|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Calendar | Register | FAQ | Donate | Members List | Today's Posts | Search |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
02-16-2021, 07:07 PM
|
#1 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Camp Belknap's own words Nuisance moving it to Low Density Residential
Here THEY, CAMP BELKNAP state that THEIR rifle range is a nuisance to their programing and sleeping quarters and they choose to move it to LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL destroying the values of Donald McWhirter's property and the rest of the neighbors properties. Their words. Not mine!!!
|
|
|
02-16-2021, 09:50 PM
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 20
Thanks: 29
Thanked 32 Times in 10 Posts
|
Randy, any chance you can find / post a link to the court order? I coudn't find it through (an admittedly brief) internet search.
I'm trying to figure out exactly what's being contested. Sounds like they are looking to convert the rifle range from .22s to air rifles and move its location. Is there construction of some sort tied into this, and is that the issue, or is the issue the noise concerns of some property owners closer to the new proposed location? Regarding the number of campers, 300 is the total number of campers in the entire camp at one time. From what I could tell in the images you posted, the maximum at the range at any one time would be 16. Any additional info would be appreciated! |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 09:47 AM
|
#3 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Camp Belknap Expansion
Hello Roy,
The purpose on the post is that the town selectman, planning board and zoning do not follow their own rules and state law. Also the selectman and Camp Belknap feel they have the authority to ignore a superior court judge. The merits of the case are a whole other issue but certainly something Don and I are willing to share. The primary objection identified and offered by the camp in their own words is that a rifle range is a nuance. As they themselves state "the noise can be a nuisance to nearby programming and sleeping quarters". And then they go on to say "The new riffle range will be sited at the periphery of the camp". What they fail to recognize and consider, as usual, is that while the "nuisance" is away from their own activities it's now at the "periphery" next to and on Low Density Residential land. The abutters now have the burden of the sound. So while Camp Belknap selfishly improves and removes a "nuisance" of their own they simply put this burden on many other property owners and frankly much of the bay as this noise will be very close to the water and as we all know noise over water travels. With regards to the noise and the amount of kids Seth Kassel, director of Camp Belknap clarifies it. In the range there will be 16 kids but as the rifle range is a big attraction the staging will be as much as three hundred kids. The noise of the rifles themselves is at issue but the greater issue is the kids in and around the range and now next to and on Low Density Residentially zoned property. Specifically where the planning board has failed is this land was in conservation. The camp concocted some sort of conservation easement for their benefit that allowed them to just pull the land out of conservation. Frankly a meaningless conservation easement. Shame on ConCom. Either way the lot and land at issue that the camp owns is in a Low Density Residential zoning and if ever it were allowed to be used commercially it would need to go to ZBA which it never has. If ever this is heard by ZBA the top priority of ZBA is does this commercial use adverse effect the abutters quiet enjoyment and of course values. I assume you are a property owner in Tuftonboro. I ask you to think of your own home with 300 kids screaming and yelling and clearly a "nuisance" as Camp Belknap's own director Seth Kassel labels it right next to your own home. Camp Belknap acts as thought they are above the law. They were well aware that a stay order was in place. Hell they put one on the Owen family on Farm Island that lasted for over a year and WE RESPECTED THE LAW! They know what they are doing. So the town got a" SUMMONS". And although no one got incarcerated or fined they were certainly not acquitted. The stay order was reaffirmed and then just days later the town sings and memorandum crafted by Camp Belknap that again is against a superior court judge's order. As property owners we need a town that respects zoning and the taxpayer's property. Our town is failing us and we are forced to use the superior court at our expense. It is our wish that the reader puts themselves in these abutting property owners shoes and simply just asks themselves what right does Camp Belknap have to remove the burden of their own "nuisance" and put on the back of others? THE SUMMONS AND ORDERS TO FOLLOW. THANK YOU FOR YOU INTEREST AND CONSIDERATION ROY |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 10:29 AM
|
#4 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Valencia, Spain (formerly Rattlesnake Isle)
Posts: 389
Thanks: 135
Thanked 142 Times in 82 Posts
|
Quote:
As for the crowds of 300 kids at the new rifle range - where are you getting that figure from? They never had more than 10-20 kids at one time at the existing rifle range. Where is this huge crowd coming from? Last edited by Pricestavern; 02-17-2021 at 10:32 AM. Reason: Addt'l info |
|
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 10:38 AM
|
#5 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,495
Thanks: 221
Thanked 812 Times in 488 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 12:50 PM
|
#6 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
planning board minutes
this is the from the planning board meeting. seth kassels director of the camp acknowledged a staging of kids waiting and stated 300. there are also 117 employees too. winnie shores has the nuisance as it is now and complains. the camp themselves characterized the rifle range and a nuisance.
Pricestavern, I assume you are a land owner. Seth Kassels stated that all 300 kids could be there not me, and we know they absolutely way over book this number. Yet if SETH dramatized this just to aggravate me and he's off 50 by percent or even 75 percent there is absolutely staging and kids lined up. So do you think even 25 percent of Seth's state kids (which is 75 kids) is reasonable next to your low density zoned house?? Hell even 30????? THE ZONING IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL just put your own family home in this situation please and thank you |
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to Randy Owen For This Useful Post: | ||
dickiej (02-17-2021) | ||
|
02-17-2021, 01:15 PM
|
#7 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
SUPERIOR COURT CARROLL, SS SEPTEMBER TERM, 2020 Donald J. McWhirter v. Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire Case No. APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE TOWN OF TUFTONBORO, NEW HAMPSHIRE PLANNING BOARD PURSUANT TO NEW HAMPSHIRE R.S.A. 677:15 NOW COMES the Petitioner, Donald J. McWhirter, with an address at 10 North Chase Point Road, Mirror Lake, New Hampshire 03853 (hereinafter referred to as “McWhirter”), and complains against the Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire, with an address at P.O. Box 98, 240 Middle Road, Center Tuftonboro, New Hampshire 03816 (hereinafter “Town”), stating as follows: 1. McWhirter is the owner of certain premises referred to as Tuftonboro Tax Map 39, Lot 1-12, situate at North Chase Point Road, Tuftonboro, New Hampshire (hereinafter the “McWhirter Premises”). 2. McWhirter obtained title to the McWhirter Premises by Warranty Deed of Joan M. Allard, Donald J. McWhirter and Mary Ellen Haley, Sole Trustees of Mountain View Real Estate Trust, to Donald J. McWhirter dated and recorded January 18, 2013 in the Carroll County (New Hampshire) Registry of Deeds at Book 3054, Page 236 and by Quitclaim Deed of Young Men’s Christian Association Camp Belknap to Donald J. McWhirter dated April 10, 2019 and recorded September 3, 2019 in the Carroll County (New Hampshire) Registry of Deeds at Book 3461, Page 282. 3. The McWhirter Premises are comprised of approximately one (1) acre. 4. Situate on the McWhirter Premises is a single family residence. 5. The McWhirter Premises is situate in the Low Density Residential District in the Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire. 6. Section 3.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire (hereinafter the “Zoning Ordinance”) provides, with respect to the Low Density Residential District, that “(t)he intent of this District is to provide for predominantly low density residential and agricultural development on individual Lots or in cluster developments, which can be accommodated on the land without major disruptions of the natural terrain, vegetation, watercourses or surface drainage and which would not have Town water or sewers.” 7. Abutting the McWhirter Premises is a certain tract or parcel of land, with the buildings thereon, comprising approximately seventy two and twenty seven hundredths (72.27) acres (hereinafter the “YMCA Camp Belknap Premises”), owned by Young Men’s Christian Association Camp Belknap (hereinafter “YMCA Camp Belknap”), a New Hampshire non-profit corporation with a principal office and mailing address at 11 Chase Point Road, Mirror Lake, New Hampshire 03853. 8. Upon information and belief, YMCA Camp Belknap obtained title to the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises by Warranty Deed of New Hampshire Young Men’s Christian Association (a/k/a New Hampshire YMCA, and f/k/a The State Executive Committee of the Young Men’s Christian Association of New Hampshire) to Young Men’s Christian Association Camp Belknap dated July 1, 1997 and recorded July 25, 1997 in the Carroll County (New Hampshire) Registry of Deeds at Book 1708, Page 235. 9. The YMCA Camp Belknap Premises is situate in the Low Density Residential District in the Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire. 10. YMCA Camp Belknap is also the owner of certain premises situate in the Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire and commonly referred to as Tuftonboro Tax Map 39-2-11, comprising approximately one hundred three (103) acres, Tuftonboro Tax Map 39-2-12, comprising approximately nine (9) acres, and Tuftonboro Tax Map 39-2-13, comprising approximately fifteen and seventy one hundredths (15.71) acres. 11. YMCA Camp Belknap also owns certain premises situate in the Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire and commonly referred to as Tuftonboro Tax Map 27-2-1, comprising approximately nine hundred twenty two thousandths (0.922) acres, Tuftonboro Tax Map 39-2-16, comprising approximately six and forty four hundredths (6.440) acres, Tuftonboro Tax Map 40-2-2, comprising approximately seven and one half (7.500) acres, Tuftonboro Tax Map 40-3-33, comprising approximately one half (0.500) acre, Tuftonboro Tax Map 40-3-34, comprising approximately forty four (44.000) acres, Tuftonboro Tax Map 40-3-36, comprising approximately two and six hundredths (2.060) acres, and Tuftonboro Tax Map 40-3-39, comprising approximately twenty seven (27.000) acres. 12. The current use of the McWhirter Premises is residential. 13. The current use of the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises is an overnight and day camp. 14. The YMCA Camp Belknap Premises were utilized by predecessors in title to YMCA Camp Belknap as a seasonal campground and trailer park for the period through approximately 1973. 15. Upon information and belief, there was little, if any, use of the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises during the period between approximately 1973 and approximately 1983. 16. Upon information and belief, the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises returned to active use as an overnight and day camp in and after 1983. 17. On or about April 27, 2020, YMCA Camp Belknap filed a Site Plan Review Application with the Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire Planning Board (hereinafter the “Planning Board”) for a project described as “New Air Rifle Range, New Bath House, and (2) relocated/renovated Staff Houses within parcel 039-001-013-000 at YMCA Camp Belknap.” 18. The April 27, 2020 Site Plan Review Application filed by YMCA Camp Belknap with the Planning Board involved the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises only (Tuftonboro Tax Map 039-001-013). 19. The April 27, 2020 Site Plan Review Application did not involve any of the remaining premises situate in the Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire owned by YMCA Camp Belknap, including Tuftonboro Tax Map 39-2-11, Tuftonboro Tax Map 39-2-12, Tuftonboro Tax Map 39-2-13, Tuftonboro Tax Map 27-2-1, Tuftonboro Tax Map 39-2-16, Tuftonboro Tax Map 40-2-2, Tuftonboro Tax Map 40-3-33, Tuftonboro Tax Map 40-3-34, Tuftonboro Tax Map 40-3-36 or Tuftonboro Tax Map 40-3-39. 20. A Public Hearing was held by the Planning Board on June 18, 2020. 21. At the June 18, 2020 Public Hearing, the April 27, 2020 Site Plan Review Application was accepted as complete and the matter was opened to Public Hearing. 22. Following the Public Hearing on June 18, 2020, the Planning Board “confirmed there was an error in the notification process” and “the application (was to be) re-noticed and scheduled for July 16th”. 23. On or about July 6, 2020, YMCA Camp Belknap re-submitted a revised Site Plan Review Application (the “Application”) to the Planning Board. 24. A Public Hearing was held by the Planning Board on July 16, 2020 at which Public Hearing the Application was deemed complete, jurisdiction was accepted by the Planning Board and the Public Hearing was held. 25. The Public Hearing was continued to and held on August 20, 2020 and September 3, 2020. 26. At the September 3, 2020 Public Hearing, the Planning Board conditionally approved the Application. 27. On or about September 20, 2020, the Planning Board issued a “NOTICE OF DECISION For September 3, 2020” (the “Planning Board Decision”). 28. The Planning Board further issued, on or about September 20, 2020, “APPROVED MINUTES of the September 3, 2020 Planning Board Meeting.” 29. New Hampshire R.S.A. 677:15(I) states as follows: “Any persons aggrieved by any decision of the planning board concerning a plat or subdivision may present to the superior court a petition, duly verified, setting forth that such decision is illegal or unreasonable in whole or in part and specifying the grounds upon which the same is claimed to be illegal or unreasonable. Such petition shall be presented to the court within 30 days after the date upon which the board voted to approve or disapprove the application; provided however, that if the petitioner shows that the minutes of the meeting at which such vote was taken, including the written decision, were not filed within 5 business days after the vote pursuant to RSA 676:3, II, the petitioner shall have the right to amend the petition within 30 days after the date on which the written decision was actually filed. This paragraph shall not apply to planning board decisions appealable to the board of adjustment pursuant to RSA 676:5, III. The 30-day time period shall be counted in calendar days beginning with the date following the date upon which the planning board voted to approve or disapprove the application, in accordance with RSA 21:35.” 30. The Planning Board Decision is illegal or unreasonable. 31. New Hampshire R.S.A. 676:4(I)(b) requires, in part, that “(t)he applicant shall file the application with the board or its agent at least 21 days prior to the meeting at which the application will be accepted, provided that the planning board may specify a shorter period of time in its rules of procedure.” 32. Section 4.2.1 of the Site Plan Review Regulations of the Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire (hereinafter “SPRR”) provides, in part, that “(a)n application for Site Plan Review approval shall be submitted to the Secretary of the Planning Board at least twenty-two (22) days in advance of a regularly scheduled Planning Board Meeting…”. 33. The Application was filed with the Planning Board on July 6, 2020. 34. The Planning Board accepted jurisdiction of the Application at a Public Hearing on July 16, 2020. 35. The provisions of New Hampshire R.S.A. 676:4(I) and Section 4.2.1 of the SPRR have not been complied with. 36. Sections 1.2.A.1, .2 and .3 of the SPRR provide that “(t)he purposes of these Regulations are to… (p)rovide for the safe and attractive development of the site and guard against such conditions as would involve danger or injury to health, safety, or prosperity by reason of: …(i)nadequate drainage or conditions conducive to flooding of the property or that of another; …(i)nadequate protection for the quality of groundwater; …(and) (u)ndesirable and preventable elements of pollution such as noise, smoke, soot, particulates, or any other discharge into the environment which may prove harmful to persons, structures, or adjacent properties…”. 37. Section 1.2.H of the SPRR provides that “(t)he purposes of these Regulations are to: …(i)nclude such provisions as will create conditions favorable for health, safety, convenience and prosperity.” 38. As provided for in documentation submitted to the Planning Board, specifically including, but not limited to, correspondence dated July 12, 2020 from Peter Cooperdock, CSS, certain information regarding questions about the accuracy of statements included in the Application regarding, among other things, septic system capacity and proximity to wetlands, along with other issues associated with noise pollution, impact on abutters, and light pollution, were raised. 39. Additionally, the Application includes information and documentation indicating that “the noise can be a nuisance to nearby programming and sleeping quarters”, “(e)ach camper that is on the firing line is required to be wearing safety glasses and ear protection specific for rifles”, “(d)ue to the specified muzzle velocity of the selected air rifle (500 fps) and the topography at Chase Point Road, all pellets that are not contained within the range enclosure will pass over Chase Point Road, at minimum 60’ – 3” above the road” and the Avanti 887 Gold Medalist air rifles include a California Proposition 65 warning for lead. 40. For each of the foregoing reasons, the Application fails to comply with the provisions of Sections 1.2.A.1, .2, .3 and H of the SPRR. 41. Section 3.2.1 of the SPRR provides that “(t)he Site Plan Review procedure in no way relieves the applicant from compliance with or approval under the provisions of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, Building Codes, and/or other regulations which pertain to or govern the proposed development. No Site Plan will be approved unless it is in compliance with all pertinent ordinances and regulations.” 42. Section 3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire (hereinafter the “Zoning Ordinance”) requires the granting of a special exception for overnight and day camps. 43. Section 3.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that “(a)ll special exceptions are subject to the provisions of Section XVII”. 44. The Application is not based on, and YMCA Camp Belknap has failed and/or refused to obtain, a special exception in accordance with the provisions of Sections 3.6 and 3.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 3.2.1 of the SPRR. 45. Included in the Application was a request by YMCA Camp Belknap for a waiver of the requirements of Section 6.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to parking travel lanes. 46. Section 6.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that “(t)ravel lanes shall not be less than: 22 feet wide for 90 degree angle parking; 18 feet wide for 60 degree angle parking; 12 feet wide for 45 degree angle parking; and 10 feet wide for 30 degree angle parking.” 47. The Application proposed that “parking spaces… be 14’ wide”. 48. Section 10 of the SPRR provides the requirements for the granting of a Waiver. Specifically, the granting of a Waiver requires that a majority of those present and voting find that all of the following apply: The granting of the waiver will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or be injurious to other property and will promote the public interest. The waiver will not, in any manner, vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance or Master Plan. The waiver will substantially secure the objectives, standards and requirements of these regulations. A particular and identifiable hardship exists or a specific circumstance warrants the granting of a waiver. Factors to be considered in determining the existence of a hardship shall include, but not be limited to: Topography and other site features. Available alternative site locations. Geographic location of the property. The size/magnitude of the project being evaluated and availability of colocation shall be considered, particularly with regard to telecommunication facilities. 49. McWhirter submitted to the Planning Board oral and video evidence regarding traffic, traffic congestion and safety associated with YMCA Camp Belknap premises. 50. With respect to the Waiver requested in the Application, the Planning Board passed a motion to grant the Waiver by a six (6) to zero (0) vote. 51. The Planning Board failed to discuss and/or find that the provisions of Section 10.1.A through E of the SPRR applied to the Waiver requested in the Application. 52. YMCA Camp Belknap argued to the Planning Board that the use of the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises was a grandfathered, non-conforming use. 53. Non-conforming use is defined in Section 1.1.37 of the Zoning Ordinance as “(a)ny use which lawfully existed prior to the effective date(s) planning or zoning regulations with which it is now in conflict.” 54. Section 5.1.1 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that “(a)ny Non-conforming Use may be continued unless discontinued for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, at which time it may not be reestablished and any future use shall be in conformity with this Ordinance. For the purposes of this Section, ‘discontinued’ shall mean ceased, without any regard for the intent to cease or the intent to re-establish a Non-conforming Use.” 55. McWhirter provided information and documentation to the Planning Board supporting a finding that, to the extent the proposed use of the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises was a grandfathered, non-conforming use, any such grandfathered, non-conforming use had been discontinued for a continuous period of twelve (12) months and, as such, any future use was required to be in conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. 56. The Application is not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance as the same pertains to grandfathered status, non-conforming use and the requirement that YMCA Camp Belknap obtain a special exception. 57. Section 1.1.20 of the Zoning Ordinance defines “expansion” as “(a)ny increase in the intensity of the use of a Lot, Building, or Structure. This includes, but is not limited to: the addition of bedrooms to a Dwelling; the addition of Dwelling Units to a Lot; or the addition of seats to a restaurant. This may result in a larger footprint or an increase in height.” 58. The proposal included in the Application constituted an expansion as defined in Section 1.1.20 of the Zoning Ordinance. 59. The proposed expansion of the use of the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises required compliance with the provisions of the SPRR and the Zoning Ordinance, specifically including, but not limited to, the obtaining of a special exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 60. No special exception was applied for or obtained from the Zoning Board of Adjustment with respect to the Application. 61. YMCA Camp Belknap argued to the Planning Board “that the proposed uses are not an expansion because the uses are already there and existing… if the Board views it as an expansion the argument is that it can be expanded and referenced the New London case.” See August 20, 2020 Tuftonboro Planning Board Minutes at p. 2. 62. YMCA Camp Belknap further argued to the Planning Board that “the improvement of the shooting range is a natural expansion, natural progression, a natural change.” Id. 63. The argument by YMCA Camp Belknap to the Planning Board is contrary to the terms and provisions of the SPRR, the Zoning Ordinance and case law as it relates to expansion of a non-conforming use and the consideration of factors pertaining to other properties of YMCA Camp Belknap not at issue in the Application. 64. Specifically, YMCA Camp Belknap argued to the Planning Board at the August 20, 2020 Public Hearing as follows: “Suzanne Brunelle, Devine Millimet, representing Camp Belknap… stated the camp has been there since 1903 therefore, there is no further discussion or issue as to whether it is a prior nonconforming use; noting the current use was in effect well before 1988… She stated the use may not be an enlargement and noted that all of the uses the camp currently has, nothing has changed (cabins, bathrooms and shooting range). She stated the shooting range has been there since the 1940’s and is a prior nonconforming use and the recommendation by the camp is only an improvement in safety. She stated the course of conduct of this particular Board and this town with regard to the camp since 1903 has been to allow these things. She stated bathrooms and housing for staff are not big asks. She stated the camp operates in a large area; noting there were some issues with different tax parcels and questioned the relevancy of such because they are all adjacent parcels. She stated the parcels could be merged into one tax lot however, such is very arbitrary to her and doesn’t feel that argument bears too much weight.” (See August 20, 2020 Tuftonboro Planning Board Minutes at p. 2). 65. In its argument to the Planning Board, YMCA Camp Belknap cited several decisions of the New Hampshire Supreme Court, including the decision in New London Land Use Association v. New London Zoning Board of Adjustment, 130 N.H. 510 (1988). 66. YMCA Camp Belknap asserted that, with respect to “the (proposed) relocation and renovation of (2) cabins for Staff Housing [Johnson Cottage and Kitchen Corp Cabin], a new Air Rifle Range, and a new Bath House” (see Application at p. 1), “it should be noted that a landowner is also allowed to increase the volume, intensity and/or frequency of the non-conforming use so long as that expansion does not produce a substantial change in the effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463 (1982)” (see August 18, 2020 Letter from YMCA Camp Belknap at p. 6) and that “(t)hese requested proposals clearly ‘reflect the nature and purpose’ of a summer camp, and are consistent with Camp Belknap’s other structures and buildings.” See Id. at p. 7. 67. In its discussion of the Application at the September 3, 2020 Public Hearing, the Planning Board discussed “whether the expansion is permissible” (see September 3, 2020 Tuftonboro Planning Board Minutes at p. 3). In furtherance thereof, the Planning Board “referenced the 3 part test; 1) to the extent to which the challenged use reflects the nature and purpose of the prevailing non-conforming use. …; 2) whether the challenged use is merely a different manner of utilizing the original nonconforming use or whether it constitutes a different use and 3) whether the challenged use will have a substantially different impact upon the neighborhood.” 68. McWhirter provided information and documentation to the Planning Board supporting a finding that, with respect to the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises specifically, the proposed use as provided in the Application both constituted an expansion of a prior non-conforming use and would have a substantially different impact upon the surrounding residential neighborhood. 69. The discussion regarding and findings of the Planning Board with respect to the aforementioned “3 part test” failed to support a finding that “expansion is permissible”. 70. The Planning Board based its discussion and approval of the Application on the so-called “3 part test” and failed to address the issues of whether the proposed use of the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises constituted an enlargement or expansion of a prior non-conforming use. 71. The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in its decision in New London Land Use Association v. New London Zoning Board of Adjustment, 130 N.H. 510, 516 (1988), stated as follows: “Nonconforming uses may be expanded, where the expansion is a natural activity, closely related to the manner in which a piece of property is used at the time of the enactment of the ordinance creating the nonconforming use…However, enlargement or expansion may not be substantial and may not render premises or property proportionately less adequate.” Id. (Citations omitted). 72. Clearly, the proposal of YMCA Camp Belknap will result in a substantial enlargement or expansion of what YMCA Camp Belknap argues is a pre-existing nonconforming use and would render Tax Map 39-1-13 (the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises) proportionately less adequate. 