Public Launching Ban Gilford

[stingray60]

The Gilford Planning Board is holding a public hearing tonight (January 6). One of the items on the agenda is an article to ban public boat launching within 1500 feet of residential property. This article has been submitted by petition.

Check out The Citizen at http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...1/CITINEWS0101

Comments regarding this proposal can be posted to the Gilford Planning Department at "planning@gilfordnh.org" . Further information is posted at www.gilfordnh.org

This proposal is clearly directed at Ames Farm Inn to put the boat ramps there out of the public's reach. The time to voice concern regarding public access to The Big Lake is now. The lake is frozen now and unless people speak up and take action Winnipesaukee for many will be frozen out forever.

[Grady223]

Not sure I understand the problem - sounds like a good law change to me. I wouldn't want some neighbor to open up a public boat ramp.

[AC2717]

Problem is they are taking access away from the lake and business away from businesses along the waterfront that curretnly conduct such business. Bring this law in here, might go all over the lake, oh and by the way the less public ramps available, the higher others will charge for you to use the ones that are left, if any

[snowbird]

Would this article, if passed, also cause the closing of Glendale's launch ramps? And Fay's?

[ishoot308]

I do not believe Glendale is a "public" launch. Fay's however certainly is.

[gtagrip]

Don't they have anything better to do? Again, this town government in action at it's finest! Good grief!

[welchislandman]

glendale is not a public launch ramp today

[Slickcraft]

This is a citizen petition article, not one proposed by the Town. As such the signed petition is a matter of public record so anyone can ask to see who is behind this. I would not be surprised if the Ames Farm neighbors had a role.

The Planning Board is obligated by law to have a public hearing and to put the article on the warrant. The Planning Board also gets to put their recommendation on warrant, hopefully this will be a "not recommended by the Planning Board" article.

Zoning changes like this, if passed by the voters, do not impact existing uses. They become "non complying pre-existing uses" or what many call a "grandfathered use".

[BroadHopper]

He was charging me to use his ramp. I don't think there are many free ramps on Lake Winni. I only know of Wolfeboro, Center Harbor, Moultonborough, and Alton Bay as free ramps. Someone lead me to believe Meredith was free. Someone was collecting $15 a couple of years ago.
Because there is a state law that bodies of water over a number of acres shall be public accessible, it would not surprise me that if all the towns closed their ramps to the public, the state will be forced to create a public ramp. As you see what happen on Winnisquam and Squam.

[ishoot308]

Broadhopper;

What I meant by public is open to all. Unlike Glendale which only allows Gilford residents and their guests, Fays allows anyone but yes there is a slight fee attached.

If by public you mean free to anyone, then no Fay's would not be considered public.

Dan

[DEJ]

Broadhopper, there are many more launches on Winnipesaukee than you mentioned, many are free. Check out the boat launch list at the Bizer site.

http://www.bizer.com/

[TomC]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

Because there is a state law that bodies of water over a number of acres shall be public accessible, it would not surprise me that if all the towns closed their ramps to the public, the state will be forced to create a public ramp. As you see what happen on Winnisquam and Squam.

The ramp at the end of the neck road in Moultonboro (by Harilla Landing) is state property. Parking is a challenge there, though

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Trying to think of a single ramp on the lake that is not within 1500 feet of a residence.

[lawn psycho]

Given that the lake is a State resource, I really don't agree with the hodge-podge of town regulations around the lake.

Personally, I think the State needs to step in and acquire land. There needs to be more public access, not less.

There are more non-water front property owners than water front so it would be surprising if it passes muster at a town meeting.

Why is it that water front property owners always try and over-step their entitlement? We have the same kind of issue going on at Goose Rocks Beach in Kennebunkport right now.

You live on the water at a lake and then want to restrict launching a boat? If that's the case, then private owners should be restricted from having docks. If they sign up to that, then I'd support it.

There are many lakes in this country where NO private development is allowed on the shores. Now that would be a better idea for Winni.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Given that the lake is a State resource, I really don't agree with the hodge-podge of town regulations around the lake.

