Moultonborough boathouse case heading to Supreme Court

[welch-time]

Also, It looks like patio doors are installed on the front and side of the new house so I would expect a nice big wrap around deck to be installed in the future (after the dust settles). Probably the reason for the 10' setback.

[TheTimeTraveler]

Originally Posted by welch-time

Also, It looks like patio doors are installed on the front and side of the new house so I would expect a nice big wrap around deck to be installed in the future (after the dust settles). Probably the reason for the 10' setback.

Yes, I agree that it would very likely happen.

[loonguy]

Assuming the owner loses the case and the "boathouse" needs to be removed, which appears likely based on the information in this thread, perhaps he can sell it and relocate it to a qualifying location, thereby mitigating his monetary losses. FLL probably can find a use for it.

[Woodsy]

So the basic argument SCNH is going to hear is does can DES overrule the Wetlands board as a jurisdictional issue? It that is the case then it really doesn't have much to do with the parties involved other than outcome. DES wins, the building will be have to be revamped... although DES does have a long history of allowing mitigation... and the ruling might force that to come into play. If Wetlands wins... Lakegirl is not going to be happy. The rest of the issues are really just fluff.

Woodsy

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

So the basic argument SCNH is going to hear is does can DES overrule the Wetlands board as a jurisdictional issue? It that is the case then it really doesn't have much to do with the parties involved other than outcome. DES wins, the building will be have to be revamped... although DES does have a long history of allowing mitigation... and the ruling might force that to come into play. If Wetlands wins... Lakegirl is not going to be happy. The rest of the issues are really just fluff.

Woodsy

Actually Woodsy, the issue is not who wins DES or Wetlands... The state has already decided who wins that argument.

The Corrs are fighting with the state, for the right to continue with their plans. It is the Corrs against DES, according to all the Documentation I have seen... And from the sounds of it DES is very clear, make the structure conform to the permits....

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Actually Woodsy, the issue is not who wins DES or Wetlands... The state has already decided who wins that argument.

The Corrs are fighting with the state, for the right to continue with their plans. It is the Corrs against DES, according to all the Documentation I have seen... And from the sounds of it DES is very clear, make the structure conform to the permits....

Sure about that? Seems this is all over a split decision by the state.

DES appealed this case to the Supreme Court arguing "The Wetlands Council decided to grant the appeal based on a contradictory interpretation of RSA 483-B:11."

I believe this is what is being hotly debated, interesting items taken out of context:

I. …..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.

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.

[Woodsy]

LI...

I am kind of with Maxum here... from what I gathered from the article, DES was not happy with the Wetlands ruling, and appealed it to SCNH....

So DES is driving the bus so to speak.... most likely to settle who has the final say in cases such as this. I cannot find this case on SCNH docket yet.


Woodsy

[Lakegirl24]

From my understanding....YES DES and Wetlands are fighting and then what I have been told is that the Corrs have cross appealed it. I’m not EXACTLY sure what that means (to cross appeal) .... What are they cross appealing? DES wants it to be an accessory structure ( which by law are no higher than 12 ft). Wetlands wants it to be a non conforming structure. Not sure about the height for non conforming, but it should follow what was originally approved which was around 17 ft. I believe.

[TiltonBB]

It looks to me like the fact that there was once a boathouse on the property that fell down has nothing to do with what has been constructed.

They have built a totally unrelated structure, in a totally different location, with a totally different size and use, and those should be the factors that decide whether it can stay. Unless they can prevail and convince the court that it was built with all the proper permits and approvals I would still bet that it is coming down.

Also, Shore Things of DES follows this website often and seems well aware of what is going on. I have worked with her on waterfront issues on my property and she is very competent and thorough. You can assume that she is on top of this. The state is not going to let something like this happen easily as it will set a precedent that others can use to push the envelope on their projects.

In my opinion this is a blatant disregard for the regulations and an attempt to pull a fast one. Nice try, but I doubt it will succeed.

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

In my opinion this is a blatant disregard for the regulations and an attempt to pull a fast one. Nice try, but I doubt it will succeed.

In a normal world one might believe this , but we're far from being in a normal world.

[LIforrelaxin]

I am sitting here chuckling...

A dispute between DES and Wetlands, and who has jurisdiction and is correct... In and off itself is not going to land in the supreme court of NH.

What has landed this in the supreme court is that the Corrs are defending their position, which is that they want to finish their project...

In order for the Corrs to finish, the dead lock between the Wetlands and DES has to be resolved.

Now depending on how you look at this you can state this case in a few different angles.

But at the end of the Day, it is the Corrs against the State of New Hampshire.... In order for the State of New Hamphsire to grant or deny the appeal, it has to decide if DES or Wetlands has made the right decision...

The Corrs had to push for this....

[Descant]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

I am sitting here chuckling...

A dispute between DES and Wetlands, and who has jurisdiction and is correct... In and off itself is not going to land in the supreme court of NH.

What has landed this in the supreme court is that the Corrs are defending their position, which is that they want to finish their project...

In order for the Corrs to finish, the dead lock between the Wetlands and DES has to be resolved.

Now depending on how you look at this you can state this case in a few different angles.

But at the end of the Day, it is the Corrs against the State of New Hampshire.... In order for the State of New Hamphsire to grant or deny the appeal, it has to decide if DES or Wetlands has made the right decision...

The Corrs had to push for this....

Not sure. As I read the timeline, the Corrs followed the normal curse (Freudian typo) in the statutes. They appealed to the Wetlands Board, were approved and were all ready to go. DES issued the C & D in an appeal of the Wetlands Board Approval which basically overrode DES. That's their function as an appeals board. The Corrs already had what they wanted. Why would they be pushing DES to the SCNH?
Were there missteps along the way? It appears so, but in part the ZBA and Wetlands Board are supposed to review and make their rulings. We hear a lot about the building's (new) location, but not much about the ZBA or Wetlands Bord hearings. Presumably, DES made their case at the Wetlands Board and were unconvincing. ZBA and, I think, Wetlands, are both quasi-judicial and take sworn testimony, which none of us witnessed. We have the LDS article that was probably written over a couple of days. Considering the time constraints of the news cycle, LDS was probably reasonable in its reporting. Many days later, we have lots of speculation about various "facts", but no self-identified lawyer silly enough to weigh in here. In the meantime, I think this is great thread that lets us all know we need to pay attention and how difficult it is to pay attention when you're absent for extended periods. We'll probably all forget, but it will be interesting to see if a bill gets filed next year to clarify the current RSA.

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

I am sitting here chuckling...

A dispute between DES and Wetlands, and who has jurisdiction and is correct... In and off itself is not going to land in the supreme court of NH.

What has landed this in the supreme court is that the Corrs are defending their position, which is that they want to finish their project...

In order for the Corrs to finish, the dead lock between the Wetlands and DES has to be resolved.

Now depending on how you look at this you can state this case in a few different angles.

But at the end of the Day, it is the Corrs against the State of New Hampshire.... In order for the State of New Hamphsire to grant or deny the appeal, it has to decide if DES or Wetlands has made the right decision...

The Corrs had to push for this....

What a democratic way to speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

The "dispute" between the two agencies is exactly what HAS landed before the NH Supreme Court.

[MAXUM]

Just out of curiosity anyone know why is this going directly to the NH supreme court? Aren't there lower district courts that would be in line to hear this first?

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Just out of curiosity anyone know why is this going directly to the NH supreme court? Aren't there lower district courts that would be in line to hear this first?

Maxum,

With all I have read, it seems like the case had gone through the lower applet courts that it needed too... Now what may be different here, is that this seems to be a state level issue, so possible there are some levels of applet court that get skipped. Unlike if this had been a issue with the Town of Moultonborough there would have been more levels of scrutiny...

