Farm Island

[clementine]

Some of you may know that Farm Island in 19 Mile Bay is on the market. Farm Island is one of the few remaining undeveloped islands on Winnipesaukee.The Abenaki used to fish and hunt there, and there is a historic camp in the center of the island that goes back to when livestock spent the summer grazing there. Camp Belknap currently owns roughly 1/3 of the island and that portion is not on the market. There is a buyer interested in subdividing the 13+ acres into 12 buildable lots while preserving the historic camp. There is a hearing on July 18th at 7:00 at the Tuftonboro Town Hall at which this proposal to subdivide will be discussed. If you are interested in the future of Farm Island, come to the hearing on the 18th to learn more.

[hemlock]

Back in 1965 my grandfather was looking at property on Cow Island. As he was boating over to Cow from 19 mile bay the real estate broker said he could buy the entirety of Farm Island for 5000 dollars. My grandfather said he wasnt interested in pursuing it because at the time it had no electricity. He ended up buying a lot on Cow for 3500 dollars that October. I am not sure if Farm Island was really for sale then but that is the story I was told.

[Pineedles]

Anything you buy on Winnipesaukee for storefront, will appreciate in value. Will it beat the market? Who knows. But it will go up in value.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[dickiej]

I think you meant shore front. Don't you all miss the days of the big dig in Boston when all that stolen money was used to buy million dollar homes with cash?

[TiltonBB]

i think you meant shore front. Don't you all miss the days of the big dig in boston when all that stolen money was used to buy million dollar homes with cash?

Huh???????

[chasedawg]

Some of you may know that Farm Island in 19 Mile Bay is on the market. Farm Island is one of the few remaining undeveloped islands on Winnipesaukee.The Abenaki used to fish and hunt there, and there is a historic camp in the center of the island that goes back to when livestock spent the summer grazing there. Camp Belknap currently owns roughly 1/3 of the island and that portion is not on the market. There is a buyer interested in subdividing the 13+ acres into 12 buildable lots while preserving the historic camp. There is a hearing on July 18th at 7:00 at the Tuftonboro Town Hall at which this proposal to subdivide will be discussed. If you are interested in the future of Farm Island, come to the hearing on the 18th to learn more.


It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Last remaining private undeveloped island on the lake. I heard that a large turn out is expected.

[Pineedles]

Anything you buy on Winnipesaukee with shorefrontage, will appreciate in value. Will it beat the market? Who knows. But it will go up in value.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[fatlazyless]

Probably 99.9% of all Winnipesaukee island homes are second homes with local property taxes costing from $3,000-8,000/yr and going up every year.

So's with the new, (2018 tax year) federal income tax deduction limited to $10,000 ..... this new limit totally, totally, totally hits the second home owner very very very hard ..... regardless what anyone says ..... you understand!

[DEJ]

How did the planning board meeting go regarding this proposed subdivision?

[ApS]

Anything you buy on Winnipesaukee for storefront, will appreciate in value. Will it beat the market? Who knows. But it will go up in value.

Maxfield Realty is listing Farm Island for $2,000,000.

[JEEPONLY]

I think you meant shore front. Don't you all miss the days of the big dig in Boston when all that stolen money was used to buy million dollar homes with cash?

Back in those days I sold boats during the Summer. Many Massachusetts trades guys from "The Dig"came in, with cash, to buy their formally elusive dream.

[tis]

Back in those days I sold boats during the Summer. Many Massachusetts trades guys from "The Dig"came in, with cash, to buy their formally elusive dream.

True story??

[JEEPONLY]

True.

Many trades people came in, with cash, not just from "The Dig"

Face it, under the table income has been around for a long, long time, and it was very noticeable in the boat business back then.

[FlyingScot]

Back in those days I sold boats during the Summer. Many Massachusetts trades guys from "The Dig"came in, with cash, to buy their formally elusive dream.

"Trades guys" with cash stolen from Big Dig? C'mon. The project may have been over budget, and some money might have been misappropriated/stolen (I can't remember the latter), but it's pretty tough to see how money stolen from a government construction project in Massachusetts is stolen in cash by the guys swinging the hammers.

[Hillcountry]

"Trades guys" with cash stolen from Big Dig? C'mon. The project may have been over budget, and some money might have been misappropriated/stolen (I can't remember the latter), but it's pretty tough to see how money stolen from a government construction project in Massachusetts is stolen in cash by the guys swinging the hammers.

I think the tradesmen may have capitalized on the big dig by working insane overtime hours...make hay while the sun shines!
Between the trades and the cop details there was lots of cash to be had.
Maybe some worked out deals for under the table, pay.
There are always ways to beat the system...especially when big city funds are involved.

[joey2665]

I think the tradesmen may have capitalized on the big dig by working insane overtime hours...make hay while the sun shines!

Between the trades and the cop details there was lots of cash to be had.

Maybe some worked out deals for under the table, pay.

There are always ways to beat the system...especially when big city funds are involved.

Agreed as someone that supplied ready mix concrete to many public jobs in nyc, I have seen a lot but converting I’ll gotten gains into cash on a public project is not likely.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[ishoot308]

I think the tradesmen may have capitalized on the big dig by working insane overtime hours.

I’m not sure about the “working” aspect of those overtime hours but many many contractors took advantage of “no show hours” and putting additional “mannequins” on payroll. Pretty common occurrence on larger projects in Boston and NYC....ever watch the Sopranos?...it was spot on!

[chasedawg]

How did the planning board meeting go regarding this proposed subdivision?

The Farm Island hearing was packed standing room only. There were so many people that the Fire Chief had to cut off the number of people. Everyone was totally against the subdivision. Only one person in that large group said "let it go through".

Over 20 people spoke why it should not be allowed to happen. The Planning Board was presented with many documents and studies to review. They have a difficult and challenging job.

Nearly 300 people sighed a petition against the subdivision development. Channel 9 WMUR was there with cameras. It was shown on TV Thursday evening.

Next hearing is scheduled for August 1 at the Tuftonboro Elementary School up town. This will allow for even more people to attend.

[JEEPONLY]

"Trades guys" with cash stolen from Big Dig? C'mon.
You are a cherry picker. I never said the workers stole money (although I bet a lot of it ended up being tax free!)

Hillcountry hit the nail on the head- some of these guys were getting 2-3-4 times overtime pay- why wouldn't they take it? It was the people who were late meeting their "friendly" government contracts who, all of a sudden had to pay through their noses to complete the job (s), that were stealing the money to over pay.

You wouldn't have believed the number of weekly/bi-weekly boat rentals that went out on cash. The costs would seem moderate, by today's standards, but they couldn't spend the money fast enough to enjoy themselves- I said good for them!!!

[FlyingScot]

"Trades guys" with cash stolen from Big Dig? C'mon.
You are a cherry picker. I never said the workers stole money (although I bet a lot of it ended up being tax free!)



No need for name calling. But as I reread your original post, I see the confusion--Dickie referred to stolen money, you quoted and replied with under the table, and I connected the two. Sorry

[dickiej]

My brother in law was a tradesman on the big dig and he said anything that wasn't bolted to the ground was stolen... that's where alot of the Ill gotten money used to buy houses and boats came from.

[MAXUM]

The Farm Island hearing was packed standing room only. There were so many people that the Fire Chief had to cut off the number of people. Everyone was totally against the subdivision. Only one person in that large group said "let it go through".

Over 20 people spoke why it should not be allowed to happen. The Planning Board was presented with many documents and studies to review. They have a difficult and challenging job.

Nearly 300 people sighed a petition against the subdivision development. Channel 9 WMUR was there with cameras. It was shown on TV Thursday evening.

Next hearing is scheduled for August 1 at the Tuftonboro Elementary School up town. This will allow for even more people to attend.

So just curious as to what the objection is to allowing the property to be subdivided?

If all the requirements are met neither the citizens nor the town can say no just because we don't want it to be done. That is completely unfair. Do I personally like it, no, however that is no reason to prevent this from happening. If there are 300 people who don't like it and so concerned... then they can all pitch in about $6700 bucks a piece buy the property and turn it into conservation land.

[kawishiwi]

So just curious as to what the objection is to allowing the property to be subdivided?

If all the requirements are met neither the citizens nor the town can say no just because we don't want it to be done. That is completely unfair. Do I personally like it, no, however that is no reason to prevent this from happening. If there are 300 people who don't like it and so concerned... then they can all pitch in about $6700 bucks a piece buy the property and turn it into conservation land.

I think just the fact that the town is asking for public input shows that the subdivision requires town consent & approval that has not yet been granted.

[FlyingScot]

If there are 300 people who don't like it and so concerned... then they can all pitch in about $6700 bucks a piece buy the property and turn it into conservation land.

That's exactly what has happened. Camp Belknap has asserted that they can raise the money to buy the land.

[SAB1]

Variety of issues exist regarding the development. Do any have legs...maybe not. I think the biggest issue is 1/3 of the island was sold a few years back to the ymca and many feel the rest of the island could be preserved in its current state by selling the remainder to the ymca camp. The ymca has made an offer to purchase the remainder at the same price as the developer. It has been turned down.

[chasedawg]

Variety of issues exist regarding the development. Do any have legs...maybe not. I think the biggest issue is 1/3 of the island was sold a few years back to the ymca and many feel the rest of the island could be preserved in its current state by selling the remainder to the ymca camp. The ymca has made an offer to purchase the remainder at the same price as the developer. It has been turned down.

Does any one know why the offer by Camp Belknap to write a check for $1.5M to the Winchesters with no contengencies, no planning board meetings, not one of the 250+ signing a petition has been turned down since the offer was made to the owner Winchester's back in January 2019?

The Winchester keep giving extensions for the last 7 months since the P&S was signed back in October, 2018. Yet the Winchesters sold 1/3 of the island to Camp Belknap back in 2010. This does not make sense. Something is really going wrong in any kind of logic. WMUR and other local news outlets are starting to ask the same questions

How and why would anyone want to go through the trouble of all the pain of permitting and cost of development with 300 local folks saying... NO!!

This whole deal is really need to be investigated further. There are so many questions about what is going on here.

[WinnisquamZ]

Follow the money. If the YMCA was to purchase the remaining piece it would come off the local tax haul as they are tax exempt.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[fatlazyless]

Across the 19-Mile Bay, a close boat ride away, there's Camp Winaukee with its' summer camp campus situated on both the main land neck, and on an island as well. Does Camp Winaukee pay property taxes to Moultonborough for using their mainland/island properties as a summer camp? Yes, Camp Winaukee pays property taxes.

So, why does the YMCA Camp Belknap get to be property tax exempt in nearby Tuftonboro? Is most gracious that Tuftonboro will agree to their tax exempt, summer camp status. Way to go ....... Tuftonboro!

[WinnisquamZ]

Camp Winaukee is a private owned camp as the YMCA Is a nonprofit organization, but I am positive you knew this before writing


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[chasedawg]

Does any one know why the offer by Camp Belknap to write a check for $1.5M to the Winchesters with no contengencies, no planning board meetings, not one of the 250+ signing a petition has been turned down since the offer was made to the owner Winchester's back in January 2019?

The Winchester keep giving extensions for the last 7 months since the P&S was signed back in October, 2018. Yet the Winchesters sold 1/3 of the island to Camp Belknap back in 2010. This does not make sense. Something is really going wrong in any kind of logic. WMUR and other local news outlets are starting to ask the same questions

How and why would anyone want to go through the trouble of all the pain of permitting and cost of development with 300 local folks saying... NO!!

This whole deal is really need to be investigated further. There are so many questions about what is going on here.

Check this out....Great article.....has all the facts correct. But there is even more to the story! Stay tuned.

https://www.concordmonitor.com/Saving-Farm-Island-26937008

[fatlazyless]

Ahoy there Mate ...... am blocked from reading this .... due to 5-articles/month limit ..... someone do me a favor and post this Concord Monitor article so it can be read .... thanks in advance ..... must be many others in this same boat! Hey, I don't want to buy it, I just want to read it!:laugh:

[thinkxingu]

Check this out....Great article.....has all the facts correct. But there is even more to the story! Stay tuned.

https://www.concordmonitor.com/Saving-Farm-Island-26937008So is the current P&S between the Winchesters and the development company or the Winchesters and YMCA? Above comments suggest the Y, the article suggests the developers.

And if both the Y and the developers offered the same money, why did the Winchesters take the developers over the Y? Other than straight $, it appears pretty clear that the Y's ownership would be much better for the region (see past discussions about dwindling summer camps/public access vs. affluent acquisition).

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[DEJ]

And if both the Y and the developers offered the same money, why did the Winchesters take the developers over the Y? Other than straight $, it appears pretty clear that the Y's ownership would be much better for the region (see past discussions about dwindling summer camps/public access vs. affluent acquisition).

There is bad blood between the Winchesters and the camp. Like Chasedawg has said there is much more to this story.

[MAXUM]

Does any one know why the offer by Camp Belknap to write a check for $1.5M to the Winchesters with no contengencies, no planning board meetings, not one of the 250+ signing a petition has been turned down since the offer was made to the owner Winchester's back in January 2019?

The Winchester keep giving extensions for the last 7 months since the P&S was signed back in October, 2018. Yet the Winchesters sold 1/3 of the island to Camp Belknap back in 2010. This does not make sense. Something is really going wrong in any kind of logic. WMUR and other local news outlets are starting to ask the same questions

How and why would anyone want to go through the trouble of all the pain of permitting and cost of development with 300 local folks saying... NO!!

This whole deal is really need to be investigated further. There are so many questions about what is going on here.

You make it sound as if it's a big conspiracy here, bottom line is 12 lots all water front developed have huge profit potential. Now not that I know the exact details of the P&S, but I would think that there is a contingency on the purchase of the property pending successful acceptance of subdivision and lot development. Could very well be that agreement has some financial benefit to the current owners to allow the interested party the allotted time to attempt to get all that done. That is the sellers right to make a contractual agreement with such stipulations. So what would you do if you owned this property and there was a few hundred thousand or more on the table if you allowed extra time the process go through?

While it's noble that lots of people may not want this to happen - in typical not in my back yard fashion, mob rule doesn't or shouldn't come into play here. I'm sure a bunch of so called objectors already own property that probably have the same sketchy "historical" value, may have been a place loons could have nested as well, yet how many sleep well at night knowing they have destroyed loon habitat or plowed under some place the Indians used to camp out on (maybe) hundreds of years ago so common that's just grasping at whatever they can to stop this, none of the objections I have read have any reasonable rational behind them.

Far as I'm concerned the owners have every right if they so choose to get what they can out of that property.

Finally the town has zero right to steer via legislative power the proposed sale of any property without due cause. It's got nothing to do with additional tax revenue although as noted the end result is beneficial to both the town and tax payers.

Any one who wants to preserve this property should appeal directly to the current owners.

[DEJ]

Finally the town has zero right to steer via legislative power the proposed sale of any property without due cause. It's got nothing to do with additional tax revenue although as noted the end result is beneficial to both the town and tax payers.

