Huge Commercial Project in West Alton

[John Mercier]

It isn't on the lake.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't on the lake.

It’s not directly on the lake, but it is in the Winnipesaukee watershed, which is extremely important to protect and preserve.

https://winnipesaukeegateway.org/the.../introduction/

[John Mercier]

There are many more properties closer to the lake than this one, that when they were being developed had a cumulative impact much large than this one would be.

We have problems getting the support of people - even those opposed to this project - when it is directly on the lake; and directly affects public property even without restricting private property

The question on this property's development is more about the zoning rather than the environmental impact. It will be developed... probably just not with a Special Exception for a Commercial Event Facility.

The Legislature passed some housing bills this year... but next session will see a whole slue of bills that went to study being remitted for another go around.
So she will build something up there. What? I have no real idea. I guess as the laws change her plans may change.

It could make a decent farm... which is a business with special tax advantages... and not have to go through all this.

[Little Bear]

Please try to attend the Alton Zoning Board meeting on Thursday night June 6 at 6:00pm at the Alton Town Hall. This project will have a major impact on Lake Winnipesaukee and surrounding communities, so it’s important to have a strong presence at this meeting.

[Weekend Pundit]

Last night's ZBA meeting went nowhere for the applicants...other than the meeting being moved to the high school auditorium because there were too many people in the hearing room at town hall.

The first of their four applications were rejected by the ZBA as incomplete and the applicants withdrew the other three as they were incomplete, too.

I expect they will refile their applications for the Special Exception and the three Variances they were requesting. When I spoke with their counsel he stated that they were going to make changes to their initial plans that might eliminate one or two of their ZBA applications, but that's all he was willing to say about the matter.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

Last night's ZBA meeting went nowhere for the applicants...other than the meeting being moved to the high school auditorium because there were too many people in the hearing room at town hall.

The first of their four applications were rejected by the ZBA as incomplete and the applicants withdrew the other three as they were incomplete, too.

I expect they will refile their applications for the Special Exception and the three Variances they were requesting. When I spoke with their counsel he stated that they were going to make changes to their initial plans that might eliminate one or two of their ZBA applications, but that's all he was willing to say about the matter.

Thanks for your report. In addition to what you described, this was the 4th time that their plans were rejected by the Alton ZBA. The Zoning Board stated that Alton’s limit is 2 rejections before reapplication is required, so the applicant got 2 free passes. Thank you to everyone who took the time to attend the meeting!

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

Thanks for your report. In addition to what you described, this was the 4th time that their plans were rejected by the Alton ZBA. The Zoning Board stated that Alton’s limit is 2 rejections before reapplication is required, so the applicant got 2 free passes. Thank you to everyone who took the time to attend the meeting!

Their applications weren't rejected four times, they were continued at the applicant's request. The applications weren't found incomplete until the ZBA meeting with the admonition about 2 continuances being the norm and the applicants having gotten 4 of them.

The real power for dealing with the project is with the Planning Board. The ZBA is not required to allow public input as all they're interested in is processing the Special Exception and Variances for the project according to the zoning ordinances and/or state laws.

However, the Planning Board is required to allow public input. Both proponents and opponents can address the Planning Board after the applicants make their presentation and PB members ask their questions. Then the Board will open the hearing to the public so they can express their opinions and concerns, and asking questions of both the Board and the applicants if they so desire. Once the public has had their say the PB will close the public hearing and move on to other applicants. Once all of them have been heard, the PB will discuss and vote on each application in turn. The Board can approve the application as is, approve it but with conditions that must be met before the Chairman signs off, rejected with suggested changes to be made before reapplication, or outright rejection.

[Slickcraft]

Article in today's Sun:
https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...12cf1832e.html

The Planning Board has no authority to move ahead on the commercial function facility portion of the application unless and until the ZBA approves a special exception allowing such in the rural zone.

The applicants must now start over with a new application to the ZBA. We live on Cherry Valley Road and have submitted written comments to both the ZBA and PB. If necessary we will resubmit our comments. Written comments are part of the official record for both boards.

They will be back. So the opposition needs to be back as well.

Alan

[TomC]

A quote from the developer in the article: "We had planned to present our improved vision of creating a beautiful, serene place of celebration that would preserve more than 55% of the wooded land and be respectful of neighbors’ concerns. It was disappointing to be denied that opportunity"

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

Article in today's Sun:
https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...12cf1832e.html

The Planning Board has no authority to move ahead on the commercial function facility portion of the application unless and until the ZBA approves a special exception allowing such in the rural zone.

