Shoreland Protection Rules

[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.

[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.

[neckdweller]

I'm in a good situation with my neighbors - all of us have had the houses in the families for 40 or so years. We had talked about the new Moultonborough/State rules in the fall and I don't foresee any problems between us.

At the other end of the spectrum are some of the people that live nearby. Due to the closeness of the houses there's a general tension among the homeowners. Given the relatively innocuous activities that will lead to a violation and knowing the nature of these people, I can see multiple violations being reported.

As already mentioned, this won't be good for the workload of the DES and could ultimately lead to a paperwork nightmare.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[Gatto Nero]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Formula260SS]

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.

[ApS]

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:

[tis]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...]

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]

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]

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]

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...]

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]

Originally Posted by GWC...

"...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..."

Based on the undisturbed shorelines of undeveloped local lakes, the predominating tree was the White Pine. (Which left a valuable, solid, thick mat of dropped pine needles to slow runoff—Nature's filter for the lake).

However, the first logs stacked at roadside by New Hampshire developers are the economically valuable White Pine. (Red Pine is in even more of a decline).

On my own shoreline acre, the builder removed every pine 52 years ago: I'm trying to turn that around by selectively cutting hardwoods for the woodstove. (And beat back the light-stealing Hemlocks.)

Even given another fifty years of this nurturing, our shoreline acre will never again have the filtered sunlight, girth, height, or mat that was on the lot—originally—of White Pine trees.

As a teen, I transplanted a small pine forest into a clearing—not realizing that the power company had made that clearing through our lot. Twenty years later, they cut a major swath through MY FOREST.

I'm seeing that new construction has to account for a pre-bulldozer tree inventory. What assurances are given by the Shorelands Protection Act that leafy trees won't eventually take over?

[tis]

So has anyone heard what happened on the 16th -did the house vote on it?

[Onshore]

There was no vote on the 16th.

[steadyon]

changes to the CSPA has been laid on the table

[phoenix]

recent e mail from NHSA doubted that the house would extend the deadline or at best July 1

[tis]

Why no vote shore things? Also I heard the state has started relating the size of the house to the size of the septic which hasn't been done before. True? I also heard there is consideration of extending the amount of coverage allowed. ????

[Onshore]

I can't answer the "why"...

There are changes proposed to the impervious criteria. The upper limit would still be 30 % but the requirements associated with it are different. These changes are laid out in SB 352. Nothing on any of these issues is final though until someone puts paper in front of the Governor and it get's signed.

New Septic rules were adopted in February. The State still bases the size of the septic on the number of bedrooms. The biggest difference we are seeing is with developed, undersized lots. If you have an existing camp or house on a lot that is too small to meet the loading standards then you will not be allowed to expand the house or camp in any way. Maintaining existing conditions is allowed, expansion is not, even if it is not technically adding bedrooms. If you have a lot large enough to meet loading standards or are on municipal sewer then this is not an issue.

[tis]

I appreciate you answers, shore things.

[Onshore]

Wish I had something definative to tell you...

[Onshore]

For anyone who's read the latest Citizen article on the Shoreland Rules... The Senate voted to amend a House Bill. Nothing has actually changed yet. HB 1601 has to go back to the House and will only become effective if the House concurs with the amendment and then the Governor signs it. The Shoreland Rules ARE still in effect.

If you haven't seen the article...

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...337/-1/CITIZEN

[tis]

Thanks for that, shore things. There are not many ways to hear what is happening. I have found you and this forum to be the best way.

[Gatto Nero]

Has there been an effort on the part of the state to get the towns to adopt the state rules with regard to building on the shore front? Trying to figure out the state's rules are bad enough when considering expanding a non-conforming structure but I when I add in Meredith's rules on top that it starts to get downright painful. It sure would be nice if the rules aligned.

[tis]

I heard this morning that the Senate has agreed to go along with the House's July 1 date. So in effect, it has been put off until then. True?

