No Wake at the Barbers Pole...???

[Sue Doe-Nym]

It would, except that last time they had a lot of non-property owners sign the petition, as I recall.

[Pineedles]

SBONH protected the rights of those living near the Barber Pole and all Winnipesaukee boaters the last time. It will be up to the residents to decide what they want to do with this (5th?) challenge to their rights. Your voice counts! Let the Gov't people know what you want! If you want a no wake zone, let them know. If you don't want a no wake zone let them know!

[lawn psycho]

I think the bar should be much higher for the number of signatures required before passing any law or new regulation on a State owned body of water.

Hopefully the petition is denied after the hearings. What sucks is most of the stuff being requested is not evidence based but simple perceptions.

In Westbrook, ME there was a neighborhood up in arms about the speed limit. After some hub-bub the police did measurements and found the average speed was only 1-2 MPH above the limit. The existing speed limit stayed......

Given how wakes a generated from boats getting off and going onto plane the cure is worse than the disease. However, if it's really not wakes they are after then of course we all know why someone would could possibly want a no-wake zone....

[Pineedles]

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.

What else is new! Wasn't this the same problem last time? Maybe the town should review the petitions first before scheduling a hearing date. Seems like a lot of wasted time on an issue the majority does not want!

Dan

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.

Why am I not surprised!

[Pineedles]

It is amazing though that they would waste the time of all with unqualified signatures, AGAIN! Who are these people? Are they mentally challenged, or do they think the rest of the world is?

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

It is amazing though that they would waste the time of all with unqualified signatures, AGAIN! Who are these people? Are they mentally challenged, or do they think the rest of the world is?

Unfortunately, it's usually people like these that think the rest of the world are idiots! They think they can tip-toe through the grave yard and no one will notice.

[lawn psycho]

Sounds like we should be examing the no-rafting petition signatures as well. No doubt some of the singantures were probably invalid as well.

[ApS]

1) Yesterday at 6:24AM, a barge's front-end loader resumed its noisy construction on a breakwater across from our place: a few minutes later, a front-end loader started up on our shore, and proceeded to move some boulders around.

Because I start my day even earlier, the noise wasn't particularly bothersome to me; however, I would join my neighbors in opposition to construction noises before 8-AM.

2) I don't boat at night, but if manufacturers started building "Ski-Craft" with navigation lights, I would join my neighbors in opposition to nav-lighted "Ski-Craft" after dark.

3) If a NWZ petition is drawn up including signatures of folks who live there temporarily as renters, I would join in supporting those folks—though miles from me.

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.

When has this never been the case?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Why should short term seasonal renters have a say in this matter? Should we let these folks help decide what effects everyone? Perhaps APS would like it if the short term renters started a petition that would require all Tuftonboro island owners to install the latest DES approved septic systems and not allow any grandfathering.

Where in an RSA does it state that short term seasonal renters can sign petitions of this type?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Why should short term seasonal renters have a say in this matter? Should we let these folks help decide what effects everyone?

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Where in an RSA does it state that short term seasonal renters can sign petitions of this type?

Here is the crux of the issue:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

The Department of Safety ruled that the legal requirement may not have been met and has ordered the people calling for a no wake zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s “Barber Pole” to show proof of residency. The department also ruled that proper legal notice was given via publication in the only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire.

I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother?

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

APS, you must have been a political operative at some point based on your incredible ability to spin the facts. Where does an RSA state that SEASONAL SHORT TERM RENTERS are residents?

Your plea for quality of life is very appropriate and right in line with the need for a new RSA that would prohibit short term rentals on island properties unless there is a state approved septic system. Rental property septic systems are the most overloaded and can create severe health problems. As you certainly are aware, island rental properties, especially those close to the water, are extremely prone to discharging pollutants into the water from old overused septic systems. Since you seem to be so concerned about quality of life issues, please provide the date and DES approval number of your island septic system. This information will let us all know that you truly care about the lake and are not simply pushing your own personal agenda.

[jrc]

Using APS's logic, every hotel guest is a resident. Which means I can vote in about 37 elections. Maybe he believes we are all just citizens of the world.

[NH_boater]

Resident = to reside: to dwell permanently or continuously : occupy a place as one's legal domicile

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.


Here is the crux of the issue:



I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother?

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents.

Interestingly, on the Wolfeboro forum you start a thread titled "Visitors" will make July 4th weekend scary. By "visitors" you refer to people from MA and other out of staters and discuss them with disdain. But now when you need them on your side you are very welcoming of their presence on the Lake!

