these together to build the McMansion in your earlier paragraph.

[Onshore]

I'm going to be just a little busy here for the next couple of days, but I'll try to find time to get to as many of these questions as I can today. Quickly though, comments about the state owning the land but individuals paying taxes on it... Individuals own the land but the government (local, state, or federal) has a right to regulate the activities on it to protect and preserve the health and well-being of the general public. In this instance it would be with the intent of protecting the quality of water and preventing erosion and flooding. As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional... or so I've been told by various attorneys. The shoreland staff is not comprised of attorneys and we are not in a position to argue property rights issues. Questions about the environment or the implentation of the law we were given to enforce we can handle. We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.

[tis]

Originally Posted by shore things

As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional...



We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.

shore things, the problem is, it IS VERY prohibitive! I think you will be seeing lots of attorneys.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by shore things

I'm going to be just a little busy here for the next couple of days, but I'll try to find time to get to as many of these questions as I can today. Quickly though, comments about the state owning the land but individuals paying taxes on it... Individuals own the land but the government (local, state, or federal) has a right to regulate the activities on it to protect and preserve the health and well-being of the general public. In this instance it would be with the intent of protecting the quality of water and preventing erosion and flooding. As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional... or so I've been told by various attorneys. The shoreland staff is not comprised of attorneys and we are not in a position to argue property rights issues. Questions about the environment or the implementation of the law we were given to enforce we can handle. We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers.

If the only goal is to protect the water quality then why don't they give us the option to build closer to the lake and collect all the rain water that falls on the roof and pump it 250 feet away from the lake to take a filtered ride back to the lake or replenish the aquifer . That would make the result a net increase in water quality for the lake. I think I like reasonable limits on tree cutting as it protects all of our value and mutual enjoyment. Trying to spell everyones situation out in a house bill seems a bit of a stretch.

Not sure how we should all react the next time we see someone get around the rules that apply to the rest of us. Hope to see pictures of it here.

[Belkin]

I take the following statement within the Shoreland Protection Act to mean that you can rake leaves in areas where three are no existing fallen leaves. You might also interpret it to imply that anything that grows or falls after April 1, 2008 can be removed (i.e. you are encouraged but not required to add additional plants to areas that previously did not have any):

(v) Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to April 1, 2008 may maintain but not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches, within the waterfront buffer.

However, in areas where there is natural ground cover:

(C) No natural ground cover shall be removed except as necessary for a foot path to water as provided under RSA 483-B:9,

where natural ground cover includes:

Natural ground cover shall also include naturally occurring leaf or needle litter, stumps, decaying woody debris, stones, and boulders.


I think this is where the feeling that you can not rake your yard comes from. And if your yard is composed of "natural ground cover", I think that belief is correct. It would appear that picking up a decaying stick from wooded areas of your yard within 50 feet of the water would not be allowed.

[codeman671]

Is there going to be a limitation to future installations of perched beaches?

[AQUAMAN]

My belief is that everyone wants to protect the waters of NH. Education through lawmaking is really the only way. The real issue is the Department or more specific the persons within the Department that oversee the permitting and enforcement of the laws. With the same key people that have given the Wetlands Board the worst reputation of any DES department heading up the CSPA, it will not take long for this reputation to carry over. I attended a seminar at DES given by an in-house consultant who is responsible for fixing the lack of customer service within the Wetlands Board. The sentiment rang loud and clear; it is not the laws but the attitudes of the persons within the department. I have had two applications reviewed by the same person within 6 months of each other so the laws are the same. The first is approved after meeting certain requests for more information (RFMIs) and 6mos later the issues or RFMI's are completely different. This lack of consistency is very frustrating but most of all very expensive. So I embrace the CSPA and its intention but I am very nervous of what lies ahead.

[Merrymeeting]

Similar to what Aquaman stated, I've had direct, similar, experience with DES. Clear violation of the existing laws (a shorefront lot that cleared every piece of vegatation from the lot without permits). I went through the formal process of submitting the paperwork to report it.

Twice it was kicked back for petty, bureacratic information updates. Finally they came back and admitted that they didn't have the personnel or time to investigate. This was under the old laws.

So, other than adding an administrative and cost nightmare for "the little guy", how is this going to help?