The applicants must now start over with a new application to the ZBA. We live on Cherry Valley Road and have submitted written comments to both the ZBA and PB. If necessary we will resubmit our comments. Written comments are part of the official record for both boards.

They will be back. So the opposition needs to be back as well.

Alan

Thank you for your information and support. They can’t even get their facts correct in an article. The article states that this application is for a commercial facility in a resort zone, but it is in the Alton RURAL Zone. The opposition will still be standing strong when they come back.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

Their applications weren't rejected four times, they were continued at the applicant's request. The applications weren't found incomplete until the ZBA meeting with the admonition about 2 continuances being the norm and the applicants having gotten 4 of them.

The real power for dealing with the project is with the Planning Board. The ZBA is not required to allow public input as all they're interested in is processing the Special Exception and Variances for the project according to the zoning ordinances and/or state laws.

However, the Planning Board is required to allow public input. Both proponents and opponents can address the Planning Board after the applicants make their presentation and PB members ask their questions. Then the Board will open the hearing to the public so they can express their opinions and concerns, and asking questions of both the Board and the applicants if they so desire. Once the public has had their say the PB will close the public hearing and move on to other applicants. Once all of them have been heard, the PB will discuss and vote on each application in turn. The Board can approve the application as is, approve it but with conditions that must be met before the Chairman signs off, rejected with suggested changes to be made before reapplication, or outright rejection.

Thanks - I should have used the word "continued" instead of "rejected". However, I would argue that the ZBA continued the application at the February 1 meeting (not the applicant) due to incomplete plans. See minutes attached. The applicant agreed, but it was not a voluntary continuance by the applicant. And the applicant certainly didn't ask for a voluntary continuance at Thursday's meeting.

Although the Zoning board may not be required to allow public input (I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if this is true or not), a cursory review of recent Alton Zoning Board Minutes shows that the Zoning Board typically opens the meetings to public input. Anyone can review minutes from prior ZBA meetings here: https://www.alton.nh.gov/node/74 I've also attached the minutes from the December 2023 meeting showing the ZBA opening the meeting to public input on an unrelated case. The opposition was fully prepared to speak at Thursday's meeting, and I have no doubt that the ZBA would have allowed public input. We will be ready to speak in opposition to the Special Exception for a Commercial Function Facility in a RURAL Zone when they come back.

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

The real power for dealing with the project is with the Planning Board. The ZBA is not required to allow public input as all they're interested in is processing the Special Exception and Variances for the project according to the zoning ordinances and/or state laws.

I disagree.

There is a fairly big legal hurdle to obtain a variance. Essentially (and overly simplistically) there must be a hardship inherent in the land for the ZBA to grant a variance. (Amongst other criteria) This is a tough burden to overcome, because the applicant needs to show a reason why the land can’t reasonably be used under the criteria as currently zoned. If the ZBA did grant a variance, an appeal of the variance through the court system often stands a good chance of getting overturned.

A special exception has a lower legal burden, because the zoning ordinance specifically allows the use, provided the applicant can demonstrate that the use is appropriate for the specific parcel of land.

Also, both the ZBA and the Planning Board are legally obligated to take testimony from any abutter, and any member of the public that can demonstrate a direct impact attributable to the proposed development. Nearly every community in NH takes a very liberal view of this provision, and they generally allow testimony from any member of the public. If they didn’t take that testimony, they would have no way of determining whether or not a party is directly impacted.

Lastly, the Planning Board is probably the least likely approval that can be successfully appealed. If the ZBA grants approval, and there is no appeal to that approval, the variance runs with the land, and gives the applicant the right to build the use contemplated under the variance, subject to good engineering practice, suitable aesthetics, and a host of other criteria that the Planning Board can oversee. However, the Planning Board will have no right to deny the use itself, if the ZBA grants the variances/exceptions, and there is no successful appeal.

If the parties aggrieved by this development want to stop the development, they would be well served to hire a top notch land use attorney NOW, so that the attorney can review the application, and provide sound testimony during the ZBA proceedings, that will support a future appeal. Trust me, the applicant is represented by legal counsel, and they know full well that if they can get to the Planning Board without a ZBA appeal, they are likely to prevail in the long run. The last thing those in opposition want to do is wait until the Planning Board proceedings.

[gravy boat]

The question is how many attorneys- land use specialty included - own property in Alton or Gilford (my guess is more than you think) and care enough to fight it as it may directly affect them?

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by Riviera

I disagree.

