Had the Wetlands Engineer out to the place

[CDsdad]

Fortunately, I am rural enough, and our county officials still have a bit of common sense not to have to worry with many restrictions.

The nearby town is slap full of morons on their board of aldermen. One fellow got included in the last spread of the town corporate limits. They told him he couldn't move a mobile home back onto his OWN property where he previously had a mobile home less than 3 months earlier. Zoning or some such mess.

As far as telling anybody what I'm building or doing on my property, nope. I've good enough sense, and more importantly the desire to do the right thing. Green acres is the place to be.

 

[vmarc]

Yeah, either someone like you or our wonderful government can buy my land or NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH IT!!!! This country was founded on INDIVIDUAL property rights....

And don't forget responsibility.......every right also comes with the responsibility to not infringe on other's rights....There are no total rights..there's a hook in everything.

 

[BobRip]

My feeling is that to test a law and see if it is good it would be good to have it strongly enforced for some period (say two years) on those who proposed it and those who voted for it. After this period they can vote on it again and if they still approve it then it becomes law for all. It bothers me that the government passes laws and excempt themself from it. Examples are:

Aair pollution (military vehicles do not have to comply, it makes a mess of Washington DC air).

I doubt if many senators do their own income tax. Yes they have to pay them, but somebody else does the dirty work. Imagine if all senators did their own taxes how much simplier the forms would be.

I found out recently that state legislators are usually let off if stopped by cops for speeding. "Professional Courtesy". They should be the fined first .

It's not that these laws are uniformally bad, but this is getting like the King who never lived in his own country, but enforces the laws on others. Yes we can vote the guys out, but part of their input into laws should be their own experience obeying the laws.

Sorry to ramble, but how would the environmentalist feel if the law had been strictly enforced on him. If he feels that he would feel the same then he should restore the land to its original state as the laws require. I am not trying to blade him ( I would be happy with the decision as well), but this is a complex issue and must be looked at from both sides.

 

[BXRICK]

Long time MA resident, and a resident of a wetlands in a north-of-Boston suburb here.

My wife and I went to put an addition on our house about 3 years ago.
Since we knew we were in a wetland area, we went to our building inspector. After telling us "good luck", he sent us to the town ConComm.
They said we couldn't ask them what to do - instead, we had to come up with a proposal, submit it to them, and then we'd discuss it at one of their monthly meetings.

The rules here are tat you can't build within 200' of a wetland boundary. We wanted to build just over 50' from one. The thing we had going in our favor was that our house was built in 1983, 2 years before the town formed a ConComm which would have prevented our house from being built in the first place. So, there was a slight grandfather effect in our favor.

We hired an architect to draw up what we wanted, then hired an environmental firm to flag the wetlands, and draw up a proposal and present it to the ComComm.
The environmental firm also were skeptical we'd get permission to do what we wanted.
At the first meeting, the ConComm basically liked what they saw, but felt they wanted to do a "site walk" to make sure they understood what we were doing.
At the site walk (where all the committee members show up and walk around our yard), they basically said we were good to go. But, we had to go to another official meeting for the actual sign-off.

Most of what we were adding was to be over a dirt parking area. Our plan included a slightly more than 100% "give-back", where we turned previously "developed" land into "woods" (which translates seat time).

We also had to "monument" part of our property, which means putting granite markers in the ground that indicate a "no-cut" zone. The marker locations were determined by the ConComm, and registered with the deed to our property, so future owners will have to adhere to them as well.

The final inspection (to ensure we actually did what we said we'd do) was marginally an inspection, but they did show up and compare hat we had done to the original plan.

We were told later by ConComm members that because we "did it right" they didn't give us a hard time, which the routinely do to people who ask forgiveness instead of permission (assuming they get caught).

In one of the meetings we were in, an agenda item was a guy in town who had been turned in by his neighbor for cutting down a couple of trees in a wetland. The ConComm voted a large fine for the tree-cutter.

One thing we did was make very sure that our plans were what we wanted, since we were pretty sure we'd only get permission to do what we wanted once.
It wasn't free. We certianly spent some money on something we didn't know we'd be able to do.
The rules are clearly designed to make it difficult for developers to come into town and build 20 house on old farmland, and the homeowner has to wade through the same rules.