Personally, I think the State needs to step in and acquire land. There needs to be more public access, not less.

There are more non-water front property owners than water front so it would be surprising if it passes muster at a town meeting.

Why is it that water front property owners always try and over-step their entitlement? We have the same kind of issue going on at Goose Rocks Beach in Kennebunkport right now.

You live on the water at a lake and then want to restrict launching a boat? If that's the case, then private owners should be restricted from having docks. If they sign up to that, then I'd support it.

There are many lakes in this country where NO private development is allowed on the shores. Now that would be a better idea for Winni.

I agree with you but what town wants to pony up the cash in a down economy for the cost of enough waterfront property? I mean the value is huge and the return isn't that great. People (not I) would immediately start ranting that they are wasting tax payer money.

Plus you need a very big area to provide for an adequate launch, parking, breakwater etc.

While I agree with your premise the towns won't do it...

It's another case of "yes we need that but not in my neighborhood syndrome"

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

This is a citizen petition article, not one proposed by the Town. As such the signed petition is a matter of public record so anyone can ask to see who is behind this. I would not be surprised if the Ames Farm neighbors had a role.

The Planning Board is obligated by law to have a public hearing and to put the article on the warrant. The Planning Board also gets to put their recommendation on warrant, hopefully this will be a "not recommended by the Planning Board" article.

Zoning changes like this, if passed by the voters, do not impact existing uses. They become "non complying pre-existing uses" or what many call a "grandfathered use".

I think we should find out which individual or group of individuals is bring this petition forward. Then, we have weekend regattas and anchor directly in front of their properties. I've got some really nice binoculars, yellow even, so they can see my eyeballs looking at them.

And we won't raft so they can whine and cry for a NRZ but it won't matter.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I agree with you but what town wants to pony up the cash in a down economy for the cost of enough waterfront property? I mean the value is huge and the return isn't that great. People (not I) would immediately start ranting that they are wasting tax payer money.

Plus you need a very big area to provide for an adequate launch, parking, breakwater etc.

While I agree with your premise the towns won't do it...

It's another case of "yes we need that but not in my neighborhood syndrome"

It has to come from the State. I don't know the vagaries of lake front property but the DEP and State of NH clearly have interests in the shoreland.

I am not a NH resident but this would be a good time for those that are to write their representatives.

Public access to bodies of water need protected. Winni is big and because there are many towns involved, the State needs to steer the ship.

See my post yesterday about the little mini-town governments and mob rule. Here's an example of the greater good being supplanted.

[MAXUM]

Talk about snobbery legislation. What's next put a rope line out on the lake and charge toll to drive through Gilford's section of lake? This is just plain obnoxious and makes me think we should all go over to that section of lake each and every summer day and just hang out, be obnoxious and hell pee in the water for good measure. I am so annoyed at stuff like this it makes my blood boil. If this keeps up I sincerely hope that Don Ames finds a big nasty deep pocketed out of stater developer to really make over that property.

OK I'm really not encouraging people to pee in the water, but you get my point!

[Misty Blue]

Maxim:

How dare you to interfere with the agenda of the local potentates of the lakes region!!!

While not one in ten in the NH legislature has a boat and not one in 50 of them can tie a Bowline, they have our best interestes at heart.

I live on the Lake and get a little Pi..ed off when people who register their boats, pay their taxes, and have the nutz to launch their boats on MY Lake and have the audacity to drop a hook in MY bay!!! Damn your eyes!

Seriously though, the issue is that the "non residents" are are very misrepensented. I do not know the answer. You could band together and not register 10,000 boats and go to Maine for a year. But you and I know that is not going to happen, so do they.

My feelings are that if you want only to paddle a canoe and watch loons without a wake interfererence the go to Kanasaka (you are not welcome), Squam (You are not welcome) Wakiwan (You are not welcome) or some of the other lakes where the folks are not nearly as friendly.