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Does that mean we have time to do things this spring that will not be possible after July?

[tis]

Yep. But not anything that you could get a permit for in time.

[Onshore]

Actually the Senate amended a House Bill to include a July 1 date. The question has been will the House to go along with it. It will take a few days for the House committee that the bill goes back to now to hear the bill. If they concur with the Senate's amendments then it goes full Senate for final vote, then to the Governor's desk for signature. (Funny I seem to find myself humming "I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill..." from the old Saturday morning schoolhouse rock cartoon waaayyy too often lately...) The revised CSPA is still in effect.

For those of you that want try to get projects in during the interim if it gets rolled back, please be careful. Find a copy of the old law and read it. Make sure that what you're doing does not violate the CSPA. The simple truth of the matter is that the only parts of the CSPA that are any stricter are the impervious surface limits, the fact that you need a permit, and the inclusion of the duff layer in the defination of ground cover.

For example, the removal of the shrub and herbaeceous layer has always been prohibited but was violated about as frequently as the 150 ft headway speed rule. Under the previous language of the CSPA the removal of this layer was prohibited within the full 150 ft woodland buffer. Now it is only prohibited in the first 50 ft and in the minimum, required undisturbed areas between 50 and 150 ft. So again, please make sure that whatever you're doing is not a violation of the version of the law that is in effect at the time you are doing it. When in doubt about what version of the law is in effect and what that particular version actually says, call us at (603) 271-2147. We always have a technical staff member dedicated to answering incoming phone calls.

[Onshore]

The full House voted to pass HB 1601 as amended to include moving the effective dates of the CSPA changes to July 1, 2008 this afternoon. Next stop is the Governor's desk...

[Onshore]

The Governor has signed HB 1061. We are back under the old law and rule language. Re-enactment date will be July 1, 2008

However, three of the new provisions remain in effect, most importantly the minimum setback for primary structures shall be at least 50 ft, town may not maintain a lesser setback. In addition the Saco an Pemigewassett Rivers are no longer exempt, nor is the Town of Sunapee.

[dpg]

Originally Posted by shore things

What does 80% complete mean?

20% still to go.

[Onshore]

Unless of course your name is Yogi Berra in which case you should stick to fractions because you're horrible with percentages...

[CentreHarborEric]

Wouldn't the new 50'x50'-point system rule as it relates to tree cutting also be delayed now until July 1, 2008?
Are we still under the 50% basal area in a 20 year period rule through July 1, 2008?
Of course the stifling gas prices will help curtail chainsaw operations, but I just want to be sure...

[DickR]

Shore Things:

The post-July 1 rules define the 50x50 foot grid as "starting from the northerly or easterly boundary of the property." If the shorefront runs from NW to SE, is there a choice? Or is this a case where the folks in charge will decide the opposite of whichever I pick?

I have a related question. I've begun a tree survey, in anticipation of some later tree removal. Using a long steel tape and some triangulation, I can come up with a fairly decent map of where the trees are. However, given the typical irregularity of the shoreline, terrain, and slopes, location of any tree could be a couple of feet off. This could put some trees in one grid or another if close. How picky are the Concord office types going to be? I certainly hope I won't have to have an expensive survey crew come and do a "certified tree map." Your comments?

[tis]

Having just been through all this, Dick, we have had more surveys than imaginable! Put one on the payroll right now!

[HUH]

Ive been continualy lanscaping our property for 40 years and still have much to do. Im not going to bulldoze or anything but would only like to plant some more shrubs and create some brick walkways over to the natural beach etc.. Am I allowed to do any of this without getting a permit ? What about repairing the stone wall along the waters edge that seems to tumble more into the lake every year. We have always just put the stones back in place to hold back the soil etc.. Will this now require a permit?
And when will the oxygen we breath be regulated. Im sure the state could somehow levy that to help fill the coffers

[secondcurve]

I was wondering if anyone knows who I can speak to about the following: My wife and are considering purchasing a property on a pond in the Lakes region. The property in question has a screened porch that comes off of the main living area on the second floor. If we purchase the property, we would like to enclose the screen porch and make it part of the living area. There would be no foundation built under the porch since it is on the second floor. I haven't measured the distance of the porch from the water, but my guess would be that it is 40 feet. My contractor checked with the local code officer and he said that anything within 50-feet of full pond level requires state approval. Would a request such as this have a chance for approval? It doesn't seem like such a change to the structure would have an impact on the environment since we would only be enclosing the porch and not expanding the foundation, etc. If anyone has advice it would be appreciated.