73. Specific to the New London Land Use Association v. New London Zoning Board of Adjustment facts, the New Hampshire Supreme Court stated that, “(a)bsent a willing relinquishment of its nonconforming use, Lakeside may not substantially change the way in which the motel units were situated on the seventeen-acre parcel when the nonconforming use was created.” New London Land Use Association v. New London Zoning Board of Adjustment, 130 N.H. 510, 517 (1988). 74. As the Application proposes both the relocation and renovation of two (2) cabins, the relocation of an air rifle range, and a new bath house, which such relocated cabins and rifle range are not currently located on the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises, the dictates of the New Hampshire Supreme Court in the New London Land Use Association v. New London Zoning Board of Adjustment are particularly instructive. 75. In summary, the New Hampshire Supreme Court stated as follows: “Therefore, it is the policy of zoning law to construe strictly zoning ordinance provisions which provide for the continuation of nonconforming uses. Keene v. Blood, 101 N.H. 466, 469, 146 A.2d 262, 264 (1958). The policy of zoning law is to carefully limit the enlargement and extension of nonconforming uses. Arsenault v. Keene, 104 N.H. 356, 359, 187 A.2d 60, 62 (1962); Ackley v. Nashua, 102 N.H. 551, 554, 163 A.2d 6, 9 (1960). The ‘ultimate purpose of zoning regulations [contemplates that nonconforming uses] should be reduced to conformity as completely and rapidly as possible…’ 82 Am.Jur.2d Zoning and Planning §191 (1976).” Id. at p. 518. 76. Similarly, in its decision in the matter styled Hurley v. Town of Hollis, 143 N.H. 567 (1999), the New Hampshire Supreme Court stated as follows: “Whether a proposed use would be ‘a substantial change in the nature or purpose of the [pre-existing] nonconforming use turns on the facts and circumstances of the particular case.’ Conforti, 141 N.H. at 82, 677 A.2d at 150. In conducting this inquiry, we consider: (1) the extent the use in question reflects the nature and purpose of the prevailing nonconforming use; (2) whether the use at issue is merely a different manner of utilizing the same use or constitutes a use different in character, nature, and kind; and (3) whether the use will have a substantially different effect on the neighborhood. Id. at 81, 677 A.2d at 150; see New London Land Use Assoc. v. New London Zoning Board, 130 N.H. 510, 517, 543 A.2d 1385, 1388 (1988). We are mindful that nonconforming uses cannot be substantially enlarged or expanded, but may only be altered ‘where the expansion is a natural activity, closely related to the manner in which a piece of property is used at the time of the enactment of the ordinance creating the nonconforming use.’ New London Land Use Assoc., 130 N.H. at 516, 543 A.2d at 1388; see Conforti, 141 N.H. at 81, 677 A.2d at 150 (permissible scope of the nonconforming use dictated by property’s use at time ordinance enacted that created nonconforming use). Further, ‘[a]ny expansion of a nonconforming use must be evaluated in the context of the zone in which it is located.’ Grey Rocks Land Trust v. Town of Hebron, 136 N.H. 239, 245, 614 A.2d 1048, 1051 (1992)…. …Siergiewicz’s proposal anticipates relocating the business into a new building that is plainly industrial in nature, in contrast to the barn, which is consistent with the residential/agricultural zone…(T)he industrial building’s footprint would be tripled and accompanied by a new and expanded parking lot…(W)e cannot conclude that the proposal is consistent with, or a natural expansion of, the original nonconforming use…. While we have previously upheld an increase in the volume, intensity, or frequency of a nonconforming use that reflects the natural expansion and growth of trade and does not substantially change the use’s effect on the neighborhood, we have done so only within the confines of the existing structure. See Town of Hampton v. Brust, 122 N.H. 463, 469, 446 A.2d 458, 461 (1982) (permitting increase of arcade machines within existing structure); cf. Devaney v. Town of Windham, 132 N.H. 302, 305-06, 564 A.2d 454, 456 (1989) (prohibiting landowner’s addition of second story that increased volume of premises and brought structure closer to property lines as a natural expansion of nonconforming use). ‘We have never permitted an expansion of a nonconforming use that involved more than the internal expansion of a business within a pre-existing structure,’ Grey Rocks Land Trust, 136 N.H. at 244, 614 A.2d at 1051, and we will not do so here.” Hurley v. Town of Hollis, 143 N.H. 567, 571-573 (1999). 77. YMCA Camp Belknap’s proposal as provided for in the Application provides for significantly more than the internal expansion of a business within a pre-existing structure. 78. The Application constitutes an expansion of a nonconforming use requiring YMCA Camp Belknap to obtain a special exception from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 79. Section 1.1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance defines “Accessory Use” as “(a)ny subordinate use of premises which customarily is accepted as a use associated with, and subordinate to, the principal use of a Lot. An Accessory Use may be neither injurious nor detrimental to the neighborhood.” 80. McWhirter provided information and documentation to the Planning Board that the proposed use as provided for in the Application, including the principal use of the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises and any accessory use of the YMCA Camp Belknap Premises, was both injurious and detrimental to the neighborhood and to the McWhirter Premises. 81. Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that, “(a)ny use that may be obnoxious or injurious by reason of production or emission of odor, dust, smoke, refuse matter, fumes, noise, vibration, or similar conditions, or that is dangerous to the comfort, peace, enjoyment or health or safety of the community, or tending to its disturbance or annoyance, is prohibited.” 82. The Application fails to comply with the provisions of Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 83. Section 17.8.2 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for the standards required for the granting of special exceptions. 84. YMCA Camp Belknap has failed to apply for and/or meet the standards required for the granting of a special exception. 85. Section 3.5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance provides that “(a)ll Buildings or Structures hereafter erected, reconstructed, altered, enlarged, or moved, or all future uses of premises in the Town of Tuftonboro shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance. Any Building, Structure, or land shall not be used for any manner other than is permitted in the District in which it is located.” 86. The Application fails to comply with the provisions of Section 3.5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. 87. The Planning Board impermissibly considered the Application based on the ownership by YMCA Camp Belknap of real estate in the Town of Tuftonboro, New Hampshire other than that for which the Application was filed. 88. With respect to the air rifle range proposed in the Application, the Planning Board found, in part, that “the relocation of the air rifle range is safer”, “the air rifle range is quieter and safer”, “the proposal is much safer and an improvement than what is currently occurring”, “the proposal is a better safer option”, “the proposed air rifle range is safer than what currently exists”, and that “the impact will be significantly less than what currently exists”. However, the Planning Board failed to find, for example, that the air rifle range was quiet and/or that the air rifle range was safe and/or that the air rifle range complied with the provisions of the SPRR and/or the Zoning Ordinance. 89. The Planning Board, at the September 3, 2020 Public Hearing, cited the fact that “the Town’s Code Officer hasn’t had any issues with the uses and no one has challenged his decisions”. See September 3, 2020 Minutes of the Planning Board at p. 3. 90. In fact, the September 3, 2020 Minutes of the Planning Board indicate that “Kate Nesbit agreed with Mr. Qua and Mr. Young and noted that no one has questioned the Code Officer’s decisions in the past.” See Id. 91. The discussions of the Planning Board and the findings and rulings of the Planning Board approving the Application impermissibly rely on evidence that is irrelevant, not properly before the Planning Board and for which McWhirter was unable to adequately provide a response. 92. The Notice of Decision issued by the Planning Board included as a condition of approval that “(t)he applicant shall submit Police Department signoff or third party range official verification on the air rifle range safety and procedure”. See September 3, 2020 Notice of Decision at p. 1. 93. Such condition of approval is a required finding of the Planning Board to support approval of the Application and, as such, the condition of approval involving the “Police Department” or the “third party range official verification on the air rifle range safety and procedure” is an impermissible transfer of power and authority by the Planning Board and, further, highlights the failure and/or refusal of the Planning Board to make required findings and rulings to support the Planning Board Decision. 94. The Notice of Decision of the Planning Board includes as a condition of approval that “(t)he applicant shall submit Fire Department sign off”. See September 3, 2020 Notice of Decision at p. 1. 