Bottom line: You guys have some smart folks out there. You have to come up with some ideas to protect your access to MY Lake. If you don't, it will be like Squam, no jet skis, no cruisers, just the locals with ther agenda.

Sorry, didn't mean to preach.

Misty Blue.

[lawn psycho]

Can someone scope out who the petitioners are for this attemtped ordinance?

[TOAD]

Sounds like the high and mighty trying to get higher and mightier.

[Lake Lady 6]

Has anyone read or heard the results of the Gilford Planning Board meeting this week with regard to the public launching article.

I agree this is clearly directed to the Ames Farm situation. Ames Farm has been launching boats for many, many years and provides a service for those who don't own property on the lake (but the water belongs to all NH residents). There are always those individuals with a "not in my backyard" mentality with hopes their money talks.

It would be nice to see a large hotel chain buy the property and provide all sorts of amenities for patrons including boat rides, band concerts, fireworks, and a huge increase in traffic - this may make the people behind the hearing wish they had just enjoyed things as they were.

[lawn psycho]

I could not find any updates on the Gilford website. I cross-referenced the Planning Board members and where they live. Of the primary members, John Morgenstern is the one who would be near the Ames Farm property. I have no idea where this whole thing is going or if what his stance is.

Here's the Town Website with email addresses of the planning board members.

Let 'em have it. Start writing.

The members and the email address:

http://www.gilfordnh.org/Public_Docu...Comm/planning2

planning@gilfordnh.org

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Here's the Town Website with email addresses of the planning board members.

Let 'em have it. Start writing.

Remember that the PB did not author the proposed ordinance, the "let'em have it" should be reasons why they should "not recommend" the petition warrant article.

[fatlazyless]

"No impact on existing commercial facilities and would not limit public access to Lake Winnipesaukee, which he said is served by 17 public launching ramps." is what Steve Nix, attorney & sponsor for the Gilford petition warrant article is quoted as saying in today's Feb 4, front page article in the www.laconiadailysun.com.

A contradicting opinion is offered at the Gilford deliberative session by Margaret 'Peggy' Ames, who feels that it will indeed restrict boating at the Ames Farm Inn.

It is one of 31 different warrant articles that Gilford voters have to decide on March 9, at the all-day vote, and about the only article that drew any public discussion at the recent Gilford deliberative session, according to the LaDaSun.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Nice to see the Planning Board did not recommend this article; see quote from the Laconia Daily Sun below.

John Ayer, director of planning and land use, told the meeting that the Planning Board chose not to recommend the article because it did not have adequate time to weigh its ramifications and was reluctant to restrict public access to the lake.

RE: Atty Nix's comment, I'd like to see the complete list of the 17 "public" ramps he's referring to. My guess is that probably 2/3 of them are an inconvenience (at best) to someone like me that lives south of the lake; it already takes me 50 min to drive to Ames Farm to spend a day on the lake. Anything longer than an hour and it really becomes pointless to haul up there.

[lawn psycho]

FLL, thanks for the heads-up. Apparently Mr Nix does not like to talk about what it would mean to one of those existing businesses if they decide to make a change or addition to a ramp. Anyone near residences is going to have a non-conforming use. Good luck with any future use changes.

And someone please tell me where John Q. Public from anywhere USA can access a ramp with parking in 17 locations in the Town of Gilford. Puh-leeze.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

LP, I think Mr. Nix was referring to 17 ramps around the lake in general, not 17 ramps in Gilford alone. At least that's the way I read it but I could be wrong.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

LP, I think Mr. Nix was referring to 17 ramps around the lake in general, not 17 ramps in Gilford alone. At least that's the way I read it but I could be wrong.

After re-reading you may be correct. However, his statement that this is not about Ames Farm is complete BS.

Bottomline is existing businesses will be impacts because they could be limited in changing their launch facilities or storage of boats in the future. Most importantly, it would lock out a great business from re-opening their ramp and just take one more access point away.

I rent a slip now but my first two years of boating I trailered to Ames Farm until upgraded to a larger boat. I'm glad to say I supported a local business/family. I don't know what their appeal rights are/were.