There is a fairly big legal hurdle to obtain a variance. Essentially (and overly simplistically) there must be a hardship inherent in the land for the ZBA to grant a variance. (Amongst other criteria) This is a tough burden to overcome, because the applicant needs to show a reason why the land can’t reasonably be used under the criteria as currently zoned. If the ZBA did grant a variance, an appeal of the variance through the court system often stands a good chance of getting overturned.

A special exception has a lower legal burden, because the zoning ordinance specifically allows the use, provided the applicant can demonstrate that the use is appropriate for the specific parcel of land.

Also, both the ZBA and the Planning Board are legally obligated to take testimony from any abutter, and any member of the public that can demonstrate a direct impact attributable to the proposed development. Nearly every community in NH takes a very liberal view of this provision, and they generally allow testimony from any member of the public. If they didn’t take that testimony, they would have no way of determining whether or not a party is directly impacted.

Lastly, the Planning Board is probably the least likely approval that can be successfully appealed. If the ZBA grants approval, and there is no appeal to that approval, the variance runs with the land, and gives the applicant the right to build the use contemplated under the variance, subject to good engineering practice, suitable aesthetics, and a host of other criteria that the Planning Board can oversee. However, the Planning Board will have no right to deny the use itself, if the ZBA grants the variances/exceptions, and there is no successful appeal.

If the parties aggrieved by this development want to stop the development, they would be well served to hire a top notch land use attorney NOW, so that the attorney can review the application, and provide sound testimony during the ZBA proceedings, that will support a future appeal. Trust me, the applicant is represented by legal counsel, and they know full well that if they can get to the Planning Board without a ZBA appeal, they are likely to prevail in the long run. The last thing those in opposition want to do is wait until the Planning Board proceedings.

Thank you for your informative post. Lots of great information and advice in there. The problem is that the abutters and neighbors to this development are just regular people that settled in this area for its beauty, nature and rural life in the tranquil community of Alton. Nobody is a billionaire, so fighting these people in court is impossible. We all pay taxes to our town, so we’re going to have to rely on the laws and the integrity of the zoning and planning board members. We unequivocally believe that our town officials have the utmost integrity, will follow the law and will make decisions accordingly. That’s all we can hope for.

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by Little Bear

We unequivocally believe that our town officials have the utmost integrity, will follow the law and will make decisions accordingly. That’s all we can hope for.

It’s great that you believe in the volunteers on these boards. Most of them all want to do the right thing, and none of them are getting paid for their civic passion.

That said, these boards often don’t fully understand the laws, and they make unintentional mistakes. A good land use attorney can spot those mistakes, and turn them to the advantage of their client, be it a proponent of the development, or an opponent of the development.

If there is a large group of community members that oppose the development, consider an e-mail or social media campaign to solicit funds for legal representation. In the near term, this won’t cost much, because the attorney is simply going to review the application, attend a couple of meetings, and provide proper testimony that might help the ZBA members understand the legal reasons why a variance might not be legally justifiable. The ZBA is really acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and they can’t (or shouldn’t) be making a variance decision based upon personal preferences of the community members. They really need legal justification to render a decision, yet they’ll only hear one legal opinion if there is only counsel for the applicant presenting testimony.

Nobody likes to have to hire attorneys, but I really feel that a small amount of legal expenditure at this juncture will really help concerned community members to understand the process, and be better equipped to handle a mistake by a local board of volunteers.

FWIW, I know very little about this application, and have no opinion as to the actual ramification to community members. It may well be that opposition is overly concerned about the actual impacts. Conversely, we may all be getting an eyesore on what should justifiably remain rural. I just hate to see the community members get railroaded by wealthy landowners, who can afford any amount of legal expense to overcome local opposition.

Get 10 people to donate $1,000 to a legal fund, and you’ll probably have enough to get somebody to review the application, appear at the public hearings, and provide a concise legal argument on behalf of an abutter. Trust me on this …. it’s a necessary expenditure to stop this thing, assuming it warrants being stopped.

EDIT: I just read a news article that indicates the applicants have pulled the variance application, and are now only seeking special exceptions. I suspect they determined they were unlikely to prevail in a variance appeal. The special exceptions are less likely to be overturned on appeal, so I could make a case that an attorney would be less beneficial at this stage.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by Riviera

It’s great that you believe in the volunteers on these boards. Most of them all want to do the right thing, and none of them are getting paid for their civic passion.

That said, these boards often don’t fully understand the laws, and they make unintentional mistakes. A good land use attorney can spot those mistakes, and turn them to the advantage of their client, be it a proponent of the development, or an opponent of the development.

