Moultonborough boathouse case heading to Supreme Court

[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!

[swnoel]

Any bets on who prevails?