[Gatto Nero]

Secondcurve,

I have no direct experience this this, and I'm certainly no lawyer, but in reading the rules regarding nonconforming structures I think I see some wiggle room.

483-B:11 Nonconforming Structures. –
I. Except as otherwise prohibited by law, nonconforming structures located within the protected shoreland may be repaired, renovated, or replaced in kind using modern technologies, provided the result is a functionally equivalent use. Such repair or replacement may alter the interior design or existing foundation, but shall result in no expansion of the existing footprint except as authorized by the department pursuant to paragraph II. An expansion that increases the sewerage load to an on-site septic system, or changes or expands the use of a septic system or converts a structure to condominiums or any other project identified under RSA 485-A:29-44 and rules adopted to implement it shall require approval by the department. Between the primary building line and the reference line, no alteration shall extend the structure closer to the public water, except that the addition of a deck or open porch is permitted up to a maximum of 12 feet towards the reference line for nonconforming structures erected prior to July 1, 1994.
II. When reviewing requests for the redevelopment of sites that contain nonconforming structures or any expansions of nonconforming structures the commissioner shall review proposals which are more nearly conforming than the existing structures, and may waive some of the standards specified in RSA 483-B:9, so long as there is at least the same degree of protection provided to the public waters. For the purposes of this section, a proposal that is "more nearly conforming'' means a proposal for significant changes to the location or size of existing structures that bring the structures into greater conformity, or a proposal for changes to other aspects of the property, including but not limited to stormwater management, wastewater treatment or traffic volume or flow, or both types of proposal which significantly improve wildlife habitat or resource protection.

It would seem to me, based on the items in bold, that since it's a covered deck it would already be part of the footprint, right? It is not adding any impervious area and there is the same degree of protection to the public waters. It's not clear cut but I would think there is a case to be made. Also, if you have a way of making the place more nearly conforming in some other way (new septic, maybe?) they might be more willing to work with you. One would hope anyway.

[ACutAbove]

Monday the 11th is the next DES show , its well worth the time spent and the $30 bucks if you want to know anything you can or can not do on the waterfront.....

[Gatto Nero]

Unfortunately, it's sold out.

[ACutAbove]

is it, well thats good news..... it means the word is getting out that this well worth the time.

[secondcurve]

Gatto:

Your argument is logical. However, these folks were adamant that we couldn't enclose a porch if it was within 50-feet of the water. It is a huge over reaction in my opinion. On one hand the state allowed an eye sore such as what Bob Bahare did in Alton several years back, but they won't let me enclose a 300 square foot porch that already has screens, a roof and is two stories off the ground.

[Audiofn]

Is there a web site that anyone knows about that tells you what you can and can not do to your waterfront. I am looking for information on tree removal, planting, errosion control..... My place is in Maine but it seems like we have a lot of knowledge on the topic hear so I thought I would give it a try.

It seems like everyone will tell me that there is this rule and that rule then I will find something online that completely contradicts that. I have talked to the code enforcement officer in our town and they are not sure and just tell me to do what ever I want. My concern is that if some one from say the DEP or something like that comes along with more authority then I could be bumming.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[RLW]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Gatto:

Your argument is logical. However, these folks were adamant that we couldn't enclose a porch if it was within 50-feet of the water. It is a huge over reaction in my opinion. On one hand the state allowed an eye sore such as what Bob Bahare did in Alton several years back, but they won't let me enclose a 300 square foot porch that already has screens, a roof and is two stories off the ground.