If there is a large group of community members that oppose the development, consider an e-mail or social media campaign to solicit funds for legal representation. In the near term, this won’t cost much, because the attorney is simply going to review the application, attend a couple of meetings, and provide proper testimony that might help the ZBA members understand the legal reasons why a variance might not be legally justifiable. The ZBA is really acting in a quasi-judicial capacity, and they can’t (or shouldn’t) be making a variance decision based upon personal preferences of the community members. They really need legal justification to render a decision, yet they’ll only hear one legal opinion if there is only counsel for the applicant presenting testimony.

Nobody likes to have to hire attorneys, but I really feel that a small amount of legal expenditure at this juncture will really help concerned community members to understand the process, and be better equipped to handle a mistake by a local board of volunteers.

FWIW, I know very little about this application, and have no opinion as to the actual ramification to community members. It may well be that opposition is overly concerned about the actual impacts. Conversely, we may all be getting an eyesore on what should justifiably remain rural. I just hate to see the community members get railroaded by wealthy landowners, who can afford any amount of legal expense to overcome local opposition.

Get 10 people to donate $1,000 to a legal fund, and you’ll probably have enough to get somebody to review the application, appear at the public hearings, and provide a concise legal argument on behalf of an abutter. Trust me on this …. it’s a necessary expenditure to stop this thing, assuming it warrants being stopped.

EDIT: I just read a news article that indicates the applicants have pulled the variance application, and are now only seeking special exceptions. I suspect they determined they were unlikely to prevail in a variance appeal. The special exceptions are less likely to be overturned on appeal, so I could make a case that an attorney would be less beneficial at this stage.

Riviera, thank you very much for again taking time to share your insights and suggestions about this matter. It’s very complex and it has our little hamlet of West Alton on edge and very concerned. We’ll stick together and oppose this as best we can in hopes of protecting the area and our way of life. I appreciate your advice. LB

[retired]

Riviera is absolutely correct. Wishful thinking won't do much against a billionaire's legal team. Someone in Alton should set up a go fund me site to raise the money to hire an attorney to combat the Grimms. The time is now.

[Grant]

You're right, because in these scenarios, money almost always wins. Sad, but true.

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by retired

Riviera is absolutely correct. Wishful thinking won't do much against a billionaire's legal team. Someone in Alton should set up a go fund me site to raise the money to hire an attorney to combat the Grimms. The time is now.

Thank you for your suggestion. We are looking at this and other possibilities as we speak.

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by Riviera

I disagree.

There is a fairly big legal hurdle to obtain a variance. Essentially (and overly simplistically) there must be a hardship inherent in the land for the ZBA to grant a variance. (Amongst other criteria) This is a tough burden to overcome, because the applicant needs to show a reason why the land can’t reasonably be used under the criteria as currently zoned. If the ZBA did grant a variance, an appeal of the variance through the court system often stands a good chance of getting overturned.

A special exception has a lower legal burden, because the zoning ordinance specifically allows the use, provided the applicant can demonstrate that the use is appropriate for the specific parcel of land.

Also, both the ZBA and the Planning Board are legally obligated to take testimony from any abutter, and any member of the public that can demonstrate a direct impact attributable to the proposed development. Nearly every community in NH takes a very liberal view of this provision, and they generally allow testimony from any member of the public. If they didn’t take that testimony, they would have no way of determining whether or not a party is directly impacted.

Lastly, the Planning Board is probably the least likely approval that can be successfully appealed. If the ZBA grants approval, and there is no appeal to that approval, the variance runs with the land, and gives the applicant the right to build the use contemplated under the variance, subject to good engineering practice, suitable aesthetics, and a host of other criteria that the Planning Board can oversee. However, the Planning Board will have no right to deny the use itself, if the ZBA grants the variances/exceptions, and there is no successful appeal.

If the parties aggrieved by this development want to stop the development, they would be well served to hire a top notch land use attorney NOW, so that the attorney can review the application, and provide sound testimony during the ZBA proceedings, that will support a future appeal. Trust me, the applicant is represented by legal counsel, and they know full well that if they can get to the Planning Board without a ZBA appeal, they are likely to prevail in the long run. The last thing those in opposition want to do is wait until the Planning Board proceedings.

Part of what I was trying to convey is that ZBA approval is not required prior to a PB hearing. The Planning Board has a number of options when it comes to site plan approvals: approval, conditional approval, and rejection.

