Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

lawn psycho · 08-06-2011, 08:30 PM

Maxum, on principle I agree you don't want things rigid. I was hoping a decision was rendered by this point...

However, this situation is the classic reason why rigid standards are necessary. The NWZ has been brought forward multiple times now. You have a homeowner/attorney who thinks he can manipulate the system to get a result he wants. The subjective nature is rife with opportunity for people like the petition initiator to take advantage of poorly written standards.

My personal opinion is there should be no ability for homeowners to file a 25 signature petition and alter boat passage on the lake. Have NWZs near all public docs, make NWZs at obvious narrow channels like at the Weirs and Hole in the Wall, etc. If there is enough space for two boats to safely pass, then that's the way it is. Spot zoning via NRZs and NWZs just keeps proliferating and based on what? "I bought this house here and I don't want you driving or anchoring near me". That's the reality of what is happening.

The lake has fixed shorelines. You can set max limits for raft locations and mooring fields. It's not hard to make engineering evaluation for where NWZs are needed or not and case closed. From there, remove the homeowner petition languauge. *GASP* Yes, it is that simple!

Could you imagine if homeowners everywhere could just get together in town and with 25 signatures have an impact on vehicles on state highways and roads? I'd call that insanity. Why is the lake any different?

What is interesting is how DOS will handle the previous approval and now with majority siding against it they will have to craft languauge why to deny it know. DOS is in a box, however it appears the real desire or lack thereof for a NWZ is truly known. I'm sure the petition initiator will cry but this NWZ is screaming for a denial. Having traveled through the BP I don't see the need for it.

I will also be posting why I think the 150 ft rule for two passing vessels causes more problems than it solves. This case adds to why I believe it too be the case. People are hard wired to think it solves problems, I used to be one of them but my observations show otherwise.

08-06-2011, 08:30 PM	#443
lawn psycho Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: On the move... Posts: 987 Thanks: 113 Thanked 248 Times in 133 Posts	Maxum, on principle I agree you don't want things rigid. I was hoping a decision was rendered by this point... However, this situation is the classic reason why rigid standards are necessary. The NWZ has been brought forward multiple times now. You have a homeowner/attorney who thinks he can manipulate the system to get a result he wants. The subjective nature is rife with opportunity for people like the petition initiator to take advantage of poorly written standards. My personal opinion is there should be no ability for homeowners to file a 25 signature petition and alter boat passage on the lake. Have NWZs near all public docs, make NWZs at obvious narrow channels like at the Weirs and Hole in the Wall, etc. If there is enough space for two boats to safely pass, then that's the way it is. Spot zoning via NRZs and NWZs just keeps proliferating and based on what? "I bought this house here and I don't want you driving or anchoring near me". That's the reality of what is happening. The lake has fixed shorelines. You can set max limits for raft locations and mooring fields. It's not hard to make engineering evaluation for where NWZs are needed or not and case closed. From there, remove the homeowner petition languauge. GASP Yes, it is that simple! Could you imagine if homeowners everywhere could just get together in town and with 25 signatures have an impact on vehicles on state highways and roads? I'd call that insanity. Why is the lake any different? What is interesting is how DOS will handle the previous approval and now with majority siding against it they will have to craft languauge why to deny it know. DOS is in a box, however it appears the real desire or lack thereof for a NWZ is truly known. I'm sure the petition initiator will cry but this NWZ is screaming for a denial. Having traveled through the BP I don't see the need for it. I will also be posting why I think the 150 ft rule for two passing vessels causes more problems than it solves. This case adds to why I believe it too be the case. People are hard wired to think it solves problems, I used to be one of them but my observations show otherwise.