The Alton code officer (building inspector) is letting a boat shelter (leanto (sp)) within 15 ' of the lake be replaced without state permission so to speak. Now some say it is because he knows and does a lot of work with the contractor doing the work. Who knows.

[Pineedles]

I believe the law allows existing structures to be replaced as long as the new structure's "footprint" is no larger. There is alot to be considered when building in the lake region.

[secondcurve]

That is correct structures can be replaced within the existing footprint. However, if you are within 50 feet of the water you cannot convert a porch into new "living space". Further, anything within 50 feet of the water is out of the local building inspector's authority. The state controls/regulates building in this zone.

[tis]

I don't believe a boathouse even a lean to boat house can be replaced without a state permit. A dock needs a state permit, a boathouse needs a state permit. And of course now, anything on the water needs a state permit. I think if the state gets wind of that lean to, they will be sure to be there. I do think they will be allowed though if it is a replacement within existing footprint. You are right, secondcurve.

[chipj29]

I was watching the WMUR news this morning, and was about to flip past it, when I saw a familiar face about to come on the business/money segment. It has been a few years, but I knew I recognized Paul Goodwin. He was being interviewed as the President of the NH Shoreline Homeowners Assn. (or something like that). As a non-shorefront owner, I never knew.
Anyway Paul, if you read this, drop me a line...

Chip J. (Lynnfield, Ma)

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Further, anything within 50 feet of the water is out of the local building inspector's authority. The state controls/regulates building in this zone.

That is not completely true. The state does have a say within that zone but the town also has a say. If the town rules are more strict than the state rules then the town rules take precedence. For instance, the state rules say I could build a 12' deck off the front of my non-conforming house but Meredith says I can not build anything closer to the water than I already am.

Now that we have the new state rules in place it would be nice if the towns would conform to them to keep things simple. Trying to meet everybody's rules is a bit ridicules.

[RLW]

Originally Posted by Gatto Nero

That is not completely true. The state does have a say within that zone but the town also has a say. If the town rules are more strict than the state rules then the town rules take precedence. For instance, the state rules say I could build a 12' deck off the front of my non-conforming house but Meredith says I can not build anything closer to the water than I already am.

Now that we have the new state rules in place it would be nice if the towns would conform to them to keep things simple. Trying to meet everybody's rules is a bit ridicules.

This scenario is just about the same in most all states and towns/cities. The state sets the minimum and the towns can add on anything they want even above the written word of National wiring code/State building codes. Sure doesn't sound right and fair, but what in life is fair now a days.

[Audiofn]

What I need to do is install some "rip rap" along the waterfront. I did find some info that does say that I need to apply for a permit. Not sure how hard it is to get.... The problem is that the so many family boaters travel up and down our river WAY to fast and I have lost a lot of land these last years. Probably a foot in the last 3! I have to do something to stop it or we will be bumming! My slope is steep enough that they will allow for the permit (steeper then 33%) if they want to give it to me. I was suprised to read that if you are under 33% you need to plant vegitation to hold back the embankment. I would think that would introduce more problems for the water with the introduction of odd vegitation?

[RLW]

Originally Posted by Audiofn

What I need to do is install some "rip rap" along the waterfront. I did find some info that does say that I need to apply for a permit. My slope is steep enough that they will allow for the permit (steeper then 33%) if they want to give it to me. I was suprised to read that if you are under 33% you need to plant vegitation to hold back the embankment. I would think that would introduce more problems for the water with the introduction of odd vegitation?

If I'm correct the Shoreline Protection group has a listing of the different types of trees, low growing bushes and other types of vegetation one can plant in different type of conditions. I will try and locate where that section maybe located.