Do you grant a tiny percentage of your place to renters?

See you Saturday!!

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.


Here is the crux of the issue:



I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother?

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents.

Temporary residents are also more likely to obtain temporary boating licenses (by answering 10 stupid questions asked by greedy marina owners), and are also more likely to cause the "bleeding" that you so readily mentioned. Where's the outrage now?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Do you grant a tiny percentage of your place to renters?

No, but any alloted percentage would expire in 14 days!

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

APS, you must have been a political operative at some point based on your incredible ability to spin the facts.

I may have been in the company of lawyers for too long!

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Temporary residents are also more likely to obtain temporary boating licenses (by answering 10 stupid questions asked by greedy marina owners), and are also more likely to cause the "bleeding" that you so readily mentioned. Where's the outrage now?

1) Who hasn't rented a boat?

2) No amount of testing can correct "splitting the difference" at high speeds in Unsafe Passage situations.

3) Can one raise oneself up by demeaning others?

4) Can the questions be "stupid", if they are drawn from the test we take?

5) "Temporary" Resident? None of us are truly "Permanent": none of us are going to get out of "this one" alive.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Interestingly, on the Wolfeboro forum you start a thread titled "Visitors" will make July 4th weekend scary. By "visitors" you refer to people from MA and other out of staters and discuss them with disdain. But now when you need them on your side you are very welcoming of their presence on the Lake!

Nowhere did I mention MA visitors.

Here, the "visitors" I refer to are merely trying to get from one side to the other at Barbers Pole—a narrow channel.

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Where does an RSA state that SEASONAL SHORT TERM RENTERS are residents?

Nearly every boating renter is "short-term", on a lake with one season.

What happened to,

"The lake is for everybody".

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Your plea for quality of life is very appropriate and right in line with the need for a new RSA that would prohibit short term rentals on island properties unless there is a state approved septic system. Rental property septic systems are the most overloaded and can create severe health problems. As you certainly are aware, island rental properties, especially those close to the water, are extremely prone to discharging pollutants into the water from old overused septic systems. Since you seem to be so concerned about quality of life issues, please provide the date and DES approval number of your island septic system. This information will let us all know that you truly care about the lake and are not simply pushing your own personal agenda.

I believe that all the "NH-approved" septic systems are inadequate to protect the lake.

Originally Posted by jrc

Using APS's logic, every hotel guest is a resident. Which means I can vote in about 37 elections. Maybe he believes we are all just citizens of the world.

I don't think there are any hotels at Barbers Pole channel.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.


Here is the crux of the issue:



I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother?

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents.

[OCDACTIVE]

Just a quick reminder so "ALL" interested parties involved can be heard. The hearing for the new Barbers Pole No Wake petition is this coming Saturday at The Tuftonboro Meeting house at 12 noon.

The first issue at hand will be to validate the petitioners. Apparently there has been questions posed to the Dept. of Safety to the validity of those on this petition. If the petition is found to be valid then a public hearing will immediately follow.

Regardless of what side you are on. This is your chance to be heard. You do not have to be a Tuftonboro resident or land owner to be heard at the hearing. Anyone with an opinion can testify.

This is the 4th attempt in the past decade to try to pass the NWZ. Hopefully if enough people on both sides of the issue attend and testify it will allow for enough information that a decision can be ruled on once and for all.

Here is your chance to be heard. Speak now or forever hold your peace!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.

That's the most absurd thing I think I have seen to date posted on this forum.

APS what planet are you from?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Can anyone report on this afternoons public hearing?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Can anyone report on this afternoons public hearing?

While I did not attend I did speak with some individuals who did. So please do not quote me.

First the attorneys on both sides testified and the validity of the petitioners were discussed due to an issue of land trusts and trustees.

There were approx 90 in attendence. 70 Against the NWZ 20 in favor. Apparently the majority of the 20 were from the same 2 families.

The testimoney was the same as last year. Those in favor claimed safety issues i.e. can not swim in the channel, kayak etc.

Those against cited no accidents and claimed it was two families that rent their cottages that want to make it more condusive to their renters to transverse the channel. Also why should 2 families who are not there the majority of the time dictate how thousands of boaters should use the barbers pole.

A decision was not given.

However on a side note, The Marine Patrol did take a position and filed with the committee "Against" the need for a NWZ in the channel.

Personally after speaking with those who were at the hearing and those of the MP. I believe that the ruling for the 4th time will be against.

Hopefully, either way, the issue will be finally put to rest.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

While I did not attend I did speak with some individuals who did. So please do not quote me.