95. Such condition of approval is a required finding of the Planning Board to support approval of the Application and, as such, the condition of approval involving the “Fire Department sign off” is an impermissible transfer of power and authority by the Planning Board and, further, highlights the failure and/or refusal of the Planning Board to make required findings and rulings to support the Planning Board Decision. 96. The Notice of Decision of the Planning Board requires as a condition of approval that “(t)he plan shall be revised to reflect the boundary line adjustment between Tax Map 39-1-12 and the subject parcel, Tax Map 39-1-13, if the boundary line adjustment has been recorded.” See September 3, 2020 Notice of Decision at p. 1. 97. The boundary line adjustment referred to by the Planning Board in the September 3, 2020 Notice of Decision is on record in the Carroll County (New Hampshire) Registry of Deeds as of September 3 and 25, 2019. See Quitclaim Deed from Young Men’s Christian Association Camp Belknap to Donald J. McWhirter dated April 10, 2019 and recorded September 3, 2019 in the Carroll County (New Hampshire) Registry of Deeds at Book 3461, Page 282 and plan entitled “Boundary Line Adjustment and Right-of-Way 10 North Chase Point Road Tuftonboro Carroll County, NH for Donald McWhirter” dated March 2019 and recorded September 25, 2019 in the Carroll County (New Hampshire) Registry of Deeds at Plan Book 242, Page 1. 98. Section 4.3 of the SPRR requires that Site Plans show existing and proposed features including, but not limited to, deed references and the boundary lines of the area included in the site, including angles or bearings of the lines, dimensions and the lot area. 99. Effective with the date of the filing of the Application and the date of the Planning Board Decision, the Site Plan failed to include the deed references or the boundary lines of the area included in the site, including angles or bearings of lines dimensions and the lot area. 100. The failure of the Planning Board to have before it the deed references and the boundary lines of the area included in the site, including angles or bearings of the lines, dimensions and the lot area and the action of the Planning Board in approving the Application without the information required by Section 4.3 of the SPRR is in violation of the SPRR. 101. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Board Decision is illegal or unreasonable in that it fails to comply with the provisions of the SPRR, the Zoning Ordinance and case law and fails to comply with McWhirter’s administrative, statutory and due process rights. 102. For each of the foregoing reasons, the Planning Board Decision is illegal or unreasonable and must be reversed. WHEREFORE, your Petitioner, Donald J. McWhirter, respectfully prays that this Honorable Court: A. Allow a certiorari order directed to the Tuftonboro Planning Board to review the Decision of the Tuftonboro Planning Board dated September 3, 2020; B. Following a review of such Decision, enter a finding that such Decision is illegal or unreasonable; C. Reverse the Decision; and D. Order such other and further relief as may be just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, Dated: September ____, 2020 Donald J. McWhirter STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE COUNTY OF ____________________ Subscribed and sworn to, before me, this _____ day of September, 2020 by Donald J. McWhirter. Justice of the Peace/Notary Public Printed Name My Commission Expires: Petitioner’s counsel: The Law Offices of Gregory D. Wirth, P.L.L.C. Dated: September ____, 2020 By: Gregory D. Wirth, Esq. (NH Bar #2769) 383 Central Avenue, Suite 249 P.O. Box 2209 Dover, NH 03821-2209 603-516-2200 Email: gwirth@gwirthlaw.com |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 01:22 PM
|
#8 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Ignored Superior Court Order
Ignored Superior Court Order
|
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 01:24 PM
|
#9 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
And maybe a different perspective,,,
My Turn: A crucial moment for Winnipesaukee’s Farm Island
By EILEEN McNAMARA For the Monitor Published: 7/14/2019 12:25:13 AM The future of Farm Island on Lake Winnipesaukee is not a NIMBY issue; it’s a preservation and protection issue. Neighbors of one of the few large uninhabited islands remaining in New Hampshire’s biggest lake are not saying “not in my backyard”; they’re asking, “Do we know what we’re doing?” The Tuftonboro Planning Board on Thursday is set to consider a proposal to develop a pristine property without first determining the impact a 12-parcel subdivision would have on a fragile loon population, water quality in nearby 19-Mile Bay, and the experience of boys at Camp Belknap who paddle canoes from basecamp on the Tuftonboro shore every summer to sleep under the stars on the 7.5 acres of Farm Island that the 116-year-old YMCA camp already owns. The 13.3 unspoiled acres at issue have been owned by generations of the Winchester family since 1905. The uninhabited summer house built by Maria and George Winchester in 1906, the only dwelling ever erected on the island, still stands. In the 19th century, farmers used the island to pasture sheep and to keep cows and pigs. A well-preserved stone foundation at the southeast end of the island is a reminder of Winnipesaukee’s role in the agricultural history of the Lakes Region. The artifacts in its soil speak to a time when the lake itself was long the preserve of local Abenaki tribes. “Farm Island is a valuable resource for archeological sites and provides a high degree of archeological clarity for well preserved and intact terrestrial and submerged pre-contact Native American and post-contact European American archeological resources, potentially spanning thousands of years of human occupation,” according to a report prepared this month by Victoria Bunker, an archeological consultant, for Camp Belknap. “This degree of integrity at diverse sites of multiple time periods is rare,” she wrote, maybe even worthy of a slot on the State or National Register of Historic Places. The potential loss of that history and this natural resource to multiple septic systems and private docks has prompted an outcry from those who love the lake and its more than 260 islands. More than 200 people have signed a petition opposing the subdivision of Farm Island, now owned by three brothers, Donald, David and John Winchester. No one disputes the right of the Winchester brothers to profit from the sale of their personal inheritance. But when private property is entangled with the public good the calculus is not so simple. The signatories to the petition opposing the sale of Farm Island to two inexperienced developers are asking only that the Planning Board do its due diligence and delay any decision until a complete environmental assessment is conducted of the proposed project. The Winchesters are not without options should the planning board reject or delay the pending subdivision proposal. Camp Belknap has offered to purchase and preserve the 13.3 acres on Farm Island now for sale. Had it been financially able, Camp Belknap would have bought the entire island in 2010 when it purchased 7.5 acres. It is in a better position to do so now, according to Seth M. Kassels, the executive director of Camp Belknap. The island is still listed with the Multiple Listing Service as “active, under contract” with Maxfield Real Estate for $1,495,000, down from an original asking price of $2 million. “That’s a large amount of money for Camp Belknap,” Kassels acknowledged, “but if this current purchase and sale agreement were to fall apart, Camp Belknap, with the help of our neighbors and alumni, would make every effort to purchase the island with the goal of preserving it for generations to come.” Residents of nearby Chase Island report that developers are not alone in staking a claim to the sought-after wooded preserve. In recent days, they have seen a bald eagle among the pines that blanket Farm Island, fishing in 19-Mile Bay. Maybe it’s a sign. (Eileen McNamara, a former Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for the “Boston Globe,” is the director of the journalism program at Brandeis University. She lives in Moultonborough.) |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 01:47 PM
|
#10 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Failed camp Belknap action
Dear XCR-700,
Be thankful that the Owen family is going to pick up where the Winchester's left off. Be thankfuld Camp Belknap was not given the opportunity to destroy the island as they destroyed what the loon preservation committee named and northern Winnipesukees best loon nesting site. Or when Seth Kassels specified to cut a lagoon full of human waste releasing thousands of gallons of human waste towards and into the lake. Now for example when he wants to move a Camp Belknap “nuisance”, as he calls it, from the inner part of the camp to the “periphery” of camp to annoy low density residential people where they are subject to the “nuisance”. Please understand I met with Seth Kassels. I told him our dreams and wishes so we could act in harmony. I spoke with him with complete transparency. He took what said and lied about every bit of it. Fabricated stuff that would never happen. Straight up he’s a pathological liar. Even all the town records are riddled with lies of dates and ownership. Pull the files. They are full of LIES!!!! Now back to the matter at hand. THIS IS ABOUT THE TOWN AND CAMP BELKNAP NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. The merits of my fight and this one will prevail but this is just about breaking or not breaking the law. |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 01:58 PM
|
#11 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
I have ZERO personal interest in this matter, I'm just an observer to the extreme drama surrounding such a small parcel of land.