[Steveo]

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

1. Can you put a set point well in within the 50 ft area? What about the disturbance cause by digging a ditch for the supply line to the house.

2. Can you add a foundation to an existing home that is on piers now, same footprint.

3. Can you replace the decking on a crib dock.

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Steveo

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

1. Can you put a set point well in within the 50 ft area? What about the disturbance cause by digging a ditch for the supply line to the house.

2. Can you add a foundation to an existing home that is on piers now, same footprint.

3. Can you replace the decking on a crib dock.

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help

Now that the word is out, you will be the proud owner of a bony beach.

The WLB will only allow a perch beach situation; no more dumping sand in the Lake. It has been this way for some time - you have been lucky.

[eyenotall777]

The links below may answer your question in regards to sand/beach:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wetlands/guidebook/beach.htm

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/bb-15.htm

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by eyenotall777

The links below may answer your question in regards to sand/beach:

http://www.des.state.nh.us/wetlands/guidebook/beach.htm

http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/bb/bb-15.htm

The original question was "Can I replace beach sand that washes out?

Here is just ONE of the questions that would need to be answered as part of your application to BEG the state to be able to maintain your property.

(7) The impact on plants, fish, and wildlife including:
a. Rare, special concern species;

b. State and federally listed threatened and endangered species;

c. Species at the extremities of their ranges;

d. Migratory fish and wildlife; and

e. Exemplary natural communities identified by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) - Department of Resources and Economic Development.

Could anyone on this forum honestly answer this question? I am a technically oriented person and I wouldn't even know where to start.
Could even an expert in Marine biology really answer this type of question properly and accurately?
Would you need to survey the lake to determine all the possible marine life and wildlife that exist in the lake in the off chance that one of them may one day wander near your beach and somehow be impacted by the cubic yard of sand you want to dump to fill in some holes?

When laws add ridiculous complexity to simple and reasonable processes people will eventually start to ignore or sidestep the laws and take their chances. Before too long only multimillionaires will be able to address the type of regulations being foisted upon us and if you think they will be satisfied with small houses, think again. For those upset with the Bahre estate, wait until there are hundreds of such properties because such owners will be the only ones that have the capability to deal with the regulations, or pay the fines when they break them.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Here is just ONE of the questions that would need to be answered as part of your application to BEG the state to be able to maintain your property.

"Sometimes, it's better to beg forgiveness than ask permission" -Grace Hopper.

I think Steveo will back her up on this one.

[wifi]

Originally Posted by jeffk

........When laws add ridiculous complexity to simple and reasonable processes people will eventually start to ignore or sidestep the laws and take their chances. Before too long only multimillionaires will be able to address the type of regulations being foisted upon us and if you think they will be satisfied with small houses, think again. For those upset with the Bahre estate, wait until there are hundreds of such properties because such owners will be the only ones that have the capability to deal with the regulations, or pay the fines when they break them.

Right on target, Thanks Jeff.

These laws were quickly baked up, primarily with an implementation date in mind, without considering their consequences and "collateral damage".

[idigtractors]

Originally Posted by Steveo

Some questions I didn't see addressed directly in the readings:

4. I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

Thank you for any help

The state has told me in the past years that any sand being put on the shore/in the water has to have a permit.($50) I did it twice and it wasn't the easiest thing to do as letters had to be sent to abutters and a map with all kinds of dimensions had to be submitted. That is just part of it. Them telling me this I would say what you have being doing in the past is wrong.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by idigtractors

The state has told me in the past years that any sand being put on the shore/in the water has to have a permit.($50) I did it twice and it wasn't the easiest thing to do as letters had to be sent to abutters and a map with all kinds of dimensions had to be submitted. That is just part of it. Them telling me this I would say what you have being doing in the past is wrong.

Steveo,

With regard to your past transgressions, kindly fill out the attached form and send it to DES immediately. By turning yourself in you can feel good about doing the right thing and, if what Aquaman says is true, you'll never have to actually pay the price.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Steveo

I have existing beach that can get washed out in high water months. In the past I simply replace the sand. Now what happens?

I am struggling with the State saying that raking the area around a picnic table is a problem for the lake but placing sand that routinely washes away in the lake is OK with permission????

