Illegal Tree-Cutting at Ellacoya State Park

mcdude · 11-15-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shore things

Can we fit that meter and GPS logger on an ax because that is what was used in this instance.

shore things: How do you know that an axe was used? Just wondering.

fatlazyless · 11-15-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcdude

shore things: How do you know that an axe was used? Just wondering.

Excuse me for jumping in,,,,DES...sparing no investigative expense....hired a forensic lumber jack who took one fast look at the stump and says 'Ayuh...this was definately axed....as clearly indicated by the multiple ax chops!

Just Sold · 11-16-2008, 10:16 AM

I went by the park yesterday and could not see any area that had obviously been cut. If they did tree removal maybe it was selective cutting and not clear cutting but I nor the person with me could see any evidence of tree removal from the waters edge to Sceinc Drive.
There is the bath house near the beach and maybe that was the where the trees were cut but from the road we could see nothing indicating tree removal.

Slickcraft · 11-16-2008, 03:59 PM

Today we walked the shore from the south park boundary up to the north boundary at Scenic Road/shore intersection. As "just sold" indicated there were no signs of illegal cutting in the main park.

However, at the north end of the park, or more likely just north of the park boundary, the "brush" had been cut back along a section that is about 120’ along the shore. This is across the street from the small white cottage, 2nd to last cottage on the southern end of Scenic Road. The brush cut was along the old railroad bed.

Most was brush of about 1" diameter that could be cut with long handle lopping shears in about 15 minutes time. One white birch of about 4" diameter had been hacked down with ax or hatchet by someone with less than Paul Bunyan skills. There was evidence of a prior brush clearing a few years ago.

My guess is that the totality of the downed material could be gathered and fit within the bed of one pick-up truck. It must have been a slow day at the news paper.

Onshore · 11-17-2008, 09:58 AM

An axe takes out far bigger chips than beaver do. Also, beaver teeth leave 3 relatively narrow cut marks where an axe is a single edge. Having someone say "oh ya, we did that... used the axe last weekend..." helps too.

mcdude · 12-10-2008, 07:58 PM

Laconia Daily Sun - December 10

Quote:

Man Who Had Ellacoya timber Cut Steps Forward
....have identified the party responsible as Leonard Russo whose cottage at 227 Scenic Drive overlooks the site. ....blah, blah, blah, .....yada, yada....Amy Bassett of the Division of Parks and Recreation, which manages the state parks, said that the area, some 120 feet beyond the sandy beach, lies within the bounds of the park and the cutting was...

Pineedles · 12-10-2008, 08:47 PM

Bottom line though is that he gets the "view" he wants, and plants a few trees/bushs. I planted some mint plants near our shoreline this spring. It took all of 30 seconds. I could have planted 30 or 40 of these perennials in less than 10 minutes. Where's the justice here? Or is it a foolish law that needs to be looked at?

Woodsy · 12-11-2008, 09:39 AM

If you read the whole article, the property owner who did the cutting has a DEEDED right to do so! The only point that possibly could be argued was DES/Shoreland Protection Act permission. I dont think he required thier permission because of the wording of his deed. I suspect the planting of ground shrubbery was a nice compromise to a protracted court battle that nobody wants.

Woodsy

Pineedles · 12-11-2008, 10:15 AM

I did read the article as posted, and although he said he had the deeded right to do so it was still judged to be a violation. What I can't read is what his deed said in its entirety, so I can't tell whether it was reasonable for him to assume he had the right. Look, I don't want to get into an arguement here, but don't tell me I didn't read what was posted.

fatlazyless · 12-11-2008, 10:39 AM

As you know, the NH Shoreline Protection Law became effective last July 1, and before that there supposedly was somewhat of a rush by builders to get building permits approved.

For 2009, it looks like the area slowdown in building will continue due to tight mortgage money and the economic depression and loss of jobs.

When building gets going again the new plans will need to get the go-ahead from the state DES as part of their building permit approval as well as the local building inspector.