Perhaps Ames Farm should get a counter petition going. Either that or sell to some developer and put in 200 condos on the property with an major outdoor pool/party area complete with 10,000 watt stereo system.

[fatlazyless]

The February 4 www.citizen.com (click on news) sent a reporter to the Gilford Deliberative Session too.

...a couple of quotes...

"This is not geared to any one property"

Steve Nix


"I believe this is directed toward us. I am here tonight to ask the voters to not support this."

Peggy Ames

[lawn psycho]

The full text of the article is below. Pretty damn obvious that this is Nix spearheading this whole thing and geared towards Ames Farm. Sounds like the Town of Gilford does not agree with the proposed ordinance.

If the Ames read Winni.com; GO AFTER HIM. Get Nix's and and all the complaining abutters property documents from the town hall and jamb it down their throats. You can bet there is something they are doing that is not in compliance with one of your ordinances.

I would like to see us get a list of all the public ramps with public parking starting in let's say 1940 to the current day and let's plot the number over time. As it goes from 20 .. 19 .. 18 .. access to the lake is in jeopardy. It's the development of the dumpy (as in all) houses on the lake that are encroaching on everyone else. Not the otherway around.


Here's the article:

Non-money issues on warrant generate the most discussion
Gilford:

By HARRISON HAAS
hhaas@citizen.com

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Alan MacRae/for the Citizen MOST SEATS in the Gilford High School auditorium are empty for Wednesday's deliberative session.

During his 30-plus years as the moderator in the town of Gilford, Peter Millham said he has never presided over such a small audience as he did on Wednesday's deliberative session.

With fewer than 75 people in the auditorium seats at the Gilford High School, non-money warrant articles generated the most discussion.

There are 10 proposed amendments on the town warrant this year, three of which have been petitioned by residents. The petitioned article receiving the most attention from others in attendance was Article 9, which is seeking to protect and preserve the shore front of neighborhoods in the town.

Speaking on behalf of the article was Gilford resident Stephan Nix, who had motioned to place the article on the warrant. During his summary of the article, Nix explained how it is aimed to restrict public boat launching in the town.

"This proposal is in response to the shift of public launching to private areas," Nix said. "The town needs to take a step back to see where it wants to be in 10 years. It will not stop anyone from getting onto Lake Winnipesaukee."

Nix made note that there are 18 public boat launches that allow people to have access to the lake. Resident Skip Murphy came to the microphone after Nix had finished to ask whether the proposed amendment was a result of seeking to keep Ames Farm to its commercial uses.

"This is not geared to any one particular piece of property," Nix said. "It is to uphold the master plan of Gilford. This is a tool for the town to look forward to see where things will be in another 10 years."

Since the Planning Board did not support the petitioned article, Murphy asked Director of Planning and Land Use John Ayer if the article had an adverse effect on Ames Farm.

"In my personal opinion, yes," Ayer said.

Ayer said the Planning Board was against the article, because there wasn't enough time to research the direct effects of the amendment.

Non-resident of Gilford and fifth generation owner of Ames Farm, Peggy Ames, approached the microphone asking if she could speak. After being granted permission, Ames made note that the farm's 120th year anniversary is this year and said she was against the amendment.

"I believe this is directed toward us," Ames said. "I am here tonight to ask voters to not support this. There is zoning already in place that has restrictions."

Another petitioned article debated by Ames was Article 10, which is looking to increase regulations on wetlands in town. Ames said a majority of her property is wetlands and believes more input is needed as there are many unknowns.

Article 8 was the last petitioned article discussed, with only the petitioner, Barbara Aichinger, speaking on the article. With a page and a half of written notes, she explained her reasoning why the amendment is looking to eliminate the voluntary merging of lots in town. She claims that she, along with others in town, have fallen victim to zoning ordinance that automatically merged adjacent lots and this amendment would "protect property rights of land owners."

