Moultonborough boathouse case heading to Supreme Court

[Rusty]

Odd looking boat house and put in a stange place. Aren't boat houses usually placed on the water so that boats can be driven into them.

Here is the view from the lake:

[fatlazyless]

is that a boat house, or is it a 2-bed, 2-bath, 1000 sq' income apartment for rent by the week with the owner's boat parked* below, which by the way, is off limits to the weekly renter.

Am looking for the rental listing and what's it rent for?


* A boat trailer is used to roll boat in and out of the water here.

[TiltonBB]

There are more questions than answers here.

Did the structure that is being "replaced" have living quarters above it?
The article in the Sun says this structure is higher so it may not have. If they are adding living quarters to a "replacement" building that presents a whole different list of legal challenges.

Was the original structure on the water such that a boat could be driven into it?

Do they intend to excavate from out at the water to under the building so that a boat can be driven in and out?

If they don't, then I would assume that this is just an accessory structure and zoning laws for a new building would apply. It would seem to have no relation to a boathouse that was once there.

It should be an interesting case to follow.

[tummyman]

IMHO, never going to see water inside....do they have a permit from DES to excavate deep into the lake waters and within the shore land buffer zone? Sure looks like a house...not a boat house. Maybe lots fo mistakes made by all involved. But rules are rules....

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

There are more questions than answers here.

Did the structure that is being "replaced" have living quarters above it?
The article in the Sun says this structure is higher so it may not have. If they are adding living quarters to a "replacement" building that presents a whole different list of legal challenges.

Was the original structure on the water such that a boat could be driven into it?

Do they intend to excavate from out at the water to under the building so that a boat can be driven in and out?

If they don't, then I would assume that this is just an accessory structure and zoning laws for a new building would apply. It would seem to have no relation to a boathouse that was once there.

It should be an interesting case to follow.

Yes, interesting questions but it seems the time to answer them would have been BEFORE approvals were given. As I understand it, the owner went to all the proper agencies and got all the proper approvals. Rules are important but the time to apply them is BEFORE approvals are granted. If height was all that important, perhaps the approval should clearly state that condition/restriction in the body of the approval, in red, BOLD, especially since this problem seems to reoccur.

What is really puzzling is that the building, not actually over the lake any longer, is possibly better for the lake? The DES is the fussing over the HEIGHT, which has WHAT to do with the environment? There are houses nearby that are close to the water so it's not like this one building is creating a big visual impact unusual to the area.

A lot of fuss over a very minor issue. For a state with pretty limited government, it sure can kick up a lot of dust from time to time.

[Rusty]

Here is a satellite view of the boat house. It looks bigger than the house.

[fatlazyless]

.....gee whiz ..... looking at the whitish areas in the grass lawn between the main house and the "boat" house ..... that lawn could use a little help .... should be think'n 'bout some grass seed and fertilizer there .... just a helpful thought here ....

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

.....gee whiz ..... looking at the whitish areas in the grass lawn between the main house and the "boat" house ..... that lawn could use a little help .... should be think'n 'bout some grass seed and fertilizer there .... just a helpful thought here ....

Move the boat house back another 10-15 feet would take care of the lawn problem.
Or maybe move the house down 10-15 feet closer to the boat house.

"Just a helpful thought here"

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

.....gee whiz ..... looking at the whitish areas in the grass lawn between the main house and the "boat" house ..... that lawn could use a little help .... should be think'n 'bout some grass seed and fertilizer there .... just a helpful thought here ....

No Fertilizer. Too close to the lake.

What were you thinking, or were you thinking?

[trfour]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

What were you thinking, or were you thinking?

He mustah been malty tasking T BB, you know, mixing pancake batter etc. we nevah hear from him here when he's skiing and or playing tennis.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by jeffk

Yes, interesting questions but it seems the time to answer them would have been BEFORE approvals were given. As I understand it, the owner went to all the proper agencies and got all the proper approvals. Rules are important but the time to apply them is BEFORE approvals are granted. If height was all that important, perhaps the approval should clearly state that condition/restriction in the body of the approval, in red, BOLD, especially since this problem seems to reoccur.