In my years serving on planning boards, it hasn't been unusual for planning boards to give conditional approvals, meaning an approval that includes additional conditions such as receiving a variance or variances from the ZBA, approval of special exceptions, NHDES/EPA waivers, and so on. If those conditions aren't met then the site plan approval is null and void. In fact, that was how it was done for a long time and it wasn't until the past 10 years, more or less, that going to the ZBA prior to the Planning Board hearings was an option. (It was seen that doing this eliminated much of the back and forth between the PB and ZBA.)

Generally overturning a ZBA decision requires taking it to court, something a lot of folks don't want to do, even if they should.

To quote one of my favorite philosophers, Dennis Miller, "Of course this is just my opinion. I might be wrong."

[Descant]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

"To quote one of my favorite philosophers, Dennis Miller, "Of course this is just my opinion. I might be wrong."

Esp. TV Pundits! I will always remember a long commentary by Eric Severeid that ended with: "This could be very significant (pause) "Or it could mean nothing at all."

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

Part of what I was trying to convey is that ZBA approval is not required prior to a PB hearing.

It is in Alton.

Section 1.06 of the Site Plan Review Regulations specifically requires that any required ZBA approvals must be obtained, and submitted as part of the Planning Board application, prior to the PB application being deemed complete. The PB will take no action until a complete application has been submitted. There are, however, provisions that would allow for a conceptual hearing prior to a ZBA approval.

Some communities will permit the planning board to to review an application prior to a ZBA approval, but I don’t think it is the norm. Most communities want to see the lot become legally viable from a zoning standpoint, before a planning board spends time reviewing the specific details required for a site plan approval. There are also provisions in State law that allow for joint hearings of the PB and ZBA, but those provisions are rarely used, except in the instance of huge projects.

Long story short, in this instance, they need a ZBA approval before they can submit a formal application the PB.

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

"To quote one of my favorite philosophers, Dennis Miller, "Of course this is just my opinion. I might be wrong."

I think Dennis got it right!

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by Riviera

It is in Alton.

Section 1.06 of the Site Plan Review Regulations specifically requires that any required ZBA approvals must be obtained, and submitted as part of the Planning Board application, prior to the PB application being deemed complete. The PB will take no action until a complete application has been submitted. There are, however, provisions that would allow for a conceptual hearing prior to a ZBA approval.

Long story short, in this instance, they need a ZBA approval before they can submit a formal application the PB.

I think Dennis got it right!

Then in this case the PB meeting to hear the application needs to be postponed because, to all intents and purposes, there's nothing to hear. I have to wonder if the applicants will request a continuance for a month or more until they can get what they need from the ZBA?

I do know that the applicants did mention something about amending their site plan such that they wouldn't require as many variances. It will be interesting to see what they'll do to make that a possibility.

[TomC]

Isn't amending the site plan like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? The main variance/exception they need is to put a huge commercial enterprise in an area zoned rural... that's a pretty significant exception and probably the main one causing the opposition. Fine tuning the rest of them strikes me as irrelevant.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by TomC

Isn't amending the site plan like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic? The main variance/exception they need is to put a huge commercial enterprise in an area zoned rural... that's a pretty significant exception and probably the main one causing the opposition. Fine tuning the rest of them strikes me as irrelevant.

I expect the applicant's attorneys working on this have long sleeves and more tricks than you can spot. One simple item when you ask for a continuance is to waive a second or further mail notice to abutters. Abutters and other opponents wear down easily and lose track of rescheduled meetings. When you have a group that hires an attorney, there is no excuse for him/her to miss a meeting or a deadline.

[Slickcraft]

As noted on the related Facebook group, the application to the PB has been withdrawn. https://www.alton.nh.gov/calendar

Not a surprise as they have to start over with a new application to the ZBA and the PB can not accept an application as complete unless and until the ZBA approves a special exception to allow the commercial event facility in the rural zone.

Will they be back?? Does a bear s##t in the woods?

When they do submit to the ZBA, written comments become part of the recorded. Comments should focus on the specific criteria that must be found true to grant a special exception. See page 75 of the zoning regulations.
https://www.alton.nh.gov/forms/plann...gOrdinance.pdf

Alan

[Mr. V]

I know of a land use attorney who has lake front property in the vicinity; I assume he reads this forum and would be interested provided his fee were taken care of.

[Slickcraft]

In today's Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...910d6acf5.html

Alan

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Slickcraft

In today's Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...910d6acf5.html

Alan

Quote of the Day: "The Alton Business Association supports all local businesses and we are a fair and unbiased association"

Doesn't that mean they are biased towards every local business?

[TomC]

sounds like there ought to be an Alton Residents Association to counterbalance it...