Any one who wants to preserve this property should appeal directly to the current owners.

The town of Tuftonboro has every right to steer via legislative power the proposed sale of any property based on the mission statement of the planning board of town of Tuftonboro which I post below.

Mission Statement

The Planning Board mission is to promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the population of the Town of Tuftonboro, to protect and conserve the rural and recreational value of property, to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the Town, and to promote the efficiency and economy in the process of development.

Also to your comment regarding "Any one who wants to preserve this property should appeal directly to the current owners"

That has indeed happened. The camp is offering the exact same money as the prospective developer and will preserve it if allowed to purchase it.

[joey2665]

You make it sound as if it's a big conspiracy here, bottom line is 12 lots all water front developed have huge profit potential. Now not that I know the exact details of the P&S, but I would think that there is a contingency on the purchase of the property pending successful acceptance of subdivision and lot development. Could very well be that agreement has some financial benefit to the current owners to allow the interested party the allotted time to attempt to get all that done. That is the sellers right to make a contractual agreement with such stipulations. So what would you do if you owned this property and there was a few hundred thousand or more on the table if you allowed extra time the process go through?

While it's noble that lots of people may not want this to happen - in typical not in my back yard fashion, mob rule doesn't or shouldn't come into play here. I'm sure a bunch of so called objectors already own property that probably have the same sketchy "historical" value, may have been a place loons could have nested as well, yet how many sleep well at night knowing they have destroyed loon habitat or plowed under some place the Indians used to camp out on (maybe) hundreds of years ago so common that's just grasping at whatever they can to stop this, none of the objections I have read have any reasonable rational behind them.

Far as I'm concerned the owners have every right if they so choose to get what they can out of that property.

Finally the town has zero right to steer via legislative power the proposed sale of any property without due cause. It's got nothing to do with additional tax revenue although as noted the end result is beneficial to both the town and tax payers.

Any one who wants to preserve this property should appeal directly to the current owners.

They may be overstretch if with their legislative power per the mission statement above but in the end the developer with need rezoning and permits to build on the 12 lots which I am sure the new owner will try to receive a commitment on before the sale.

This case has similarities to the people that were looking to rezone Big Island on Paugus were the governments are doing everything in their power to keep these islands as is


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[JEEPONLY]

No need for name calling. But as I reread your original post, I see the confusion--Dickie referred to stolen money, you quoted and replied with under the table, and I connected the two. Sorry

Fair enough- sorry for the slight.

[TiltonBB]

Ahoy there Mate ...... am blocked from reading this .... due to 5-articles/month limit ..... someone do me a favor and post this Concord Monitor article so it can be read .... thanks in advance ..... must be many others in this same boat! Hey, I don't want to buy it, I just want to read it!:laugh:

Check around. Maybe you can get up before a neighbor and get the paper from their driveway.

[FlyingScot]

You make it sound as if it's a big conspiracy here, bottom line is 12 lots all water front developed have huge profit potential. Now not that I know the exact details of the P&S, but I would think that there is a contingency on the purchase of the property pending successful acceptance of subdivision and lot development. Could very well be that agreement has some financial benefit to the current owners to allow the interested party the allotted time to attempt to get all that done. That is the sellers right to make a contractual agreement with such stipulations. So what would you do if you owned this property and there was a few hundred thousand or more on the table if you allowed extra time the process go through?

While it's noble that lots of people may not want this to happen - in typical not in my back yard fashion, mob rule doesn't or shouldn't come into play here. I'm sure a bunch of so called objectors already own property that probably have the same sketchy "historical" value, may have been a place loons could have nested as well, yet how many sleep well at night knowing they have destroyed loon habitat or plowed under some place the Indians used to camp out on (maybe) hundreds of years ago so common that's just grasping at whatever they can to stop this, none of the objections I have read have any reasonable rational behind them.

Far as I'm concerned the owners have every right if they so choose to get what they can out of that property.

Finally the town has zero right to steer via legislative power the proposed sale of any property without due cause. It's got nothing to do with additional tax revenue although as noted the end result is beneficial to both the town and tax payers.

Any one who wants to preserve this property should appeal directly to the current owners.

Even if this is 100% true (a couple of posters have suggested there may still be legal hurdles), that does not mean it is right for the Winchesters to sell to the developer.

An owner is presented with identical prices from two bidders for their land. One bidder will build houses for 12 families, increasing the environmental impact significantly. Another will grant low impact access to hundreds of kids every year, and protect the land forever.

If I were the Winchesters, I think I'd know how I'd want to be remembered.

[TheTimeTraveler]

I'm actually surprised that the Town of Tuftonboro and/or the State of NH doesn't buy it and preserve it as conservation land......

[8gv]

Check around. Maybe you can get up before a neighbor and get the paper from their driveway.

I actually understood that one! :D

[MAXUM]

Even if this is 100% true (a couple of posters have suggested there may still be legal hurdles), that does not mean it is right for the Winchesters to sell to the developer.

An owner is presented with identical prices from two bidders for their land. One bidder will build houses for 12 families, increasing the environmental impact significantly. Another will grant low impact access to hundreds of kids every year, and protect the land forever.

If I were the Winchesters, I think I'd know how I'd want to be remembered.

Whether it is "right" or not is a matter of an emotional measure of right or wrong and while I get that it is still the owner's decision who they sell to. It would be no different than holding prejudice against one party because you simply don't like them or what they are interested in doing with property they one day could own.

Far as the mission statement of the town goes... that's all well and good but read the language carefully, words such as promote, and encourage they can certainly do and when it comes to say allowing special exceptions for development, these ideals can certainly play a part but they cannot just say you can't build a house there because the neighbors don't like it. Nor can they just inject themselves into a legal transaction between two parties just because. This is a serious overreach and I don't believe they have the authority to do so.

Keep in mind I am not taking sides on this just saying if all the requirements are met the town cannot come along and say no without just cause. The owner of the property has rights too. And not for nothing, ANY waterfront lot development creates an impact of some sort so using that as an argument then sets the precedence of what? No more waterfront lot development? Or is it just ok for some but not for others?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

How is it known that the owners were presented with identical offers? Have you seen the offers? It appears that the YMCA offer was contingent on raising funds.

[FlyingScot]

How is it known that the owners were presented with identical offers? Have you seen the offers? It appears that the YMCA offer was contingent on raising funds.

This is a fair point. Similarly, it appears the developer's offer is contingent on gaining town approval.

The bigger point, perhaps not articulated clearly enough--it's nice if someone can reap a windfall on property from their own hard work or their grandparents. It would also be nice if that person didn't feel the need to get every last dime and instead thought a bit about what's best for the community long term.

[ApS]

I'm actually surprised that the Town of Tuftonboro and/or the State of NH doesn't buy it and preserve it as conservation land......

In the last few years, Tuftonboro bought a huge farm "for conservation". Wasn't that the Hershey Farm?

[tis]

In the last few years, Tuftonboro bought a huge farm "for conservation". Wasn't that the Hershey Farm?

The Cheney Farm.

[ApS]

That's the one--thanks!

[TiltonBB]

Opponents to Farm Island development packed a public hearing before the Tuftonboro Planning Board on July 18.

The board will again hear opinions on the proposal at a meeting on Aug. 1, which will take place at Tuftonboro Elementary School in anticipation of a heavier turnout than normal. However, the board is not likely to vote on the matter until a later date.

From the Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news/local/island-plan-leads-to-unhappy-campers-in-tuftonboro/article_a8d8e8ae-afdd-11e9-82fd-eb26e83059d7.html#utm_source=laconiadailysun.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Flists%2Fheadlines%2F saturday%2F%3F-dc%3D1564219806&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline

[Garcia]

Opponents to Farm Island development packed a public hearing before the Tuftonboro Planning Board on July 18.

The board will again hear opinions on the proposal at a meeting on Aug. 1, which will take place at Tuftonboro Elementary School in anticipation of a heavier turnout than normal. However, the board is not likely to vote on the matter until a later date.

From the Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news/local/island-plan-leads-to-unhappy-campers-in-tuftonboro/article_a8d8e8ae-afdd-11e9-82fd-eb26e83059d7.html#utm_source=laconiadailysun.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Flists%2Fheadlines%2F saturday%2F%3F-dc%3D1564219806&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headline

The article was an interesting read. It sounds to me like many people became used to a non-developed island and incorrectly assumed it would always stay that way. From the article, it seems the current owners tried to sell it to an entity that would preserve it, but the funds/interest isn't there.

Sometimes people forget that all the waterfront homes we enjoy were once un-developed, pristine shoreline. Privately owned land should be able to be developed, as long as current zoning and rules are followed.

I would love to see all future development stopped, a limit on the size, speed, sound, and number of boats, free parking and access for island property owners, lower property taxes, and more, but that's not going to happen, nor should it.

I'll be curious as to how this all works out.

[BroadHopper]

I would love to see all future development stopped, a limit on the size, speed, sound, and number of boats, free parking and access for island property owners, lower property taxes, and more, but that's not going to happen, nor should it.


And yet there are people that think it can still happen! Greed is our worst enemy!

These folks should move to Squam Lake, instead of rattling our cage!

[DEJ]

My opinion has changed. Looks like camp Belknap had a few opportunities to purchase this property and for several reasons could not at the time pull the trigger. According to the article it appears the Winchesters tried to sell to the camp but it did not work out. The NIMBY crowd has no standing here, I wish the new owners well.

[FlyingScot]

Good article in LDS. If the buyers are sincere that they do not wish to develop the island beyond one simple home and only need a security blanket of sorts, then the solution is pretty obvious--in a 3-way deal, Camp Belknap could buy the development rights to the island from the current buyers for $500K to $1MM (I leave the exact number to the principals). The current buyers could pocket a big slug of cash today, dramatically reducing their risk; and Belknap could insure its tranquility for a lower price than would otherwise be possible.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news/local/island-plan-leads-to-unhappy-campers-in-tuftonboro/article_a8d8e8ae-afdd-11e9-82fd-eb26e83059d7.html

[chasedawg]

Good article in LDS. If the buyers are sincere that they do not wish to develop the island beyond one simple home and only need a security blanket of sorts, then the solution is pretty obvious--in a 3-way deal, Camp Belknap could buy the development rights to the island from the current buyers for $500K to $1MM (I leave the exact number to the principals). The current buyers could pocket a big slug of cash today, dramatically reducing their risk; and Belknap could insure its tranquility for a lower price than would otherwise be possible.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news/local/island-plan-leads-to-unhappy-campers-in-tuftonboro/article_a8d8e8ae-afdd-11e9-82fd-eb26e83059d7.html


Flying Scout ding ding ding...you hit the target...but in reality it won't work. The developer has said flat out I will not sell any part of the island to the camp. They have said "I don't want any part of the camp functions and activities near my development". Yet Camp Belknap owes 1/3 of the island and the boundary lines between the homestead home to be restored and camp owned property is only 25' feet away. So go figure!!

[ursa minor]

I’ve heard that the property may be in “current use” tax status. From my understanding that would mean either the seller or the potential buyer would need to come up with the difference between the reduced current use tax rate and the residential rate from the time the current use variance was granted. Depending on how long the island has been in “current use” that could be a tidy sum.

[chasedawg]

I’ve heard that the property may be in “current use” tax status. From my understanding that would mean either the seller or the potential buyer would need to come up with the difference between the reduced current use tax rate and the residential rate from the time the current use variance was granted. Depending on how long the island has been in “current use” that could be a tidy sum.

Good thought....The potential buyer is going to continue with the "current use" status. From what I understand it will be a tree farm to gain "current use" status. Many trees will be removed especially the umbrella trees that have been there for 90 years.

[SAB1]

Lot of rumors out there. Who knows if half are true but I have heard there are tax issues ie. back taxes owed. I’m sure the town wants it developed for the tax revenue. Don’t believe the camp pays taxes.

[Wifi-1]

According to my sources, there is no back taxes owed on the land, and hasn't been.

[Outdoorsman]

Good article in LDS. If the buyers are sincere that they do not wish to develop the island beyond one simple home and only need a security blanket of sorts, then the solution is pretty obvious--in a 3-way deal, Camp Belknap could buy the development rights to the island from the current buyers for $500K to $1MM (I leave the exact number to the principals). The current buyers could pocket a big slug of cash today, dramatically reducing their risk; and Belknap could insure its tranquility for a lower price than would otherwise be possible.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news/local/island-plan-leads-to-unhappy-campers-in-tuftonboro/article_a8d8e8ae-afdd-11e9-82fd-eb26e83059d7.html

These "feel good" propositions always make me laugh.

How about letting the OWNER decide? or...... BUY IT and divide it your way and make that "3way" deal!

[SAB1]

According to my sources, there is no back taxes owed on the land, and hasn't been.

Good. I found it hard to believe since it wasn’t long ago the camp bought part of the island.

[FlyingScot]

These "feel good" propositions always make me laugh.

How about letting the OWNER decide? or...... BUY IT and divide it your way and make that "3way" deal!

You have confused a proposition that will make people feel good with a "feel good proposition". It is NOT a feel good proposition, it's a business deal. Obviously, all 3 parties would have to agree it was in their best interest. These types of transactions happen regularly. Here's a recent example of a current owner getting cold hard cash to forego development, it's an especially apt one because the developer had no emotions or town pressure

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/nyregion/manhattan-real-estate-views-air-rights.html

[tis]

I hate to see Farm Island developed too but I keep wondering why didn't Camp Belknap didn't buy the whole thing, or why somebody else didn't buy it to save it if they want it saved. It has been for sale for quite a while.

[SAB1]

At the time they purchased the one third they didn’t have the money I believe. Lot changes going on there in past couple years to make needed improvements.

[hemlock]

Good thought....The potential buyer is going to continue with the "current use" status. From what I understand it will be a tree farm to gain "current use" status. Many trees will be removed especially the umbrella trees that have been there for 90 years.

The way current use works is that the owner gets a reduced tax rate for keeping the property in its current use as farmland ,woodland, unproductive land etc. Once the property is developed it is considered a change in use and a tax penalty is applied in the amount of 10 percent of the ad valorem value of the land. So 12 house lots at 300k each equals a penalty paid to Tuftonboro of 360000. Current use is only applicable if the property is at least 10 acres in size. Subdivision below that size triggers the penalty.

The only way to avoid the penalty is to not develop the property

[camp guy]

You are so right, WinnisquamZ , that is why so many of the private, independent camps are no longer operating. The tax bite got so large that private camps were forced to either significantly raise their summer tuition rates and run the risk of pricing themselves out of business, or, re-organize themselves within the protection of an existing non-profit organization and enjoy the financial relief afforded therewith. If the government 'tinkers' with the tax Code and makes changes to the non-profit qualifications or the amount an individual may deduct with respect to non-profits, then these camps will disappear, also.