First the attorneys on both sides testified and the validity of the petitioners were discussed due to an issue of land trusts and trustees.

There were approx 90 in attendence. 70 Against the NWZ 20 in favor. Apparently the majority of the 20 were from the same 2 families.

The testimoney was the same as last year. Those in favor claimed safety issues i.e. can not swim in the channel, kayak etc.

Those against cited no accidents and claimed it was two families that rent their cottages that want to make it more condusive to their renters to transverse the channel. Also why should 2 families who are not there the majority of the time dictate how thousands of boaters should use the barbers pole.

A decision was not given.

However on a side note, The Marine Patrol did take a position and filed with the committee "Against" the need for a NWZ in the channel.

Personally after speaking with those who were at the hearing and those of the MP. I believe that the ruling for the 4th time will be against.

Hopefully, either way, the issue will be finally put to rest.

With one exception... One of the 5 people that spoke in favor of the NWZ (16 spoke against it) stated one reason as "you don't want to be back here again next year". So unfortunately, if the NWZ is denied, the supporters will petition again next year for a NWZ.

[lawn psycho]

I rarely go through the BP so not direct dog in this fight. However, what I see is a significant problem with how petitions are allowed to be filed.

The waters on the lake are property of the state, much like I-95, I-89, I-93, Rt 1, etc.

What the NWZ and NRZ do is no different than having 25 people who have a rental unit along a highway and requesting the state to lower the speed limit to reduce noise so they can increase the value of their house.
In fact, the legal standards are so subjective to grant or deny a petition for NWZs and NRZs that it is assinine. In fact, the NRZs can be challenged on constitutional grounds.

There is no way anyone can justify in an objective manner the number of people impacted versus the small number of people who gain whatever perceived advantage they are trying to gain. That standard alone should make it impossible to get an approval for any of these things!

And what happens when this family sells the rental during an up market and then the next buyer doesn't want it?

NRZs and NWZs are not a compromise but a self-serving means for those who bought on the lake to infringe on the masses who use the lake.. If you own near a sandbar or high boat traffic area, learn to deal with it and make the best of it. Asking the rest of the lake to cave to your wishes because you did not buy an area you prefer is not everyone elses's problem.

And for the record, I lived near a busy road in a prior house. I got a major deal on the house when we bought it. At sale we had to pass the savings to the next owner to move it despite being the best house in the hood that showed like a model home. So I speak from experience.....

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I rarely go through the BP so not direct dog in this fight. However, what I see is a significant problem with how petitions are allowed to be filed.

The waters on the lake are property of the state, much like I-95, I-89, I-93, Rt 1, etc.

What the NWZ and NRZ do is no different than having 25 people who have a rental unit along a highway and requesting the state to lower the speed limit to reduce noise so they can increase the value of their house.
In fact, the legal standards are so subjective to grant or deny a petition for NWZs and NRZs that it is assinine. In fact, the NRZs can be challenged on constitutional grounds.

There is no way anyone can justify in an objective manner the number of people impacted versus the small number of people who gain whatever perceived advantage they are trying to gain. That standard alone should make it impossible to get an approval for any of these things!

And what happens when this family sells the rental during an up market and then the next buyer doesn't want it?

NRZs and NWZs are not a compromise but a self-serving means for those who bought on the lake to infringe on the masses who use the lake.. If you own near a sandbar or high boat traffic area, learn to deal with it and make the best of it. Asking the rest of the lake to cave to your wishes because you did not buy an area you prefer is not everyone elses's problem.

And for the record, I lived near a busy road in a prior house. I got a major deal on the house when we bought it. At sale we had to pass the savings to the next owner to move it despite being the best house in the hood that showed like a model home. So I speak from experience.....

While I totally agree with what you've said, the bottom line is the squeaky wheel gets the oil and if these people persist I bet one day they will get their way, right or wrong it seems as though that's the way it goes. What really bothers me about this is you buy in a location like this deal with the consequences, don't like it move. It's like me buying a piece of property on an island then start petitioning the state to put in a bridge to it.

Far as I'm concerned I think a new petition should circulate that caps the number of petitions that can be filed within a certain time frame for the same thing so that time and effort is not wasted re-hashing the same things over and over again. I mean really - this is pathetic. If the MP indeed did take a position against said NWZ that says a lot.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

While I totally agree with what you've said, the bottom line is the squeaky wheel gets the oil and if these people persist I bet one day they will get their way, right or wrong it seems as though that's the way it goes. What really bothers me about this is you buy in a location like this deal with the consequences, don't like it move. It's like me buying a piece of property on an island then start petitioning the state to put in a bridge to it.

