Shoreland Protection Rules

eyenotall777 · 04-04-2008, 11:19 AM

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 · 04-04-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

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.

tis · 04-04-2008, 07:24 PM

My only wish is those of you who think the DES means well and is only trying to protect the lake, have the privilege of applying for a permit from them. Then please post and tell us how delightful the process was.

Gatto Nero · 04-05-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

My only wish is those of you who think the DES means well and is only trying to protect the lake, have the privilege of applying for a permit from them. Then please post and tell us how delightful the process was.

The summer of '05 was my first as a shore front owner. Back then I knew nothing about the DES or the Shoreland Protection rules. In the 34 months since that time I have argued two appeals before the Wetlands Counsel, had three wetlands applications accepted, one of them twice, and successfully defended myself against two complaints that were filed against me by an abutter. So I think I qualify to comment.

Two of the permits were PBNs that I completed and filed on my own. They were a breeze. The third is a major impact project that I inherited from the previous owner, in the middle of the process, that had lots of unsightly hair all over it. I had to jump through more hoops then than a circus dog on that one, but none of those hoops had anything to with DES people trying to sabotage my project. In fact, they were very helpful. It all had to do with making sure I followed the letter of the law in order to prove the I qualified for requested project. It was, and still is, a huge time sink. It certainly was no bed of roses going through it all, but I understand the reasons behind it and, SHOCKER, I even agree with it.

Do I dread these new rules coming into effect? My house is a preexisting, non-conforming structure that I wish was a little bigger, so you bet. I have no doubt it's going to be a royal pain in my hind side if I ever decide to expand. I've read the changes from cover to cover more than once and I still can't figure out how it will actually affect a project that I have in mind for a few years from now. Even though I probably have more experience now than the average Joe Home Owner, I have serious doubts that I will be able to properly complete my next application on my own. But again, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the people who are charged with enforcing those rules.

tis · 04-05-2008, 04:26 PM

So shore things, does that mean you can't use a ride on tractor to mow your lawn? We have been mowing our lawn with a ride on tractor for 25 years, now we can't?

I, also have read the act over and over and believe it is open to interpretation as most things like this are. However, it is my belief from reading it that if you have a small, old, camp and want to enlarge it, and it is an undersize lot, it is going to be almost impossible to get a permit to enlarge it. shore things?

Onshore · 04-05-2008, 05:20 PM

Rule Env-Wq 1406.04 (c) (7) does not specify that the mowing equipment must be "hand-held" so, no, there is nothing to say that you can't use a riding lawn mower.

As for old camps on small lots... we've been dealing with them for years now. The fact that there are lots that are so small that owners couldn't possibly meet the primary building setback isn't a new problem. RSA 483-B:10 states quite clearly that if a lot would otherwise be buildable, the CSPA cannot be used to prevent the construction of a single family dwelling on it. If you can get a septic system in on a lot and there is not some other legal restriction on the property then the law says you must be allowed to build. The law does allow DES to put conditions on the contruction but only those conditions that would be need to protect water quality to best meet the intent of the CSPA. These conditions would be things like implementing a stormwater management plan to account for the inability to meet the impervious surface requirements.

tis · 04-05-2008, 06:48 PM

You make it sound so nice and easy, shore things. Too bad is isn't REALLY like that to deal with you people.

Formula260SS · 04-05-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

You make it sound so nice and easy, shore things. Too bad is isn't REALLY like that to deal with you people.

Tis I think thats out of line, I believe we are very fortunate to have Shore Things here responding to questions in this open forum. I feel that in prior communication feedback has been taken from this forum and at least listened to.

I have dealt with DES on a major impact project myself and found the people I have worked with to be very helpful. You may not like it but don't make comments like that to someone who is going out of their way to be helpful, Shore Things has gone above and beyond what I'm sure is required of his/her job by being here.

tis · 04-06-2008, 07:40 AM

Formula, I am sorry you took that as a nasty comment. It wasn't meant to be. I just meant that she is certainly trying to soften the blow for us when we all find out what this is about. For instance, I truly don't think people will be allowed to enlarge their home if it is on an undersized lot. I think a lot of people are in for a shock.