Its truly disappointing to the world come to this. We seem to have no common sense and no balance, just drama, endless drama and opportunists everywhere who are looking to take advantage of some situation to up their status. I point no fingers at any party, these are general observations. This is all just all so unfortunate and disheartening to see. |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 02:10 PM
|
#12 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
broken local and state law tuftonboro nh Camp Belknap
XCR-700
This is not a small piece of land but hundreds of acres and several separate parcels of land NOT grandfathered and with no Zoning exception heard with approval for Commercial use. This is about density with this camp reaching way beyond what a normal development would require. This is about pollution. This is about exploitation of conservation land. This is about complete disregard for the Low Density Zoning and the TAX PAYING neighbors while the camp tells lie after lie and spends tens of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers money while Camp Belknap PAYS ZERO IT TAXES. |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 02:13 PM
|
#13 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Seth's pen wrote this! He calls it a nuisance
CAMP BELKNAP - AIR RIFLE RANGE OVERVIEW
04.24.20 OVERVIEW YMCA Camp Belknap is developing a portion of West Camp to enhance Staff Housing and Programming. As part of this development, Camp Belknap is relocating and redefining their Riflery program. The current Riflery program utilizes .22 Rifles and is conducted in the core of camp, where the noise can be a nuisance to nearby programming and sleeping quarters. Though all proper protocols are met for safety, the colocation of this program to others is a constant safety consideration. The new Riflery program will be sited at the periphery of camp, and will transition to the use of Air Rifles, in lieu of .22s. please answer this: if it is a nuisance for them why would it not be a nuisance for us? Last edited by Randy Owen; 02-17-2021 at 02:15 PM. Reason: correction |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 02:21 PM
|
#14 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,380
Thanks: 1,282
Thanked 1,017 Times in 627 Posts
|
Hi XCR--the article raises a number of good points, as we hashed out months ago.
But this is a separate issue from whether the camp should be able to move their rifle range so the noise burden is shifted to their neighbors. |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 04:12 PM
|
#15 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
Quote:
You folks must have super human hearing. I'd be lucky if I could hear them shooting at me with air rifles if I were setting targets at 50 yards, let alone in a house any distance further than that. That must be the quietest island on Winnipesaukee for this to be a problem. Safety and other matters may certainly be of greater concern, and truthfully I would assume 300 campers would make so much racket that you might wish you could get them to focus on shooting just to quiet them down ;-) |
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to XCR-700 For This Useful Post: | ||
FlyingScot (02-18-2021) | ||
|
02-17-2021, 03:50 PM
|
#16 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
|
Quote:
First off do you have any idea the difference in noise produced by a .22LR round going off versus a pellet air gun? I won't even quantify that pellet gun as either a .177 or .22 caliber as it doesn't matter the caliber or size\speed of the projectile. The sound difference is substantial in that a .22LR has a very distinct crack to it when it goes off. Pellet gun because there is no propellent explosion so they are by nature significantly quieter. Not quite but almost as quiet as a .22LR with a silencer. Standing 20-30 feet away from a pellet gun you're likely to not hear it go off above the natural ambient noise of being outside compared to a .22LR which can be heard clearly from quite a distance. Now the current range has no sound protection around it so any sound that is created has nothing to absorb it. Thus it would be as described a nuisance. The new range according to the meeting minutes will be surrounded by sound proofing and be safer with a more adequate backstop - so it stands to reason that the combination of converting to air rifles and having them used in an area where the noise is confined via noise barriers will be HIGHLY effective in all but eliminating any noise generated by the shooting range. The use of noise barriers is nothing new, in fact many gun ranges today create berms around the perimeter of firing ranges to muffle sound pollution and quite effectively I might add. So end of the day, you're argument is foolish. If you have a legit bone to pick with either the town or camp that's fine, but this particular item can be so easily picked apart that you loose any credibility trying to suggest this is going to make things worse when in fact it will greatly improve the reduction of ambient noise generated by gun fire on the property. I'm not just saying this I have both a high powered .177 air rifle and a .22LR rifle. |
|
|
|
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post: | ||
FlyingScot (02-18-2021), mhtranger (02-17-2021), Mink Islander (02-17-2021), Pricestavern (02-17-2021) | ||
|
02-17-2021, 04:17 PM
|
#17 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Law, rules and regulations or system of law.... call it what you will
Dear Maxum,
I beg you to read this entire tread. This is at best partially about the noise of the guns. The noise is from massive groups of kids. The Camp has hundreds of acres. There is no reason they need to be on top of us. Though guns are not our wish this is about Camp Belknap flagrantly and deliberately breaking the law. They were put on notice through the court and continued. They asked for a hearing, got a hearing saying NO and still continue to try and break the law. The town too is breaking the law. Like it or not there are laws that we live by. This thread is only to make Camp Belknap accountable to the law. Nothing else. IN THE THREAD Now back to the matter at hand. THIS IS ABOUT THE TOWN AND CAMP BELKNAP NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW. The merits of my fight and this one will prevail but this is just about breaking or not breaking the law. IN THE THREAD Seth Kassels stated that all 300 kids could be there not me, and we know they absolutely way over book this number. Yet if SETH dramatized this just to aggravate me and he's off 50 by percent or even 75 percent there is absolutely staging and kids lined up. So do you think even 25 percent of Seth's state kids (which is 75 kids) is reasonable next to your low density zoned house?? Hell even 30????? IN THE THREAD THE ZONING IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL just put your own family home in this situation please and thank you |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 04:26 PM
|
#18 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
Quote:
If they have that much land, is there no way to work with them to relocate the range to a mutually agreed location,. And if they have "hundreds of acres" why is 300 or even more kids a problem. One kid per acre can only make so much noise. This becomes more confusing with each post. I'm almost sorry I read it at all, and rapidly becoming sorry I posted anything as it seems way too dramatized to get sucked into,,, I must be missing something more compelling about all this. |
|
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 04:40 PM
|
#19 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Bingo!