[chasedawg]

Some of you may know that Farm Island in 19 Mile Bay is on the market. Farm Island is one of the few remaining undeveloped islands on Winnipesaukee.The Abenaki used to fish and hunt there, and there is a historic camp in the center of the island that goes back to when livestock spent the summer grazing there. Camp Belknap currently owns roughly 1/3 of the island and that portion is not on the market. There is a buyer interested in subdividing the 13+ acres into 12 buildable lots while preserving the historic camp. There is a hearing on July 18th at 7:00 at the Tuftonboro Town Hall at which this proposal to subdivide will be discussed. If you are interested in the future of Farm Island, come to the hearing on the 18th to learn more.

2nd Tuftonboro Planning Board hearing is tonight at 7:00 PM location has changed to Tuftonboro Elementary school to accommodate a larger crowd.

See you there...

[Randy Owen]

Corruption at Camp Belknap! Parents Beware!

Camp Belknap has illegally built two structures on Farm Island and one on the mainland in Tuftonboro. All are in violation. The town has found numerous other violations. Farm Island is zoned Residential. Property owners at the hearing provided audio and video displaying the illegal and deliberate violation of law. Zero respect for abuttors and what young people should learn. In a previous town meeting they even persuaded an innocent young teenage camper to speak of how he enjoyed the opportunity were the camp directed him on residential property breaking the NH law.

Camp Belknap also has violated New Hampshire Shore-land Protection laws as well. Seth Kassells directed the use a landing area for sail and paddle boats in one of NH prime Loon Nesting areas. For gain Camp Belknap also engaged in a conservation easement. With this easement they specified no power boats would go to Farm Island. Power boats do frequent Farm Island.

Young people should not be exposed to this corruption and exploitation of State law with zero respect for residential abbutors. Parents need to be vigilant. This camps alleged alignment with Christianity
and the YMCA is disgusting. Parents choose your children's future first!

[Lakeboater]

Corruption at Camp Belknap! Parents Beware!

Camp Belknap has illegally built two structures on Farm Island and one on the mainland in Tuftonboro. All are in violation. The town has found numerous other violations. Farm Island is zoned Residential. Property owners at the hearing provided audio and video displaying the illegal and deliberate violation of law. Zero respect for abuttors and what young people should learn. In a previous town meeting they even persuaded an innocent young teenage camper to speak of how he enjoyed the opportunity were the camp directed him on residential property breaking the NH law.

Camp Belknap also has violated New Hampshire Shore-land Protection laws as well. Seth Kassells directed the use a landing area for sail and paddle boats in one of NH prime Loon Nesting areas. For gain Camp Belknap also engaged in a conservation easement. With this easement they specified no power boats would go to Farm Island. Power boats do frequent Farm Island.

Young people should not be exposed to this corruption and exploitation of State law with zero respect for residential abbutors. Parents need to be vigilant. This camps alleged alignment with Christianity
and the YMCA is disgusting. Parents choose your children's future first!
RANDY welcome to the forum. Interesting first post.

[FlyingScot]

Corruption at Camp Belknap! Parents Beware!

Camp Belknap has illegally built two structures on Farm Island and one on the mainland in Tuftonboro. All are in violation. The town has found numerous other violations. Farm Island is zoned Residential. Property owners at the hearing provided audio and video displaying the illegal and deliberate violation of law. Zero respect for abuttors and what young people should learn. In a previous town meeting they even persuaded an innocent young teenage camper to speak of how he enjoyed the opportunity were the camp directed him on residential property breaking the NH law.

Camp Belknap also has violated New Hampshire Shore-land Protection laws as well. Seth Kassells directed the use a landing area for sail and paddle boats in one of NH prime Loon Nesting areas. For gain Camp Belknap also engaged in a conservation easement. With this easement they specified no power boats would go to Farm Island. Power boats do frequent Farm Island.

Young people should not be exposed to this corruption and exploitation of State law with zero respect for residential abbutors. Parents need to be vigilant. This camps alleged alignment with Christianity
and the YMCA is disgusting. Parents choose your children's future first!

So in your first-ever post you attack a YMCA camp that thousands of kids have loved for decades, citing things which don't appear to have much substantiation or any proof that the camp is corrupt in general?

Are those pesky kids making it difficult for you to build your McMansion?

[ishoot308]

Corruption at Camp Belknap! Parents Beware!

Camp Belknap has illegally built two structures on Farm Island and one on the mainland in Tuftonboro. All are in violation. The town has found numerous other violations. Farm Island is zoned Residential. Property owners at the hearing provided audio and video displaying the illegal and deliberate violation of law. Zero respect for abuttors and what young people should learn. In a previous town meeting they even persuaded an innocent young teenage camper to speak of how he enjoyed the opportunity were the camp directed him on residential property breaking the NH law.

Camp Belknap also has violated New Hampshire Shore-land Protection laws as well. Seth Kassells directed the use a landing area for sail and paddle boats in one of NH prime Loon Nesting areas. For gain Camp Belknap also engaged in a conservation easement. With this easement they specified no power boats would go to Farm Island. Power boats do frequent Farm Island.

Young people should not be exposed to this corruption and exploitation of State law with zero respect for residential abbutors. Parents need to be vigilant. This camps alleged alignment with Christianity
and the YMCA is disgusting. Parents choose your children's future first!

One shouldn't throw stones in a glass house!!

https://owens-marine.pissedconsumer.com/review.html

[thinkxingu]

One shouldn't throw stones in a glass house!!

https://owens-marine.pissedconsumer.com/review.htmlOUCH.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[DEJ]

Corruption at Camp Belknap! Parents Beware!

Camp Belknap has illegally built two structures on Farm Island and one on the mainland in Tuftonboro. All are in violation. The town has found numerous other violations. Farm Island is zoned Residential. Property owners at the hearing provided audio and video displaying the illegal and deliberate violation of law. Zero respect for abuttors and what young people should learn. In a previous town meeting they even persuaded an innocent young teenage camper to speak of how he enjoyed the opportunity were the camp directed him on residential property breaking the NH law.

Camp Belknap also has violated New Hampshire Shore-land Protection laws as well. Seth Kassells directed the use a landing area for sail and paddle boats in one of NH prime Loon Nesting areas. For gain Camp Belknap also engaged in a conservation easement. With this easement they specified no power boats would go to Farm Island. Power boats do frequent Farm Island.

Young people should not be exposed to this corruption and exploitation of State law with zero respect for residential abbutors. Parents need to be vigilant. This camps alleged alignment with Christianity
and the YMCA is disgusting. Parents choose your children's future first!

And so the saga regarding this individual and Farm Island begins. Tuftonboro planning board, hope you are watching this as well as the Winchesters.

[SAB1]

Interesting. I guess the meeting last night didn't go well for this guy? FWIW and being in direct sight of the Belknap landing area they utilize to access the land they own, they do not land power boats, just canoes, kayaks and once in a while a sail boat gets blown in there. Having been there since early 2000's I have yet to see a nesting loon on that side of the island.

[Descant]

I contributed to Camp Belknap's purchase of 7.5 acres a decade ago. I would be happy to help them again. More so, after seeing Randy Owen's post.

[ursa minor]

Not quoting the post as several have already done so....should be some interesting reading coming up on this thread.

The bar for debate going forward has certainly been moved. Im not sure that posting unsubstantiated accusations on a public forum is the best way to sway public opinion in your favor...

[chasedawg]

Corruption at Camp Belknap! Parents Beware!

Camp Belknap has illegally built two structures on Farm Island and one on the mainland in Tuftonboro. All are in violation. The town has found numerous other violations. Farm Island is zoned Residential. Property owners at the hearing provided audio and video displaying the illegal and deliberate violation of law. Zero respect for abuttors and what young people should learn. In a previous town meeting they even persuaded an innocent young teenage camper to speak of how he enjoyed the opportunity were the camp directed him on residential property breaking the NH law.

Camp Belknap also has violated New Hampshire Shore-land Protection laws as well. Seth Kassells directed the use a landing area for sail and paddle boats in one of NH prime Loon Nesting areas. For gain Camp Belknap also engaged in a conservation easement. With this easement they specified no power boats would go to Farm Island. Power boats do frequent Farm Island.

Young people should not be exposed to this corruption and exploitation of State law with zero respect for residential abbutors. Parents need to be vigilant. This camps alleged alignment with Christianity
and the YMCA is disgusting. Parents choose your children's future first!

OMG! You are going to need more lawyers now!

[fatlazyless]

Good article in LDS.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news/local/island-plan-leads-to-unhappy-campers-in-tuftonboro/article_a8d8e8ae-afdd-11e9-82fd-eb26e83059d7.html


Just tuning in to this thread? Here's a little background music with a July 26 replay from the LaDaSun; 'Island plan leads to unhappy campers in Tuftonboro' .... a Lake Winnipesaukee summer camp, island melody with two color photographs showing 20-acre Farm Island plus a photo with campers in three sailboats.

[Randy Owen]

I appreciate all the input. The news is not anything but the facts. For the record I have had no problem with the camp in prior years. I held a contract with Gene Clark and Gene did everything he promised and the transaction was flawless. Currently management there is acting like they are above the law. Zoning is zoning. Shoreline protection laws are what New Hampshire requires.

Protecting the loons is important. When a person points to me for my custodial efforts for the protection of the environment and then builds an extremely busy boat landing right on top of one of the lakes best potential loon nesting areas I must speak out. This is a fraction of the broken laws. In turn I ask what are
we teaching our children? I felt a duty to inform

Sorry for any collateral frustration.

[DEJ]

I appreciate all the input. The news is not anything but the facts. For the record I have had no problem with the camp in prior years. I held a contract with Gene Clark and Gene did everything he promised and the transaction was flawless. Currently management there is acting like they are above the law. Zoning is zoning. Shoreline protection laws are what New Hampshire requires.

Protecting the loons is important. When a person points to me for my custodial efforts for the protection of the environment and then builds an extremely busy boat landing right on top of one of the lakes best potential loon nesting areas I must speak out. This is a fraction of the broken laws. In turn I ask what are
we teaching our children? I felt a duty to inform

Sorry for any collateral frustration.

To the Winchesters, is this how you want the legacy of the island to be remembered that has been in your family for decades?

[Randy Owen]

The Camp has done very many evasive things already directly to the Winchester family members. I am certain the lack of care the camp has demonstrated with Loons and the law only accelerates the ill feelings.
Thank you for your input.

[SAB1]

Sorry randy but I’ve lived right there since 2002. The only loon nesting area that has occurred on the island since then is off the two black pins on northwest side of the island, more precisely the northernmost pin of the two which just so happens to be the land up for sale. I have no beef in this at all but the tact you displayed in your post is anything but professional and honestly with that type of attitude you displayed in your post I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a real estate transaction your involved in

[Descant]

Randy Owen:
There are a lot more Camp Belknap alumni/supporters out there than you can imagine, plus the conservationists. Every time you post here, you lose ground. At the very least you should hire a PR firm to be your spokesman. At the best, you should just leave. It is obvious that maintaining or improving Lake Winnipesaukee is at the bottom of your to do list, if on the list at all.

[thinkxingu]

Wait, is Randy trying to buy the property for sale? I don't understand why this tact is being taken. And the Randy Owen I searched on the Google has a lot of...history.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[Sue Doe-Nym]

I continue to be amazed at the lack of civil discourse whenever a contentious topic rears its head. Even a thin dime has two sides. In the case of Farm Island, can’t there be a civilized debate without the rancor?

[ursa minor]

I continue to be amazed at the lack of civil discourse whenever a contentious topic rears its head. Even a thin dime has two sides. In the case of Farm Island, can’t there be a civilized debate without the rancor?

You’re aware that Randy Owen is in negotiations to purchase Farm Island from its long time owners correct? And that the YMCA camp already owns a portion of the island?

[Randy Owen]

the comments have not fallen on deaf ears. there remains a belief that wonderful things have come from this camp. at a time i engaged with gene clark with the most wonderful rewarding experience. but no one and no entity can act beyond the law. i offered full transparency to current director of the camp. to that end see what has come of it.

[chasedawg]

You’re aware that Randy Owen is in negotiations to purchase Farm Island from its long time owners correct? And that the YMCA camp already owns a portion of the island?


It should be also known that Camp Belknap has made an offer to purchase many months ago as well. It appears that the potential buyer RO is panicking and trying to grasp at any thing he can think of to create confusion. From what I Understand the Tuftonboro Planning Board is doing their due diligence to make sure they hear everyone's concerns about this project and get the facts from organizations that specialize in specifics like water quality, boat and land traffic conjestion etc. etc. The P&S was signed about a year ago. The Winchester family could have had their money many months ago without having to deal with Planning Board hearings. As it is there has been extension after extension and that continues. The Planning Board is doing their job. And the Planning Board could go on with their job of helping other Tuftonboro citizens with projects that do not impact the lake and surrounding areas like this subdivision that 90% of the locals object too.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

You’re aware that Randy Owen is in negotiations to purchase Farm Island from its long time owners correct? And that the YMCA camp already owns a portion of the island?


YES. If you read my post you will see that it is about civility.

[ursa minor]

YES. If you read my post you will see that it is about civility.

Thanks. From my perspective, I’ve seen mostly thoughtful discussion from a number of forum members that live in the area of Farm Island. Again, in my opinion, it’s Mr. Owen that just dumped a can of gas over the campfire here.

I do agree that there has been a shift on here in the past few years but in the case of this this thread Mr Owen owns any escalation. It should be interesting to see what the planning board has to say.

[FlyingScot]

I continue to be amazed at the lack of civil discourse whenever a contentious topic rears its head. Even a thin dime has two sides. In the case of Farm Island, can’t there be a civilized debate without the rancor?

Sue, I agree in general. But Mr Owen has smeared a beloved institution that appears to be a great citizen, and he has done so with virtually no substitution at a time he is in a land dispute with that institution where he appears to be the less community-minded party. So I think those of us who have jumped on him have been relatively fair

On the plus side, he seems to have united the rest of the group ;)

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Understood. I will try to MMOB. Hopefully, this will all be resolved amicably, ��
but that might be a stretch. Many of the wonderful camps have disappeared over the years, which is very sad.

[Mr. V]

Assuming that RO is the buyer who has a binding purchase and sale agreement, the Winchesters do not have the legal right to back out, without being in breach of contract.

Given the flavor of his comments I suspect RO is attempting to sway public opinion to his side viz. the pending hearings.

Hello, backfire.

[Descant]

I would expect the Owen P & S to be contingent on subdivision approval, so, "partially binding?" If there were no contingencies, the closing would have occurred ages back. The planning board cannot deny based on public sentiment. They just confirm that all the laws and ordinances are met. If they deny whimsically based on public sentiment, they will likely lose an appeal.

[chasedawg]

This is the latest....on Farm Island....Regional Planning Commission involved

"We need your help! The remainder of the island directly across from Camp Belknap is attempting to be purchased by a developer for subdivision into 10 lots on only 13 acres. Camp Belknap currently uses and conserves the 8 acres which Belknap purchased by donations for overnight camping and nature exploration. We are gravely concerned that a development of this size has the potential of polluting the water, creating noise and light pollution, creating congested waterways, as well as, parking and traffic concerns in our area. Due to the concerns regarding the proposed subdivision’s potential environmental impact to Lake Winnipesaukee, the Tuftonboro Planning Board has requested a review by the Regional Planning Commission. As a regional item of concern anyone living in a town on the lake needs to come voice their opinion. Please come to the meeting on October 3 at 7PM at the Tuftonboro Central School to show your support against the development. To learn more please see the links below."