It is very good of shore things to comment on here. I have gotten more answers on here, than we have gotten through her in Concord. It takes ten phone calls and then you have to find out the status of your permit online.

I am glad the people were very helpful to you. Maybe you can tell me how you did it? We did not do the permit ourselves. We never ever could have done it and I consider us to be pretty saavy.

I am just saying it was avoidance all the way with us. It drags out to over a year of stalling, sending letters saying things like it isn't complete, and you have to call them and say it is, and then it takes them a couple of months to say: " Oh, yes, it Is COMPLETER." Things like that. I don't want to give too many details right now.

Thank you shore things for responding on here. Maybe there is a better way for all of us to communicate.

fatlazyless · 04-06-2008, 09:10 AM

"Now just look at that big house....why that house is too big for that lot.....and that house is too big for that lot, and that one over there is also too big for its' lot, too" Where are all the trees and woods that used to be seperating the homes?

Go take a boat ride around the lake, look around....it's all wall-to-wall homes, homes and more homes.

Some good stuff is coming out of Concord these days....should have been happening twenty years ago....ayuh! What the heck were folks down in Concord doing for the past 20 years anyway?

So's the new rule is no more than 25% of a lot can be covered by an impervious material which includes driveways made of asphalt or gravel or cobbles or packed soil. Only a driveway made of alive & growing green grass is not considered an impervious driveway.

Formula260SS · 04-06-2008, 10:00 AM

Tis,

just want to make sure we are not killing the messenger. My personal feeling is we are not at an end point with these rules and think that we will see changes yet again in the future, I may be wrong but that's my thought.

I'm not sure what your project is but there are defined time lines that responses have to be made by from DES. I did get the standard "more info needed" letter from them also but responded and we moved forward from there in a timely manner. I believe it is a difficult balance between protecting the lakes and rights of owners and also think the process is skewed a little too far away from owners.

One course of action is to hire a lawyer who is familiar with the laws/practices of DES, I know people will argue the costs and such but if for example you are looking to spend 100K on a project another 5-10% on to of that could be money well spent. I know a few people who handle permits and could direct you in that direction if you want, this is how boat houses have been built for example.

Now the REAL problem, smaller projects !! this is where I have a problem. For the project that is maybe 5-20K that will still require that same amount of paperwork and effort to get a permit, this to me is unacceptable. Here is where I think we will see changes.

I completely AGREE that the "money guys gets the permit" and think it is WRONG ! But, I have also seen structures on the lake that should never have been built but were due to lack of rules and a process. Here is where balance is a major issue.

Do I think the rules have to be adjusted, Yes. Do I think some rules will change, yes. Do I think that the town I live in will let me build a 5000 sq/ft 6 bedroom house on a non conforming lot that will not meet setbacks and septic requirements, don't think so.

Onshore · 04-06-2008, 10:24 AM

I had read Tis' post and if anything it was frustrating but I wasn't offended by it because his point is legitimate. Wetlands spent a couple of decades earning its reputation for inconsistency; I wouldn't expect anyone to forgive and forget over night. We've been trying to pull it out of the weeds for a while now and although the situation is improving there is still a ways to go. Please keep in mind that this is not just an internal problem. There are some in the regulated community who used the situation to their advantage and don't really want to see it change. Gatto Nero's project is a prime example that we haven't fully corrected the problem yet.

Now Shorelands is under the same roof and that understandably makes people uneasy. It should. One my primary responsibilities is to develop a program that is consistent and "agenda proof". That is part of why the Department pushed to have the approval criteria stated in the law itself and not in the rules. It is also why we wanted quantitative standards such as percent of area limits rather than qualitative standards like "need" and "least impacting alternative" that lend themselves to too much interpretation.

tis · 04-06-2008, 10:28 AM

You make a lot of good points Formula.