What is really puzzling is that the building, not actually over the lake any longer, is possibly better for the lake? The DES is the fussing over the HEIGHT, which has WHAT to do with the environment? There are houses nearby that are close to the water so it's not like this one building is creating a big visual impact unusual to the area.

A lot of fuss over a very minor issue. For a state with pretty limited government, it sure can kick up a lot of dust from time to time.

Agreed 100%, in fact their stated objection makes little sense considering that the wetlands board suggested that now that the "boat house' being moved 10 foot back is and should be classified as an accessory structure which by it's very definition does not pose restrictions on height albeit the town permit did have a stated height restriction.

The fact the supreme court has to step in on this is a complete and utter waste of state resources.

I'm betting this will be ruled in favor of the land owner. They are doing what they were permitted to do. If the DES permits were issued in error the land owner should not have to pay for that after the fact especially because what they are doing is not in anyway damaging to the lake according to the review done by the wetlands board. The fact the land owner even offered to take additional mitigation steps which were rejected also makes me really question the overall DES objection and what is really the driving force behind it.

To bad, there are folks over at DES that do an outstanding job and at least in my dealings with them they have really been helpful, reasonable, and overall great to work with.

[FlyingScot]

I'm with Rusty and FLL--this reads like one of the stories where the owner was too clever by half, calling a second home a boathouse. He slides it by the state the first time or two, perhaps because people aren't paying quite enough attention because they believe him when he says he's just replacing the boathouse. Then he's upset when the neighbor forces the issue and everybody sees it's a second home.

[DickR]

None of the old boathouse was over water and it never had a wet slip inside. The boat, a steel-hulled vessel IIRC, was winched up and inside, over dry land. The structure was quite old and never had any kind of "living" accomodations. In the 18 years I owned nearby, I don't recall ever seeing the boat out of its dry dock, although that could have occurred from time to time.

On thinking about this issue after my earlier post (#8), I am thinking that most likely the LDS article does not provide the whole story on the matter, as TiltonBB suggested. If the owners believed they had the appropriate permits in place to build what's now there, then the state ought not to be changing the rules after the fact. But if the town and state, collectively, permitted one thing and the owner went beyond that and built, say, a "party room" with bathroom, kitchen, etc, then the state has a rightful beef to resolve. If it is decided that what was built clearly was illegal (and perhaps if the owners knew and proceeded anyway), then enforcing compliance should be the outcome. A law that is not enforced is not really a law, is it? This was the problem back in the first years of the Shoreland Protection Act. Developers just did what they wished with a property, paying any later fine as just a small part of the overall cost.

This will indeed be interesting to follow.

[Descant]

Thanks DickR (#22) for the history. It seems there is a change of use, closer to being a guest house than a boathouse. Nevertheless, the driving factor here seems to be the watchdog neighbor. Reading the LDS article it seems like the phrase "same footprint and height" was part of the first approval. Not clear if the same phrase was used when the plans were approved a second time to move back 10 feet. Maybe the move back was an amendment to the first application and there was not a full second application? It's hard to cover all the details in a short newspaper article.

Should the engineer/architect have picked up this "height" discrepancy? The neighbor did.

[fatlazyless]

5" diameter foam mega-noodles would be a doable solution for lowering the overall height of the building by about 30" what with the difference between the height of a boat trailer and the noodle.

Instead of using a boat trailer here, just use about six foam noodles, all spaced out, to roll the boat in or out of the water and into the boat garage.

With the noodle, this economy of height should translate to a lower building height, overall ......... E=noodle x C squared! .... Albert Einstein, 1922 .... so very elementary!

[TiltonBB]

These are the requirements for an "Accessory Structure"

There is indeed a height limitation.

The size and location of accessory structures are strictly regulated within the waterfront buffer, which is the area of the property that extends 50 feet landward from the reference line.