Thank you in advance for the Support.

-Save 19 Mile Bay Group

https://www.concordmonitor.com/Saving-Farm-Island-26937008

https://www.tuftonboro.org/sites/tuftonboronh/files/minutes/tpb_7.18.19_minutes_wattachments.pdf

https://www.tuftonboro.org/sites/tuftonboronh/files/minutes/9.5.19_w.attachments.pdf

[KPW]

Any information on last night's meeting?

[chasedawg]

Any information on last night's meeting?


The hearing continues. Next hearing set for 10/17 at Tuftonboro Town Hall.

[Patiently Watching]

Tuftonboro planning board approved the subdivision last night.

[Wifi-1]

Towns need put minimum lot sizes, such as Sandwich does. So, planning boards can't be goaded into default granting tiny lots, then turn into a Moultonboro.

[tis]

I just read that Camp Belknap has started a lawsuit agains the development of Farm Island.

[thinkxingu]

I just read that Camp Belknap has started a lawsuit agains the development of Farm Island.On what grounds?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[DEJ]

On what grounds?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

Go to the Union Leader web site and read all about it. You might have to subscribe to be able to read it.

[MAXUM]

On what grounds?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

Among the issues raised in the suit are the developers’ inexperience and the island’s mostly untouched condition. Its most intensive use was at the turn of the 20th century, when it was used as pasture for farm animals.

“There is no known precedent in Tuftonboro or even on the lake itself for a subdivision of an undeveloped and ecologically sensitive island,” the suit reads. “The Tuftonboro Master Plan specifically requires the planning board to balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the community as a whole. The planning board paid lip service to this balancing but then did not engage in any meaningful analysis of whether it was appropriate to permit a 10-lot subdivision on Farm Island.”

The suit notes the camp paid for an archaeological survey, which reported the site is a potentially invaluable window into the past and a source for pre-contact Native American and post-contact European American archaeological resources.

Johnson said the planning board acted unreasonably and unlawfully in asking the court to send the case back to the planning board for a full and proper consideration of the applicant’s plan.

[codeman671]

After going through Shoreland permitting last year on an island lot, the state wanted me to do an archaeological survey on our parcel, claiming that there COULD be artifacts present as some had been found elsewhere on different islands. When I pushed back on it, I actually wasn't required to, they made it sound like it was a requirement but in all reality it was a suggestion. Unless they found arrowheads or indian pottery there, its probably a stretch claiming its a window into the past...

I haven't been following the Farm Island saga too closely, but something seems fishy. It has been under contract for ages. Did the camp not get a chance to buy this in the first place, or didn't want to spend the money? Or was the deal done before it even hit the market?

[MAXUM]

Ironic that the YMCA who had a chance to purchase this property but had no money can secure legal council and sue the town.

Frankly it is the town's prerogative to approve or disapprove whatever they see fit in whatever manner they see fit so long as it meets the stated town requirements. That is their job. They cannot find favor in one party or another because one more belligerent or outnumbers the other. They have done nothing illegal or outside the typical process. The entire argument being made is irrelevant and stupid. Hopefully the court puts and end to this nonsense as it is nothing but a waste of time.

[Lake Fan]

“There is no known precedent in Tuftonboro or even on the lake itself for a subdivision of an undeveloped and ecologically sensitive island,” the suit reads.


Ummm, weren't all the islands (and all of the mainland for that matter) undeveloped until they were? Did the Indians only visit Farm Island? Chases Island right next door has many houses on it.

Doesn't sound like a strong argument for a suit. :confused:

[DEJ]

The only people that will benefit from this are the attorneys.

[TiltonBB]

The only people that will benefit from this are the attorneys.

Isn't that true with the majority of lawsuits?

[chasedawg]

The only people that will benefit from this are the attorneys.

That is so true. And do you know who will be paying for all of attorney fees the public tax payers of Tuftonboro? Of course they will be. Our tax increase has gone up this assessment by 51%. So hear again this lawsuit will increase all tax payers in Tuftonboro. What does Camp Belknap pay in taxes....? NOTHING!

[Sandyisl]

Hey thanks for sharing this information.
I learned something, of interest to me, that i would have otherwise not known of and would likely not have voiced my opinion.
we would do fuel runs every week or more usually every weekend to pier 19. I Like that part of the lake.
I would love to walk the island before it gets destroyed
mike

[chasedawg]

Hey thanks for sharing this information.
I learned something, of interest to me, that i would have otherwise not known of and would likely not have voiced my opinion.
we would do fuel runs every week or more usually every weekend to pier 19. I Like that part of the lake.
I would love to walk the island before it gets destroyed
mike

Mike..you might want to walk very soon. The ownership will be changing hands in a couple of weeks from what I have been told by the buyer. We love that part of the lake as well. Shamefully it is starting to turn into negative issues. and oh by the way gas may not be available at Pier 19 again this summer.

[fatlazyless]

And do you know who will be paying for all of attorney fees the public tax payers of Tuftonboro? Of course they will be. Our tax increase has gone up this assessment by 51%. So hear again this lawsuit will increase all tax payers in Tuftonboro. What does Camp Belknap pay in taxes....? NOTHING!

What the Town of Tuftonboro must do is take all the Farm Island trees as they come down and get replaced by this new 10-lot sub-division, and put them in a tree museum out behind the Tuftonboro town hall ..... and then the town can charge a dollar and a half ...... to everybody ..... just to see them! ... :patriot:

[The Real BigGuy]

I still wonder where those who buy property on the island will keep their boats when not at the island. Good luck finding slips.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[NH.Solar]

So many ills in our US society could be quickly cured if the legal system was changed by requiring the plaintiff to have to pay the legal costs of the defendant should they lose their case ...but this is a pipe dream because there would be need for half as many lawyers and residents of Washington DC would never vote for such a sensible but self crippling move.

[Major]

So many ills in our US society could be quickly cured if the legal system was changed by requiring the plaintiff to have to pay the legal costs of the defendant should they lose their case ...but this is a pipe dream because there would be need for half as many lawyers and residents of Washington DC would never vote for such a sensible but self crippling move.

Unfortunately, your idea would deny access to the legal system for those who have the least in society. In civil litigation, even strong cases sometimes lose, whether it be to a technicality or a bad judge or jury. A person having modest or less means would never risk litigation, even if he or she has a strong case, because losing would be financially crippling.

Personally, I would like to see caps on fee awards.

[tis]

Some people sue just because they hope for a settlement which often happens to save the expense of going to court.

[FlyingScot]

So many ills in our US society could be quickly cured if the legal system was changed by requiring the plaintiff to have to pay the legal costs of the defendant should they lose their case ...but this is a pipe dream because there would be need for half as many lawyers and residents of Washington DC would never vote for such a sensible but self crippling move.



I'm sure this would reduce frivolous lawsuits, but it would also reduce appropriate lawsuits--it would make it impossible for an individual or small corporation to ever sue a large corporation. The large corporation would simply run up a few million dollars in expenses (chump change for them, but big money for the plaintiff), then tell the small plaintiff they could settle for nothing or take their chances in court.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Got to wonder who is behind this lawsuit and paying the lawyers. Certainly doesn't make sense for the camp to be footing the bill.

[chaseisland]

You don't suppose that Belknap might have some lawyers as alumni who know the meaning of "pro bono".

[fatlazyless]

For those unfamiliar with Farm Island: It is a 20 1/2-acre Lake Winnipesaukee island in Tuftonboro, NH with heavily treed, flat land with the mostly pine trees growing untouched since about 1904. 7 1/2-acres are already owned by nearby https://campbelknap.org, and the remaining 12-acres is proposed to get divided by an owner/developer into ten single, waterfront house lots, each with a house, dock, septic system and electric power.

Farm Island currently has one 100-plus year old cottage in its center with an outhouse and no electricity anywhere on the island.

YMCA Camp Belknap - Giving Overview .... www.campbelknap.org/giving/

Support Belknap - Do your share

You can donate online.

Once Farm island gets developed, it will be built up with homes, docks, septic systems, accessory out buildings and will never again be an undeveloped, wooded island

[FlyingScot]

For those unfamiliar with Farm Island: It is a 20 1/2-acre Lake Winnipesaukee island in Tuftonboro, NH with heavily treed, flat land with the mostly pine trees growing untouched since about 1904. 7 1/2-acres are already owned by nearby https://campbelknap.org, and the remaining 12-acres is proposed to get divided by an owner/developer into ten single, waterfront house lots, each with a house, dock, septic system and electric power.

Farm Island currently has one 100-plus year old cottage in its center with an outhouse and no electricity anywhere on the island.

YMCA Camp Belknap - Giving Overview .... www.campbelknap.org/giving/

Support Belknap - Do your share

You can donate online.

Once Farm island gets developed, it will be built up with homes, docks, septic systems, accessory out buildings and will never again be an undeveloped, wooded island

Thanks, FLL--I sent in my donation. Regardless of how one feels about Farm Island, Belknap enables hundreds of kids each year to enjoy the lake in a low-impact way. We should all help them

[Randy Owen]

Hello Neighbor,

I am writing to share my concerns of the expansion of Camp Belknap. Please be advised that Camp Belknap has requested special exception for a commercial use on Farm Island. The camp has been illegally using Farm Island and only with ZBA approval can a commercial use of this type be continued. The meeting is January 8, 2020. It is time to protect your investment and stop the expansion of Camp Belknap.

Recently the NH Fish and Game walked Farm Island to inspect the property. Illegal tent platforms were discovered. An area noted as privacy rock that wreaked of urine. Also noted was one of the best loon nesting sites in northern part of Winnipesaukee was exploited and converted into a landing area used in conjunction for this presently illegal commercial use.

The Camp Belknap requests states that they use a “leave no trace” experience and that counselors and campers handle human waste. This is not the case and a blatant lie. The smell of urine was intense many weeks after the camp had stopped using Farm Island.

Each time Camp Belknap increases its presence, your property value goes down. Each time they purchase a tax earning property and convert it to a non tax earning status, your tax burden increases. Camp Belknap pays no property taxes on any land it owns and acquires.

Farm Island is only an example of the many violations. There are more mainland violations where they exploited residential zoning laws. These illegal buildings and structures too are part of the expansion. Shore-land protection laws on farm and mainland are also ignored and violated.

I ask you to please voice your concern to protect residential land as residential land.

Please see the attached video. This what we have to deal with and they want to expand and exploit us and the lake even further.

https://youtu.be/EAqexY8nC_Q

[Susie Cougar]

It’s a summer camp and it’s been there forever. What’s the problem?

[Randy Owen]

It’s a summer camp and it’s been there forever. What’s the problem?

new illegal use of residential land next to us is our issue. if you own property on the lake would you like a commercial use next to your house?

[Susie Cougar]

But you bought the property knowing there was a camp there.

Way back in the 1950s, my father bought our first camp in Toltec on Moultonborough Neck. It was next to a small boys camp and we always knew that it could be expanded.

That small boys camp is now Acadia campground.

[thinkxingu]

Wait, aren't you the developer trying to build a bunch of houses on the island?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[Susie Cougar]

Yeah, something sure doesn’t sound right!

[SAB1]

I think your post shows your airing dirty laundry on the forum. Hardly believe you could smell urine a month or two after the camp closes. Your posts are always negative against the camp and you sight destruction of loon nesting areas which is exaggerated. The loons have always frequented the side of the island you are trying to develop. How many’s loons do you think will frequent the island when you stick 10 houses there? The camp use of that island is not daily in any event.

[Sundancer320]

He has done this before...throwing everything against the wall and see what sticks.

[TiltonBB]

new illegal use of residential land next to us is our issue. if you own property on the lake would you like a commercial use next to your house?

Joined the Forum 4 months ago. Eight posts, 6 about Farm Island, the majority of the posts are negative.

Have a bit of an agenda?

[Susie Cougar]

What is he trying to make happen? Does he want to close the entire camp down because it’s a nuisance for him?

[ishoot308]

Everyone, please see post #72 to see what and who you are dealing with here...

[Descant]

Until it is posted, Farm Island is open land under NH statutes. I would encourage everybody who has access to go pee on the non-Belknap side of the island. Perhaps on a coordinated date in May? Would that side of the island make a nice rafting area?

[ursa minor]

Corruption at Camp Belknap! Parents Beware!

Camp Belknap has illegally built two structures on Farm Island and one on the mainland in Tuftonboro. All are in violation. The town has found numerous other violations. Farm Island is zoned Residential. Property owners at the hearing provided audio and video displaying the illegal and deliberate violation of law. Zero respect for abuttors and what young people should learn. In a previous town meeting they even persuaded an innocent young teenage camper to speak of how he enjoyed the opportunity were the camp directed him on residential property breaking the NH law.

Camp Belknap also has violated New Hampshire Shore-land Protection laws as well. Seth Kassells directed the use a landing area for sail and paddle boats in one of NH prime Loon Nesting areas. For gain Camp Belknap also engaged in a conservation easement. With this easement they specified no power boats would go to Farm Island. Power boats do frequent Farm Island.

Young people should not be exposed to this corruption and exploitation of State law with zero respect for residential abbutors. Parents need to be vigilant. This camps alleged alignment with Christianity
and the YMCA is disgusting. Parents choose your children's future first!


For reference, this was the first post on the subject by Mr. Owen back in September.

[Winilyme]

If the eventual fate of Farm Island is ten residential lots, then hopefully it isn't Randy Owen that develops them. Based on his posts and 130+ others here, he doesn't seem to be the sharpest tack in the box and I'm sensing he isn't one to be trusted. I'm thinking future headaches are in store for those that must deal with him - including eventual homeowners that discover he sold them a bill-of-goods.

He should be trying to partner with the camp instead of vilifying them. He should be asking this forum for suggestions rather than pushing his own agenda. Most of all, he should be showing empathy for the opinions of others. Anything else comes across as uncaring, vengeful and opportunistic.

[FlyingScot]

I watched Mr Owens's video, and I have a new level of understanding. Dozens of children laughing, paddling, sailing. Oh the horror of it all!

[thinkxingu]

In October, the subdivision was approved. Since, the YMCA/Camp Belknap has opened a lawsuit. Is Owens' post a reflection of that?

I mean, given the Mr. Owen's diplomatic posts and stellar business history, it appears he's the perfect person to be spearheading this development at the expense of a youth, i.e. freeloaders, camp.15543

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[The Real BigGuy]

Sounds like someone who would like to force the camp off of its portion of the island so he can acquire it to preserve it by building more homes on that portion. Like a snake, he should just crawl back in his hole.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[Sundancer320]

This a tactic to turn the public against the camp. Slander them as they have no way to rebuttal on this forum and the Facebook page he is using as well.