I do think some of these rules are too restrictive. For instance someone with a non conforming lot, who has a tiny, old, less than a 1000 Sq. foot camp, may want to improve and enlarge that-now I am not talking to 5000 feet, but maybe to a livable 1500-2000- will probably not be able to get a permit to build. And although we all love the old camps and hate to see them go, I can tell you most people do not want to live in them for long, or buy them. I had one and everyone looked at it and wanted something newer and nicer. So I think if all this stays as is, lots are going to be reduced in price dramatically on the lake.

I, of course also want to protect the lake, I have owned property on it most of my life, and probably love it more than most. I know there are many who will take advantage. I just think we have to have a reasonable balance.

The problem of course of hiring a lawyer, is not only the money but time! You could take four or five years if you have to go to court. I think the gov. should work WITH us, we should not have to fight them. We hire them, after all, shouldn't they help us, guide us without having to hire lawyers?

I feel that some of the things we were made to do on our project just didn't make sense. It did not make the lot look better, and I can't see how it protected the lake. But it is done and over and so be it.

I hope none of this offends you Formula, shore things, or anyone else. . I am just saying things the way I see them. I hope we have a right to voice our opinions on this forum.

Formula260SS · 04-06-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

I hope none of this offends you Formula, shore things, or anyone else. . I am just saying things the way I see them. I hope we have a right to voice our opinions on this forum.

Tis, no offense taken at all

With respect to the tiny non conforming lot, at some point a line has to be drawn in the sand within reason. Someone who has owned that small lot with the tiny camp for that last 20 yrs my guess paid about nothing for it. Are restrictive rules fair for this person? not sure. If someone paid 1mm for it in the last few years that's going to hurt but common sense should tell you small lot = small structure. I'm really not trying to open a debate on this specific issue but as Shore Things mentioned in previous posts you can go up.

Again, no offense taken

ITD · 04-06-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

You make a lot of good points Formula.

I do think some of these rules are too restrictive. For instance someone with a non conforming lot, who has a tiny, old, less than a 1000 Sq. foot camp, may want to improve and enlarge that-now I am not talking to 5000 feet, but maybe to a livable 1500-2000- will probably not be able to get a permit to build. And although we all love the old camps and hate to see them go, I can tell you most people do not want to live in them for long, or buy them. I had one and everyone looked at it and wanted something newer and nicer. So I think if all this stays as is, lots are going to be reduced in price dramatically on the lake.

I, of course also want to protect the lake, I have owned property on it most of my life, and probably love it more than most. I know there are many who will take advantage. I just think we have to have a reasonable balance.

The problem of course of hiring a lawyer, is not only the money but time! You could take four or five years if you have to go to court. I think the gov. should work WITH us, we should not have to fight them. We hire them, after all, shouldn't they help us, guide us without having to hire lawyers?

I feel that some of the things we were made to do on our project just didn't make sense. It did not make the lot look better, and I can't see how it protected the lake. But it is done and over and so be it.

I hope none of this offends you Formula, shore things, or anyone else. . I am just saying things the way I see them. I hope we have a right to voice our opinions on this forum.

Keep speaking out tis, at some point these laws become so restrictive it amounts to a land taking. The government trumps private property rights. Are we there yet, I don't know. Once again most of the problems arose out of inconsistent application of the current laws. So in typical big inefficient government fashion the rules are made way too restrictive when better application of the current law would have sufficed with maybe a tweek or two to the law.

jeffk · 04-06-2008, 06:29 PM

Speaking for myself I try to be reasonably environmentally conscious. I would welcome a discussion that acknowledges my right to live on, enjoy, and reasonably improve my property. I paid a lot of money for it and continue to pay excessive property taxes on it for the privilege of ownership. Fine. OK. But then it seems that the government takes an adversarial role with it's own citizens.