[Pineedles]

I'm curious as to what most people, who are experiencing shoreline erosion, have as far as a shoreline composition. Our shoreline is lined with huge granite boulders of various shapes and sizes and frankly looking at pictures taken over 100 years ago there has been no erosion. The concrete dock put in about the same time is in pretty bad shape but that's more exposure to the ice. I'm not sure what the original shoreline was made up of but unless they evenly spread out the rocks they excavated to build the house, they must be just naturally lining the shore; and I would assume would be on most shorelines on the lake unless people moved them.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

I'm curious as to what most people, who are experiencing shoreline erosion, have as far as a shoreline composition.

You bring up a good point Pineedles. While the lake has pushed my beach area back 3 feet over the past 18 years, the beach represents only 11 feet width of the 200 ft frontage. The rest is boulders and seems to be doing OK. I wasn't around when the lot was created in the mid 50's; but stories from the true geezers in the neighborhood are about bulldozers in the water, moving rocks and creating beaches. Man-made structures being eroded by mad-made wake may be the natural course of things.

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Our shoreline is lined with huge granite boulders of various shapes and sizes and frankly looking at pictures taken over 100 years ago there has been no erosion.

I'd need to check with DES, but geologically speaking, it's only recently that the lake has been managed to limit damage from winter's ice. For 10,000 unmanaged years, the lake's level has seen many extremes.

I can see where thousands of years of high winter ice allowed the pressure of ice expansion to move boulders into an ancient shoreline. It would be the most extreme of those expansions that made the shoreline of "just" 100 years ago.

Ancient forest fires, modern clear cutting, and the subsidence that resulted has allowed much sand and soil to be washed through that border of boulders. The land erosion you are witnessing would be wave action pulling nutrient-rich soil out from behind those original boulders. Runoff from impervious surfaces speeds the erosion.

Depending on exposure and rock ledge borders, shorelines that have limited wave action often have the steepest slopes. Winni's lakefront lots and shallows would generally be even steeper if it wasn't for erosion. That said, I'd ask "shore things" to correct any of my assumptions.

[chase1]

Originally Posted by secondcurve

Gatto:

Your argument is logical. However, these folks were adamant that we couldn't enclose a porch if it was within 50-feet of the water. It is a huge over reaction in my opinion. On one hand the state allowed an eye sore such as what Bob Bahare did in Alton several years back, but they won't let me enclose a 300 square foot porch that already has screens, a roof and is two stories off the ground.

secondcurve,

Instead of enclosing your screen porch, why not just fix the existing structure and replace the torn screens with those new, energy efficient ones that have glass on the inside.

Chase1

[Orion]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

I'd need to check with DES, but geologically speaking, it's only recently that the lake has been managed to limit damage from winter's ice. For 10,000 unmanaged years, the lake's level has seen many extremes.

I believe before the dam was built, the lake probably maintained a more consistent level, within a foot or so of the natural spillway. There were, of course, a few major geological events (such as earth surface shifts that changed the lake's outflow from Alton to Laconia) but aside from that, the levels were consistent for a long time. The dam allows a much wider range of level control, to include winter drawdown.

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

I can see where thousands of years of high winter ice allowed the pressure of ice expansion to move boulders into an ancient shoreline. It would be the most extreme of those expansions that made the shoreline of "just" 100 years ago.

Actually, the opposite is true. The natural wave action around the lake eroded the soil between and around the rocks exposing the granite. Where there are larger wave forces, the shoreline is more rocky. This also one of the reasons why the lake tends to be so clear since there is less suspended sediment from erosion. Ice does move the rocks around a bit, but if anything, it would tend to continue breaking up the shorline (over millenia) and decompose the rocks into sand into the lake.

[ApS]

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...]

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]

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.

[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.

[ACutAbove]

Hi Shore things, are you guys going to do any more of the confrences like last yr?
Ken

[Onshore]

We will be doing some full day conferences like last year but they won't be until late summer and fall. We wanted to wait unil this year's legislative session unfolds so we can incorporate any changes they make this session. We are also hoping (please keep fingers crossed) to have a new Permit by Notification process ready to roll out in the fall and we like to be able to discuss that with some amount of certainty.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by shore things

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.