[Randy Owen]

thank you all for your input. The mission is only to follow local and state law. Farming is allowed. Commercial use is not.

For financial benefits the camp entered into a conservation easement. This easement specifically stated that the cannot build a structure like this. It also says the won't bring power boats to the property. They do bring power boats to their portion Farm Island violating there own easement. They do not properly dispose of human waste and say they do. I only want the laws followed. Please understand.

The records should be understood. The Town has approved the subdivision, but camp Belknap has sued the town and appealed the towns decision. I am buying Farm Island without the subdivision finalized but with the ability to restore the six bedroom cottage (and i will preserve the 1906 status). In the future a structure will be built closer to the water as the 1906 structure is 600 feet from the water. I will be tapping trees for maple syrup and possibly growing Christmas trees.

I have three children. They and their friends will enjoy Farm Island no matter what Camp Belknap tries next. I may sell one lot to only offset the exorbitant costs triggered by Seth Kassels. Other than that the rest is up to my children.

Thank you all for your input and information.

[TheTimeTraveler]

thank you all for your input. The mission is only to follow local and state law. Farming is allowed. Commercial use is not.

For financial benefits the camp entered into a conservation easement. This easement specifically stated that the cannot build a structure like this. It also says the won't bring power boats to the property. They do bring power boats to their portion Farm Island violating there own easement. They do not properly dispose of human waste and say they do. I only want the laws followed. Please understand.

The records should be understood. The Town has approved the subdivision, but camp Belknap has sued the town and appealed the towns decision. I am buying Farm Island without the subdivision finalized but with the ability to restore the six bedroom cottage (and i will preserve the 1906 status). In the future a structure will be built closer to the water as the 1906 structure is 600 feet from the water. I will be tapping trees for maple syrup and possibly growing Christmas trees.

I have three children. They and their friends will enjoy Farm Island no matter what Camp Belknap tries next. I may sell one lot to only offset the exorbitant costs triggered by Seth Kassels. Other than that the rest is up to my children.

Thank you all for your input and information.

If what you say is true, then I would think you would bring your observations to the Town and Zoning Officials. To me they would be the best source to enforce Board of Health and Structural questions and issues.

[fatlazyless]

....... and, here's the crystal ball look ahead in the future to Farm Island on Lake Winnipesaukee in the beautiful small NH town of Tuftonboro.

On Tuesday, July 23, 2024, Farm Island's entire 20.5 acres are looking very much the same, all totally treed in with old, tall pine trees growing across the entire island as it does today in January, 2020.

That one hundred year old, 2-bedroom cottage has been removed and a 15'x40' open-on-one-side, lean-to, camping structure similar to a garage or utilty shed has been built in the same spot along with an appropriate toilet in a separate outer shed. Five small tent platforms are in place, spread around the island at choice spots.

And, that's it ..... that's what's what with Farm Island in 2024 ... a central camp-out lean-to with a camp fire out front ..... some tent platforms .... a toilet ..... a hand operated, pitcher pump ..... and the all-natural Farm Island ..... and this is all there is ..... in 2024!

You have taken a peek here into Farm Island's future ..... and that's the way it's gonna be.

And, oh yeah, the entire island belongs to YMCA Camp Belknap which uses it for canoes, kayaks, camping, and sailing. .... :patriot:

[Wifi-1]

thank you all for your input. The mission is only to follow local and state law. Farming is allowed. Commercial use is not.

For financial benefits the camp entered into a conservation easement. This easement specifically stated that the cannot build a structure like this. It also says the won't bring power boats to the property. They do bring power boats to their portion Farm Island violating there own easement. They do not properly dispose of human waste and say they do. I only want the laws followed. Please understand.

The records should be understood. The Town has approved the subdivision, but camp Belknap has sued the town and appealed the towns decision. I am buying Farm Island without the subdivision finalized but with the ability to restore the six bedroom cottage (and i will preserve the 1906 status). In the future a structure will be built closer to the water as the 1906 structure is 600 feet from the water. I will be tapping trees for maple syrup and possibly growing Christmas trees.

I have three children. They and their friends will enjoy Farm Island no matter what Camp Belknap tries next. I may sell one lot to only offset the exorbitant costs triggered by Seth Kassels. Other than that the rest is up to my children.

Thank you all for your input and information.

Having this notarized and added to your deed as a condition of ownership might help too :)

[Randy Owen]

15544

how it was 1906. I have many more photos to help with the restoration

[Randy Owen]

15545


how is was was with no trees 1906

[tis]

Wow, those are amazing pictures! NH did not have many trees in those days.

[TheTimeTraveler]

Wow, those are amazing pictures! NH did not have many trees in those days.

I am not sure about New Hampshire, but I have been told that Vermont in 1900 was 95% free of trees and 5% wooded.

Today, Vermont is 95% trees and 5% cleared.

This may have been true in many of the New England States.

In any event, that 1906 photograph is very interesting!

[Susie Cougar]

Wow, those are amazing pictures! NH did not have many trees in those days.

You can see all of the trees in the background. It looks like they cut down around the house. It also looks like it’s been burned to me.

[Randy Owen]

I just read that Camp Belknap has started a lawsuit agains the development of Farm Island.

don't be fooled. the lawsuit is not against farm island but the town of Tuftonboro. The town has already spent 20k of tax payers money on the Camp Belknap mess and now this appeal in superior court. Keep in mind all while Camp Belknap pays zero to the town for property tax and asks the rest of the tax payers to pay for it's own
legal shenanigans.

[Randy Owen]

You can see all of the trees in the background. It looks like they cut down around the house. It also looks like it’s been burned to me.

there was no fire. prior to the Winchester family purchase in 1905 Farm Island was a goat farm. the original goat farmers house still exists and in fact is on Union Wharf road where it was moved to sometime prior to 1905. the farmers house foundation remains and as yet undisturbed. it is quite large and was likely used for ice storage too.

the house in the photos was built as it is in 1906. unlike many island homes that were built and added onto a dozen times this six bedroom cottage was designed by an architect and built by a professional home builder. this is what has peaked our mission to save the house. next to the house you will see a smaller building. this building is were they kept the ice packed in saw dust. the original ice chest remains in the cottage.

the Tuftonboro Historical Society has express extensive interest in Farm Island, the house and my mission to save it. a Farm Island volume will be added to the Historical Society

[tis]

I am not sure about New Hampshire, but I have been told that Vermont in 1900 was 95% free of trees and 5% wooded.

Today, Vermont is 95% trees and 5% cleared.

This may have been true in many of the New England States.

In any event, that 1906 photograph is very interesting!

I believe that was true of NH too. I don't know if you are familiar with Wolfeboro but you could see the lake from most of the roads which you can't do now. Like North and South Main St. I can even remember when you could see some of the lake from the Inn on Main is now-used to be the Lakeview Inn.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

don't be fooled. the lawsuit is not against farm island but the town of Tuftonboro. The town has already spent 20k of tax payers money on the Camp Belknap mess and now this appeal in superior court. Keep in mind all while Camp Belknap pays zero to the town for property tax and asks the rest of the tax payers to pay for it's own
legal shenanigans.

In some towns, camps and other tax exempt entities make payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT). I know that is the case in Moultonborough, and would think that would also apply in Tuftonboro. Does anyone know whether this is so?

[Don McWhirter]

https://youtu.be/AcM9Eh4r-90

[Sue Doe-Nym]

https://youtu.be/AcM9Eh4r-90

I am just curious......is Mr. McWhirter going to be the builder involved in this subdivision? If so, his motivation in promoting this video is obvious.
What ordinances or zoning regulations are being broken by the camp?

[fatlazyless]

Looking at the waterfront/lake footage, what you see is the campers from YMCA Camp Belknap paddling along in their individual, small-10' length, red solo kayaks propelled by two bladed kayak paddles, with maybe 10 sailboats moving along in the background.

What's not present is even a single motor boat, and comparing a motor boat moving along at 20-45-mph to a group of YMCA Camp Belknap kayak paddlers is like comparing a busy, noisy interstate highway to a quiet hiking path.

Just close your eyes and you can easily imagine the difference.

With no motorboats present, the kayaks quietly paddle along at maybe 4-mph with just the sound of paddled water and camper's voices as opposed to a single loud, noisy boat engine.

Is a wonderful camp waterfront sight to see, campers paddling and sailing along, enjoying the lake with no nitwit, loser motor boater crapp'n up the local waters with his go fast-be loud motor boat.

[FlyingScot]

thank you all for your input. The mission is only to follow local and state law. Farming is allowed. Commercial use is not.

For financial benefits the camp entered into a conservation easement. This easement specifically stated that the cannot build a structure like this. It also says the won't bring power boats to the property. They do bring power boats to their portion Farm Island violating there own easement. They do not properly dispose of human waste and say they do. I only want the laws followed. Please understand.

The records should be understood. The Town has approved the subdivision, but camp Belknap has sued the town and appealed the towns decision. I am buying Farm Island without the subdivision finalized but with the ability to restore the six bedroom cottage (and i will preserve the 1906 status). In the future a structure will be built closer to the water as the 1906 structure is 600 feet from the water. I will be tapping trees for maple syrup and possibly growing Christmas trees.

I have three children. They and their friends will enjoy Farm Island no matter what Camp Belknap tries next. I may sell one lot to only offset the exorbitant costs triggered by Seth Kassels. Other than that the rest is up to my children.

Thank you all for your input and information.

So you're no longer interested in a 10-unit development? Or is it your kids who are interested in the 10-unit development? If neither you nor your kids wants to develop beyond what you've described in this post, please let us know.

BTW, you might be able to donate or sell the development rights to a group such as Lakes Region Conservation Trust. In turn, they might help you enforce the environmental rules you described earlier.

[TheTimeTraveler]

https://youtu.be/AcM9Eh4r-90

Don; This video was previously posted yesterday on Friday 1/3/2020 in post #123.

[SAB1]

In today’s world it’s not surprising someone made that video. Everyone has a complaint to air in this world now. But really, we’re going to whine about kids kayaking, playing in the woods, clogging the lake with sailboats or the inconvenience every other Saturday when cars line Chase Point road ( in a neat orderly fashion i’ll Add) to pick up kids and new campers arrive. Would you rather these kids sat at home playing video games all day, hung out at the town park and smoked weed or broke into homes to rip you off and sell your stuff to feed drug habits... geeze.

[The Real BigGuy]

I hope no one is buying this “I only want to historically preserve the island” shtick. My dad once told me, “A leopard can’t change its spots.” Unfortunately, Mr O can’t change what he is either.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[thinkxingu]

I hope no one is buying this “I only want to historically preserve the island” shtick. My dad once told me, “A leopard can’t change its spots.” Unfortunately, Mr O can’t change what he is either.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)There does seem to be a sizeable gap between historic preservation and 10/12 lot subdivisions...

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[MikeF-NH]

For what its worth...I have been following this thread and have no affiliation with the camp or Mr Owen so this is pure observation....
1.) I have no doubts that Mr Owen has a checkered past with individuals on this board OR even with commercial interests around the lake. I am not so naive as to assume that developers have anything other than their own financial interests in mind.
2.) I have done some rudimentary research including reviewing the Camp Belknap website and I see nothing indicating that the camp has a legal or other claim to Farm Island. From my vantage..they appear to be squatting there.
3.) My boys enjoyed years at summer camps and I 100% support what these camps do for our boys...HOWEVER...just because of the opportunities these camps give to boys does not give them the right to squat on any land (imagine these boys playing softball in your front yard and your neighbors saying "you're a jerk for not letting them have good clean fun").
4.) these camps are about money also (or they wouldn't be in business) so lets not associate them with charity.
5.) this should be a legal question and not about how an unpopular person here benefits. The town should be deciding if the camp has a legal right to be there and if not...they should be held accountable to return the land to its pristine state and not use the property in the future. If they are legally using the property then Mr Owen should relax and watch the boys enjoying the resource.
6.) it is irrelevant if Mr Owen wants the land for his family or to subdivide as long as he has the legal right to subdivide.

All the final decisions should be made by the town and zoning board and perhaps the court systems. I guess my point is "boys should be allowed to have a good time" is not reason to allow for trespass or for any organization to be allowed to squat on private property. Them doing this previously is not license for them to continue.....all IMHO of course. I have the advantage in this situation of not knowing Mr Owen or having any interest in property on that part of the lake so this is just unbiased observation. I will go back to minding my own business.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

In today’s world it’s not surprising someone made that video. Everyone has a complaint to air in this world now. But really, we’re going to whine about kids kayaking, playing in the woods, clogging the lake with sailboats or the inconvenience every other Saturday when cars line Chase Point road ( in a neat orderly fashion i’ll Add) to pick up kids and new campers arrive. Would you rather these kids sat at home playing video games all day, hung out at the town park and smoked weed or broke into homes to rip you off and sell your stuff to feed drug habits... geeze.

I couldn’t agree more with your assessment. Over the years, so many camps around the lake have closed, most in favor of real estate development. We still have Tecumseh and Robindel in Moultonborough, and it’s great seeing the kids out there having a wonderful time on the water. It’s too bad that Camp Belknap can’t have Farm Island in its entirety!

[thinkxingu]

For what its worth...I have been following this thread and have no affiliation with the camp or Mr Owen so this is pure observation....
1.) I have no doubts that Mr Owen has a checkered past with individuals on this board OR even with commercial interests around the lake. I am not so naive as to assume that developers have anything other than their own financial interests in mind.
2.) I have done some rudimentary research including reviewing the Camp Belknap website and I see nothing indicating that the camp has a legal or other claim to Farm Island. From my vantage..they appear to be squatting there.
3.) My boys enjoyed years at summer camps and I 100% support what these camps do for our boys...HOWEVER...just because of the opportunities these camps give to boys does not give them the right to squat on any land (imagine these boys playing softball in your front yard and your neighbors saying "you're a jerk for not letting them have good clean fun").
4.) these camps are about money also (or they wouldn't be in business) so lets not associate them with charity.
5.) this should be a legal question and not about how an unpopular person here benefits. The town should be deciding if the camp has a legal right to be there and if not...they should be held accountable to return the land to its pristine state and not use the property in the future. If they are legally using the property then Mr Owen should relax and watch the boys enjoying the resource.
6.) it is irrelevant if Mr Owen wants the land for his family or to subdivide as long as he has the legal right to subdivide.