I'll give one example. I have a beach area that sometimes erodes. I would like to fill it in to compensate for the erosion. 75% of my shore front is absolutely natural, rock, shrubs, and various growth. I don't rake or treat it in any way. I also have no lawn around my house. I understand that sand introduces phosphorus into the water. OK, is it possible to get sand that is neutral for the lake? Could I just get a simple, one page permit that says I will get a cubic yard of "good" sand for the intention of maintaining the "beach" that has been there for the last 20 years or more? I include a simple "before" picture that indicates where I want to do the work. I file the form for $25 buck and proceed. The appropriate agency is now aware of my intentions and can do spot checks to verify I didn't exceed reasonable bounds.

If I want to get a fire permit, I go to the fire station and fill out a form and immediately get my permit. I can be roasting marshmallows in an hour. It seems to me that the vast majority of everyday shore maintenance falls into this category and that most shore front owners would be happy to comply with a straight forward procedure.

It would also be very nice to have a seminar for shore front owners that present the real concerns of managing property on the water along with straight forward and realistic suggestions as how to get improvement in water conditions.

When the state seems to take the approach of "You can't, you can't, you can't" after a while "I can't HEAR you" seems a reasonable response.

Gatto Nero · 04-06-2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk

Could I just get a simple, one page permit that says I will get a cubic yard of "good" sand for the intention of maintaining the "beach" that has been there for the last 20 years or more? I include a simple "before" picture that indicates where I want to do the work. I file the form for $25 buck and proceed. The appropriate agency is now aware of my intentions and can do spot checks to verify I didn't exceed reasonable bounds.

It's not quite one page, but a PBN is pretty much what you are describing. See section 13 of the attached. There is a little bit info gathering that needs to be done but most of it (tax map, USGS map, etc.) is available online for free.

CanisLupusArctos · 04-06-2008, 06:54 PM

I'd like to know if anyone in Concord considered generalized size restrictions on houses built (instead of the new laws we have now.) Seems it would've been a lot simpler and more direct and to-the-point. In many other parts of the country during the height of the housing boom, I saw several national news stories about municipalities that didn't like the number of McMansions popping up or the problems they caused the general community when they became too plentiful. So many started enacting "Enough is enough" laws intended to protect community resources along with the overall appearance of the area. In the long run, I wonder what happens to these giant dwellings when the passage of time brings the next economically-starving era. Will the lake be lined with "historic" abandoned estates rotting away because no one can afford to repair them? People in the 1920s probably never imagined that the grand hotels would be abandoned and estates turned into apartments by the time they were grandparents.

JeffK, have you considered water bars on your property? The AMC uses them on trails to divert water away from the trails and into the woods so the trails won't erode. They're usually no more than timbers or rows of rocks installed diagonally across the flow of runoff water in order to get the storm-induced stream to move over a few feet, thus protecting what's directly downhill of it.

GWC... · 04-06-2008, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

JeffK, have you considered water bars on your property? The AMC uses them on trails to divert water away from the trails and into the woods so the trails won't erode. They're usually no more than timbers or rows of rocks installed diagonally across the flow of runoff water in order to get the storm-induced stream to move over a few feet, thus protecting what's directly downhill of it.

That might prove a solution from the land-side of the beach area; but what about Mother Nature's actions from the water-side of the beach area?

Storms in the Fall do some serious erosion. The property might be well protected from the NW winds and waves; but very vulnerable to the Eastly winds and waves of the Fall storms.

Rattlesnake Guy · 04-07-2008, 09:14 AM

Shore Things,
I agree with the sentiments here that I do not wish to shoot the messenger! I have learned more from your post than from any other source. As you clear up misunderstandings you do two things. First you help us know what the rules are and second you keep us from abandoning the concept of trying to comply.

I sincerely thank you for your contribution and hope you continue.

Rattlesnake Guy

CanisLupusArctos · 04-07-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWC...

That might prove a solution from the land-side of the beach area; but what about Mother Nature's actions from the water-side of the beach area?

Storms in the Fall do some serious erosion. The property might be well protected from the NW winds and waves; but very vulnerable to the Eastly winds and waves of the Fall storms.

Oh yeah.. I forgot about that.