Many waterfront lots are pretty small....maybe one half acre in size....some smaller...some bigger. Does the new SLA spell the end for building the mcmansion that basically spans across the whole width of a waterfront lot.

Is SLA the end for the mcmansion? How...oh how...will people be able to live without a 15 rm house w/ 4 1/2 baths, two fireplaces, 70k worth of granite counters in the kitchen, a mud room bigger than a garage, and a three-car garage? How will they get along......oh-my-gawd

?

SIKSUKR · 12-11-2008, 11:40 AM

I'd have to give him 1/2 a pass on this one and it looks like the authorities felt the same way.I actually know Amy and usually see her at Cannon Mt.I'll ask her about it if I run into her.

Pineedles · 12-11-2008, 01:28 PM

I would be the last to stand and wave the DES flag and I do understand the confusion that anyone would have trying to abide by every law and regulation. I couldn't figure out what a couple paragraphs of legalese meant on the Machine gun thread. And, as we all know once you do start doing the "right" thing it leads to more bureaucratic BS that may make the original plan void or very very expensive and frustrating.

Slickcraft · 12-11-2008, 01:44 PM

As I reported a while ago I have visited the site (across from a white cottage) and found that this was brush cutting along the old railroad bed. Most could have been cut with long handle lopping shears; maximum tree size was 4" diameter and was ax hacked. There is evidence of prior brush cutting some years ago. Almost all of the old railroad bed in this area is kept free of brush and it appeared to me that this periodic brush clearing has been going on since the bed was abandoned by the railroad.

While I support the objectives of the Shoreline Protection Act, this issue has been overblown.

jeffk · 12-11-2008, 02:09 PM

It seems to me that since this law overrides my rights as a property owner to do what I wish with my own property the fact that he has deeded rights to clear other property means nothing. Every other owner of lake front land is precluded from arbitrary clearing of their land, why would this person with deeded access be exempt?

I understand that if his view of the lake is significantly obscured it would impact the value of his property and certainly the enjoyment of his property. This is the problem with environmental laws. While it might be desirable, even necessary, to place environmental restrictions in place for the public good, the public should compensate private owners for the loss of freedom to use their own land.

For example, if a road was to be put in and my house needed to be taken I would be paid for my house. But when an environmental law either precludes building or creates usage restraints no compensation is offered. IMO, if it is in the public interest to create restrictive environmental laws the public should pay compensation to private owners.

In this specific case, it seems that the DES was trying to provide a reasonable compromise, retaining the view and protecting the shoreline. Although I don't like the law (because it doesn't provide compensation for rights taken), it seems that DES is trying to treat people fairly. IMO that's a good thing.

Argie's Wife · 12-11-2008, 09:34 PM

What does the law say?

The Shoreland Protection Act says....

Section 483-B:5-b, II. Timber harvesting operations permitting requirements shall be in accordance with RSA 485-A:17, IV and therefore shall be exempt from the permitting requirement under paragraph I.

The RSA referenced above says....

485-A:17 Terrain Alteration. – IV. Timber harvesting operations shall be exempt from the fee provisions of this section. Timber harvesting operations shall be considered in compliance with this section and shall be issued a permit by rule provided such operations are in accordance with procedures prescribed in the Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire, published by the department of resources and economic development, and provided that the department of revenue administration's intent to cut form is signed.

So, did he have a permit and a signed intent to cut from DRA?

GWC... · 12-11-2008, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

What does the law say?

The Shoreland Protection Act says....

Section 483-B:5-b, II. Timber harvesting operations permitting requirements shall be in accordance with RSA 485-A:17, IV and therefore shall be exempt from the permitting requirement under paragraph I

So, did he have a permit and a signed intent to cut from DRA?

Permit for what?

Did he really sell any timber from the harvest?

Was he harvesting timber?

Argie's Wife · 12-12-2008, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Permit for what?

Did he really sell any timber from the harvest?

Was he harvesting timber?