Quote:
If they have that much land, is there no way to work with them to relocate the range to a mutually agreed location,. EXACTLY!!!!! THEY HAVE A FEW GRANDFATHERED LOTS. IF THEY WERE ON THEM THIS WOULD BE OKAY TO MOVE BUT NOT EXPAND. THEY NOW ARE OFF THE GRANFATHERED LOTS AND NEXT TO OUR BIGGEST ASSETS AND DISTROYING OUR VALUES AND NEST EGG |
|
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 04:54 PM
|
#20 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
Quote:
If they are violating laws and standards thats one matter. And your worrying about future value of a "nest egg" you just bought is a totally different matter. Too many issues at work here to cleanly sort out, too many competing interests. they should be held accountable to adhere to laws and standards, but not prevented from reasonable uses of their land. And you or anyone should not be buying "nest eggs" hoping to control whats around you to increase your value. This all smacks of too many bad actors to ever fully resolve. I think I should probably stop reading this thread. Hope you both find a middle ground and peaceful resolution. ATB |
|
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 04:35 PM
|
#21 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
XCR-700
This plan moving the range thousands of feet to an area we never hear the riffles or massive amounts of screaming kids. It is not on island but very near the water where noise travels. The move put the rifle range on conservation land that they some how just took out of conservation. apart and aside this is a zoned low density residential AND a separate lot and again that has never been recognized as commercial and again was in conservation. If ever a residential lot is to be used commercially it is only with special exception with a town hearing. No hearing has been heard. No one has had the opportunity to voice their concerns in a formal zoning hearing. The law requires the zoning board to confirm there is no adverse effects. I assume you are a land owner. Seth Kassels, the director of the camp, stated that all 300 kids could be there not me, and we know they absolutely way over book this number. Yet if SETH dramatized this just to aggravate me and he's off 50 by percent or even 75 percent there is absolutely staging and kids lined up. So do you think even 25 percent of Seth's state kids (which is 75 kids) is reasonable next to your low density zoned house?? Hell even 30????? So I beg you to consider your own home and investment. You are located with low density residential all around you. A commercial entity whom has the land in conservation just up and takes it out of conservation and then builds a firing range proposing hundred of kids screaming and yelling 8 am till 8 pm. I ask you, how would you react? Thank you, Randy Owen |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 04:47 PM
|
#22 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
Quote:
Its like the family that moves in next to an airport and then says not only do we not want you to allow jets to land here, we also want you to rein in your operation. Hard to jump on that band wagon. Camps near water with lots of kids are a Winnipesaukee tradition and across the country. If you dont want to be near one, dont by that land. You have a choice. Again, if they were not there and first, thats a different matter, but thats not what I seem to be reading??? Either way, best of luck to you, it is just way more drama than I would deal with, I would be looking for another property if I were that troubled about my neighbors. Life is just way too short for all the stress I am seeing in this matter. I'm stressed just reading about it. |
|
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 05:50 PM
|
#23 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
|
Quote:
I actually have read the whole thread. Did you not notice that I have a place on an island, much like yours with not one but TWO YMCA camps near by? I'm betting that they house way more than 300 kids each at any time during the summer on less property. So I believe that I have some level of understanding of what it is like to have a summer camp near by. Also how much noise they generate. I hear lots of kids screaming and having a great time. They used to shoot up there I don't think they do anymore but either way I don't mind the sound of gun fire. I have no problems whatsoever with the kids camps operation because quite frankly for the kids attending, and the older ones who work there it is an experience of a lifetime. I can't imagine taking that away from any of them. Far as your repeated assertions of law breaking, that is up to the courts to decide, he said, she said, you throw out a lot of assertions and opinions but fact is what matters in a court of law. What your opinion or interpretation of "the law" and how it applied, followed or adhered to is just that your opinion. Others may come to a different conclusion. That is for a judge to decide and I have all the confidence that is indeed what will happen here. As far as my opinion goes what I see going on here is that you sir have a problem with the camp. Why I don't know or care but thus far I've seen nothing of substance being brought to light. The camp owns a total of 288.132 acres scattered across multiple properties and two islands. It seems perfectly reasonable that a average density of approximately 1 kid per acre is not unreasonable assuming a total attendance of 300. I'm quite sure when you occupy your half of Farm Island the person to acre density is far greater so should you also be held to the same standard? How about all the added noise and waves from the boat traffic you create personally? Shall we go on and hold YOU to the same standards? I am not here to defend Camp Belknap, but I also find it hard to crucify them based on what appear to be rather outlandish claims which have not been substantiated by anyone of consequence. If that were the case there would be something far more engaging to discuss. |
|
|
|
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post: | ||
|
02-18-2021, 01:06 PM
|
#24 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Waste photos to follow
sab1
WASTE PHOTOS TO FOLLOW please share this reporting data you speak of. we have done research and not found it. there is a des file tho with limited information thank you |
|
|
|
02-18-2021, 04:41 PM
|
#25 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Valencia, Spain (formerly Rattlesnake Isle)
Posts: 389
Thanks: 135
Thanked 142 Times in 82 Posts
|
Herding Jello
Quote:
More to the point - what in the world does this have to do with Farm Island? What in the world does the relocation of the air rifle range have to do with Farm Island? This thread is akin to nailing jello to a tree or herding cats - it's all over the place and oozing around any point or counterpoint being made. |
|
|
|
| The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Pricestavern For This Useful Post: | ||
Grant (02-19-2021), Wentworth06 (02-18-2021) | ||
|
02-18-2021, 05:01 PM
|
#26 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Quote:
but, "More to the point". selfishly i swim in that water and so do my kids. that firing range is very close to the water and noise travels over water. unselfishly i support my good friend don mcwhirter. he's really screwed as are others in his area. unselfishly i support you if you swim in and enjoy the lake. unselfishly i support every taxpayer in tuftonboro so they know how much tax payer money is spent on this camp selfish needs. the pay nothing and consume tons of town benefits. they have hundreds of acres of land and thousands of feet of frontage. they are for profit and have millions in revenues and donations. so i ask you to consider your own tax bill and where your money is going and at the risk of being redundant please remember this: now i beg you to understand my less then perfect domainer. while doing so please ask yourself the following: when was the last time you let one hundred thousand dollars of your children's money slip through you hands on another's selfish quest? or as we call it a sethfish quest |
|
|
|
|
02-18-2021, 05:16 PM
|
#27 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Valencia, Spain (formerly Rattlesnake Isle)
Posts: 389
Thanks: 135
Thanked 142 Times in 82 Posts
|
C Ya!
As I said, Jell-O.
I'm out. Randy I hope you find some inner peace. Good luck to all involved. I wish you all the best, but I'm done with this thread.  More importantly - when is Ice Out? 
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to Pricestavern For This Useful Post: | ||
Randy Owen (02-18-2021) | ||
|
02-18-2021, 05:31 PM
|
#28 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 75
Thanks: 62
Thanked 16 Times in 9 Posts
|
I agree that this thread has become convoluted and misleading. As I have read through all this information I keep questioning why Mr. Owens didn't do his due diligence before purchasing this land. It is pretty obvious Camp Belknap has been located and firmly established on Farm Island for many years prior to Mr. Owens purchasing his property and initiating his legal pursuits. As you use your resources probing for "opportunities" to benefit your cause, you must realize the Lakes Region is governed pretty tightly by state and local agencies. Why put yourself through all of this stress decreasing your health and well-being? Can't you find a way to enjoy the beauty and serenity of the lake coexisting with your camp neighbor?