I don't know where I stand on all this. Now that we have the setup we want, I'd just assume no one built another thing in town. But that's not fair.
The family that's owned theor farm for 300 years ought to be able to sell it for top dollar (which means to a developer) so they can retire. But I'd rather it stay a farm.
While I don't like the odea of "stupid" rules, I also like the idea that my neighbor can't just decide to put up a 30-story building next to me.

 

[BobRip]

What you have shown is a good way to deal with the legal situation.

 

[daTeacha]

Interesting discussion so far. There is a commonly encountered phenomenon wherein a city dweller decides he loves the country, so buys some land -- 2 acres, 5, 10 20, whatever. He then builds a house with all the comforts and amenities he became accustomed to while living in the city. Soon enough, he notices that someone else has purchased a piece of ground near him and built a house, then another and another. It isn't long before he is demanding a limit on the number of houses being built in the country because it is ceasing to be country in a big hurry. He sees the problem but never sees himself as part of it. He proposes solutions like cluster housing, but would never consider living there himself. Worse than a hypocrite, he is a NIMBY.

Guys, it's a battle between what's best for you and what's best for the community (however you define it). At some point you will find your own balance of personal vs. common needs. You will probably not reach the same balance as anyone else, and will never agree totally with their way of doing things.

In my county, there is an ongoing process of farms being subdivided and houses being planted where corn was previously. There are also large farms engulfing small ones. There are people who want zoning to protect the place from being wantonly developed and people who are against it because they want to continue to be able to do whatever they please on the land they temporarily occupy, including dividing it up or making a trailer park out of it. The "antis" accuse the "pros" of being communists and the "pros" accuse the "antis" of being self centered hyprocrites intent on getting everything they can from the land and destroying the "country" in the process. Yet both claim to love the county and both claim their way is the only way to protect what we have and cherish here.

May I suggest that those of you who claim to enjoy and appreciate the beauty of our land take the time to vist the website of The Izaak Walton League of America? The League is about common sense conservation -- the wise use of all our resources in a way that will provide the greatest good for the greatest number for the longest time. We hunt, we shoot, we fish, we hike, we camp, we visit national parks and foreign parks. We are birders, flower finders, tree farmers, crop farmers, and animal farmers. We live in cities and we live in the country. We are only 40,000 strong nationwide, but we speak with a loud voice in Washington. We work to protect woods, waters, air, soil and wildlife. Do some reading and looking around the site, find a local chapter, visit to see what we do, and join the never ending fight for true conservation, not preservation, of our natural resources.

 

[Timber]

this topic is like Religion, I wish I never started it

 

[daTeacha]

Which religion did you start??

 

[3RRL]

In my small community, there are limits on subdivision lot size. In town it is smaller than where our land is. In our side of town, if you want to subdivide a parcel, it is 5 acres minimum. Most parcels in that area are 30 acres or more.

It was interesting to note that there has been a small war in town revolving around subdividing and development. Most people who moved into the area recently for retirement would like to keep things the way they are. And then there are those...mostly long time residents that want to see development and smaller subdivision lots. They want their town to grow and prosper, ... we want it to stay rural?
Funny huh?

 

[mike69440]

Our future "Breezy Ridge Farm” borders one of 3 Central New Hampshire wilderness areas that are 8,000-10,000 Acres. That is all of the large areas of “wilderness” remaining in Central NH. Maybe you could find 5000 acres of woods in the Monadnocks, but for all intent, wilderness in southern NH is gone.

I fully expect those areas to be developed in the next 50 years. The question is what kind of development?

3 miles to the north of our land is soon to be the full blow "suburbs". In the next 20 years what left of the rural New England nature of these 3 towns along RT 3 will be reduced to a historic district, if that.
The City of Laconia will really grow in population. Sprawl will spread to surrounding towns.

I don't know how bad that will be if growth and traffic is planned and managed.

But what of the raw woods to the south and west of our place? Right now it is rough land with a few trails and un-maintained dirt roads through hilly woods. It sure would be nice if that could be set aside for true rural development. A good model is the next town to the south of us that with all of 3 paved roads, has quite a rural cottage industry. That is the type of peole who should come to fill in the remaining wilderness. More than a thousand or so people and the area is lost forever. If owned and managed the way Europeans take care of their forests and farms, the quality of NH rural life-styles can be maintained for a long time.

People from population areas want to have a place to escape to that is not 50-100 miles from their home. It is the wise use of what nature has given us.