Before beginning the deliberative session, Millham announced that this year would be his last year as the town moderator, having served since 1971. In his time, he explained how he saw the town grow, not only in population but in being able to offer a way of life different from other communities.

"It's been an honor," Millham said. "It's been an enjoyable adventure and I want to thank you all."

The crowd gave him a standing ovation and throughout the night from there on, each person going to the microphone gave their respect to him for his service to the town.

All of the other articles on the 2010 Town Warrant were reviewed with little to no discussion. A copy of the Town Warrant is available on the town's website and at town hall by request. Voting will take place on March 9 in the Gilford Middle School gymnasium between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m.

[gravy boat]

Psycho,

You seem to have some violent thoughts regarding jamming things down throats and such. You are extremely vocal on this subject so I have a few questions: Where is your property on Winnipesaukee? What is your relationship to any of the Ames family or Nix family?

GB

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by gravy boat

Psycho,

You seem to have some violent thoughts regarding jamming things down throats and such. You are extremely vocal on this subject so I have a few questions: Where is your property on Winnipesaukee? What is your relationship to any of the Ames family or Nix family?

GB

Let's see. The space I am renting to store my boat over at the lake. The slip I rent. The 12 hotel nights I already have reserved at a lake front hotel for 2010 and will probably be more. The untold hundred of dollars I spend in routine maintenance each year on the boat. That's without even thinking beyond my frontal lobe as far as the incidentals.

So don't even tell me I don't have any financial "skin" in the game. I'm a wet dream to the NH economy. My dollars do more for the NH economy than lake front property taxes. That's a fact.

I hate to even think how much money I spent while at undergrad at UNH.

I have no relation to Nix or the Ames. I used there facility for two years and saw no significant impact to the abutters. That property use fits in well with the area and the lake.

And if you are going to take something out of context, I will not respond to that comment. I can tell you that no one would ever claim that I was yelling from my property about people being on public property ...

I'm glad to see in the article that the Town of Gilford and at least a few voters see the petition for what it is. If that ordinance were to pass, it would have dire consequences to a small family business and reduce access to the lake. If you don't like my being vocal about it, TOO BAD.

[RailroadJoe]

Thaks for being a UNH grad.

[gravy boat]

Actually, I enjoy reading all opinions/viewpoints, even if I don't agree with all or part of the opinions, or if I find the words angry and arrogant. I hardly see how I took anyting you said "out of context." I asked you two simple questions. Your being vocal is not what I find interesting -- it is the anger and violence expressed in some of your posts.

My reason for signing the petition has nothing to do with a specific business -- I used to work at Ames Farm and hope it remains as-is. The last thing I would like to see is for them to sell out and some monstrous hotel or more condos be built. Ames is one of the last quaint family businesses that remains and it is a large part of history in the area.

I have yelled at fisherman, boaters/skiers and jetskiers that come too close or cast into our swim area. For some reason I don't think Nix is the only person who has yelled at boneheads heading out on plane well under the legal footage. I'm someone who believes in safety and following the law so all can enjoy the lake.

GB

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by gravy boat

Actually, I enjoy reading all opinions/viewpoints, even if I don't agree with all or part of the opinions, or if I find the words angry and arrogant. I hardly see how I took anyting you said "out of context." I asked you two simple questions. Your being vocal is not what I find interesting -- it is the anger and violence expressed in some of your posts.

My reason for signing the petition has nothing to do with a specific business -- I used to work at Ames Farm and hope it remains as-is. The last thing I would like to see is for them to sell out and some monstrous hotel or more condos be built. Ames is one of the last quaint family businesses that remains and it is a large part of history in the area.

I have yelled at fisherman, boaters/skiers and jetskiers that come too close or cast into our swim area. For some reason I don't think Nix is the only person who has yelled at boneheads heading out on plane well under the legal footage. I'm someone who believes in safety and following the law so all can enjoy the lake.

GB

If I lived next too you and you used hair-splitting zoning regulations against me, you can bet your lot would be scrutinzed for any approval or lack thereof via permitting or by adherence to existing plans and lot locations.

