SESSION B:

Title: Developing variable-width lake development set-backs using imperviousness criteria

Authors: Steve Kahl¹, Chandler Morse², June Hammond Rowan¹, Maggie Shannon³, Jared Teutsch⁴, Scott Williams^5
1Plymouth State University, NH
²Congressional Aide, Washington DC
³Maine Congress of Lake Associations
⁴New Hampshire Lakes Association
⁵Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Association

Abstract:

Northeastern lakes are facing unprecedented development pressures from new land development and reconstruction of existing structures. In the northern forest, an often unrecognized trend is the sale of leased paper company land of shorefront property, which leads to rapid development pressure because large numbers of the camp-owners on entire lakes suddenly can invest in property improvements on land they own. Moreover, expansions can often be made within the protected set-back zone (the ‘grandfather’ clause). Lack of supply of lake property also means that second and third tier development is occurring near lakes. Runoff into lake tributaries have been cited in some studies as the main cause of water quality deterioration in the main water body.

Research indicates that aquatic systems are impacted by watershed imperviousness over a threshold of approximately 10%. We propose that this threshold should be the basis of new shoreland zone set-back regulations as part of expedited efforts to protect the economic, recreational, tourism, ecological, and aesthetic resources represented by our lakes. New regulations could work like this: development and re-development would be allowed only to the extent that the sum of roofs, driveways, walkways, decks, patios, and other impervious surfaces did not exceed 10% of the area of the lot within the shoreland zone. An adjustment for lawns in the shoreland zone might count 50% of the lawn area as impervious. Such a ‘variable-width’ set-back rule would mean that development would be more balanced with respect to the size of lots. It would not prohibit development around lakes, nor represent a ‘takings’, but rather would make development more harmonious with the environmental setting. Homeowners would have a choice: if they want to build an oversized structure, it would have to be set back farther from the lake; more modest structures would be allowed to be built closer to the lake. Retaining a proper buffer strip would gain homeowners credit toward larger scale development, while still maintaining aesthetic and ecological benefits for the lake.