[ITD]

I'm struggling with the fact that this law isn't a requirement for 2.5 miles from the water instead of 250 feet. What people are doing 1 mile from the lake can have just as much impact, or even more since the numbers are greater than some poor slob who picks up sticks. We seem to be very willing to limit the rights and freedoms of small groups of people as long as it doesn't affect us. I wonder if the local town folk a little further from the water would feel the same if they had to follow these inane rules. I've said it before, I'll say it again. A few morons don't follow the rules and clear cut their land. The reaction, instead of following and enforcing the present rules, is to come up with these draconian measures that are nearly impossible to enforce and penalize all shorefront owners. Another sign of the do gooder, meddlesome mentality from down here in the Flatlands. We all know how things work out down here.......

[Orion]

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Orion

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.

The problem with this rule is that the high water mark keeps changing. My small beach front has eroded over 8 feet towards my house in the past 15 years. It erodes with the wake of deep displacement craft when the lake is well above "full". I'd sure like to replenish my beach back to where it used to be. I'm concerned that my legally built property will become encumbered within the 50 foot setback as the erosion continues, and I'd like to fight it without a lot of paperwork.

The shoreline protection act should have included a clause that when the lake level is above 504.5 feet, a lake-wide no-wake rule is in effect. No-wake was declared in 1998, but not in 2005, 2006 and 2007 when we had three 100+ year floods in a row.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Today as I drove to work to help pay some taxes I passed a state park littered with tons of pine needles under the massive pines around the local lake. The needles providing a valuable filter to the rain that was falling.

Then I thought about the impending annual clean up that will remove all of that natural material in contradiction to the new rules for the states lakes.

I have decided to spend some time at the park tomorrow and get some before shots for what is sure to be a frustrating set of after pictures.

It will be interesting to see if the State feels compelled to follow the rules or will they find them as ridiculous as we do?

Maybe when one of us gets arrested for picking a flower without a permit, the pictures will at least give the jury something to laugh at.

[Onshore]

In answer to all of the comments on raking the leaves and pine needles...

RSA 483-B:9 V, (a)(2)(D)(v) "Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to April 1, 2008 may maintainbut not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches, within the waterfront buffer. Conversion to or planting of cleared areas with native species of ground cover, shrubs, saplings, and trees is encouraged but shall not be required unless it is necessary to meet the requirements of..." The citations then refer to new construction resulting in more than 20 % impervious surface and modification of non-conforming structures.

RSA 483-B:9 V, (b) puts no restriction on the removal of detritus or leaf litter but keep in mind that if you excavate you will need a permit so please use a hand rake as the use of a york rake will get you into some trouble.

Rule Env-Wq 1406.04, Additional Activities in Protected Shoreland That Do Not Require a Shoreland Permit, (c) (7) Maintenance of a grandfathered open area, such as by mowing a lawn, raking leaves or pine needles, or mulching landscaped areas.

Rule Env-Wq 1406.04, Additional Activities in Protected Shoreland That Do Not Require a Shoreland Permit, (c) (8) Planting of non-invasive vegetation or maintenance of existing gardens within the allowable disturbed area using hand-held tools.

"Hand-held" tools does include power augers and roto-tillers provided they are hand-held (as in not attached to the PTO of a wheeled or tracked vehicle). The idea is if it requires equipment that is ridden or driven the potential for serious impacts is significant enough that maybe we ought to look at it.

In short, don't think for a moment that you can use the CSPA as an excuse to get out of doing your usual spring and fall yard work...

[Rattlesnake Gal]

UnionLeader.com
Thursday, April 23, 2009
By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter

A House committee yesterday was told that proposed changes to a bill relaxing the restrictions to the current state shoreland protection law do not go far enough to allow waterfront property owners to maintain and make minor adjustments to their own land. Click here for the full story.

The committee expects to review whether to adjust the bill and recommend whether the full House should pass it by April 30.

[Bear Island South]

I believe you can't even cleanup the debris (classified as natural ground cover) that has fallen over the winter month's within the 50' buffer zone.
The law has definately gone too far.

[Pineedles]

I remember one of my childhood chores was to sweep off the wharf and collect pinecones for the fireplace. I guess unless I want my grandchildren (to be), to be thrown in jail I better ammend their future lakefront chores. Its funny, but it's not.