For a comprehensive explanation of the accessory structure limitations, please see the Accessory Structure Fact Sheet. Adobe Acrobat Reader Symbol
Accessory Structure Limitations within the Waterfront Buffer:

Height: 12 feet maximum 1
Size: 1.5 square feet per linear foot of shoreland frontage 2. For example, a property with 100 feet of shoreland frontage is limited to 150 square feet of accessory structure area.
Setback: At least 20 feet from the reference line.
May not be built on or into land having greater than a 25% slope.
May not be converted to living space (e.g. closing in with windows, adding plumbing).
Must be located in a manner that minimizes impacts to natural groundcover.
If removing trees or saplings is necessary to locate the accessory structure, tree removal must meet the limitations described within the Vegetation Management Fact Sheet

[swnoel]

An administrative order that the agency issued on Nov. 3, 2017, pointed out that the original wetlands notification included the statement, “Replace an existing shoreland structure which was collapsed by snow load with a new structure in exact location and height.

Also the abutter said he was not informed as is usual in any permit change requirement...

Seems like just another failure in government...

[gwhite13]

Lets not leave the town without culpability. I believe, a few years back someone along the Balmoral canal started a four br house with an expired 3br permit. The home was over height, to close to shore, nonconforming. When the next door neighbor complained to building inspector....what he told her was to, at her own expense, have it surveyed!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Descant

Thanks DickR (#22) for the history. It seems there is a change of use, closer to being a guest house than a boathouse. Nevertheless, the driving factor here seems to be the watchdog neighbor. Reading the LDS article it seems like the phrase "same footprint and height" was part of the first approval. Not clear if the same phrase was used when the plans were approved a second time to move back 10 feet. Maybe the move back was an amendment to the first application and there was not a full second application? It's hard to cover all the details in a short newspaper article.

Should the engineer/architect have picked up this "height" discrepancy? The neighbor did.

That's what the zoning board approval was for, re-siting the building 10 foot back from where the existing structure was. That was approved and where the TOWN noted a height restriction upon approval which was noted as NOT height based on the water level (key distinction here). That was also the first time the neighbor found out about the entire project. Interestingly enough according to the article, the neighbor at that time could have officially filed a statutory appeal but chose not to. Instead opted to wait for the project to get well underway then say something. Despicable behavior to say the least.

Another interesting detail in all this, did the owner submit blue prints or at least a rendering of what they intended to build to the town? My guess is yes, I've never heard of a building permits being issued with no blueprints or plans attached. IF DES had any concern about the height the town should have had all that paperwork for them to review.

The fact this has gone on now for TWO years is atrocious meanwhile the owner has a partially finished building that doesn't appear to be fully weather tight and likely is being ruined while all these bureaucrats sit there and play grab ass with one another.

[tis]

I'm not sure who required it or what the details were but a boathouse built a few years in Winter Harbor was too high. They made them remove the top.

[Lakegeezer]

For those interested in more history of this situation, look at the Moultonboro's GIS system at https://www.axisgis.com/moultonboroughNH/ - Search for Corr, select the property, then click on documents and links. There are building permits, zoning board decisions, variance applications and DES correspondence.

While the location change is well documented and ZB approved, I'm left wondering where the "changes in configuration, construction type or dimensions in accordance with plans dated 11/2/15" were approved. The variance application and new building permit, dated 5/25/16 references the original building permit and raises the estimated cost but has no hint of a multi-level structure.

Unless the building is longer, which the pictures imply it may be, there shouldn't be greater impact to water quality from roof runoff. Hopefully the supreme court will focus on confirming the building was built as approved.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

For those interested in more history of this situation, look at the Moultonboro's GIS system at https://www.axisgis.com/moultonboroughNH/ - Search for Corr, select the property, then click on documents and links. There are building permits, zoning board decisions, variance applications and DES correspondence.

While the location change is well documented and ZB approved, I'm left wondering where the "changes in configuration, construction type or dimensions in accordance with plans dated 11/2/15" were approved. The variance application and new building permit, dated 5/25/16 references the original building permit and raises the estimated cost but has no hint of a multi-level structure.

Unless the building is longer, which the pictures imply it may be, there shouldn't be greater impact to water quality from roof runoff. Hopefully the supreme court will focus on confirming the building was built as approved.

I went to the GIS site last week and that is where I saw the .pdf files which (to me) aren't clear as to why the DES overruled the wet lands and zoning approvals of the building.
The flow is confusing to my old brain.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

IF DES had any concern about the height the town should have had all that paperwork for them to review.

