Moultonborough boathouse case heading to Supreme Court

[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.

[TiltonBB]

FLL: Keep your eyes open. You may see some really nice "like new" never even been opened, windows on Craigslist soon. Maybe you can upgrade your Meredith mansion.

[LIforrelaxin]

Like DickR I am the same neighborhood. And I know a bit of what is going on.... While yes there was a neighbor issue, that I believe is mostly settled down.

The issues now that are being fought in court, or legal based on the structure. I don't think its is fair to comment much on what is going on, unless we have access to the permits... What little I do know, is I think there was some misleading information presented, in regards to the replacement structure. The biggest problem I have with what is going on, is that the boat house / apartment structure, is being done, so that a seasonal property become usable year around. So, has the septic been updated etc.

At the end of the day, this wasn't a like for like replacement... If the owners had all the proper docuemtations and approvals, then the project wouldn't have been stopped. Somewhere along the way, some information was misleading, and it has lead to this.....

The biggest thing, is why hasn't there been a successful mediation effort... likely because the home owners are not willing to compromise....

Time will tell where this one ends....

[Rusty]

The DES has created Docket 17--16 WtC that has the official documents and all the filings for this boathouse case. Use this Docket to get the actual true history and don't depend on newspaper spins or rumors.
Here is the DES website: https://www4.des.state.nh.us/Legal/?...0Councilttaced

Read this document to get why the DES won't approve the boathouse:

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by Rusty

The DES has created Docket 17--16 WtC that has the official documents and all the filings for this boathouse case. Use this Docket to get the actual true history and don't depend on newspaper spins or rumors.
Here is the DES website: https://www4.des.state.nh.us/Legal/?...0Councilttaced

Read this document to get why the DES won't approve the boathouse:

Clearly they changed the scope of their project. It's hard to believe they will prevail.

[Poor Richard]

I looked at the pics posted in this thread as well as read through the .pdf Rusty posted.

Am I missing something? Is me or is that new boathouse nowhere near the water?

[TheTimeTraveler]

Originally Posted by Poor Richard

I looked at the pics posted in this thread as well as read through the .pdf Rusty posted.

Am I missing something? Is me or is that new boathouse nowhere near the water?

I am guessing the only thing the new boathouse will be doing is to store the boat during the winter months when the boat is hauled out of the water.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by TheTimeTraveler

I am guessing the only thing the new boathouse will be doing is to store the boat during the winter months when the boat is hauled out of the water.

Living near by, I can tell you, that the new boat house maybe able to store jetski's in the winter months, but is not capable of storing a boat....

This is one of the many discrepancies of the tail of this structure.

There was once indeed a boat house capable of dry storing a boat...

What is there now, will not be capable of dry storing a boat, and can be used as a place to inhabit....

I was not at all surprised when this project came to a grinding halt.... and with what I have seen, there was a lot of misrepresentation...

[iw8surf]

I have always envied other states boat houses when I travel. I have some close friends in Texas/ Arizona/ Nevada etc with gorgeous boat houses and every time I comment on them their answer is " mines nothing you should see so and sos boat house" and then they ask about NH and I tell them our laws and they say " yea that and the miserable weather is why we live here"

[bigpatsfan]

Is it me or did this thread start by condemning the neighbors (Perhaps Envy or jealousy,) and the home owners were certainly going to prevail in Court to at the end of this thread the posts are stating that the home owners are clearly wrong and they will most certainly lose in Court?

It is amazing what knowing the entire story will do and thanks Rusty for posting the Court Docket .

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by iw8surf

I have always envied other states boat houses when I travel. I have some close friends in Texas/ Arizona/ Nevada etc with gorgeous boat houses and every time I comment on them their answer is " mines nothing you should see so and sos boat house" and then they ask about NH and I tell them our laws and they say " yea that and the miserable weather is why we live here"

Your response reminds me of the first time my son in law was on the lake. Long time Lake Michigan boater ask my don’t they just blast the rock out of the way instead of risking boat damage and lives. Had to chuckle


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by swnoel

Clearly they changed the scope of their project. It's hard to believe they will prevail.

There has never been any doubt about the scope of the project changing.. My personal feeling is that, the project was originally going to be just a replacement... and then as things got rolling, it was noted how easy it might be to enhance the structure...

Do I believe these people set out to build something they new wouldn't approve... No I don't feel like that.... I feel that they started something and then let the scope grow out of hand.... To much scope creep and no I have been passing by a uncompleted structure for a couple of years.... I already see more issue then originally stated with the documentation...

[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.

[tis]

You are right Tilton. The Marriotts did NOT "get away with it". They had to remove the new construction.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by tis

You are right Tilton. The Marriotts did NOT "get away with it". They had to remove the new construction.

With as much as I have found out about this case. I hope that is what happens here. I don't mind people developing and improving property as long as they do it properly and on the level.

When paperwork is filed indicating one set of intentions, and the outcome is not what was originally intended, people need to be held accountable.

Living in the area, I know that there was going to re-construction of the origianl boat shed. I also believed that there would be some modification... But Arriving in the spring, and seeing what is essentially a full fledged Tiny Home was surprising to say the least. While none of the aplications indicating that living space was going to added, I don't know how this would end up being allowed to stand.....

We will see....