[Onshore]

If you've been cleaning the area up all these years then you can keep doing it indefinately.

483-B:9 Minimum Shoreland Protection Standards. – Section V, paragraph (a), (v) Owners of lots that were legally developed prior to July 1, 2008 may maintain but not enlarge cleared areas, including but not limited to existing lawns and beaches, within the waterfront buffer. Conversion to or planting of cleared areas with native species of ground cover, shrubs, saplings, and trees is encouraged but shall not be required unless it is necessary to meet the requirements of subparagraphs (g)(2) or (g)(3), or RSA 483-B:11, II.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

"...I believe you can't even cleanup the debris (classified as natural ground cover) that has fallen over the winter month's within the 50' buffer zone..."

As the owner of a one-acre lakeside property, I can vouch for the effectiveness of natural ground cover against the runoff damage that impervious surfaces bring to the water's edge.

Except for removal of "trip-over" branches, winter debris interlocks within itself, creating a perfect environment for an understory of plants to grow. (Until last year's McMansion went in, I had been unable to see any of my neighbors).

Originally Posted by shore thing

"...You can't blame the Weirs blow out on 2 roofs and a roadway...you can't overlook the extreme severity of the rain event..."

I'm aware of both issues; however, recent weather patterns (including a tornado ) support more vigilance around this huge lake's shoreline—not the status quo.

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

"...The law has definitely gone too far..."

I expect many residents arrive at the lake to see a tidy lakeside yard—unaware that their maintenance crews have been blowing leaf litter into the lake every week.

Mechanical removal of natural debris by rake (and appropriate disposition) should be acceptable to DES.

Why didn't Concord simply outlaw the lakeside use of leafblowers?

[Onshore]

LIforrelaxin-
Yup, if you stopped doing the yard work for a couple of seasons there might be an increase in the amount of pine needles and leaf litter that make it to the lake...but the fact is that for thousands of years there was no one on the lake to do yard work and the lake was just fine. It is an ecological system that developed with a consistent, annual budget of leaf litter coming into it. If you speak to someone with a fisheries background as well as many ecologists they'll tell you that the majority of northern lakes would be sterile if not for the leaf litter accumulation. It provides the base for the food chain.

Having now admitted that some organic matter is a good thing (btw - some people will COMPLETELY disagree with the idea that ANY leaf litter is good) we often get the response that if some is good, more must be better, and people should be advised to dump leaves in the water. This is not a good idea. First off, your neighbors will probably not appreciate you mucking up their swimming area with leaves that will get all icky in a couple of years. (Neighbors can be funny that way but you do have to live next to them.) Second it creates a concentration of nutrients in the deposition area that will cause localized problems such as algae blooms. A small amount of organic matter spread over a large area is a good thing; a large amount in a small area is not. Another question that we get is, "if leaf litter is ok, why is fertilizer bad?" The best way I can explain this may be with an anology. The lake needs a certain amount of nutrients to function properly as an ecological system just like people need food. Natural deposition of leaf litter is like eating a salad, whereas fertilizer is like sucking down a bottle of chocolate syrup. It might sound like a good idea but it will just mess you up in the long run.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I expect many residents arrive at the lake to see a tidy lakeside yard—unaware that their maintenance crews have been blowing leaf litter into the lake every week.

Why didn't Concord simply outlaw the lakeside use of leafblowers?

I highly doubt that maintenance crews are blowing leaf litter into the lake on a widespread basis. C'mon, give us a break...

I still maintain the position that the wake from just one plowing Carver does far more damage to the shorefront than some of these petty things that DES is trying to restrict.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Orion

"Placement of sand below the high water mark is classified as a major project (see the "Classification of Projects" section) and is usually not allowed, even on previously permitted or grandfathered beaches. "

Following the quote from the rules above, if the sand washed out, it is likely below the high water mark and thus not allowed to be replenished.

Exactly. The purpose of a perched beach is to have all sand above the high water mark. If you do not have a perched beach and your sand is below the high water mark, you are going to lose it to the lake consistently. I think that what they are trying to prevent is people just dumping loads of sand on their shoreline so that it gets washed into the lake, creating a nice sandy bottom.

