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

Intrusive regulation can be much worse than a law
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raking Leaves
 

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

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

However, in areas where there is natural ground cover:

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

where natural ground cover includes:

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


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

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

The Real Issue
 

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

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

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

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

More questions
 

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for any help

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

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

Steveo
 

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

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

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

Steveo,

With regard to your past transgressions, kindly fill out the attached form and send it to DES immediately. By turning yourself in you can feel good about doing the right thing and, if what Aquaman says is true, you'll never have to actually pay the price. :rolleye2:

This is exactly what I mean
 

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

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

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

b. State and federally listed threatened and endangered species;

c. Species at the extremities of their ranges;

d. Migratory fish and wildlife; and

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

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

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

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

I think Steveo will back her up on this one. :)

Right on target, Thanks Jeff.

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

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

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

seems simple to me....
 

"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.

Erosion
 

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

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

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.

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.

You nailed it!

Waterfront Associations
 

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

Guess they don't know the rules either.

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.

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.

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.

Beach replenishment
 

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.

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.

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.:rolleye1:

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.:laugh:

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

"Terrorforming" the Lakes Region
 

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. :eek2: :confused: :eek:

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

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.

"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.:D