It appears to me that in the beginning the DES only approved building the boathouse where the original one was. Than the owners decided to move it back 10ft and somehow the DES wasn't involved with the official review plans. Everything went smooth through the town requirements and got approved. The neighbor than notified the DES and told them that they were left out of the process and wanted them to look at where it was being built. This is where the DES rejected the height of the building because it was higher than the original one that they approved.
It is really hard to get the full picture of what went wrong because of the way it is being presented by the newspapers and the DES wesbsite approval .pdf files.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Rusty

It appears to me that in the beginning the DES only approved building the boathouse where the original one was. Than the owners decided to move it back 10ft and somehow the DES wasn't involved with the official review plans. Everything went smooth through the town requirements and got approved. The neighbor than notified the DES and told them that they were left out of the process and wanted them to look at where it was being built. This is where the DES rejected the height of the building because it was higher than the original one that they approved.
It is really hard to get the full picture of what went wrong because of the way it is being presented by the newspapers and the DES wesbsite approval .pdf files.

The original building permits specified clearly the dimensions of the replacement building. Furthermore and this is very interesting, the ZBA's decision in favor or allowing the building to be moved back 10 feet was contingent upon re-submitting an amended PBN to DES and getting their approval. So they, DES, knew about the change in building location. What it appears they didn't know is that by moving the building back 10 feet came with a base elevation change due to the natural contour of the land. The building itself still meets all the requirements as originally documented.

That I guess poses the question is the submitter obligated to include that level of detail (base elevation change) in the amended PBN or is the person that reviews and approves the amended application obligated to do the due diligence to find out what the result is of approving the relocation of the building?

[billy]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

The original building permits specified clearly the dimensions of the replacement building. Furthermore and this is very interesting, the ZBA's decision in favor or allowing the building to be moved back 10 feet was contingent upon re-submitting an amended PBN to DES and getting their approval. So they, DES, knew about the change in building location. What it appears they didn't know is that by moving the building back 10 feet came with a base elevation change due to the natural contour of the land. The building itself still meets all the requirements as originally documented.

That I guess poses the question is the submitter obligated to include that level of detail (base elevation change) in the amended PBN or is the person that reviews and approves the amended application obligated to do the due diligence to find out what the result is of approving the relocation of the building?

...but it no longer is a one story structure as per plan?

[MAXUM]

A steep pitch of the roof which this building clearly has does not equate to a multi floor structure.

[sky's]

another reason i wouldn't want a water front house. your're on top of your neighbors. good luck

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by sky's

another reason i wouldn't want a water front house. your're on top of your neighbors. good luck

.....yes, is very true for the most part on the main land, while the island lots are usually bigger, maybe 2-acres, and less money. Main land is like Somerville and Medford on the water.

So, is the "boat" house a single story, or a two floor house with bedrooms upstairs ....... anybody know? Looking at all the windows, it looks like two floors, with dormer style windows built into the roof line on the second floor .... is my guess.

Is a very nice look'n house exterior.

[DickR]

From the town online records, the pics below are of the old boathouse are part of the permitting documents. In April of 2016, the town ZBA approved (5-0) the revised plan moving the boathouse 10 feet further back from the water (https://www.axisgis.com/node/axisapi...6_TM_270-4.pdf). It is interesting to note that in that document it says that the applicant stated the structure would be one story and height would not exceed the town limitation of 32 ft. The approval also says the applicant would have to resubmit the approved plan to the state DES. I went looking through the documents associated with the property to see if there was any reference to a height restriction of 12 feet, but found nothing. The original building permit said just that the original dimensions would be kept (height is one dimension), while the amended application simply said it would conform to the plan approved by the zoning board.

[welch-time]

Wow, thanks for the old pictures (like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words).
The new "boat house" looks way nicer than the house next to it. I don't think it's 2 stories but it's probably a vaulted ceiling which is nice for a boat house (let's the boat engine exhaust fumes out).
Someone is playing fast and loose with the zoning regulations. The 10 ft setback is a red herring. They've built a house where there was a collapsed boat house.
This is a huge increase in the property value. It's probably a rental house. I get it. I'd probably do the same thing. A property with an old dilapidated boat house is money in the bank.
Just don't get greedy and build a 2 story monster. It's gonna piss off the neighbors, and they will rat you out.