[neckdweller]

The reality of the new law is that how people coexist with their neighbors will play a large part in who does what.

Obviously clearcutting a lakefront lot won't be happening but people adding sand to their beach, doing the typical landscaping they've done in the past, etc. will continue so long as they don't fear that their neighbors will be filling out one of those forms.

For those people who have an uneasy realtionship with their neighbors, they may think twice and be looking over their shoulder before yanking that weed out of the ground.

[Orion]

Originally Posted by neckdweller

The reality of the new law is that how people coexist with their neighbors will play a large part in who does what.

You nailed it!

[eyenotall777]

Would beach associations be exempt for once every 6yrs replenishment? Just wondering as I know an association who has been adding sand every year.....

Guess they don't know the rules either.

[Belkin]

Originally Posted by eyenotall777

Would beach associations be exempt for once every 6yrs replenishment? Just wondering as I know an association who has been adding sand every year.....

Guess they don't know the rules either.

Based on my reading of the rules last night, replenishing sand is a "minmal" impact project only if it is for a single family home and less than 50 feet of waterfront and less than 20 percent of the total properties waterfront. I think an association replenishing sand on a significant beech would be considered a "major" impact project.

I also looked at the form that you use to complain if someone is breaking the rules. It looks like complaining of a violation may be more difficult than applying for a permit. They also specifically mention in the instructions that the complaint should not be used just for getting back at your neighbor. Hopefully, they are only interestested in flagrant violations.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by neckdweller

The reality of the new law is that how people coexist with their neighbors will play a large part in who does what.

I believe that is very true. I'm also pretty sure my neighbor's lawyer has a complaint form partially filled out so he can save time the next time I rake the yard.

[CanisLupusArctos]

Originally Posted by Gatto Nero

I'm also pretty sure my neighbor's lawyer has a complaint form partially filled out so he can save time the next time I rake the yard.

Of course, this sort of thing would backfire on the law itself. A system overloaded with complaints of this type would quickly become inefficient, and the workload would create an "overworked & underpaid" mentality within the DES that has already happened to many government agencies. Most recent case-in-point (this week): The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) Too much paperwork, too many planes & pilots to regulate, too little time, and they can't pay their employees enough to care.

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

Of course, this sort of thing would backfire on the law itself. A system overloaded with complaints of this type would quickly become inefficient, and the workload would create an "overworked & underpaid" mentality within the DES that has already happened to many government agencies. Most recent case-in-point (this week): The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA.) Too much paperwork, too many planes & pilots to regulate, too little time, and they can't pay their employees enough to care.

Exactly. That's probably already the case. I think the people at the DES really do care about what they are doing but they're overloaded, and these new rules can only make matters worse.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

Or more likely sell it to the monied buyer looking to piece 4-5 of these together to build the McMansion in your earlier paragraph.

Good point.

Originally Posted by shore things

....As long as the regulation is not prohibitive and allows the owner reasonable use of his/her land it is constitutional...We leave the property rights issues to the attorneys and lawmakers...

I'm not expecting the bureaucracy to fix this themselves, they are foot soldiers and must just follow orders. Terms like prohibitive, reasonable and constitutional are usually defined by people in robes.

My point was just watch out for unintended consequences.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by jrc

Funny thing is the new law will cause more development like the Bahre Mansion, Ok maybe not that big.

But a moneyed builder can buy the necessary acerage, file all the forms, hire all the engineers, surveyors and hydrologists to build pretty much anything he wants. Except maybe a boathouse.

Now a person with 100' x 100' lot on the shore pretty much cannot develop anything. Not a house, not a camp, nothing. He will have to spend a fortune to get approvals and exceptions and variances. His land is now virtually worthless. Eventually he will donate to the town or a conservation group just to stop the taxes. The tax assesor will never believe it's worthless. Maybe that's a good goal but if you're effectively taking this guys property, he should be compensated.

I may be wrong, but had heard that they cannot deem a property that WAS buildable under the previous laws to be non-buildable now.

[jrc]

OK maybe I got carried away. Time will tell, but given enough money and time with permits, exisiting 100' x 100' lots are probably buildable.