My answers to your questions:

Cutting the trees...

Does the RSA say anything about selling it? What if he was using it for firewood...

If he cut wood, he harvested it. Period.

tis · 12-12-2008, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffk

It seems to me that since this law overrides my rights as a property owner to do what I wish with my own property

For example, if a road was to be put in and my house needed to be taken I would be paid for my house.

.

The problem is you would be paid for your house, but very likely not WHAT your house is WORTH! That is why I hate eminent domain. They want to pay you what they want to pay you, not what it is really worth.

Argie's Wife · 12-13-2008, 09:41 PM

The laws for eminent domain have changed - it's not what it used to be. You're not paid what they want to pay you and you now have a contract where you can get fair market value. The person who "looses" the property makes out far better than they used to and the law helps to keep people from jacking up prices for municipalities so they can unjustly profit from a situation.

Here's an example...

Let's say the fire department decides to expand but they don't have enough land to put their new building and drive way on. They wish to buy a neighboring piece of property that is valued at $120,000 BUT the seller sees dollar signs - he can make out big because the fire department can ONLY buy his property to complete their project. So, he jacks the price to $360,000 - way above value. Eminent domain can be done to procure the property at a FAIR price - both for the seller and buyer. The law has changed.

tis · 12-14-2008, 10:25 AM

I don't mean to disagree, Argie's Wife but you are wrong. That is the way it is SUPPOSED to work but it doesn't. The towns/ state do not want to offer anywhere near what is the "highest and best" use of the property which is what is required under the ED law. They offer what they want to offer. There is an appeals process which ends up in Concord, but it is a big hassle and they hope most people won't be bothered. As you said, a lot of it is just a little strip of land and people just don't want to fight it.

Argie's Wife · 12-14-2008, 07:08 PM

I understand your point but don't think I'm wrong in the example I gave to you.

From the Wiki article on the subject:
On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[7] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the Federal government.

I don't dispute for a moment that there have been abuses of it.

Bringing this thread around, full-circle, I don't believe that the Shoreline Protection Act takes away the property owner's right his/her property. I'm also impacted by the law because of the inlet to Winni that runs along two sides of my property and although my house is grandfathered, my plans to put up a garage are now down the tubes. But I also "get it" that something has to be done to control erosion and the impact that construction has on the lake and the wetlands. Conservation is very important; it just seems complicated now.

11-16-2008, 10:16 AM	#3
Just Sold Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart Posts: 2,615 Thanks: 1,083 Thanked 434 Times in 210 Posts	I went by the park yesterday and could not see any area that had obviously been cut. If they did tree removal maybe it was selective cutting and not clear cutting but I nor the person with me could see any evidence of tree removal from the waters edge to Sceinc Drive. There is the bath house near the beach and maybe that was the where the trees were cut but from the road we could see nothing indicating tree removal. __________________ Just Sold At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata

11-16-2008, 03:59 PM	#4
Slickcraft Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Welch Island and The Taylor Community Posts: 3,336 Thanks: 1,247 Thanked 2,118 Times in 968 Posts	Site visit report Today we walked the shore from the south park boundary up to the north boundary at Scenic Road/shore intersection. As "just sold" indicated there were no signs of illegal cutting in the main park. However, at the north end of the park, or more likely just north of the park boundary, the "brush" had been cut back along a section that is about 120’ along the shore. This is across the street from the small white cottage, 2nd to last cottage on the southern end of Scenic Road. The brush cut was along the old railroad bed. Most was brush of about 1" diameter that could be cut with long handle lopping shears in about 15 minutes time. One white birch of about 4" diameter had been hacked down with ax or hatchet by someone with less than Paul Bunyan skills. There was evidence of a prior brush clearing a few years ago. My guess is that the totality of the downed material could be gathered and fit within the bed of one pick-up truck. It must have been a slow day at the news paper.