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to jogator1 For This Useful Post: | ||
Randy Owen (02-18-2021) | ||
|
02-17-2021, 04:19 PM
|
#29 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
Quote:
Other concerns aside noise from a well designed air rifle range should not be something to worry about or spend any significant amount of dollars on to have a lawyer fight. I would rather invest that money in a better boat or dock or anything than worry about this. Again, maybe I'm missing some critical element??? |
|
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 04:06 PM
|
#30 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
Quote:
Good Luck, hope you all resolve this soon and can find a way to live a low drama low stress life you should have if you live on the lake. Last edited by XCR-700; 02-19-2021 at 08:51 PM. |
|
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 03:40 PM
|
#31 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
Quote:
But thats just an observation, I have no personal gain or loss in the outcome, just disappointment that these matters become so decisive to the community. |
|
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 05:06 PM
|
#32 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Valencia, Spain (formerly Rattlesnake Isle)
Posts: 389
Thanks: 135
Thanked 142 Times in 82 Posts
|
Misleading Numbers
Quote:
Additionally, the existing rifle range is not open all day long. There are set times when a camper can be there. Last edited by Pricestavern; 02-17-2021 at 05:07 PM. Reason: spelling |
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to Pricestavern For This Useful Post: | ||
luckypete (02-18-2021) | ||
|
02-17-2021, 05:13 PM
|
#33 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Quote:
no and wrong. i asked and re-asked. Seth kassels said it twice and i was shocked. He said “as many as 300” might be there and 8 am till 10 pm as this is a big attraction and very big part of the camp. My initial concern was with pot smoking councilors and guns. He flatly refused drug testing. We smell the pot. I went to college and it was on the unh campus but not around guns or people resosible for young children |
|
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 06:17 PM
|
#34 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Moultonborough and CT
Posts: 71
Thanks: 36
Thanked 59 Times in 24 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
| The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to lakewinnie For This Useful Post: | ||
CooperS7777 (02-17-2021), mhtranger (02-17-2021), pondguy (02-17-2021), rander7823 (02-19-2021), Randy Owen (02-17-2021) | ||
|
02-17-2021, 07:11 PM
|
#35 |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Eastern MA & Frye Island/Sebago Lake, Maine
Posts: 951
Thanks: 252
Thanked 351 Times in 158 Posts
|
It’s probably time for this thread to be padlocked.....
__________________
" Live for today because yesterday is gone and tomorrow may never come" |
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 07:16 PM
|
#36 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-17-2021, 07:12 PM
|
#37 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-18-2021, 09:58 AM
|
#38 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,495
Thanks: 221
Thanked 812 Times in 488 Posts
|
Quote:
Like Maxum above, I have been an islander for many years and live in close proximity to 2 camps. I can see the Camp Lawrence dock from my front door. For years I was on Mark, across from their beach. I could hear their rifle range daily, and honestly hardly ever even thought about it. Hearing that they are converting to air rifles makes it even less of a nuisance. I can guarantee that although Lawrence probably has a larger census, there was never 300 kids at the range. The campers are broken up into groups and circulating through different activities all day long. Not sure what you hope to gain by pleading your case here. Nobody has any say or control over this. I see 3 options available to you: 1.Lawyer up, spend the money and fight them if you believe that you have been wronged. 2. Find a way to coexist and stop the drama. 3. Sell and move on. |
|
|
|
| The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to codeman671 For This Useful Post: | ||
|
02-18-2021, 10:08 AM
|
#39 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
Quote:
Very well stated Codeman. Time to park the drama, nothing to be gained by it. Good Luck to all who are actually involved, I hope you can find a reasonable solution/settlement to all this. |
|
|
|
|
02-18-2021, 10:16 AM
|
#40 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Quote:
while you offer some reasonable assumptions please answer this. is the firing range you hear 600 feet from you? and if it is not how would you feel if the camps you are surrounded by identified the own firing range as a "nuisance" to them and that they are moving it tens of thousands of feet from their sleeping quarters and their programing area to 600 feet from you? i only ask you fully understand while you comment. please and thank you and remember this: now i beg you to understand my less then perfect domainer. while doing so please ask yourself the following: when was the last time you let one hundred thousand dollars of your children's money slip through you hands on another selfish quest? or as we call it sethfish quest |
|
|
|
|
02-18-2021, 10:20 AM
|
#41 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
please see attach
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-18-2021, 11:04 AM
|
#42 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,495
Thanks: 221
Thanked 812 Times in 488 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-18-2021, 11:39 AM
|
#43 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
Quote:
Not sure there is much more to share or discuss with the members here until something else happens. That said, if the rifle range is one of the primary concerns, I think its you who should stop and understand what you are saying and doing. If you bought this property knowing there was a pre-existing usage of a kids camp with a .22 rifle range on this small island, and the camp owners have announced that they will be transiting from the .22 rifles to air rifles but will moving the range to a new location that will be approximately 600 feet from your property, that would seem to me to be a MAJOR plus for you. There is no where on an island that small that the .22's would not make much more noise than the airguns will make at 600 feet from your property. This to your advantage! You should seriously consider saving "your kids money" and take that huge win and be tremendously thankful they dont just say never mind we will just keep the .22 range where it is and shoot all day all summer. I would be shocked to find any reasonable person would be bothered by a small air rifle range at a distance of 600 feet. You would have to be wearing bionic hearing aids to have this exceed the background noise of any given Saturday on Winnipesaukee. Remember this is not some isolated environment where you can get away from the sounds of people, boats and human generated noise. You might want to go and listen to an air rifle at 600 feet in a place that has any normal background noise, and do some soul searching if this is worth all you seem to be putting yourself through and all the money the lawyers are making off you the town and the camp. Seems to me that everyone is losing in this battle based on what you have posted here. I was recently in a gun shop where one of the sales reps was showing off a full auto CO2 air gun to a customer and he let off a burst of 30 rounds into a commercial air gun trap. I was standing 4 feet from him with my back turned to him and yes I was startled, but only because I didnt expect it. If I was 20 feet from him and outside I doubt I would have even flinched or have taken much noticed. There is no way you could hear a dozen full auto air guns shooting all at the same time if my 3.5 HP push lawn mower were between you and them. Air guns just dont generate that much noise, and certainly nothing even closely comparable to .22 rifles if they are using common high velocity ammo. Also consider that if you had neighbors move next to you and their lot line put them much closer than 600 feet, and they had half a dozen kids that wanted to shoot air rifles with their friends in the back yard all day all summer, I doubt you could do much about that. In most rural communities usage of air guns is rarely prohibited. You should really take a breath and be honest and make sure this is why you are concerned about the camp. It just cant possibly be worth all that is going on. This assumes the bulk of your concerns have been communicated here. Other matters not disclosed may result in a different set of observations,,, ATB |
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to XCR-700 For This Useful Post: | ||
mhtranger (02-18-2021) | ||
|
02-18-2021, 01:26 PM
|
#44 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 607
Thanks: 136
Thanked 277 Times in 169 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-18-2021, 03:03 PM
|
#45 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-18-2021, 04:49 PM
|
#46 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
Quote:
Through countless posts we have been told about the impact of one property on an island by neighbors also on the island, but now it turns out that some of the concerns have nothing to do with the property on the island at all. This is way to crazy dysfunctional for me. God help me for ever thinking I might want to retire to NH, if this is any example of what I would encounter you couldnt give me waterfront property if I had to deal with all this. I think Winnipesaukee is becoming a Florida trailer park. This all reads like a bad TV episode,,, No more reading of this thread for me, you can call me thin-skinned but I see enough drama at the deli counter to suit my needs. ATB to all parties and anyone who has the stamina to keep reading through this mess. 
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to XCR-700 For This Useful Post: | ||
Randy Owen (02-18-2021) | ||
|
02-18-2021, 05:13 PM
|
#47 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 82
Thanks: 42
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
02-18-2021, 04:34 PM
|
#48 | |
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: MA
Posts: 1,342
Thanks: 757
Thanked 538 Times in 313 Posts
|
Quote:
Now I'm totally confused,,, This gets more confusing by the post. |
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
