Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skip
The Town of Alton would have been fine under the proposal. Shore Things has the interpretation correct.
The key in this particular proposal is the word developed. In my opinion Bear Islander is confusing developed with development.
One of the legal definitions of the word developed is : To cause (a tract of land) to serve a particular purpose....
In the case of the Town of Alton they have caused a certain tract of land to be developed as a beach, hence they can employ reasonable means to keep the beach clean and clear as HB 383 denotes, as can private beach owners across the State if & when this bill passes.  |
Skip
I think BearIslander may be correct. Cahpter 485 has its own definition.
485-A:2 Definitions. –
I. ""Developed waterfront property'' means any parcel of land which is contiguous to or within 200 feet of tidal waters or a great pond as defined in RSA 4:40-a and upon which stands a structure suitable for either seasonal or year-round human occupancy.
I don't think there is any human occupancy at Weirs beach.
But the real point here is that it is stupid. We are not talking about an obscure interpretation of the chapter. They deliberately Wrote "shall also include naturally occurring leaf or needle litter" into the law.
Reasonable people will follow the intent of this law. Others will ignore it knowing the chances of being caught are remote, and the penalties small.
And everybody will rake up their beaches!