I'd just gotten back from a hiking trip when I wrote that and apparently left my brain in the mountains! Hmmmmm... seems this might be a situation where one might ask, "What would FLL do?" Maybe start parking the boat stern-in, so every time it starts up, the propeller will blow the sand back closer to the shore? You might also be able to persuade a small army of little kids to see how much sand they can bring back up on shore... you'd be surprised how much volume even two kids with pails & plastic shovels can move on a hot summer day when they don't want to get out of the water.

CanisLupusArctos · 04-12-2008, 11:02 AM

This is from a list of tips for keeping Lake Winnipesaukee's water clean. It was on the website of the Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Association, which states it is funded by the DES.
-----
October
Wouldn't it be so easy to just rake the leaves from the yard right into the stream behind our house? No mess, right? Wrong! Vegetative material will add phosphorus and other nutrients directly into the lake as well as create excellent habitat for leeches at your personal swimming area. Keep leaf piles and brush piles at least 250 feet from the shoreline or 50 feet from any other drainage. Never dump leaf or brush piles into the lake or any other drainage area such as a stream, river, or storm drain.
-----

GWC... · 04-12-2008, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanisLupusArctos

This is from a list of tips for keeping Lake Winnipesaukee's water clean. It was on the website of the Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Association, which states it is funded by the DES.
-----
October
Wouldn't it be so easy to just rake the leaves from the yard right into the stream behind our house? No mess, right? Wrong! Vegetative material will add phosphorus and other nutrients directly into the lake as well as create excellent habitat for leeches at your personal swimming area. Keep leaf piles and brush piles at least 250 feet from the shoreline or 50 feet from any other drainage. Never dump leaf or brush piles into the lake or any other drainage area such as a stream, river, or storm drain.
-----

Too funny...

Will be a busy season cutting all the trees that are within 250 feet of the shore to prevent their leaves from getting in the Lake.

ApS · 04-06-2008, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tis

You make it sound so nice and easy, shore things. Too bad is isn't REALLY like that to deal with you people.

In defense of shore things, I've had mostly pleasant results in e-mails and speaking with her in what must be a thankless, bureaucratic job.

When shifted to a DES subordinate, however, things got dismissive.

In the mid-80s, the state blocked many of us from selling abutting lots, so I should be upset; however, like Gatto Nero, I understand the need to protect the lake from excessive development. Where NH lakes are "backwards", and fringed with cathedral pines, the water quality is the highest in the state.

My last contact with shore things regarded a giant mudslide into the lake, bypassing "state-of-the-art" erosion barriers. (An orange polyester mesh "log" filled with wood chips). The mudslide into the lake continued for several weeks, when shore things advised me she would shortly drive out personally to inspect the scene. (I had departed the Lakes Region that week.)

I was temporarily confounded when she advised that she did not see the violations.

The next day, a neighbor told me that the night prior to the inspection, the mudslide had been covered with a foot of snow!

(Still giving shore things a gold star for effort, though.)

Just another of the vexations dealing with trying to save the lake from algae, save the shoreline from excessive structure resulting in impervious soil runoff—but fully confounded by quirky NH weather—covering this moonscape:

ApS · 08-20-2008, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

"...These conditions would be things like implementing a stormwater management plan to account for the inability to meet the impervious surface requirements..."

I've borrowed this photo from the Weirs Boardwalk Washed Away thread.

Wouldn't the two huge roofs across the street be good examples of "impervious surfaces"?

They are directly "upslope" from the roadway—another impervious surface—and likely produced this severe erosion result. (It would seem, IMHO.)

GWC... · 08-20-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Wouldn't the two huge roofs across the street be good examples of "impervious surfaces"?

They are directly "upslope" from the roadway—another impervious surface—and likely produced this severe erosion result. (It would seem, IMHO.)

That would make good sense to a spinner and probably the people in Concord who make the rules, regulations, and laws.

One problem...

They have been there for awhile, as in, when did the Civil War (War Between the States) end?