You can try and spin what you want but when you read the whole of my post it is quite clear I was using a figure of speach. If find it humorous that you use words angry and arrogant as if you are some neutral observer. I guess you are fair and balanced like FoxNews and MSNBC? Your post in the other thread about this issue where you wrote that you don't give a damn was a poor attempt at an in your face/angry post so spare me your hyperbole.

The only threat that I have seen was a poster daring someone to come near the shore of Nix property as if to taunt them into thinking there would be a non-specific reprisal. I can only assume that he/she is one of the abutters or affiliated with Nix in some form and I think in their mind it was a real threat.

So you want Ames to remain as-is MINUS the public boat launch? Is that more accurate?

If houses were not along the shoreline, then the problem doesn't exist. I've stated it many times that development along lakes is prohibited on a lot of major water bodies in the US. You should seriously give thought that you are part of the problem. I'm not kidding.
Tourism and users of the lake contribute more to the NH economy than lake front property owners. So which should be protected more?
Heading out on plane while under legal footage, are you kidding? Do you know how many times I see homeowners leaving their docks and throttle it up. So why not have every house put up a swim area? I'll bet you didn't even have swimmers in the water. I get the impression that anything within 150 ft of shore you consider "yours". And for the record, I don't fish on lakes.

Everything you complain about can happen anywhere on the lake. In my opinion the petition you and others have signed is nothing more than an opportunity for a few abutters to use this as a means to exclusivity.

I haven't seen the site plan for the property but the article also mentions that Peggy Ames believes the article regarding wetlands is directed at her property. That warrant article may be slipping under the radar. Since her property does have wetlands restrictions already, then having the ability to generate income from a boat launch on a lot with very a restricted building envelope is actually a pretty good use of the property. Small business is the backbone of this country.

Perhaps Gravy you are the one who should not be so uptight and realize that if you are going to live on a lakefront, boats come with the territory. Boaters are simply trying to enjoy the lake.

[Dick]

Wolfeboro Baja wrote in part, "Atty Nix's comment, I'd like to see the complete list of the 17 "public" ramps he's referring to"

To see the real definition of "Public Water Access", go to NH statute Title XX Transporatation Chapter 233-A (RSA). "Public Access" is access that is either owned or controlled by a state agency. Other access that is controlled by marinas or municipalities is just "other" access that may or may not be available in the future. Towns can restrict, charge a fee, or close any access that they control. This is not real public access.

So, with the above in mind, how many public water access sites do we have on Winnipesaukee that we can count on being avaiable for our grandchildren and their children?

[GusMan]

Hi All...

I was wondering what NH owned public access sites were on winnie and found the following list for all water bodies:

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Outd...ites_table.htm

Not sure how accurate it is, but it only lists 4 for all of Winnipesaukee:

Alton Bay
Merideth Town Docks
Merideth Shep Brown's
Ellacoya State Park

So I'm not really sure where Harilla Landing and State's Landing stand. I figured there would be at least a couple lesser known canoe/cartop locations listed.

Cheers....

Gusman

[gravy boat]

LP,

I do not pretend to "own" the water in front of my cottage. I'm not that arrogant or righteous, believe it or not. I do, however, hope for common courtesy from others using the area within 25 feet of shore. Is it really necessary to cast into a sandy swim area over and over again? Or into my boathouse while I'm sitting on the dock attached to the boathouse -- within 10 feet of me? My step-daughters snorkel for fish hooks in early summer as we've had several incidents where hooks were stepped on by the 10-year-old and her cousins. Interestingly enough, we didn't find any this year as there were very few fisherman by my observation. Common courtesy should be shown by all of us when using any part of the lake.

I believe in protecting the lake, preserving as much of its history as possible and providing public access so all can enjoy it. I agree with many who have posted in other threads that the State needs to work on providing more access for the public. It's a public body of water for all to enjoy. However, if Ames had legal permission to do what it has been doing for years there would be no issue regarding the launching. If it ain't legal, don't do it...no matter whether a small business owner or someone out enjoying the lake.

