Tuesday, June 24, 2008

Major Changes Affecting Waterfront Property!

New Hampshire is getting ready to make some major changes to the Comprehensive Shoreland Protection Act (CSPA). These new changes which are supposed to go into effect July 1, 2008 will have a significant impact on waterfront properties. The new regulations will severely limit what you can do to landscape and expand a waterfront property.

I foresee that this will bring the value on waterfront camps down and raise the value of waterfront homes that already have done significant amounts of landscaping and expansion. Fortunately there are some great contacts out there and websites to help people understand what is going on

Because of the changes mentioned above, it has become more imperative to enlist the expertise of a specialist. An excellent company who I have used recently is Shorefront Planning Associates. Their website www.shorefrontplanning.com, has become a necessity for today’s waterfront buyer in assisting them to fully understand the new rules and in helping clarify what is truly possible on their waterfront lot of choice.

Below are some summaries of the major issues involved with these changes. I got this information from the NH Shorefront Association website and this LINK will take you to the page that further discusses below.


WHAT PROPERTIES DOES REVISED RSA 483-B THE CSPA REGULATE?

The revised CSPA (RSA 483-B) regulates all property within 250 ft of the "reference line" of water bodies including; lakes, ponds, rivers, tidal waters, "designated rivers", and fourth order streams. In layman's terms, if there is water adjacent to your property on a year-round basis, you are most likely regulated under RSA 483-B the CSPA. If you are not sure, consult NH DES or a water or wetlands professional.

PERMIT REQUIRED
Most all work within the protected shoreland now requires a formal permit from the NH DES Shoreland Division (there are a few exceptions - see CSPA rules). Work in the bank that requires and receives a NH DES Wetlands Bureau Permit will not be required to seek a separate CSPA permit, but will be reviewed such that the project meets the CSPA standards related to the project...

IMPERVIOUS LIMITS
All land within the protected shoreland is now subject to impervious surface limits of 20% or 30% coverage subject to varying levels of environmental protections and stormwater management (see above)...

WATERFRONT BUFFER
All land within 50 ft of the reference line is now subject to tree cutting and ground cover impact restrictions based upon a 50 ft x 50 ft grid system and is called the "Waterfront Buffer"...

UNDISTURBED AREA
All land in the "Woodland Buffer" (150 ft of the reference line) is now subject to a restriction on disturbance - 50% of the area outside the impervious area limits must be maintained in an "unaltered state" including temporary impacts (see amendment for less than 1/2 acres lots - see above)...see changes for smaller lots in amended SB-352...

STATEWIDE 50 ft SETBACK

All new primary structures must be set back at least 50 ft from the reference line statewide (towns and cities cannot set lower limits, but may enact greater standards)...


Click HERE for NHDES summary of the CSPA as of the April 1, 2008

Source:

http://sunapeeregionblog.com/2008/06/24/major-changes-affecting-waterfront-property/

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

New Jersey has had the NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. They regulate wet lands and waterways. We must buffer water ways and if there are wet land protect the area.

arrielle_p said...

Are these changes you have mentioned implemented for the last three years?

real estate in the philippines

sapna said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

I have read all the information that are provided here recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
real estate agents seven hills

chetan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.