[TheTimeTraveler]

Based upon the new photo versus the old photo then I would say there is a potential use change of the newly replaced outbuilding and I can see why there could be some questions along the line (besides the height issue).

On the other side of the coin, permits were issued, so this will be interesting to see what the final outcome actually is.

[kawishiwi]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

A steep pitch of the roof which this building clearly has does not equate to a multi floor structure.

The pic of the new "boat house" appears to show a garage door for a boat in the "basement" of the new "boat house". Some how a clearly utilty style building for storing a boat has morphed in to a second residence cottage with parking under. Its no longer a boat house. Its a house with a garage.

[Just Sold]

Both a Walgreen and Marriot residents tried to put residential living areas above their boathouse's in Wolfeboro. Both were told to remove - cease and desist all such use of the boathouse. So if the space above the boat area is for someone to stay in they will loose in court.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

Both a Walgreen and Marriot residents tried to put residential living areas above their boathouse's in Wolfeboro. Both were told to remove - cease and desist all such use of the boathouse. So if the space above the boat area is for someone to stay in they will loose in court.

I agree. There is obviously a small garage door on the lower level and that is the only resemblance the new building has to the old structure. The rest of the new construction really has no relation to the old building.

The permit process to "replace" a pre-existing structure seems to have made a huge leap. If it is not a "replacement" then it is new construction within the 50 foot buffer. I would bet there will be some "deconstruction" at some point in the future.

I would file this under "nice try" but it didn't work.

[swnoel]

I see no debate in what they did and they will undoubtedly lose in court. Must be nice to have money to lose.

[gokart-mozart]

Originally Posted by Just Sold

Both a Walgreen and Marriot residents tried to put residential living areas above their boathouse's in Wolfeboro. Both were told to remove - cease and desist all such use of the boathouse. So if the space above the boat area is for someone to stay in they will loose in court.

The way I heard it, it was Tuftonboro, they paid the fine, and they are enjoying their facilities right now.

[tis]

Marriott's is in Tuftonboro and they made the tiny kitchen bigger and had to remove it. There were already living quarters in it before that. I didn't know one of the Walgreen's had to remove living quarter's from a boathouse. The one in Wolfeboro doesn't live there any more. The wife of the other is still in Alton.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by gokart-mozart

The way I heard it, it was Tuftonboro, they paid the fine, and they are enjoying their facilities right now.

The state is very adamant about the waterfront regulations and any construction.

Several years ago I applied to the town and the state to do some work on my property. I sent pictures and diagrams in with the application to better explain my proposal.

Within 10 days I got a letter from DES saying "It appears that there are living quarters above the boathouse." It asked for proof that the construction was done legally and with permits, before the regulations prohibiting building the structure were in place. The proposed construction had nothing to do with the boathouse.

I went to the town building inspector and we looked through the file for the property. He found a hand drawn sketch of the property from the 1950's that accompanied a permit application for a fence. It labeled the boathouse "boathouse with cottage above". I asked the Building Inspector to call DES because I knew they would never believe me if I showed them that. He did, and the issue was resolved.

These days, I don't think people who are inclined to flaunt the regulations can get away with much.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by DickR

... But if the town and state, collectively, permitted one thing and the owner went beyond that and built, say, a "party room" with bathroom, kitchen, etc, then the state has a rightful beef to resolve. ...
This will indeed be interesting to follow.

The thing is, the town set height restrictions but the owner seems to have stayed within those. The town seems NOT to be complaining. The wetland bureau seems NOT to be complaining. DES is complaining but seems NOT to have called out restrictions in their original approval?

In summary, the owner seems to have abided by restrictions indicated in the approval process.

If height was an issue, why didn't DES ask about the owner's plans beforehand or call out the appropriate limits? This is the PURPOSE of an approval process, to guide the owner into proper development BEFORE they sink money and time into something. It is the job of the review agencies to do this work properly, not wait until a citizen has to point out something they should have checked out BEFORE construction started.

Again I note, these types of issues keep coming up. It seems the review process is insufficient and flawed. Then the agencies want to play catch up at the owner's expense.

If an owner's plans are given a through review and they are presented with a concise approval document and THEN they color outside the lines, they should be responsible for costs to come into compliance.