All the final decisions should be made by the town and zoning board and perhaps the court systems. I guess my point is "boys should be allowed to have a good time" is not reason to allow for trespass or for any organization to be allowed to squat on private property. Them doing this previously is not license for them to continue.....all IMHO of course. I have the advantage in this situation of not knowing Mr Owen or having any interest in property on that part of the lake so this is just unbiased observation. I will go back to minding my own business.I thought I'd read that the Y had bought portions of Farm Island some years back? (And then offered to buy the rest at the same time as Owen?)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[FlyingScot]

For what its worth...I have been following this thread and have no affiliation with the camp or Mr Owen so this is pure observation....
1.) I have no doubts that Mr Owen has a checkered past with individuals on this board OR even with commercial interests around the lake. I am not so naive as to assume that developers have anything other than their own financial interests in mind.
2.) I have done some rudimentary research including reviewing the Camp Belknap website and I see nothing indicating that the camp has a legal or other claim to Farm Island. From my vantage..they appear to be squatting there.
3.) My boys enjoyed years at summer camps and I 100% support what these camps do for our boys...HOWEVER...just because of the opportunities these camps give to boys does not give them the right to squat on any land (imagine these boys playing softball in your front yard and your neighbors saying "you're a jerk for not letting them have good clean fun").
4.) these camps are about money also (or they wouldn't be in business) so lets not associate them with charity.
5.) this should be a legal question and not about how an unpopular person here benefits. The town should be deciding if the camp has a legal right to be there and if not...they should be held accountable to return the land to its pristine state and not use the property in the future. If they are legally using the property then Mr Owen should relax and watch the boys enjoying the resource.
6.) it is irrelevant if Mr Owen wants the land for his family or to subdivide as long as he has the legal right to subdivide.

All the final decisions should be made by the town and zoning board and perhaps the court systems. I guess my point is "boys should be allowed to have a good time" is not reason to allow for trespass or for any organization to be allowed to squat on private property. Them doing this previously is not license for them to continue.....all IMHO of course. I have the advantage in this situation of not knowing Mr Owen or having any interest in property on that part of the lake so this is just unbiased observation. I will go back to minding my own business.

The YMCA is not a business, it's a nonprofit dedicated to helping kids/communities. They're lucky if they can just break even each year.

We regularly debate ethical, right vs wrong issues as well as legal points on this forum.

The courts will resolve the legal issues. Until then, it's pretty tough to sympathize with Mr Owens at the expense of the kids.

[MAXUM]

Not for nothing but it's a bit hard to sympathize with the YMCA when they are filing a lawsuit with the state over their "perceived" opinion that the town planning board did not come to a conclusion to their liking either. Although not a lawyer from a pure common sense perspective looking at their argument I don't see a change in outcome far the proposed subdivision of the island. It would be interesting to know exactly what the YMCA is trying to really achieve here as it is clear to me their intent is to use every measure available to block what they don't want when they had fair opportunity to purchase this property. Same can be said of the neighbors and conservation groups that are now complaining about it.

Far as the complaints about the noise generated from camp activities and the kids out there on the lake having a good time, it's just plain in poor taste. For many of these kids this is a chance of a lifetime to have an experience to be at the lake. Shame on anyone who finds this in anyway offensive or better put to "excessive".

Finally IF there is any violations the camp has committed, they should be held to the same standard as any other property owner. However I get the feeling most if not all of this is grossly exaggerated for the purposes of trying to creating a poor public perception of the camp. There are plenty of minor infractions that 99% of property owners could probably be sited for and I have certainly see a fair number of "liberties" taken that at best are pushing the boundaries of what is "legal" by the strictest adherence to the letter of the law. I'm certainly not going to make a public spectacle because my neighbor moved a rock without proper permits in place.

I find the entire situation sad as it leaves in impression of two immature children fighting and calling one another names. Frankly both parties should knock it off and find a way to be good neighbors because in the end like it or not they are neighbors.

[SAB1]

I thought I'd read that the Y had bought portions of Farm Island some years back? (And then offered to buy the rest at the same time as Owen?)

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

Correct. The Camp did buy approx. 1/3 of the island a few years ago. They also did build a small building or lean to there where the kids sometimes canoe or kayak to. They sometimes use a Lund rowboat with small outboard on it and anchor it next to the island I assume to move the kids gear back and forth.

[JEEPONLY]

The YMCA is not a business, it's a nonprofit dedicated to helping kids/communities. They're lucky if they can just break even each year.

We regularly debate ethical, right vs wrong issues as well as legal points on this forum.

The courts will resolve the legal issues. Until then, it's pretty tough to sympathize with Mr Owens at the expense of the kids.

Seems to me you're using the court of public opinion here.

[JEEPONLY]

Far as the complaints about the noise generated from camp activities and the kids out there on the lake having a good time, it's just plain in poor taste. For many of these kids this is a chance of a lifetime to have an experience to be at the lake. Shame on anyone who finds this in anyway offensive or better put to "excessive".

Bravo!....

[Roy_Hobbs]

Correct. The Camp did buy approx. 1/3 of the island a few years ago. They also did build a small building or lean to there where the kids sometimes canoe or kayak to. They sometimes use a Lund rowboat with small outboard on it and anchor it next to the island I assume to move the kids gear back and forth.

There is a small wooden platform the kids sleep on (no walls or anything) To my knowledge that’s the extent of it.

[Descant]

The zoning ordinances in most towns set a square foot limit on what is a structure. Less than that number does not require a permit and does not have to meet setbacks. Presumably, this "sleeping platform" is not a structure.

[SAB1]

There is a small wooden platform the kids sleep on (no walls or anything) To my knowledge that’s the extent of it.

It’s definitely more than that.

[Roy_Hobbs]

It’s definitely more than that.

For a portion of the summer there is a tarp thing that is hung over it and down the sides to provide cover for the kids that sleep on the platform but it isn’t permanent. I believe the platform itself is the only fixed item.

[exlakesregioner]

Looks to me like Mr Owens would like the camp off the island so he can develop it all, I doubt he will ever stop until that happens.

[Randy Owen]

I hope this helps:
The mission is only to follow local and state law. Farming is allowed. Commercial use is not.
For financial benefits the camp entered into a conservation easement. This easement specifically states what they can and cannot do. They violate their
own easement. They do not properly dispose of human waste and say they do. I only want the laws followed. Please understand.
The records should be understood. The Town has approved the subdivision, but camp Belknap has sued the town and appealed the towns decision. I am buying Farm Island without the subdivision finalized but with the ability to restore the six bedroom cottage (and i will preserve the 1906 status). In the future a structure will be built closer to the water as the 1906 structure is 600 feet from the water. I will be tapping trees for maple syrup, bee keeping and possibly growing Christmas trees.
I have three children. They and their friends will enjoy Farm Island no matter what Camp Belknap tries next. I may sell one lot to only offset the exorbitant costs triggered by Seth Kassels. Other than that the rest is up to my children.
Thank you all for your input and information.

[The Real BigGuy]

Will you put that in the deed?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[BoatHouse]

Will you put that in the deed?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

What exactly do you want put in the deed? That the rest is up to his children?

Seems the campers may be going number 1 or number 2 while they spend time on Farm Island and are not disposing of it properly. Maybe the camp should put a port -o- potty on the island. Or impose a carry in, carry out requirement for any campers that spend time there.

As for the video - I think it is absolutely ridiculous that someone would complain about the scenes of people enjoying themselves on the lake.

So much for "Live free or Die". Seems more like - "Live free, but not near Me"

[Mr. V]

So much for "Live free or Die". Seems more like - "Live free, but not near Me"

The entirety of John Stark's now famous toast is "Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils."

[Outdoorsman]

The Camp Belknap requests states that they use a “leave no trace” experience and that counselors and campers handle human waste. This is not the case and a blatant lie. The smell of urine was intense many weeks after the camp had stopped using Farm Island.


The only 'smell'..... many weeks after the camp had stopped.... Hopefully is KARMA!

[samosetguy]

I didn't care about this issue until someone started attacking Camp Belknap. I'm 100% in support of Camp Belknap's interests. We need to preserve ways for more people (especially those less fortunate) to enjoy the lake.

[Susie Cougar]

Wasn’t there a meeting the other night? Does anyone know what happened?

[Pineedles]

I didn't care about this issue until someone started attacking Camp Belknap. I'm 100% in support of Camp Belknap's interests. We need to preserve ways for more people (especially those less fortunate) to enjoy the lake.

Although I support Camp Belknap in this and as contributor, please don’t confuse the Camp with other camps that host less privileged kids from inner cities for free. When I attended in the early 60s, my parents paid and I assume it is that way still today.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[FlyingScot]

Although I support Camp Belknap in this and as contributor, please don’t confuse the Camp with other camps that host less privileged kids from inner cities for free. When I attended in the early 60s, my parents paid and I assume it is that way still today.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

Fair point--but one other difference from the 60s is that skyrocketing waterfront values make it more difficult for most families who aren't local to enjoy the lake. Belknap is making it possible for hundreds of kids each Summer to have the kind of access that is otherwise only available to those lucky enough to have waterfront homes.

[Roy_Hobbs]

Although I support Camp Belknap in this and as contributor, please don’t confuse the Camp with other camps that host less privileged kids from inner cities for free. When I attended in the early 60s, my parents paid and I assume it is that way still today.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

While there are obviously plenty of paying campers, according to their last annual report they provided a bit over $200k in scholarship assistance in 2018 for campers who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford to attend.

[Pineedles]

While there are obviously plenty of paying campers, according to their last annual report they provided a bit over $200k in scholarship assistance in 2018 for campers who otherwise wouldn’t be able to afford to attend.

Yes, that is true but I believe that this amount is consumed in their two tiered “honor” tuition. Whereby you can select the full or discounted price with no financial document backup required.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[CowTimes]

Does anyone know where things stand today on the sale of Farm Island? It appears to still be listed as sale pending. I had thought the prospective purchaser had posted on this forum that he was going forward with the sale irrespective of what happens with the appeal of the planning board decision, which I took to mean he was waiving that development contingency in the sale. But I can’t find that post anymore (deleted? also possible that my memory is off). If that were true, I would have thought it would have closed already. It is also odd that it was publicly disclosed that the buyer’s contingency was to have expired months ago (the allegation was that Camp Belknap’s challenges at the planning board were to just delay the transaction past the expiration of the contingency so the Camp could swoop in and purchase the property).

[FlyingScot]

Does anyone know where things stand today on the sale of Farm Island? It appears to still be listed as sale pending. I had thought the prospective purchaser had posted on this forum that he was going forward with the sale irrespective of what happens with the appeal of the planning board decision, which I took to mean he was waiving that development contingency in the sale. But I can’t find that post anymore (deleted? also possible that my memory is off). If that were true, I would have thought it would have closed already. It is also odd that it was publicly disclosed that the buyer’s contingency was to have expired months ago (the allegation was that Camp Belknap’s challenges at the planning board were to just delay the transaction past the expiration of the contingency so the Camp could swoop in and purchase the property).

Based on suggestions from one of you (thanks!), I made a donation to Belknap, and just got a thank-you note saying that they were still fighting. Separately, I did not find the Forum posts from the prospective buyer to be credible, so I would take his comments with a grain or two of salt

[codeman671]

I found this on craigslist today by chance:

https://nh.craigslist.org/reo/d/manchester-lake-winnipesaukees-farm/7042355886.html

[Descant]

I found this on craigslist today by chance:

https://nh.craigslist.org/reo/d/manchester-lake-winnipesaukees-farm/7042355886.html

1.1 acres? 405 frontage means about 100 feet deep. The first 50 feet of frontage is un-buildable. Then maybe 10-12 feet on the front for a deck or porch. There must be a setback from the back lot line. 20 feet? That doesn't give you much flexibility in locating a structure, especially if the septic is already there (or just designed) for a 4 BR house. What am I missing?

[codeman671]

1.1 acres? 405 frontage means about 100 feet deep. The first 50 feet of frontage is un-buildable. Then maybe 10-12 feet on the front for a deck or porch. There must be a setback from the back lot line. 20 feet? That doesn't give you much flexibility in locating a structure, especially if the septic is already there (or just designed) for a 4 BR house. What am I missing?

I was wondering if Randy Owen was trying to broker off a piece, which appears to be the case. The boathouse and seasonal dock were mentioned in the Islandre ad, but it was 13.3 acres originally.

It is his cell# listed in the ad.

[fatlazyless]

"Electric service from the mainland is already on the island."

Hey Randy, is this really true right now, or is it just a sales pitch type of a creative line that can get done sometime, later on ..... you know what I mean?

[The Real BigGuy]

Was looking at island RE property prices and saw Farm Island 13.3 acres for sale for about 1.5m on “Lake & Island Properties” site. Has the deal w/Owen fallen through?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

[codeman671]

Was looking at island RE property prices and saw Farm Island 13.3 acres for sale for about 1.5m on “Lake & Island Properties” site. Has the deal w/Owen fallen through?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=92687)

It has been listed as pending for ages now....Not sure what is really going on behind the scenes.

[TiltonBB]

It is possible that the Purchase and Sale agreement has a contingency in it. He could be waiting for certain approvals before closing to make sure he can do what he wants with the property.

No info. Just a guess!

[chasedawg]

It is possible that the Purchase and Sale agreement has a contingency in it. He could be waiting for certain approvals before closing to make sure he can do what he wants with the property.

No info. Just a guess!

Good guess. Closing won't happen until after the courts ruling. Court date is sometime in March.

[CowTimes]

Good guess. Closing won't happen until after the courts ruling. Court date is sometime in March.

There has to be something else going on here. The buyer publicly disclosed at a planning board meeting that the contingency for the regulatory approvals was to have expired a month or two ago. Sellers will typically have expiration dates for the contingency so they are not beholden to the buyer if things, as here, get held up for whatever reason. I thought Camp Belknap would have been under contract already since they were supposedly ready and willing to offer a higher price once the current deal’s contingency period expired.

[Descant]

There has to be something else going on here. The buyer publicly disclosed at a planning board meeting that the contingency for the regulatory approvals was to have expired a month or two ago. Sellers will typically have expiration dates for the contingency so they are not beholden to the buyer if things, as here, get held up for whatever reason. I thought Camp Belknap would have been under contract already since they were supposedly ready and willing to offer a higher price once the current deal’s contingency period expired.

That may have been true when it was said at the PB meeting. I can't think of a reason why an extension couldn't have been negotiated. Or some other deal. Not unusual.

[chasedawg]

There has to be something else going on here. The buyer publicly disclosed at a planning board meeting that the contingency for the regulatory approvals was to have expired a month or two ago. Sellers will typically have expiration dates for the contingency so they are not beholden to the buyer if things, as here, get held up for whatever reason. I thought Camp Belknap would have been under contract already since they were supposedly ready and willing to offer a higher price once the current deal’s contingency period expired.

The Owners Winchesters have extended the contract at least six times. They should have closed back last Summer. They could have had their money back then. The reason: They do not want to sell Farm Island to the Camp. Yes they did back in 2010 but not again.

[CowTimes]

The reason: They do not want to sell Farm Island to the Camp. Yes they did back in 2010 but not again.

Thanks - that would be an explanation. Would have thought they would have taken the highest and fastest deal, but they must have other considerations.

[Descant]

Ahh. So Camp Belknap needs a godfathjer to buy and resell to them. Why is this all taking so long? They must have some alumni (group) capable of such a transaction. Maybe this is going on and we just don't see it?