Onshore · 08-20-2008, 11:13 PM

You can't blame the Weirs blow out on 2 roofs and a roadway. You need to take a broader view of the development and drainage patterns of the Weirs as a whole and you can't overlook the extreme severity of the rain event.

04-04-2008, 11:19 AM	#1
eyenotall777 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 154 Thanks: 40 Thanked 28 Times in 19 Posts	Waterfront Associations 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.

04-06-2008, 09:10 AM	#10
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,835 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 302 Thanked 1,033 Times in 752 Posts	"Now just look at that big house....why that house is too big for that lot.....and that house is too big for that lot, and that one over there is also too big for its' lot, too" Where are all the trees and woods that used to be seperating the homes? Go take a boat ride around the lake, look around....it's all wall-to-wall homes, homes and more homes. Some good stuff is coming out of Concord these days....should have been happening twenty years ago....ayuh! What the heck were folks down in Concord doing for the past 20 years anyway? So's the new rule is no more than 25% of a lot can be covered by an impervious material which includes driveways made of asphalt or gravel or cobbles or packed soil. Only a driveway made of alive & growing green grass is not considered an impervious driveway. __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

04-06-2008, 06:29 PM	#16
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,182 Thanks: 210 Thanked 449 Times in 259 Posts	Why are shorefront owners treated like the enemy? Speaking for myself I try to be reasonably environmentally conscious. I would welcome a discussion that acknowledges my right to live on, enjoy, and reasonably improve my property. I paid a lot of money for it and continue to pay excessive property taxes on it for the privilege of ownership. Fine. OK. But then it seems that the government takes an adversarial role with it's own citizens. I'll give one example. I have a beach area that sometimes erodes. I would like to fill it in to compensate for the erosion. 75% of my shore front is absolutely natural, rock, shrubs, and various growth. I don't rake or treat it in any way. I also have no lawn around my house. I understand that sand introduces phosphorus into the water. OK, is it possible to get sand that is neutral for the lake? Could I just get a simple, one page permit that says I will get a cubic yard of "good" sand for the intention of maintaining the "beach" that has been there for the last 20 years or more? I include a simple "before" picture that indicates where I want to do the work. I file the form for $25 buck and proceed. The appropriate agency is now aware of my intentions and can do spot checks to verify I didn't exceed reasonable bounds. If I want to get a fire permit, I go to the fire station and fill out a form and immediately get my permit. I can be roasting marshmallows in an hour. It seems to me that the vast majority of everyday shore maintenance falls into this category and that most shore front owners would be happy to comply with a straight forward procedure. It would also be very nice to have a seminar for shore front owners that present the real concerns of managing property on the water along with straight forward and realistic suggestions as how to get improvement in water conditions. When the state seems to take the approach of "You can't, you can't, you can't" after a while "I can't HEAR you" seems a reasonable response.

04-12-2008, 11:02 AM	#22
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	Interesting... This is from a list of tips for keeping Lake Winnipesaukee's water clean. It was on the website of the Lake Winnipesaukee Watershed Association, which states it is funded by the DES. ----- October Wouldn't it be so easy to just rake the leaves from the yard right into the stream behind our house? No mess, right? Wrong! Vegetative material will add phosphorus and other nutrients directly into the lake as well as create excellent habitat for leeches at your personal swimming area. Keep leaf piles and brush piles at least 250 feet from the shoreline or 50 feet from any other drainage. Never dump leaf or brush piles into the lake or any other drainage area such as a stream, river, or storm drain. -----

04-04-2008, 07:24 PM	#3
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,809 Thanks: 759 Thanked 1,468 Times in 1,024 Posts	My only wish is those of you who think the DES means well and is only trying to protect the lake, have the privilege of applying for a permit from them. Then please post and tell us how delightful the process was.

04-05-2008, 04:26 PM	#5
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,809 Thanks: 759 Thanked 1,468 Times in 1,024 Posts	So shore things, does that mean you can't use a ride on tractor to mow your lawn? We have been mowing our lawn with a ride on tractor for 25 years, now we can't? I, also have read the act over and over and believe it is open to interpretation as most things like this are. However, it is my belief from reading it that if you have a small, old, camp and want to enlarge it, and it is an undersize lot, it is going to be almost impossible to get a permit to enlarge it. shore things?