Far as I'm concerned I think a new petition should circulate that caps the number of petitions that can be filed within a certain time frame for the same thing so that time and effort is not wasted re-hashing the same things over and over again. I mean really - this is pathetic. If the MP indeed did take a position against said NWZ that says a lot.

Maxum, if Marine Patrol does not take action based on the sour grapes comment from the NWZ proponent, it's time for a new director.

Repeated filings is blatant abuse of the system and MP should be already drafting new language to eliminate such behavior. They should also draft specific language on how to rescind the NWZ and NRZ areas as well.

If the person thinks that pouting is the answer and MP lets that influence the decision than it's another reason to get rid of the director.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Maxum, if Marine Patrol does not take action based on the sour grapes comment from the NWZ proponent, it's time for a new director.

Repeated filings is blatant abuse of the system and MP should be already drafting new language to eliminate such behavior. They should also draft specific language on how to rescind the NWZ and NRZ areas as well.

If the person thinks that pouting is the answer and MP lets that influence the decision than it's another reason to get rid of the director.

But is that really a unilateral decision the director can make? If a petition is filed and it meets all the legal requirements he/she may not have a choice but to go through the motions. I don't speak from a position of authority on this only wonder if there is any difference between this and say getting a question on the ballot sponsored by the electorate? Seems like the process is similar.

[lawn psycho]

Maxum, it's an adminstrative hearing. Every criteria listed is subjective. Read the requirements and you can quickly see how there are no lines in the sand.

Where are the engineering studies? Surveys? Depth charts? etc. From what I have seen most of the testimony is based on perception and not much more.

You have testimony largely against it. You have MP taking a no position on it.

It comes down to the opinion/discretion of the director. It's that simple.

Of course I am sure the petition filers may feel they can sue but they have an uphill battle. Courts are very reluctant to supersede the powers of governmental bodies. Given the subjective standards and a no vote from MP the filers have the burden to overcome if the director denies the petition.

Using your logic would imply just getting the signatures is automatic approval. That's not the case as the petitioners have the burden to prove the need for a NWZ. The reason why many of the petitions for NRZs and NWZs have gotten through in the past is they are done in February at local town halls so opposition is reduced significantly. Transparency does wonders.....

The DOS better get in front of this and get cooling off periods and NRZ/NWZ revocation petitions procedures written into the adminstrative rules.

The statement about holding their breath until they get what they want may very well come back to bite them.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Using your logic would imply just getting the signatures is automatic approval. That's not the case as the petitioners have the burden to prove the need for a NWZ. The reason why many of the petitions for NRZs and NWZs have gotten through in the past is they are done in February at local town halls so opposition is reduced significantly. Transparency does wonders.....

Not quite what I was implying, so let me re-phrase. I understand the ultimate decision is made by the Director, but if the proper paperwork is filed and signatures gathered is the Director obligated to hold an administrative hearing on the petition? Doesn't mean he/she has to approve it.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Maxum, it's an adminstrative hearing. Every criteria listed is subjective. Read the requirements and you can quickly see how there are no lines in the sand.

Where are the engineering studies? Surveys? Depth charts? etc. From what I have seen most of the testimony is based on perception and not much more.

You have testimony largely against it. You have MP taking a no position on it.

It comes down to the opinion/discretion of the director. It's that simple.

Of course I am sure the petition filers may feel they can sue but they have an uphill battle. Courts are very reluctant to supersede the powers of governmental bodies. Given the subjective standards and a no vote from MP the filers have the burden to overcome if the director denies the petition.

Using your logic would imply just getting the signatures is automatic approval. That's not the case as the petitioners have the burden to prove the need for a NWZ. The reason why many of the petitions for NRZs and NWZs have gotten through in the past is they are done in February at local town halls so opposition is reduced significantly. Transparency does wonders.....

The DOS better get in front of this and get cooling off periods and NRZ/NWZ revocation petitions procedures written into the adminstrative rules.

The statement about holding their breath until they get what they want may very well come back to bite them.

How many meetings in NH have you been to? How much testimony have you heard in regards to any petition that was filed and heard concerning Lake Winni?
Have you visited these areas and talked to the petitioners to get a face to face view point or do you just want everything to be your way or the highway?
I think you want to Lake Winni be a free for all and to heck with what the NH residents want.
Show me some evidence that you have done any research into any petition and then you might have some credibility.