Fair and balanced? Please. Neither of us can claim that.

And I'm not an abutter. I own property off-lake in Gilford and property near Ames Farm.

GB

[lawn psycho]

GB,
Your dock and boat house attract the fish that fisherman go after. Your swim area is in a public body of water. It sounds harsh but the same "the law is the law" that you bring up with Ames Farm applies to you. If you live in the lake you should learn to work with it. I doubt seriously that there's mutiples of hooks in the area. Looks like you have a solution to the minor inconvenience and you can just make occasional sweeps for hooks every now and then.

As far as reduced fisherman, that's the fundamental problem that concerns me. First, if we throw out the fact that last year's weather sucked, when you take a launch like Ames Farm away you will see less boaters.

The Alton public ramp sucks and parking is very inconvienent. Downings isn't bad but parking there can be a pain and if you pull out at prime time the wait sucks. Ames Farm has double ramps with open parking area. In the south west corner of the lake that was the by far the best place to launch for a trailer boater. So you got your wish, less boaters in your area. Congratulations. They either moved to a more convienient area near a launch or just said why bother and went to another lake. We won't know. I can guarantee you that less boaters means less revenue for the State of NH and area businesses.

The problem is over time as access is reduced further you'll have higher property taxes and more businesses will be empty. It doesn't happen in one year. It's just like NRZs. Once one area gets one, then someone else cries "why can't we get a NRZ?"

So now about Ames Farms. From my reading of the Town of Gilford meeting minutes, they Amnes had violations and rectified them. The boat launch had been operating since some time in the 60s which is how far back someone had to go to say they we'ren't continuously operating a launch. The accessory use of the clause is splitting hairs.

Now, explain to me why the petition also restricts the storage of boats if it's the boats on the water that are causing you grief? You state that you want Ames Farms to remain as-is but then wish to restrict them from having a public launch or even the ability to store boats. What you post and the potential actions of the petition signers do not agree.

The solution to this problem is to restrict development on the shores of the lake and to restrict private dockage. You and others may gasp at such a thing but they aren't making more shoreline. The lake will be here long after you and I are gone. I don't want to see something that I enjoy to be ruined for future generations because of poor long-term planning and over-development. It's the lake that is the resource, not the mish-mash of properties along the lake. The State of NH needs to aquire land and put in permanent launches. The Nix's of the world would try and fight such actions with classic NIMBY mentality. When I return as a NH resident this will be something I will fight for through the legislature.

Regarding the early morning noise, I too would find that irritating. I know that the tournaments were started farther off shore and start times were altered. So at least there was some willingness to compromise from Ames Farm. My question is what would you need to be satisfied or to make it a workable solution without restricting the use of a public ramp?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

"...Talk about snobbery legislation..."

I'm wondering if the abutters' gripe is with bass-boaters at all.

Anyway, Ames Farm has had glowing reports at this forum, and I'd support continuation of their ramp practices: the abutters are trying a "back-door approach" to restrict a long practice and Ames Farms doesn't seem up to defending themselves!

Surely, Ames can continue to rent one cottage to one tenant (with dozens of boating co-tenants) and continue a legal business as usual.

That would keep Ames Farms "to-the-letter" of any Zoning regulations there.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I'm wondering if the abutters' gripe is with bass-boaters at all.

Anyway, Ames Farm has had glowing reports at this forum, and I'd support continuation of their ramp practices: the abutters are trying a "back-door approach" to restrict a long practice and Ames Farms doesn't seem up to defending themselves!

Surely, Ames can continue to rent one cottage to one tenant (with dozens of boating co-tenants) and continue a legal business as usual.

That would keep Ames Farms "to-the-letter" of any Zoning regulations there.

I wonder who owns the lot(s) across the street from the Ames Farm property

[Formula260SS]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I wonder who owns the lot(s) across the street from the Ames Farm property

Ames does, I've stayed across the street. The own the large "houses" and each one has multiple rooms in it.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Formula260SS

Ames does, I've stayed across the street. The own the large "houses" and each one has multiple rooms in it.

