HB 383 again
 

I know it's been discussed to death,but I don't recall seeing anything in the old thread about the 50' buffer relating to additions.Is it true that, as of Jan 1 any building within 50' has to remain within it's footprint?

RSA-483-B changes
 

SAMIAM, RSA-483-B will have a new revision as of April 1, 2008, check the following web site for the proposed changes in chapter 483-B: http://www.des.state.nh.us/cspa/ Click on "Changes to the CSPA effective April 1, 2008".

Sam. We have heard that too. As a matter of fact a local builder put an ad in the Granite State News a couple of weeks ago warning people of that fact.

Footprint rules aren't new, are they?
 

Don't all additions today, within 50 feet, have to remain within the existing footprint? The only exception I'm aware of is allowing an open porch to extend 12 feet beyond what exists - and even for that, I think the current dwelling must have been built before a certain date. The big change in the new protection act allows building a second floor on an existing footprint - something that required a waver before.

We have called that "local builder" about the ad in the Gilford Steamer and a couple of other papers to let him know that the ad was inaccurate on several counts. It should be corrected by the end of next week.

Currently both upward and outward expansions of residences within the 50 ft set back are possible if a waiver is obtained from DES. After April 1, 2008 upward expansion will no longer require a waiver. The waiver process will still be available for outward expansion.

Thanks for the input.........my sister's house,next door to me is just 30' from the water (an older cottage)...she was wanting to add on a bedroom but not until spring.Guess we'd better read the new SPA info.

Just curious
 

How does this apply to cottages on islands? Maybe not construction in this case but grounds work?

We rented from a family that had a main cottage and a 1 room cottage on the property. Both buildings are very much closer than this 50' rule (or SAMIAM's 30' example). These cabins just sit on a rockwall base not a formal footing and all cabins are over 60 years old. There is no lawn or garden areas. Blueberry bushes separate the building from waters rocky edge. Pine needles have long since covered the dirtand the only landscape work is to rake off the newest pine needles (pine sap is such a nuisance on barefeet and sticky in the house) sort of making a path bordered with fallen white birch branches.

Additional question
 

What about landscaping to prevent erosion and runoff into the lake.
Minor terrace type work to fit onto the contour of the land but stepped down the slope leading to the water. Is this okay without a permit?

And I imagine one will really be put through the paces to get a waiver. Shorethings???

and expensive to get the waiver. this is a case of as real problem( McMansions and strip landscaping) being addressed with a solution that creates a massive government bureaucracy that will affect all shorefront property.

Again, how will all this be financed? Another excuse to push for broad based taxes? Unless lakefront property is precisely what a buyer wants, who is going to want to buy lakefront anymore? What will happen to the real estate market? How will this then affect the economy of the Lakes Region? Does anybody in Concord care?

Getting a waiver will essentially be the same process as that which exists right now. Owners need to submit an explanation of the project, existing and proposed conditions plans, and a proposal to make the overall conditions on the property somehow more nearly conforming to the language and intent of the CSPA. In more simple terms... they need a mitigation proposal. The only 2 things that will be different will be that fewer things require waivers and that the waivers will no longer be free. There will be a fee required with the application. The fee is the funding mechanism. The program is designed to be self-funding and will receive no general funds from the state budget.

Additional issues
 

Allowing an existing structure to be built up without a waver is a good change, but isn't there a new issue that brings the waver issue back to the table? If the setback does not have enough non-permeable land, then a waver will be required in order to re-build at all - right? My concern is that an existing grandfathered house that is within the 50' setback will likely create enough non-permeable land to trigger the waver process - where today, none is required. Once in the waver process, DES may ask that the existing footprint be adjusted back or abandoned as part of the mitigation effort, in order to be more compliant with shoreline rules. In other words, if you don't build within the setback before April 1, you may not be able to retain your existing footprint. Is this a reasonable concern?

So wifi's concerns are correct. Many lots will be almost useless and the economy will be hurt. The process will take a Philadelphia lawyer and a lot of money and time. As if it is not bad enough now.

Footprint???
 

Shore Things,

If you have a circa 1935 seasonal camp on wooden pilings, does it have a "footprint"?

I am getting nervous that unless we have a foundation, we are not considered to have a "footprint"

Your imput would be appreciated.

Foot print???
 

Don't forget the large application fee that goes with each waiver to fund this fiasco

Shoreland Rules Public Hearing scheduled
 

The Rulemaking Notice for the Shoreland Rules has been filed and will be published in the Rulemaking Register on Friday, December 21, 2007.

http://www.des.nh.gov/Rulemaking/

The public hearing for these rules is scheduled for Wednesday, January 16, 2008 from 9am to 11am in Rooms 110 and 111 at DES.

I have attached a copy of the Rule Making Notice Form that received this morning.

classic case of good intentions driving bad results. Most people will continue to do what they think improves their property

I am hearing that they are going to have 3 people giving out permits (if they give any out) and enforcing them. If you are lucky enough to get one, think how long it is going to take! They just added a lot more smaller brooks to the process. So that is even more work. I think right now, they are between, can't decided whether to go for the old rules or the new rules, because everything is so up in the air.