12-10-2008, 08:47 PM	#7
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,549 Thanks: 1,074 Thanked 672 Times in 369 Posts	Shoreline protection? Bottom line though is that he gets the "view" he wants, and plants a few trees/bushs. I planted some mint plants near our shoreline this spring. It took all of 30 seconds. I could have planted 30 or 40 of these perennials in less than 10 minutes. Where's the justice here? Or is it a foolish law that needs to be looked at?

12-11-2008, 09:39 AM	#8
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,968 Thanks: 80 Thanked 980 Times in 440 Posts	If you read the whole article, the property owner who did the cutting has a DEEDED right to do so! The only point that possibly could be argued was DES/Shoreland Protection Act permission. I dont think he required thier permission because of the wording of his deed. I suspect the planting of ground shrubbery was a nice compromise to a protracted court battle that nobody wants. Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

12-11-2008, 10:15 AM	#9
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,549 Thanks: 1,074 Thanked 672 Times in 369 Posts	Violation is a violation I did read the article as posted, and although he said he had the deeded right to do so it was still judged to be a violation. What I can't read is what his deed said in its entirety, so I can't tell whether it was reasonable for him to assume he had the right. Look, I don't want to get into an arguement here, but don't tell me I didn't read what was posted.

11-17-2008, 09:58 AM	#5
Onshore Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 503 Thanks: 12 Thanked 425 Times in 146 Posts	An axe takes out far bigger chips than beaver do. Also, beaver teeth leave 3 relatively narrow cut marks where an axe is a single edge. Having someone say "oh ya, we did that... used the axe last weekend..." helps too.

12-11-2008, 10:39 AM	#10
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,874 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 303 Thanked 1,043 Times in 761 Posts	As you know, the NH Shoreline Protection Law became effective last July 1, and before that there supposedly was somewhat of a rush by builders to get building permits approved. For 2009, it looks like the area slowdown in building will continue due to tight mortgage money and the economic depression and loss of jobs. When building gets going again the new plans will need to get the go-ahead from the state DES as part of their building permit approval as well as the local building inspector. Many waterfront lots are pretty small....maybe one half acre in size....some smaller...some bigger. Does the new SLA spell the end for building the mcmansion that basically spans across the whole width of a waterfront lot. Is SLA the end for the mcmansion? How...oh how...will people be able to live without a 15 rm house w/ 4 1/2 baths, two fireplaces, 70k worth of granite counters in the kitchen, a mud room bigger than a garage, and a three-car garage? How will they get along......oh-my-gawd?

12-11-2008, 11:40 AM	#11
SIKSUKR Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 5,075 Thanks: 215 Thanked 903 Times in 509 Posts	I'd have to give him 1/2 a pass on this one and it looks like the authorities felt the same way.I actually know Amy and usually see her at Cannon Mt.I'll ask her about it if I run into her. __________________ SIKSUKR

12-11-2008, 01:28 PM	#12
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,549 Thanks: 1,074 Thanked 672 Times in 369 Posts	No Problem I would be the last to stand and wave the DES flag and I do understand the confusion that anyone would have trying to abide by every law and regulation. I couldn't figure out what a couple paragraphs of legalese meant on the Machine gun thread. And, as we all know once you do start doing the "right" thing it leads to more bureaucratic BS that may make the original plan void or very very expensive and frustrating.

12-11-2008, 01:44 PM	#13
Slickcraft Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Welch Island and The Taylor Community Posts: 3,336 Thanks: 1,247 Thanked 2,118 Times in 968 Posts	As I reported a while ago I have visited the site (across from a white cottage) and found that this was brush cutting along the old railroad bed. Most could have been cut with long handle lopping shears; maximum tree size was 4" diameter and was ax hacked. There is evidence of prior brush cutting some years ago. Almost all of the old railroad bed in this area is kept free of brush and it appeared to me that this periodic brush clearing has been going on since the bed was abandoned by the railroad. While I support the objectives of the Shoreline Protection Act, this issue has been overblown.