[tis]

Ahh. So Camp Belknap needs a godfathjer to buy and resell to them. Why is this all taking so long? They must have some alumni (group) capable of such a transaction. Maybe this is going on and we just don't see it?

I am actually surprised it will go to court in March. Court cases can take years.

[chaseisland]

Can you spell continuance?

[codeman671]

Ahh. So Camp Belknap needs a godfathjer to buy and resell to them. Why is this all taking so long? They must have some alumni (group) capable of such a transaction. Maybe this is going on and we just don't see it?

There must be some ugly history in the background between the owners and Camp Belknap? I can't imagine the sellers wanting the property to go to someone that would want to potentially develop it vs a children's camp, but clearly that's the case.

[Wifi-1]

Wow, I was under the impression that if someone offered full price, cash, with no contingencies, there was no way to refuse the offer.

[TiltonBB]

Wow, I was under the impression that if someone offered full price, cash, with no contingencies, there was no way to refuse the offer.

Sellers aren’t obligated to accept any offer on their property—no matter how much money it’s for

It's perfectly legal for the seller to reject a full-price offer, or indeed any offer (unless the reasons are discriminatory). For example, sellers in a hot market who are expecting to sell for over asking will likely counter a full-price offer—even one without contingencies.

[Major]

Sellers aren’t obligated to accept any offer on their property—no matter how much money it’s for

It's perfectly legal for the seller to reject a full-price offer, or indeed any offer (unless the reasons are discriminatory). For example, sellers in a hot market who are expecting to sell for over asking will likely counter a full-price offer—even one without contingencies.

That's true, but the seller may be obligated to pay his agent a commission fee based on the listing agreement. Presenting a buyer that is willing to pay the listed amount with no conditions may trigger a commission payment clause.

[TheTimeTraveler]

That's true, but the seller may be obligated to pay his agent a commission fee based on the listing agreement. Presenting a buyer that is willing to pay the listed amount with no conditions may trigger a commission payment clause.

This is true in New Hampshire and I believe 48 other states. I think Massachusetts is the only state where a commission is due only when the transaction is 100% complete.

[chasedawg]

There must be some ugly history in the background between the owners and Camp Belknap? I can't imagine the sellers wanting the property to go to someone that would want to potentially develop it vs a children's camp, but clearly that's the case.

Yes there was some ugly history. I got a text from Randy last night. He and Cindy came to an agreement with the Winchester's. They closed on the deal. Randy and Cindy are now owners of Farm Island.

[tis]

Yes there was some ugly history. I got a text from Randy last night. He and Cindy came to an agreement with the Winchester's. They closed on the deal. Randy and Cindy are now owners of Farm Island.

AH, so they settled out of court. So it is over. Is the plan the same?

[chasedawg]

AH, so they settled out of court. So it is over. Is the plan the same?

I don't think they settled out of court. The appeal/suit is ongoing. It is still scheduled for sometime in March. The original plan is probably on hold until there is a settlement in court. Just my guess.

[tis]

I don't think they settled out of court. The appeal/suit is ongoing. It is still scheduled for sometime in March. The original plan is probably on hold until there is a settlement in court. Just my guess.

Oh ok. Thanks for the info. Why would they go ahead with the sale though with that suit going on?

[codeman671]

It looks like Farm Island did close at $1.2mil.

[Randy Owen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc1ndCtgypE

[Randy Owen]

I just read that Camp Belknap has started a lawsuit agains the development of Farm Island.
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
CARROLL, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
YMCA Camp Belknap, Inc.
v.
Town of Tuftonboro, Tuftonboro Planning Board, and
Farm Island Acres, LLC
212-2019-CV-00209
ORDER
The plaintiff, YMCA Camp Belknap, Inc. (“Camp Belknap”), appeals the October
17, 2019, decision of the Town of Tuftonboro Planning Board (“Board”) conditionally
approving an application for a ten lot residential subdivision1 on Farm Island in
Tuftonboro, submitted by C&R NH Realty Trust, LLC (“C&R”). Camp Belknap’s appeal
of the Board’s approval, pursuant to RSA 677:15, was timely filed. The court granted
Farm Island Acres, LLC (“Farm Island Acres”) intervener status2 and conducted a
hearing on this matter on July 20, 2020. Post hearing Memorandum were submitted
through August and September, 2020. Based on review of the record, arguments of
counsel and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.
The following facts are drawn from the certified record (“C.R.”) and from the
exhibits submitted at the hearing. C&R is a development company whose principals
include Cynthia Pratt and Randy Owen. The appellant, Camp Belknap, owns and
operates a summer camp on various properties in Tuftonboro, including a portion of

1 The application was originally for a twelve lot subdivision; the application was amended to comply with
zoning and subdivision regulations to comprise ten lots. (C.R. at 317.)
2 Because the positions of the intervener appear to be aligned with the positions of Tuftonboro and the
Board, they are collectively referred to as “the defendants.”
12/11/2020 9:23 AM
Carroll Superior Court
This is a Service Document For Case: 212-2019-CV-00209
2
Farm Island that abuts the proposed subdivision. Camp Belknap is described in the
certified record (“C.R.”) as having made an offer to purchase the parcel that is the
subject of this appeal. (C.R. at 317, 320.)
On June 27, 2019, C&R applied for a twelve lot subdivision on 13.58 acres on
Farm Island. The property, located in the Island Conservation District, is owned by
David, Donald and John Winchester. The lots have waterfront access to Nineteen Mile
Bay on Lake Winnipesaukee. (C.R. at 1-2.)
Farm Island comprises 20.8 acres (C.R. at 21) and is mostly undeveloped. In the
1950’s, the island was subdivided into two parcels – Camp Belknap purchased a 7.5
acre parcel designated 2-2 and the Winchesters retained the remaining 13.4 acre parcel
designated 2-1.3
(C.R. at 402.) It appears no residential development has been
undertaken since the 1950s and Camp Belknap and the Winchesters currently remain
the only owners of property on the island. The principals of C&R have no prior
development experience. (Petition at 1-2.)
Due to its relatively undeveloped state, there was considerable interest in, and
concern about, the subdivision application. The Board conducted hearings on July 18,
August 1, September 5, October 3, and October 17, 2019. (C.R. at 576.) Many
individuals and organizations filed letters and/or spoke at the public hearings. The
certified record comprises 581 pages.
The Board conditionally approved the subdivision, now limited to ten lots, on
October 17, 2019 by vote of 5 to 0. (C.R. at 540.) The Notice of Decision, dated
October 24, 2019, listed fifteen conditions, including documentation of subdivision

3 There is a minor discrepancy in the acreage of parcel 2-1. The difference is not material to this appeal.
3
approval from the Attorney General,
4 septic installation that encouraged use of Clean
Solutions, Advanced Enviro-Septic or like systems, if reasonable, features to prevent
runoff during construction, adherence to erosion controls “as noted in the State
Permit(s)”, and a maintenance agreement addressing the electrical line serving the
subdivision and releasing Tuftonboro of liability regarding electrical infrastructure. (C.R.
at 576-77.) Camp Belknap brought the instant appeal, seeking judicial review of the
Board’s decision pursuant to RSA 677:15.
LEGAL STANDARD
The court’s review of planning board decisions is limited. Motorsports Holdings,
LLC v. Town of Tamworth, 160 N.H. 95, 99 (2010). “The court may reverse or affirm,
wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review when there is an error
of law or when the court is persuaded by the balance of probabilities, on the evidence
before it, that said decision is unreasonable.” RSA 677:15. The court “must treat the
factual findings of the planning board as prima facie lawful and reasonable and cannot
set aside its decision absent unreasonableness or an identified error of law.”
Motorsports Holdings, LLC, 160 N.H. at 99 (quotation omitted). The appealing party
bears the burden of proving that, by the balance of probabilities, the board’s decision
was unlawful or unreasonable. See id. The court’s role is not to determine whether it
agrees with the decision of the planning board, but to determine whether there was
evidence upon which it could have been reasonably based. Id.
ANALYSIS

4 Because the subdivision has fewer than 15 lots, counsel notified the Board it is exempt from subdivision
approval from the Office of Attorney General, pursuant to RSA 356-A:3,I(a). (C.R. at 580.)
4
In the Petition, Camp Belknap raises nine grounds5 upon which it argues that the
Board’s decision was unlawful or unreasonable: I) Farm Island is a unique, ecologically
sensitive island property that, under the balancing required by the Master Plan, should
not be developed; 2) the Board did not adequately address impacts on water quality; 3)
the Board did not adequately address potential archeological resources on the island; 4)
the Board did not adequately protect critical loon habitat on the island; 5) the Board’s
maintenance agreement regarding the electrical power line running to the island is
insufficient; 6) the Board did not adequately address fire safety and traffic concerns on
Route 109 and in the bay; and 7) the Board did not consider the risks associated with
allowing principals of C&R, who have no real estate experience, to develop such a
sensitive property. (Petition at 1-5.) Camp Belknap also states the Board did not
provide adequate due process as it had prejudged the decision and had “scripted out
the conditions it was intending to impose on the project” before deliberations took place.
(Petition at 5.) According to Camp Belknap, a decision on the subdivision was
premature, the nature and extent of its conditions were in error, and multiple issues
were overlooked or inadequately addressed. (Petition at 5.) The defendants assert that
any issues beyond those set forth in the Petition have been waived. Even if they are
considered, the defendants argue the Board’s decision was neither unlawful nor
unreasonable. They note the five public hearings, consideration of the testimony of all
who made presentations or presented reports, compliance with Tuftonboro’s regulatory
standards and Master Plan, and development of conditions adequate to protect the
island and Nineteen Mile Bay. (See generally Board’s Trial Memorandum; Farm Island

5 The Petition did not raise the issue of the intent to cut, though the issue is addressed in Camp Belknap’s
Memorandum. Because it was not raised in the Petition, the issue is waived.
5
Acres’ Memorandum.) The court considers the parties’ arguments in turn.
1. Unique, ecologically sensitive island property should not be developed
Camp Belknap asserts that while residential development is not prohibited in the
Island Conservation District of Farm Island, the area is so unique that residential
development is improper. This general statement of concern rests on the notion that
island property is sensitive and there is no other island tract in Lake Winnipesaukee of
this size that remains undeveloped. Camp Belknap finds Tuftonboro’s regulations
inadequate, as they “do not address the unique features and concerns of a potential
development on an island.” (Camp Belknap Post Hearing Memorandum, “Camp
Belknap Memorandum”, at 2.) To the extent the regulations do provide guidance, Camp
Belknap argues section 4.22 of the Subdivision Regulations addressing the character of
the land was not appropriately considered and expert opinions concerned about the
development were not properly evaluated. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 7.) Camp
Belknap further alleged in the Petition that the Master Plan’s call to balance the needs
of an applicant and the needs of the community at large would not be served by
allowing the project to proceed. It did not, however, raise this issue in its Memorandum.
The court does not find any provision in Tuftonboro’s Subdivision Regulations,
Zoning Ordinance, or Master Plan that would prohibit this development. Residential
development in the Island Conservation District is clearly authorized. Although Camp
Belknap did not appear to pursue the issue of the Master Plan, in the interest of
completeness the court will address the contention. The Master Plan speaks of
balancing of interests, but as the Supreme Court has noted, a Master Plan provides
guidance only and is not a basis to reject a subdivision or site plan application.
6
Rancourt v. Town of Barnstead, 129 N.H. 45, 49 (1986). Further, to apply a different
balancing test or impose greater regulatory standards on a subdivision because of a
general view that the property is special, even in important ways, is not permissible.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Town of Hanover, 171 N.H. 497, 513-514 (2018). A
board must apply the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision
Regulations and not impose its own personal sensibilities about a project if the
application otherwise complies with the municipality’s governing documents. The court
finds no evidence to conclude subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the
basis the island is unique or especially sensitive.
2. Impacts on water quality of Nineteen Mile Bay
Camp Belknap asserts the Board erred when it refused to seriously consider the
impacts to water quality and rejected requests to await results of a Nineteen Mile Bay
water quality study underway. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 8-13.) Camp Belknap
notes the Lake Winnipesaukee Association (“Association”) found the subdivision would
cause a 1,636% increase in phosphorus loading in the bay which in turn would increase
the growth of algae, damage fish populations and put loons at risk. (C.R. at 46.)
Because this testimony was not refuted, according to Camp Belknap, it must be
accepted. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 8.) Camp Belknap also asserts the
Horizons Engineering (“Horizons”)6 study was legally inadequate because no water
quality testing or monitoring was done. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 6.) Further,
Camp Belknap argues the Board recognized the need for environmentally advanced
septic design but failed to mandate a particular system or type of system. (C.R. at 431-