So if Ames owns the property across the street and they can't make money with a ramp, then we all know what the inevitiable will be. They'll be pressured to sell property to a developer.

So the question is who is preying on the situation and what is Nix's (and other petition signers) true intent. It's going to be up to the Gilford voters to put the brakes on the railroading that's taking place.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

So if Ames owns the property across the street and they can't make money with a ramp, then we all know what the inevitiable will be. They'll be pressured to sell property to a developer.

So the question is who is preying on the situation and what is Nix's (and other petition signers) true intent. It's going to be up to the Gilford voters to put the brakes on the railroading that's taking place.

I believe I read an article recently that mentioned another petition that wanted to restrict the combining of lots. I also believe there was little discussion about that petition. If I was Ames, I would be as concerned about this as I was about the public launching petition.

It is almost like the public launching petition is a smoke screen for the petition to restrict the combining of lots.

R2B

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I believe I read an article recently that mentioned another petition that wanted to restrict the combining of lots. I also believe there was little discussion about that petition. If I was Ames, I would be as concerned about this as I was about the public launching petition.

It is almost like the public launching petition is a smoke screen for the petition to restrict the combining of lots.

R2B

I believe the petition to restrict the combining of lots is aimed at preventing the town from the practice not the owner of the lots, at least that is how I read it. My parents had this happen to them, they owned the lot that their house is on and then had first option on the lot next door, well they got the chance to purchase and did. Two years later, the town, combined the two lots together because they abutted each other and had the same owner of record. The property then had to be surveyed to be split again when the land was offered to a family member.

[tis]

I don't see how that could happen legally jmen. The deed would have to be changed and recorded to combine the two lots so is that what the town did? I am very interested in that because we have three combined lots and the town does combine our tax bill on two of them. The third is not combined with the others. I don't mind one tax bill but never intended them to become one lot. That is very scary.

[jmen24]

Tis, I will get a solid answer for you from my folks. Now that you mention it, I do not believe that the deeds changed, but they had to jump through some hoops with the town when they sold the lot off. They did move a boundary line and that was the reason for the survey. I will get back to you.

[Woodsy]

The land issue you are discussing originally stems from a property dispute on Govenors Island... there is a Gilford policy/law that combines 2 non-conforming lots into 1 when they are owned by the same person...

Way too much to type but there is plaenty to read about online...

http://nhpropertyrights.com/

Woodsy

No dog in the fight... just passing on the info!

[jmen24]

Tis, here's the deal.

What Woodsy pointed to in the link is how the situation with my folks land went down, the only difference is the two lots they owned were conforming. Both at over five acres (2 acre min. zoning area), both had over 200 feet of frontage (200 foot zoning area), but the reason the town merged them is because they share a common access point for a driveway, even though the existing lot that their house is on actually has two openings for a driveway (grandfathered). They had absolutely no knowledge of this until they sold the land.

The reason for the survey was not related to this issue, but was to help the buyers (family member) get a more favorable location for the house without encroaching on a lot line, this was about 10 years ago.

[tis]

OK. Thanks for that! I feel a little better. Still, I don't believe that towns should in any way be able to make a decision to combine lots. It is very sad that our land is only ours for as long as the government allows it to be ours.

[DRH]

Originally Posted by tis

OK. Thanks for that! I feel a little better. Still, I don't believe that towns should in any way be able to make a decision to combine lots. It is very sad that our land is only ours for as long as the government allows it to be ours.

I know a West Alton resident who owned two adjacent lots, each with a house on it. Each of them is a conforming lot and they were held in the same name. A number of years ago, Alton combined both the lots into one for property tax purposes and began to send the owner one tax bill instead of two. The owner did not realize what had happened until he began to do some estate planning and discovered that he would not be allowed to pass on one house and lot to one child and the other house and lot to another child because the Town had combined them into one lot with two homes on it. He obtained legal counsel and was able to get the Town to re-divide the property back into the original two lots.