Shore Things, Thanks for continuing to chime in on these maters..... I think people get a little to carried away sometimes and forget to understand the finer details of wording like "may maintain"..... that is the key to understanding legislation like this....

Now along these lines I have a question for you, from an enviormental stand point. If you have a cleared area that you have been maintaining and clearing every year, and then suddenly you stopped one would assume that some the pine needles leaves etc. that land in this clearing would start finding there way to the lake. Now looking at this from a commoners stand point, because the area had been cleared etc. I would think a more then normal amount would be making it to the lake because the area has been cleared and none of the natural road blocks exsist. Thus I would feel that not continuing to maintain an area would actually be worse then maintianing it? Is there any truth to this throught process?

[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.

[Cobalt]

If Concord wants to have a positive and immediate impact on the health of the lakes, give a 100% tax credit to shorefront homeowners who upgrade their septic systems.

And by the way, stop spending money on legal and other administrative expenses to create systems that continually require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by Cobalt

If Concord wants to have a positive and immediate impact on the health of the lakes, give a 100% tax credit to shorefront homeowners who upgrade their septic systems.

And by the way, stop spending money on legal and other administrative expenses to create systems that continually require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves.

Cobolt, you are on to a good idea, that being the upgrade of septic systems. However, there is so little tax revenue going to Concord (and it should stay that way) that it would take decades to work off any credit. Most property tax goes to the town and county, and they are in no financial position to be buying people's septic systems. There are many systems which can't be replaced without wavers, so a more clear process for getting wavers would be useful.

Your last statement needs some explaination. We do need the state to protect us from "the other guys" who are damaging the lake. There are still too many shoreline projects going on and too many supergreen lawns down to the water's edge. What do you mean by "require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves"?

[Cobalt]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

Cobolt, you are on to a good idea, that being the upgrade of septic systems. However, there is so little tax revenue going to Concord (and it should stay that way) that it would take decades to work off any credit. Most property tax goes to the town and county, and they are in no financial position to be buying people's septic systems. There are many systems which can't be replaced without wavers, so a more clear process for getting wavers would be useful.

Your last statement needs some explaination. We do need the state to protect us from "the other guys" who are damaging the lake. There are still too many shoreline projects going on and too many supergreen lawns down to the water's edge. What do you mean by "require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves"?

Lakegeezer,

The emphasis placed on green lawns should not be a priority. It is a small part of a larger problem. I would concentrate on helping shorefront owners upgrade old septic systems which are deteriorated and do not conform to current regulations. When I see a new home constructed on the site of an old camp, at least I know that human fertilizer will not damage the lake.

How much tax revenue has been and will be spent by Concord in drafting these regulations and continually explaining them? Also, if we are truly concerned about the lakes, use some the tax revenues generated by waterfront owners for these credits. If the problem is as dire for the lake as portrayed by some, we cannot afford to ignore it and wish it away by restricting green lawns, but take decisive action on the septic issue.

You may not realize it yet, but the CSPA is having an impact on the area development. Talk to any of the local tradesmen or lumber yard, and you will hear how construction has slowed. If the intent of the Act was to slow waterfront constructon, it has succeeded. The unintended consequences of this slowdown impacts those in the construction and service trades dependent upon these projects.

A friend who lives on the shorefront asked me if he could install a flagpole within 100 feet of the lake under the current regulations without getting a permit. My short answer should be yes, but under the CSPA and the theory of protecting us from the other guy, and from ourselves....

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Cobalt

"...If Concord wants to have a positive and immediate impact on the health of the lakes, give a 100% tax credit to shorefront homeowners who upgrade their septic systems..."

I'd agree with a pumpout of any system upon every sale of a real estate property.