04-05-2008, 05:20 PM	#6
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	Rule Env-Wq 1406.04 (c) (7) does not specify that the mowing equipment must be "hand-held" so, no, there is nothing to say that you can't use a riding lawn mower. As for old camps on small lots... we've been dealing with them for years now. The fact that there are lots that are so small that owners couldn't possibly meet the primary building setback isn't a new problem. RSA 483-B:10 states quite clearly that if a lot would otherwise be buildable, the CSPA cannot be used to prevent the construction of a single family dwelling on it. If you can get a septic system in on a lot and there is not some other legal restriction on the property then the law says you must be allowed to build. The law does allow DES to put conditions on the contruction but only those conditions that would be need to protect water quality to best meet the intent of the CSPA. These conditions would be things like implementing a stormwater management plan to account for the inability to meet the impervious surface requirements.

04-05-2008, 06:48 PM	#7
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,809 Thanks: 759 Thanked 1,468 Times in 1,024 Posts	You make it sound so nice and easy, shore things. Too bad is isn't REALLY like that to deal with you people.

04-06-2008, 07:40 AM	#9
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,809 Thanks: 759 Thanked 1,468 Times in 1,024 Posts	Formula, I am sorry you took that as a nasty comment. It wasn't meant to be. I just meant that she is certainly trying to soften the blow for us when we all find out what this is about. For instance, I truly don't think people will be allowed to enlarge their home if it is on an undersized lot. I think a lot of people are in for a shock. It is very good of shore things to comment on here. I have gotten more answers on here, than we have gotten through her in Concord. It takes ten phone calls and then you have to find out the status of your permit online. I am glad the people were very helpful to you. Maybe you can tell me how you did it? We did not do the permit ourselves. We never ever could have done it and I consider us to be pretty saavy. I am just saying it was avoidance all the way with us. It drags out to over a year of stalling, sending letters saying things like it isn't complete, and you have to call them and say it is, and then it takes them a couple of months to say: " Oh, yes, it Is COMPLETER." Things like that. I don't want to give too many details right now. Thank you shore things for responding on here. Maybe there is a better way for all of us to communicate.

04-06-2008, 10:00 AM	#11
Formula260SS Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NH Posts: 384 Thanks: 11 Thanked 76 Times in 51 Posts	Tis, just want to make sure we are not killing the messenger. My personal feeling is we are not at an end point with these rules and think that we will see changes yet again in the future, I may be wrong but that's my thought. I'm not sure what your project is but there are defined time lines that responses have to be made by from DES. I did get the standard "more info needed" letter from them also but responded and we moved forward from there in a timely manner. I believe it is a difficult balance between protecting the lakes and rights of owners and also think the process is skewed a little too far away from owners. One course of action is to hire a lawyer who is familiar with the laws/practices of DES, I know people will argue the costs and such but if for example you are looking to spend 100K on a project another 5-10% on to of that could be money well spent. I know a few people who handle permits and could direct you in that direction if you want, this is how boat houses have been built for example. Now the REAL problem, smaller projects !! this is where I have a problem. For the project that is maybe 5-20K that will still require that same amount of paperwork and effort to get a permit, this to me is unacceptable. Here is where I think we will see changes. I completely AGREE that the "money guys gets the permit" and think it is WRONG ! But, I have also seen structures on the lake that should never have been built but were due to lack of rules and a process. Here is where balance is a major issue. Do I think the rules have to be adjusted, Yes. Do I think some rules will change, yes. Do I think that the town I live in will let me build a 5000 sq/ft 6 bedroom house on a non conforming lot that will not meet setbacks and septic requirements, don't think so.