Many on this board have complained up and down about the change in the lake from working people in camps to rich people in mansions. This law can only accelerate that process. Maybe that's a good thing, it probably means less people overall and less houses per foot of shoreline. Less boats but probably bigger boats.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I may be wrong, but had heard that they cannot deem a property that WAS buildable under the previous laws to be non-buildable now.

Just because they can't legally stop you from building doesn't mean that they can't throw so many roadblocks in the way that, for most people, it has the same effect.

Just from the discussion on this forum is far from clear to me exactly what the effect of these changes will be. Shore Things seems to be stating that the commission is looking for guidance. I accept that the willingness to discuss with the public is a wonderful thing but the fact that this is now the required "Law of the land" without anyone really understanding what it means is a disaster in the making.

A example to consider might be the EPA laws and regulations. Now every time a project is started there must be a massive review of the habitat. If one blue-green frog lives in the area instead of just plain green frogs, everything comes to a halt. Developers with deep pockets develop exotic and expensive plans to mitigate the "threat" to the blue-green frog. They build a blue-green frog condo and import a harem of blue-green frogs to keep it happy. Developers with less assets simply give up. What's the take away lesson? Those with big bucks pretty much get what they want.

Originally Posted by jrc

OK maybe I got carried away. Time will tell, but given enough money and time with permits, exisiting 100' x 100' lots are probably buildable.

Many on this board have complained up and down about the change in the lake from working people in camps to rich people in mansions. This law can only accelerate that process. Maybe that's a good thing, it probably means less people overall and less houses per foot of shoreline. Less boats but probably bigger boats.

I think you are right on target jrc. The big money people will be the only ones who have the ability to deal with the confusing and shifting regulations. They will pay a lawyer lots of money to steer it through. Since the law doesn't specifically prevent them from developing but instead puts a regulatory minefield in their way, they will eventually prevail. Joe average will just throw up his hands and give up or do it on the sly. He will get caught and fined, not because he wasn't legally entitled to build what he wanted but because he couldn't afford to do the paperwork.

When a person is prevented from using their property by the state and the value of the property is diminished because of the state rules the property has effectively been seized and compensation should be paid. If the public wants the control of the land for their "protection" then they should pay for that control. How about if a lakefront property owner wants to make changes it is the state that must pay for all the regulatory work. i.e if it costs me $200,000 in legal and other fees to validate that I can modify my property as I wish to, the state pays me $200,000. If the public wants the benefit of protection, they pay the bills for it.

[idigtractors]

What I have read only here on the forum my feelings are that a good 90% of what is being tried to be done is all good. This trying to save the land and waters of the state of NH for us and the future ones that are coming along has to be done at some point. Whenever they decide to try and make a workable solution it will defiantly is not going to please everyone as they get caught up with things that they were not expecting. Is that to say, well we will let you do your project, but the next person then complains as he got caught. It just has to be done at any given point. Yes it would be great that all the changes were written in layman's terms so that everyone one knew exactly where they stand. At the present everyone is reading into everything the way they want to.
We just need to sit on our hands and let the committees do there job and hopefully everything they do helps correct our sadden conditions of our natural environment even if it does mean we do not rake our leaves.

[Orion]

Excellent original post CanisLupusArctos!

[CanisLupusArctos]

It seems almost everywhere you look, increased regulation brings the most hardship on the people with the least money. The little people who actually care about the world around them get shut out because they can't afford the cost of compliance with regulations, which allows the wealthiest take over because they can. They bring their attitude, "Fines are the cost of doing business" and buy whatever public officials they need in order to get illegal things done legally. When the cost of being here (or the cost of anything) gets high enough, it takes on a 'snob appeal' for people who like to brag about how much they pay for things. And usually, those are the same people who don't care about anyone else's environment but their own.

[meteotrade]

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

Previous posts in this thread, as well as parts of the law (as I read it) indicated that doing so much as raking leaves was against the law. So... if what you say is true, then I am now confused.

I think the paranoia stems from the section of the act which states that 50%of the woodland buffer must be maintained in an "undisturbed state". The spirit of the phrase is to prevent the destruction of the natural habitation in favor of landscaped improvements like giant lawns, beaches, etc. example A few paranoid folks have interpreted this to mean that they aren't allowed to pick up dead branches or leaves, which is entirely untrue. Enforcers of the new law are going to have much bigger fish to fry than some guy who's raking his yard.