As a homeowner who has lived here two decades before the lake's quality index was reduced from a "Class A" lake to a "Class B" lake, there are at least three major changes that have affected water quality—IMHO:

1) Thousands of new structures have been built.
2) Thousands of new homes have been built with only token regard to clay and silt depositions in rainwater runoff. (Growing milfoil and algae).
3) Even more than thousands of new homes have added dishwashers.

Dishwasher detergent:

1) Because of its nature to "grow" milfoil and algae, a high phosphorus content of certain cleansers has been banned from many watershed communities nationwide—though not banned in the "Live Free or Die" state.

2) Dishwasher detergents contain an extremely high phosphorus content.

3) Dishwasher detergents have been exempted from those nationwide bans!

Phosphorus eventually finds its way to the lake even through the newest of septic systems.

My point, if it's not clear, is that we've ringed the lake with thousands of new, previously non-existant, dishwashing appliances that add a pollutant that fertilizes algae and milfoil.

The addition of qualifying new septic systems—and upgrades to existing systems—has not allowed the Lake to approach the water's quality before those thousands of homes were constructed: In fact, it's not even close.

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

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

ETA: Sunday's Edit
Edited To Add for Today's observations:
My immediate neighbor's yard just received "yard maintenance". (Yes, on Sunday—Mother's Day ).

Since we are "green" --> <-- and prefer a natural New Hampshire-style woods, we have no objection that most of the leaf litter was directed to our yard by the leafblower-guy.

At the same time, the other guy raked leaf litter downhill towards the lake. Then, the leafblower-guy tried to send the pile into the lake.

But very few leaves ended up in the lake—only because we had gusting winds of about 30-MPH!
(End of Edit).

(Start of another edit!)
ETA: Wednesday's Edit
Two leafblowers operated for what seemed like hours this Wednesday. (So they've changed from the usual Thursday routine of last year).

Since there was no wind, the newest leaf litter pile on the water stayed in front of the two properties. At 4PM, an east wind came up, and made a trail of leaves about 300 yards long.

I've taken a photo as proof-positive, and when the film is processed, I'll post it here for Seaplane Pilot's edification.

(Start of still another edit!)

ETA: Today, Tuesday's Edit:

'Went to a yard sale two weeks ago among a neighborhood of about 10 "newer" homes on Knoll Road's steep lots. Unhappily, the odor of overflowed septic tank permeated the neighborhood. (Knoll Road is a stone's throw from Lake Winnipesaukee).

(End of 3rd Edit—returning to original post).

It's possible that it's only my neighborhood that is getting ritzier.

Just last Monday, I watched a crew blowing leaf-litter into the lake from two adjacent properties a few doors down.

One of the two properties is an immense McMansion with 181-feet of lake frontage. The trail of leaves drifted under my dock as I watched. (And there's nothing unusual about that occurrence, though Thursday "cleanups" are worse than Monday's).

I'd suggest you listen in your neighborhood: When the leafblowers stop, you may have to acknowledge the following phrase:

.

.

.

.

.

.

[tis]

Originally Posted by Cobalt

Lakegeezer,

You may not realize it yet, but the CSPA is having an impact on the area development. Talk to any of the local tradesmen or lumber yard, and you will hear how construction has slowed. If the intent of the Act was to slow waterfront constructon, it has succeeded. The unintended consequences of this slowdown impacts those in the construction and service trades dependent upon these projects.

You are so right, Cobalt. I have heard this so many times lately, the latest being about an hour ago from a builder. And in this economy it is really hurting.

[ACutAbove]

Just a quick comment about the green laws down to the lake. I would not just assume that everyone is dumping chemicals on thier lawn to make it green.
There are other ways of making your lawn green,,, just by going "GREEN" that work very well.

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by Cobalt

If Concord wants to have a positive and immediate impact on the health of the lakes, give a 100% tax credit to shorefront homeowners who upgrade their septic systems.

And by the way, stop spending money on legal and other administrative expenses to create systems that continually require explanation why they need to protect us from ourselves.

Not to derail this, but have you ever thought of running for office?

I wish our Reps in our district thought like this...