Moultonborough boathouse case heading to Supreme Court

[TiltonBB]

I watched the tape of the Supreme Court testimony. It appears that there are some things in the law that need to be clarified. I would not be surprised if after this case is decided NH DES has legislation submitted to tighten and clean up the law.

From a common sense perspective, and just from looking at the pictures, the new structure has nothing to do with the old building in either size, shape, or purpose. The decision should be very interesting.

[bigpatsfan]

Thank you very much for supplying the link to the Supreme Court testimony

[Just Sold]

Any word on the Supreme Courts decision on this case?

[LIforrelaxin]

I see nothing on the NHSC website yet...

[Descant]

I think the courts have mostly been closed, or on reduced operations.

[TiltonBB]

The state lost, the boathouse owner won. Given the information that has been previously discussed, I am surprised.

In its May 22 ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the DES argument that it had the right to restrict the structure to the 17-foot height of the original boathouse.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...081012daf.html

[TheTimeTraveler]

This is a surprising decision, however I am very confident that LakeGirl24's house has appreciated in value during this time frame, and will likely continue doing so once all construction has been completed.

Hopefully the neighbors will all be able to get along and put all the bitterness behind them for good.

[jeffk]

The court not only denied the DES but added this, "DES has failed to demonstrate, particularly in the circumstances of this case, how height has any relation to the protection of the public waters and the adjacent shoreland.".

This puts into question whether the DES has any future authority to regulate shoreland building HEIGHT unless they can prove that height of a building impacts the quality of public waters. I'm not sure that they can? Footprint, sure. Height?

The building "was approved by the local zoning board and the state board that oversees water pollution control, the Wetlands Council". I would argue that the Wetlands Council ALSO lacks control over building height, for the same reason.

Only the local zoning board could have control of the height of a building along the water, IF they created a shoreland zone with restricted building height. I'm not sure that would pass legal muster either but towns have a lot of discretion in zoning laws.

[TiltonBB]

Jeffk: Good point.

So is the question whether the law must be proven to be necessary or fulfill it's intended purpose to make it enforceable?

If the state has a height requirement, on it's face, it cannot be enforced unless there is a proven improvement to water quality? Or does the proponent just need to prove there is no negative impact?

What will DES Wetlands do with the next submitted application that only expands vertically?

This raises a lot of questions and may result in people expanding their homes upward when they have previously been denied a permit.

This decision sets a precedent that will impact many future legal outcomes.

[Woodsy]

Sounds to me like the Court made clear that water quality and building height have nothing to do with each other. So the local ZBA will have authority when it comes to building height.

I would expect towns to change the zoning laws to clarify & control building height.

Woodsy

[iw8surf]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

Sounds to me like the Court made clear that water quality and building height have nothing to do with each other. So the local ZBA will have authority when it comes to building height.

I would expect towns to change the zoning laws to clarify & control building height.

Woodsy

I mean, do we think they’re wrong. It seems the only thing truly affected on the lake was the neighbors view and feelings and I’d imagine the increase in taxes the city would get from that improvement.

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by iw8surf

I mean, do we think they’re wrong. It seems the only thing truly affected on the lake was the neighbors view and feelings and I’d imagine the increase in taxes the city would get from that improvement.

I think the NH Supreme Court got it right..... I don't have a dog in the fight but I have been concerned for a long time about government overreach disguised as environmental concerns.

Woodsy

[Mr. V]

Here is a link to the court's written decision:

https://cases.justia.com/new-hampshi...?ts=1590152637

[MAXUM]

Where this whole thing went south is that the replacement of the boat house is NOT "in kind" yet was approved. Arguing the building height after the fact was never really going to go anywhere.

[8gv]

Every now and then reason is applied to a case.

This is one of those.

[MysteryinNH]

I hear the owners are now planning to tear down the house (camp). This makes me sad. My grandfather built that camp in 1950.

Has it been torn down yet?

[DickR]

The house is still there, but I don't know for how long. When the boathouse was rebuilt, and "enhanced" to provide living space, my first thought was that it would allow the property to be used for living during an eventual teardown/rebuild of the main house.