6 The Board retained Horizons for third party engineering review of the application. (C.R. at 317.)
7
432.)
The defendants argue any claim regarding the adequacy of the Horizons study
was not raised in the Petition and thus is waived. To the extent this claim is considered,
they argue the engineering study adequately considered water quality impacts. (C.R. at
446-451.) As to the phosphorous loading projections, according to the defendants, the
conclusions of the Association were indeed refuted as to whether they were applicable
to this project. The Board questioned the use of mainland conditions in the study,
noting that roads and lawns are heavy contributors to phosphorous loading and are not
a significant feature of this island proposal. According to the defendants, Farm Island
properties are discouraged from having lawns and the lots will not create the same
phosphorous increase seen in mainland subdivisions. Horizons concluded there would
be no significant impact as there were few roads or other impervious surfaces, lawns
that contribute heavily to phosphorus loading, or beaches that disturb the shore land.
(C.R. at 405, 409.) The Board agreed and found no need to await the water quality
analysis being done. (C.R. at 431.) Regarding the septic conditions, the Board did not
mandate a particular system or type of system, as septic design is within the regulatory
purview of the Department of Environmental Services (“DES”). (C.R. at 535.)
The court does not find Camp Belknap to have waived any issues regarding
water quality and the request for the results of the water study. The Petition explicitly
identified water quality and phosphorous loading as issues and characterized the
approval process as premature and incomplete.
On the merits of its argument, however, the court does not find the Board’s
decisions regarding water quality to have been unreasonable. The Board considered
8
and found the phosphorous loading projections not applicable, as they relied on
assumptions appropriate for mainland subdivisions and not island development. (C.R. at
431.) While Camp Belknap is correct that the phosphorous projections submitted by the
Association were not countered with an alternate percentage, it is not accurate to say
the Association data must be accepted. The Board’s clear findings were that the
assumptions were flawed and the results inapplicable to this project. (C.R. at 431.)
Regarding septic systems, DES is responsible for approval of the specific septic design.
The Board encouraged state of the art systems, if approved by DES (C.R. at 535) and
C&R’s engineering consultant appears to have committed to this type of system. (C.R.
at 4.) As a Board member stated, the Board would “be in trouble” if it were to mandate
use of a particular design rather than leaving that to DES. (C.R. at 535.) The Board
was more concerned with potential water quality impacts during the construction phase
and established conditions to minimize those risks. (C.R. at 536.) The court finds no
evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis
it would cause a significant degradation of water quality.
3. Impact on archeological resources
Camp Belknap asserts the Board’s approval was unreasonable and illegal as the
property has historic significance. Despite 19th and early 20th century stone walls, and
potentially pre-contact Native American and post-contact European American
archeological artifacts, the Board failed to perform an archeological review. (Petition at
3.) Camp Belknap retained Victoria Bunker, Inc., to assess Camp Belknap’s portion of
the island. (See generally C.R. at 167-181.) She described how the island had been
connected by a natural land bridge that disappeared when the lake level increased by
9
three to five feet, after the Lakeport dam was built. (C.R. at 170.) Bunker found Farm
Island to be a “valuable resource for archeological sites” (C.R. at 168) and located stone
walls and other late 19th and early 20th century artifacts on the Camp Belknap portion of
the island. She concluded the island could be eligible for placement on the National
Register of Historic Places. (C.R. at 81, 88, 160-161.) Camp Belknap argued that
because its portion of the island had stone walls and might have pre-contact and postcontact artifacts, the Board should have required a similar archeological study of parcel
2-1. Camp Belknap asserts the Board failed to include any of these issues in its
deliberations. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 19.)
The defendants note that nothing in the Bunker report identifies actual
archeological artifacts, but rather that such might potentially be present. (C.R. at 171,
175.) They argue that Camp Belknap cites no local, state, or federal regulations that
address development in areas with potential but not identified archeological resources.
(Farm Island Acres Memorandum at 7.)
The court has reviewed the Bunker report regarding archeological conditions.
Bunker noted no pre-contact archeological finds present on Camp Belknap’s parcel and
only speculated such might be found on parcel 2-1. According to Bunker, “while no precontact Native American archeological sites have been previously recorded for the
island, the island exhibits the potential for North American archeological site occurrence
in both terrestrial and submerged contexts.” Camp Belknap is correct that the Board’s
deliberations did not address the Bunker report. The defendants are correct that Camp
Belknap has cited no provisions in Tuftonboro’s governing documents, state or federal
law that would prohibit development when there is a potential for archeological artifacts
10
but no identified resources. The potential for being placed on the state or national
registry was described to the Board, but Camp Belknap has not asserted that such
designations, if they were to occur, would prohibit or limit development. The court
cannot impose burdens on a municipality or create mandates were none exists. The
fact that Bunker’s report of a mere possibility of archeological resources was not
discussed by the Board does not, in the court’s view, invalidate its approval. The court
finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on
the basis the property potentially has archeological significance.
4. Impact on critical loon habitats
Camp Belknap states the Board’s approval was illegal or unreasonable as it
disregarded the impact to the habitats of loons and other sensitive species. It notes the
importance of nesting pairs and need to rebuild the population of loons on Lake
Winnipesaukee. The New Hampshire National Heritage Bureau, the Loon Preservation
Committee, and the Association expressed concern about development impact on
sensitive species, including loons and eagles, particularly in light of the Association’s
projections for phosphorous loading. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 3.)
The defendants clarify that neither the Loon Preservation Society nor New
Hampshire Fish and Game found active loon nesting sites on the island or indication of
nesting pairs from the recent past. (C.R. at 44, 87.) Of the two potential nesting sites,
according to Fish and Game, one was on Camp Belknap’s shoreline where campers
regularly enter the water with canoes and kayaks, and one was in a wetland within the
subdivision property. (C.R. at 319, 522 sheet 2.) As a wetland it cannot be developed.
Fish and Game found no evidence of eagle nesting on the island. (C.R. at 234.)
11
The court finds the record demonstrates no current nesting loon pairs, and no
recent history of loons nesting around the island. The potential nesting site on parcel
2-1 is within a wetland already protected from development, for reasons unrelated to
this subdivision application. Fish and Game found no evidence of eagle nesting. The
Board noted adjustments made to provide buffers if loons were present. (C.R. at 534.)
The court finds no requirement that the Board should have prohibited or further
restricted development under these conditions. The court cannot conclude the Board’s
approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the subdivision would disturb habitats
of loons or other sensitive species.
5. Maintenance agreement for electrical line
Camp Belknap asserts the provisions for the 40-year-old electrical power line
running to the island do not adequately protect Camp Belknap, the Town, or the
property owner where the line enters the Lake. The Board heard concerns the line is
aging (C.R. at 88, 90, 267, 269, 462) and yet Horizons failed to review the functionality
or capacity of the line. (C.R. at 412.) The New Hampshire Electric Cooperative
(“NHEC”), owner of the line, will not guarantee the line’s longevity or serviceability.
(C.R. at 309.) The agreement between the Town and NHEC provides for maintenance
but does not address potential replacement or expansion of the line. (C.R. at 537.)
These were issues raised in hearings (C.R. at 88, 90) but, according to Camp Belknap,
not adequately addressed by the Board. Camp Belknap also raises questions about the
impact on the shoreline where the line enters the Lake (C.R. at 267, 269, 529) and
safety concerns due to the proximity of campers, kayaks, and canoes. (C.R. at 462.)
Camp Belknap also states the Board has not taken appropriate steps to protect
12
landowner Craig Starble.
The defendants note the Board’s third party engineer Horizons reviewed the
application and documents from NHEC. (C.R. at 412.) The defendants find no mandate
in its governing regulations for the Board to have further addressed the potential
problems Camp Belknap raises regarding the line. With no such mandate, the
defendants argue that to deny on the basis of these concerns would be an ad hoc
analysis prohibited by Dartmouth Trustees, 171 N.H. at 508. Finally, the defendants
argue Camp Belknap did not raise in its petition the assertion that the Board should
have required testing of the functionality of the line therefore the issue is waived.
The electrical line agreement is a delineation of responsibility and liability
between Tuftonboro and the electric utility, NHEC. The agreement does not address
obligations to expand or replace the line. The Board noted the NHEC had ‘tested the
line because it had been out of service for a period of time and was comfortable that it is
serviceable as it stands today to be energized.” (C.R. at 537.) The Board also noted
that there was no proposal to relocate the line, which was already operational. (C.R. at
537.) Whether the Board should have required its own testing of the functionality of the
line was not raised in the Petition and thus is waived. As to the concerns of Craig
Starble, the Board is not empowered to negotiate on behalf of a landowner. If Mr.
Starble seeks an agreement with NHEC, he should negotiate directly. The court finds
no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the
basis the electric line provisions are inadequate.
6. Impact on traffic and other safety concerns
Camp Belknap argues the Board erred when it refused to require a traffic study
13
to consider the impacts of these ten lot owners and their guests on Route 109 and
Nineteen Mile Bay. (C.R. at 89-90, 267-68, 320-21.) It asserts it was unreasonable for
the Board to refuse, given the concerns raised in public hearings and the lack of traffic
analysis in the Horizons study. (Petition at 4.) Finally, Camp Belknap asserts the Board
did not adequately address fire safety concerns, in that the Fire Department never
stated it was satisfied with plans for fire safety within the subdivision. (Petition at 4.)
The defendants argue that the issue of a traffic study was not raised in the
Petition and thus is waived. If the issue were to be considered by the court, the
defendants assert the Board fully considered the potential traffic impacts on both Route
109 at its public hearings and in deliberations and found no appreciable increase in
traffic. (C.R. at 429, 532-33.) The Board noted a 23 lot subdivision previously approved
in Tuftonboro without need for a traffic study and stated this ten lot subdivision did not
pose significant concerns. (C.R. at 430.) On fire safety, the defendants note that the
Fire Chief reviewed the application and signed off on it, with recommendations. (C.R. at
542.)
The court finds the Petition specifically identified traffic concerns and the Board’s
decision not to order a traffic study. Therefore, these issues are not waived. The court
disagrees with Camp Belknap, however, that these issues were inadequately
addressed. The Board stated this application had been scrutinized more than any other
in recent memory. As one Board member put it, the “Board has heard it all in the last
five meetings; every question, every subject, everything has been brought up.” (C.R. at
533.) The Board found this ten lot subdivision to have no appreciate increase in traffic
and did not warrant a traffic study. (C.R. at 430, 537-38.) It noted a far larger
14
subdivision that did not require a traffic study. (C.R. at 430.) The court finds no
evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis
of traffic impacts.
Regarding fire safety, the record is clear that the Fire Chief has reviewed the
subdivision application and stated the lots would be served by the Fire Boat. He made
recommendations but noted explicitly the recommendations “do not affect approval.”
(C.R. at 542.) The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was
illegal or unreasonable on the basis of fire safety.
7. Developers’ lack of experience
Although lack of experience was raised in the Petition, Camp Belknap’s
Memorandum does not address this issue. It should be noted that some members of
the public alleged one of the developers had an unsavory business reputation and had
had financial problems in a prior business. Camp Belknap did not advance these
arguments.
The defendants argue there are no requirements in the Tuftonboro regulations
that an applicant have prior development experience or to impose greater restrictions on
those without prior experience. The Board is compelled to treat all applicants fairly and
uniformly, they argue.
The court agrees that there is no experience threshold required for development
and the Board would be without authority to impose greater limits on a new developer
than on an experienced one. The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision
approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the applicant had not previously
developed a subdivision.
15
8. Proposed Conditions on Approval
Camp Belknap argues the Board prejudged its decision with conditions already
written before the final deliberation session. The defendants argue this issue was not
identified in the Petition and thus has been waived. The court agrees with the
defendants that the issue was not raised and thus is waived. Even if not waived, the
court does not find having a list of conditions to be imposed in the event of an approval
to be impermissible. Municipal boards often move from deliberations to compilation of
final conditions without need to adjourn, reschedule and notice a new meeting. Having
a list of conditions prepared to discuss, if the Board votes to approve, does not render
the approval illegal. The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval
was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the Board turned to a list of conditions to
impose after it deliberated and voted to approve the subdivision application.
9. Premature Approval
Finally7
, Camp Belknap argues the Board’s approval was illegal and
unreasonable because its decision was premature. (Petition at 5.) Camp Belknap
asserts that because this is the island's first residential development in approximately 50
years and the parcel of undeveloped land is so large, more time was needed. It asserts
Horizons’ review was not sufficient in that Horizons did not perform its own calculations
regarding lot dimensions and relied on the representations of the developers. (Camp
Belknap Memorandum at 6.) Camp Belknap argues development of a parcel of such
character should not be rushed and there was no need to act on the application before

7Camp Belknap asserts the Board failed to adequately limit timber cutting and by doing so violated
section 4.2.4 of the Tuftonboro Subdivision Regulations addressing preservation of natural resources.
This issue was not raised in the Petition and thus is waived.
16
a traffic study was done, further water study results were received, and other open
questions resolved. (See generally Camp Belknap Memorandum.)
The defendants argue these issues have been waived because they were not
included in the Petition. If considered, they assert the application was thoroughly
evaluated and issues of concern were addressed. (See generally Farm Acres Island
Memorandum.)
The court agrees in part and disagrees in part. The general assertion that the
approval was premature is clearly raised. (Petition at 5.) The Petition argues a traffic
study should have been done and the Board should have considered broader issues of
water quality. The specific and very particular complaint about Horizons not doing its
own calculations, however, was not raised in the Petition and is waived.
On the issues that have not been waived, the court disagrees with Camp
Belknap that the decision was made prematurely. The Board conducted five public
hearings, considered letters and testimony of numerous interested parties. The certified
record is 581 pages long. The Board publicly deliberated on the matters before it and
issued a written decision. While it did not call for a traffic study or agree to wait for the
results of another water study, it addressed its reasons why it did not find such further
data necessary, a determination the court finds supported in the record. The argument
that this project should receive greater scrutiny or be given a balancing test that
otherwise would not apply is not supported in the law. The Board Chairman stated, “this
application is probably the most heavily reviewed thirteen acres in the Town of
Tuftonboro.” (C.R. at 535.) The court finds no evidence to conclude the Board’s
approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis that it was made prematurely or
17
without a complete record.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the unanimous decision of the Tuftonboro Planning
Board is AFFIRMED.
So Ordered.
December 4, 2020
Amy L. Ignatius
Presiding Justice
10
on
Document Sent to Parties
Clerk's Notice of Decision
12/11/2020

[fatlazyless]

Attention all forum posters:

Today, Sunday, December 13 at noon, there will be a very picky-wicky 20-question, 4-answer multiple choice quiz on this 9-part adjudication between Camp Belknap and Randy Owen with regard to the future use on Farm Island that was very recently decided with this December 11, 2020, decision by the Carroll County Superior Court, Amy L Ignatious, Presiding Justice.

In addition to the 20-multiple choice questions, there will be an essay question, as well.

Anyone who receives a score below 85% is thrown off this thread, and will no longer be allowed to comment, here ....... you all understand this.... :eek2: !
.............

Well, this definitely shuts me up ...... and, like why bother even reading this court decision ...... like, and further more ...... blah-blah-blah! ... :laugh .... think I'll go read the Boston Herald, instead of actually trying to comprehend this lengthy ruling.

[Randy Owen]

I am thrilled to share an encouraging development in the aftermath of my recent legal victory against YMCA Camp Belknap.
I have received the following communication from Tim Kelly, Chief Editor of the Manchester Union Leader, and Mark Hayward, the retired reporter who authored the original article:
“Mr. Owen: Thank you for your emails and voicemail. I agree with you that we should update the story with the filing of the camp's motion for nonsuit, and we have been collecting documents to that end. However, it's probably going to have to wait until after the primary.” T Kelly
“The Union Leader wrote an article about a powerful organization that made defamatory statements against you. Now the organization has dropped the lawsuit. It only seems fair that the Union Leader reports that the lawsuit has been unilaterally withdrawn.” M Hayward
This correspondence reinforces the merit of my position and serves as a testament to the truth prevailing in this matter.

[John Mercier]

The Primary has been over for days.
Do they mean the whole primary season?

[Randy Owen]

The Primary has been over for days.
Do they mean the whole primary season?

Just seeing your comment. Time delays create confusion. The timeline then was during the primaries when the YMCA unilaterally withdrew from their baseless lawsuit. This withdrawal or PLAINTIFF YMCA CAMP BELKNAP’S ASSENTED-TO MOTION FOR NONSUIT WITH PREJUDICE fully vindicated me, Randy Owen. A long battle but justice finally prevailed and the truth with polution issues finally learned.

[John Mercier]

And they couldn't write an apology within a day or two after the case was dropped?

[Descant]

I'd guess an apology or other statement might prejudice any further "discussions". Silence is golden.

[FlyingScot]

Just seeing your comment. Time delays create confusion. The timeline then was during the primaries when the YMCA unilaterally withdrew from their baseless lawsuit. This withdrawal or PLAINTIFF YMCA CAMP BELKNAP’S ASSENTED-TO MOTION FOR NONSUIT WITH PREJUDICE fully vindicated me, Randy Owen. A long battle but justice finally prevailed and the truth with polution issues finally learned.

My understanding is that your criminal conviction for harassment still stands--4 months in jail. So I would not use the phrase "justice fully vindicated me".