In short I think some of the need for NH supreme court is the level at which the dispute is at in the fact that it is State Agencies in conflict, along with the Land owners....

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

What a democratic way to speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time.

The "dispute" between the two agencies is exactly what HAS landed before the NH Supreme Court.

No it isn't, the dispute is between the DES and the Corr family.

This section of the "'States Mission to dismiss" states pretty clear that the Corrs agreed to build the new boathouse to the same HEIGHT as the original one.

"1. Bryan and Linda Corr own property located on Lake Winnipesaukee at 46
Deerhaven Road, Moultonborough, New Hampshire ("Property"). Administrative Order No. 17-
028 WD, ~ 1. The two structures on the property were built in the 1950s, one a primary building
and the other near the water and frequently referred to as a "dry boathouse." See Appellant's
Petition to Appeal at~ 10-14.

2. Around March 2015, this accessory structure collapsed from snow loads. !d. at~
14.

3. On December 22, 2015 appellants sent DES a Wetlands Permit by Notification
("PBN") in which they sought to "replace an existing shoreland structure which was collapsed by
snow load with a new structure in exact location and height." AO at~ 7.

4. DES accepted this PBN as #2016-00009, conditioned upon work being completed
in accordance with an 11/2/15 plan attached to appellants' PBN. One of the project descriptions
states "REPLACE PREVIOUSLY EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE WHICH COLLAPSED FROM SNOW LOAD IN MARCH 2015 WITH NEW
STRUCTURE IN EXACT LOCATION AND HEIGHT." !d. (emphasis added)."

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by Rusty

No it isn't, the dispute is between the DES and the Corr family.

No it is not. If you go back to the original story...

Supreme Court appeal

The department appealed the case to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, arguing that the “Wetlands Council decided to grant the appeal based on a contradictory interpretation of RSA 483-B:11, … an issue outside the scope of the hearing and not before the council to decide.”

The state Supreme Court accepted the DES appeal on Feb. 11, setting a date of April 12 for the Wetlands Council to file a certified copy of its hearing record.

This thread has had some twists and turns, but it still DES and Wetlands Council going against each other at the highest court in the State.

The end result may or may not have ramification on the property owner or the neighbor.

[fatlazyless]

Seems that the impinged view-ee should hire an attorney and try to get included into the court argument. Sitting back and doing nothing is never a good move.


Being a no-show is not the way to go.

[welch-time]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Seems that the impinged view-ee should hire an attorney and try to get included into the court argument. Sitting back and doing nothing is never a good move.


Being a no-show is not a smart move.

Well, it could get costly (hiring a lawyer), and besides, the issues that Lakegirl has with the new building are all obvious to DES and have been brought up already, A: building is too tall, and B: the building has been converted to living space. I doubt the supreme court hearing would be open to Lakegirl even if she did hire a laywer. But then I could be wrong. I'm no lawyer (but I played one on T.V.). Maybe better for Lakegirl to contact DES directly and offer her input/testimony.

[fatlazyless]

Yes, just being present in court is a big step up from being a no-show, and letting the DES attorney mention or introduce her would be helpful to her opinion as the aggrieved.

Channel PERRY MASON here, and how it would go ..... Lord have mercy, your Honor, that big tall home recently built down at the water, is just such a hateful, hurtful, mean and nasty thing for them to go and do ...... like, who do they think they is .... and where do they get the right to do that ..... I have never been so upset about something ..... in all my born days ...... your Honor .... it is just so terribly terri-bobble ..... let me tell you!

[Shreddy]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...6cO/story.html

Reminds me this tale not too long ago. Will be interesting to see what unfolds but I currently take Lakegirl's side and story. As others suggested, I suspect Corr developed ambitious plans as things started to progress. It likely turned into one of those "I'm going to do this even though it's not right and I'll ask for forgiveness later when the damage is already done."