04-06-2008, 10:24 AM	#12
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	I had read Tis' post and if anything it was frustrating but I wasn't offended by it because his point is legitimate. Wetlands spent a couple of decades earning its reputation for inconsistency; I wouldn't expect anyone to forgive and forget over night. We've been trying to pull it out of the weeds for a while now and although the situation is improving there is still a ways to go. Please keep in mind that this is not just an internal problem. There are some in the regulated community who used the situation to their advantage and don't really want to see it change. Gatto Nero's project is a prime example that we haven't fully corrected the problem yet. Now Shorelands is under the same roof and that understandably makes people uneasy. It should. One my primary responsibilities is to develop a program that is consistent and "agenda proof". That is part of why the Department pushed to have the approval criteria stated in the law itself and not in the rules. It is also why we wanted quantitative standards such as percent of area limits rather than qualitative standards like "need" and "least impacting alternative" that lend themselves to too much interpretation.

04-06-2008, 10:28 AM	#13
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,809 Thanks: 759 Thanked 1,468 Times in 1,024 Posts	You make a lot of good points Formula. I do think some of these rules are too restrictive. For instance someone with a non conforming lot, who has a tiny, old, less than a 1000 Sq. foot camp, may want to improve and enlarge that-now I am not talking to 5000 feet, but maybe to a livable 1500-2000- will probably not be able to get a permit to build. And although we all love the old camps and hate to see them go, I can tell you most people do not want to live in them for long, or buy them. I had one and everyone looked at it and wanted something newer and nicer. So I think if all this stays as is, lots are going to be reduced in price dramatically on the lake. I, of course also want to protect the lake, I have owned property on it most of my life, and probably love it more than most. I know there are many who will take advantage. I just think we have to have a reasonable balance. The problem of course of hiring a lawyer, is not only the money but time! You could take four or five years if you have to go to court. I think the gov. should work WITH us, we should not have to fight them. We hire them, after all, shouldn't they help us, guide us without having to hire lawyers? I feel that some of the things we were made to do on our project just didn't make sense. It did not make the lot look better, and I can't see how it protected the lake. But it is done and over and so be it. I hope none of this offends you Formula, shore things, or anyone else. . I am just saying things the way I see them. I hope we have a right to voice our opinions on this forum.

04-06-2008, 06:54 PM	#18
CanisLupusArctos Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,049 Thanks: 15 Thanked 472 Times in 107 Posts	I'd like to know if anyone in Concord considered generalized size restrictions on houses built (instead of the new laws we have now.) Seems it would've been a lot simpler and more direct and to-the-point. In many other parts of the country during the height of the housing boom, I saw several national news stories about municipalities that didn't like the number of McMansions popping up or the problems they caused the general community when they became too plentiful. So many started enacting "Enough is enough" laws intended to protect community resources along with the overall appearance of the area. In the long run, I wonder what happens to these giant dwellings when the passage of time brings the next economically-starving era. Will the lake be lined with "historic" abandoned estates rotting away because no one can afford to repair them? People in the 1920s probably never imagined that the grand hotels would be abandoned and estates turned into apartments by the time they were grandparents. JeffK, have you considered water bars on your property? The AMC uses them on trails to divert water away from the trails and into the woods so the trails won't erode. They're usually no more than timbers or rows of rocks installed diagonally across the flow of runoff water in order to get the storm-induced stream to move over a few feet, thus protecting what's directly downhill of it.

04-07-2008, 09:14 AM	#20
Rattlesnake Guy Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 1,254 Thanks: 423 Thanked 366 Times in 175 Posts	Shore Things, I agree with the sentiments here that I do not wish to shoot the messenger! I have learned more from your post than from any other source. As you clear up misunderstandings you do two things. First you help us know what the rules are and second you keep us from abandoning the concept of trying to comply. I sincerely thank you for your contribution and hope you continue. Rattlesnake Guy

08-20-2008, 11:13 PM	#27
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	You can't blame the Weirs blow out on 2 roofs and a roadway. You need to take a broader view of the development and drainage patterns of the Weirs as a whole and you can't overlook the extreme severity of the rain event.