12-11-2008, 02:09 PM	#14
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,187 Thanks: 210 Thanked 457 Times in 262 Posts	Law overrides deed It seems to me that since this law overrides my rights as a property owner to do what I wish with my own property the fact that he has deeded rights to clear other property means nothing. Every other owner of lake front land is precluded from arbitrary clearing of their land, why would this person with deeded access be exempt? I understand that if his view of the lake is significantly obscured it would impact the value of his property and certainly the enjoyment of his property. This is the problem with environmental laws. While it might be desirable, even necessary, to place environmental restrictions in place for the public good, the public should compensate private owners for the loss of freedom to use their own land. For example, if a road was to be put in and my house needed to be taken I would be paid for my house. But when an environmental law either precludes building or creates usage restraints no compensation is offered. IMO, if it is in the public interest to create restrictive environmental laws the public should pay compensation to private owners. In this specific case, it seems that the DES was trying to provide a reasonable compromise, retaining the view and protecting the shoreline. Although I don't like the law (because it doesn't provide compensation for rights taken), it seems that DES is trying to treat people fairly. IMO that's a good thing.

12-11-2008, 09:34 PM	#15
Argie's Wife Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Alton Posts: 1,908 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 533 Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts	Comprehensive shoreland protection act What does the law say? The Shoreland Protection Act says.... Section 483-B:5-b, II. Timber harvesting operations permitting requirements shall be in accordance with RSA 485-A:17, IV and therefore shall be exempt from the permitting requirement under paragraph I. The RSA referenced above says.... 485-A:17 Terrain Alteration. – IV. Timber harvesting operations shall be exempt from the fee provisions of this section. Timber harvesting operations shall be considered in compliance with this section and shall be issued a permit by rule provided such operations are in accordance with procedures prescribed in the Best Management Practices for Erosion Control on Timber Harvesting Operations in New Hampshire, published by the department of resources and economic development, and provided that the department of revenue administration's intent to cut form is signed. So, did he have a permit and a signed intent to cut from DRA?

12-13-2008, 09:41 PM	#19
Argie's Wife Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Alton Posts: 1,908 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 533 Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts	The laws for eminent domain have changed - it's not what it used to be. You're not paid what they want to pay you and you now have a contract where you can get fair market value. The person who "looses" the property makes out far better than they used to and the law helps to keep people from jacking up prices for municipalities so they can unjustly profit from a situation. Here's an example... Let's say the fire department decides to expand but they don't have enough land to put their new building and drive way on. They wish to buy a neighboring piece of property that is valued at $120,000 BUT the seller sees dollar signs - he can make out big because the fire department can ONLY buy his property to complete their project. So, he jacks the price to $360,000 - way above value. Eminent domain can be done to procure the property at a FAIR price - both for the seller and buyer. The law has changed.

12-14-2008, 10:25 AM	#20
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,824 Thanks: 759 Thanked 1,474 Times in 1,029 Posts	I don't mean to disagree, Argie's Wife but you are wrong. That is the way it is SUPPOSED to work but it doesn't. The towns/ state do not want to offer anywhere near what is the "highest and best" use of the property which is what is required under the ED law. They offer what they want to offer. There is an appeals process which ends up in Concord, but it is a big hassle and they hope most people won't be bothered. As you said, a lot of it is just a little strip of land and people just don't want to fight it.

12-14-2008, 07:08 PM	#21
Argie's Wife Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Alton Posts: 1,908 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 533 Thanked 579 Times in 260 Posts	I understand your point but don't think I'm wrong in the example I gave to you. From the Wiki article on the subject: On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[7] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the Federal government. I don't dispute for a moment that there have been abuses of it. Bringing this thread around, full-circle, I don't believe that the Shoreline Protection Act takes away the property owner's right his/her property. I'm also impacted by the law because of the inlet to Winni that runs along two sides of my property and although my house is grandfathered, my plans to put up a garage are now down the tubes. But I also "get it" that something has to be done to control erosion and the impact that construction has on the lake and the wetlands. Conservation is very important; it just seems complicated now.