PDA

View Full Version : South Down boaters want more moorings...


GWC...
04-02-2005, 10:41 AM
LACONIA -- The South Down Shores Boat Club is seeking state approval to create 20 additional moorings in Paugus Bay on Lake Winnipesaukee (http://www.citizen.com/april_2005/04.02.05/news/laconia_040205l.asp).

Murphy said the council’s support was given on the condition that the number of personal watercraft being moored at South Down be limited to 20

Murphy explained that the New Hampshire Department of Transportation has agreed to lease about 200 feet of frontage on Winnipesaukee that is bisected by the Winnipesaukee Railroad, for an annual fee of $5,000.

Very interesting…

South Down already has six state-approved moorings.

The environmental impact of the proposed mooring field would be minimal, according to Murphy… He argued that there would be no additional net impact on the lake as the 20 personal watercraft that are proposed to be moored at South Down are already owned by property owners and used locally.

The proposed moorings are to be located behind South Down’s existing docking facility. According to a site plan displayed during the hearing the moorings would range in distance from six feet from shore to 79 feet from shore. Water depths for the moorings would range from 3 feet to 5 feet 3 inches. The proposed field would not be visible from the lake, would not impact navigation or contribute to shoreline erosion, he said.

David Berube of Weirs Boulevard spoke in opposition to the mooring field, maintaining it would increase usage of personal water craft in Paugus Bay near the intake pipe that draws the cities’ water supply from Lake Winnipesaukee.

Berube also maintained that the mooring field would increase congestion in a premier area to water-ski.

"Paugus Bay is already significantly overcrowded and more moorings will contribute to that," he said.


The proposed field would not be visible from the lake

Question: How can something be in the Lake and not visible from the Lake?

the moorings would range in distance from six feet from shore to 79 feet from shore.

79 feet from shore – very interesting, indeed…

Question: Are shorefront property owners now allowed docks 79 feet in length?

Question: Why is one situation safe and the other not?

The proposed moorings are to be located behind South Down’s existing docking facility. Murphy explained that the New Hampshire Department of Transportation has agreed to lease about 200 feet of frontage on Winnipesaukee…

This is very considerate of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation.


Duclos explained public comment would be accepted until 4:15 p.m. on Monday, Aug. 11. People wishing to either support or oppose the congregate mooring request can mail written comments to Duclos at the Bureau of Hearings, 33 Hazen Drive, Concord, N.H. 03305. Comments can also be faxed to 603-271-6653 or e-mailed to safety-hearings@safety.state.nh.us.

upthesaukee
04-02-2005, 11:07 AM
Your first question is probably answered by a later bold-faced statement (quote) The proposed moorings are to be located behind South Down’s existing docking facility.



This is very considerate of the New Hampshire Department of Transportation.

is a statement after your quote about the DOT leasing 200 ft of shoreline...I probably would have gone a few words further on the quote and shown that the lease is $5000 annually. I think we would need to see the lease for any restrictions on the land use, or if it is just for access to the proposed mooring field.

The area for this mooring field would seem to be safer than the mooring fields off just east of Lake Shore Park area or the one in front to the Broadmoor (?) .

My only thought was adding them just for PWC's, and will that be a marked increase in PWC activity, to which the rock filled mind realized that the PWC owners will either use them from the mooring field, or drop them in the lake off a trailer. Either way, they will be there.:rolleye1:

GWC...
04-02-2005, 01:06 PM
Either way, they will be there.:rolleye1:

It was stated that the 20 PWCs are already there.

So, why grant 20 more moorings. Why stress the Lake for the convenience of 20 PWC owners who already use them in the Lake? The PWCs' status changes from being in the water occasionally to being in the Lake all of the time during the boating season. How is this good for the Lake - good for the owners of the PWCs; but not good for the Lake.

Will the DOT lease 200 feet of frontage to you for $5000 per year? Seems cheap for high dollar property?

upthesaukee
04-02-2005, 01:35 PM
Without knowing the conditions of the lease, I can't say that it is or is not a good deal. If they are paying $5k to walk to a mooring (proposed), I'd say it's not such a great deal. If they are able to do something with the land, it may be a great deal. Have to see the lease.

GWC...
04-02-2005, 02:29 PM
Without knowing the conditions of the lease, I can't say that it is or is not a good deal. If they are paying $5k to walk to a mooring (proposed), I'd say it's not such a great deal. If they are able to do something with the land, it may be a great deal. Have to see the lease.

$5000 / 20 = $250 per mooring

Now what say you?

Would you pay $250 for a mooring? Imagine that you already own property at SDS and a PWC; but without "floating" access. Is it worth $250 to have Lake access without the need to constantly trailer (launch) your PWC? Sounds cheap to me, given the increase cost of Lake access in recent years.

If it is not an inconvenience, why request the additional moorings?

Such a deal; but for whom? The Lake, the citizens of Laconia who drink the water, or ???

Joe Kerr
04-05-2005, 01:52 PM
Murphy explained that the New Hampshire Department of Transportation has agreed to lease about 200 feet of frontage on Winnipesaukee that is bisected by the Winnipesaukee Railroad, for an annual fee of $5,000.

Excuse me if this is a stupid question but why is NH leasing 200 feet of waterfront? Leasing it from whom? For what purpose? What does this have to do with South Down Shores and the proposed new moorings?

Anyone have pictures of the area showing how we can not see the proposed new moorings from the lake? Or something like that?

GWC...
06-25-2005, 11:43 AM
Permits granted: ;)
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050625/CITIZEN0101/106240100/-1/CITIZEN

Thought the Gov was opposed to state property being used for personal gain? :rolleye2:

jetskier
06-26-2005, 06:30 PM
It amazes me that this hit the paper so much later than the public hearing, but here are the facts:

The mooring field is behind the docks at South Down shores. So there is no hazard to navigation. The moorings are in a horseshoe arrangement with all of them behind the docks. The issue about 79 feet is a moot point as the dock is more that 79 feet from the shore. The person bringing up this point at the public hearing was concerned with waterskiing. Hmmm....you would have a serious problem if you were to waterski behind the dock system :)

South Down shores is leasing frontage from the state to support the right to have the mooring field. There is no right to use the frontage as that is actually part of the railroad and the frontage is really a right of way for the train. So, this is $5,000 to the state for no service and no improvement. Not so bad.

The PWC are used on the lake anyhow, so this does not increase the overall traffic and lake use.

There is no impact on the water supply. There is absolutely no fueling allowed at South Down (for boats or PWC) and the water is/has been routinely tested over the years by the current facility. The inlet to the water supply is actually fairly close to the launch ramps at the end of the bay not near South Down. The concerns with water quality over the years have been in response to facilities wanting to fuel craft near or on the water.

So, let's all enjoy the summer. This should not be viewed as a lose to anyone.

Regards,
jetskier

codeman671
06-27-2005, 04:45 AM
My only question is why is MP granting moorings for pwc at all? They were quite strick and spelled it out in plain english when I applied for my two moorings that they are not to be used for PWC at all.

GWC...
06-27-2005, 11:55 PM
The Gov is against the Muellers leasing additional state property for their expansion plans regarding their Mt Sunapee lease and MP says moorings are not for PWC use.

Yet, the special people in Paugus Bay are allowed to lease additional state property to meet the requirements for their personal gain (or is anyone allowed to use their additional mooring?) and they are allowed to use their moorings specifically for their PWCs (yet, MP says the rest of us may not use a mooring to secure a PWC).

What's wrong with this picture? :rolleye2: