"Meredith voters: islands not all the same"

[fatlazyless]

Here is an interesting letter to the editor in the Monday, March 3, 2008, Laconia Daily Sun from Dean Dexter. As I understand it, Mr Dexter is a long time attorney and former Meredith state representative who has a strong interest in New Hampshire politics and as a writer on its' history.
...............

Meredith voters need to recognize not all islands the same

To the editor,

On March 11, the people of Meredith will have the opportunity to vote on Warrant Article 2, which if adopted, would eliminate forever an important step in the approval process as it relates to building development on certain islands situated within the Town of Meredith.

All islands and bodies of water in the Town of Meredith are precious, important resources to the citizens of the Town, and to the many visitors who come to Meredith throughout the four seasons. While some islands and ponds in the Town are conducive to commercial and residential developement, others are not. By legislating a policy to exempt all islands in Meredith from review under the Special Exception process, the people of Meredith would unwisely relinquish an important tool to balance a multitude of needs and issues specific to island development. These include but are not limited to, matters of safety, financial impact on town services, the preservation of water quality, wild-life habitat, natural resources, and quality of life for residents and vistors alike.

It hardly seems in the best interest of our community to provide a blanket exception to all islands, due to the diversity of the size and nature of islands, and the lakes and ponds in which they are situated, which the adoption of Article 2 would create.

Because of advances in technology and modern building practices, the pressure on islands in the Town of Meredith and elsewhere to be developed for commercial or residential use has increased signifigantly in recent years. All islands are not created equal, nor are all lakes and ponds the same. It would be a mistake to create a blanket exception to remove all islands from the additional scrutiny the people of Meredith currently enjoy under the law.

Please vote No on Warrant Article 2 on March 11 at the Meredith Community Center polling location.

Dean Dexter
Meredith

Laconia Daily Sun, letter to the editor
.....................

Without commenting on Mr. Dexter's letter as frankly it is a little over my head, and I aint got nuth'n intelligent to say most times anyway, it does raise for me some related questions on the election and the voting.

Apparently, some petitioned warrants such as this item plus the SB-2 warrant require a 60% majority and are held at the all day, 7am-7pm polling at the Community Center, while other items like the fire staion expansion require a 50.0001% majority and are held late at night or sometime, during the town meeting, and by a hand or paper vote, at the moderator's discretion.

Is this confusing or is this confusing?

Hopefully, a local newspaper will provide some answers and explain how it all works in advance and publish the when and how much, and the actual voting questions. It would be very helpfull to me, and most likely to others to have some time to think about it all, before the actual voting takes place.

Meredith factoid: Wkipedia says that 25.73% of the Town of Meredith is occupied by a body of water, with the remaining 74.27% being land, unless there's some other part of town that is neither land or water.

[Old Hubbard Rd]

ARTICLE 2


Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the planning board for the Meredith Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Insert a new paragraph W in Article III (General Provisions) of the ordinance to allow building permits to be issued for lots on islands served exclusively by boats without requiring that the landowner must either comply with the road access requirements of RSA 674:41, or must apply to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for relief from the road access requirements on a case by case basis?


Text of Amendment No. 1. (Proposed by the Planning Board) To Except Certain
Island Lots from RSA 674:41
Amend Article III, General Provisions, by inserting the following new paragraph:
W. Certain Island Lots Excepted From RSA 674:41
Pursuant to RSA 674:41, II-a, all lots on islands served exclusively by boats are hereby
excepted from the requirements of RSA 674:41, I and II as the same may be amended from
time to time.

[Old Hubbard Rd]

I do not know much about this although I understand it may have been proposed because of a situation over at Lake Wicwas. A island land owner wanted to subdivide a island property and I think something about road frontage came up and there were debates about there not being road frontage. There was also a debate about about whether the island home owner could use the town launch site as a launch for delivery of materials. Not sure if this is was created because of that situation or not.

[Pine Cove]

Hi All,

So who can vote? Do seasonal island dwellers have a say.

I pray for Bear Island if this goes into play.

The damage to certain areas of the island are catostraphic.

Some people do not have a conscience.

DOES ANYONE CARE?

Worried

[tis]

Isn't the whole thing irrelevant anyway? Since the state is going to be giving permits on bodies of water, after April 1, I don't see any point in this.

[Grady223]

As an Islander, I am in favor of town involvement in islands. Alton doesn't give a ---- about our island creating all kinds of issues between neighbors when one does something stupid. Islanders pay the same tax rate as landlubbers and deserve the same services and don't get them. Now Merideth doesn't want to enforce building codes?! So what do islanders get for their tax dollars???

[Mark]

Something or someone is not right.
Why would lawyer Dean Dexter with the qualifications presented by FLL be against this? If, as Old Hubbard Rd prints, this Article 2 is about eliminating road frontage permit applications and variances on then what is the big deal. Unless this includes islands accessible by road who cares? What is this lawyer afraid of?

We need to slow down and digest what is really going on with this. What is the story behind the story?

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Here is an interesting letter to the editor in the Monday, March 3, 2008, Laconia Daily Sun from Dean Dexter. As I understand it, Mr Dexter is a long time attorney and former Meredith state representative who has a strong interest in New Hampshire politics and as a writer on its' history.
...............

Meredith voters need to recognize not all islands the same

To the editor,

On March 11, the people of Meredith will have the opportunity to vote on Warrant Article 2, which if adopted, would eliminate forever an important step in the approval process as it relates to building development on certain islands situated within the Town of Meredith. ...

Originally Posted by Old Hubbard Rd

Insert a new paragraph W in Article III (General Provisions) of the ordinance to allow building permits to be issued for lots on islands served exclusively by boats without requiring that the landowner must either comply with the road access requirements of RSA 674:41, or must apply to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for relief from the road access requirements on a case by case basis?

That is the text of Amendment No. 1. Is there more than one amendment? What else is tacked on to this Warrant?

[Bear Islander]

This is not what you may think it is. This is a big lie on the part of Mr. Dexter.

Mr. Dexter has a campaign to stop development of an island on lake Wicwas. I have no opinion as to what he is trying to do on Wicwas. But the lies he is telling in his letter are outrageous.

Meredith building code has, for many years, required road access before you can obtain a building permit. When someone applied for an island building permit this requirement was ignored as being "not applicable". Obviously unbridged islands can't have road access.

In order to prevent development of his favorite island, Mr. Dexter insists the the letter of the law be enforced. This means that at this time you can not obtain a building permit for an island in Meredith without going through a very long expensive process.

The Warrant in question would eliminate the road access requirement for unbridged islands. It's only about closing up a loophole. The Warrant will put things back to the way they were before Mr. Dexter pulled this rabbit out of his hat.

What is outrageous is that he is hiding his real motives, and claiming that the Warrant is a lot more than it really is.

He is trying to stop all development on all islands so he can control land he does not own.


By the way. After April 1 you will still need a Meredith building permit AND a state permit.

[Grady223]

for the clarification.

[mcdude]

We were discussing this very same issue back in 2005.

See this thread

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ghlight=wicwas

[fatlazyless]

So, who the heck is Dean Dexter? With all due respect to Mr Dexter, I figure as long as there's a website that offers up a view of him as a longtime NH political figure and student & author of NH history, that he doesn't mind me posting it.

http://www.mv.com/ipusers/lionmedia/...r_archive.html

He certainly knows lots about political history from around these here parts, ayuh!

[Island Life]

Originally Posted by Pine Cove

Hi All,

So who can vote? Do seasonal island dwellers have a say.

I pray for Bear Island if this goes into play.

The damage to certain areas of the island are catostraphic.

Some people do not have a conscience.

DOES ANYONE CARE?

Worried

No. Islanders don't vote unless they also have a permanent (primary) residence in the same town as their island. The townspeople, not the islanders, have the say on how the islands are affected. While we may only be "summer people," many of us have been there (and paying the same amount in taxes as the locals - or even more because we're waterfront) all our lives, as have our families for 3, 4 or 5 generations before that. Seems a little unfair.

[Bear Islander]

You can make your island home your primary residence and vote locally.

There is a common belief this is not possible but it is.

[fatlazyless]

From my experience about ten years ago, two of the questions you can expect to be asked by the five member Meredith board (3 selectmen, one meeting secretary & one other(?)) that includes any questionable residency requests is: Does it have year round plumbing and year round heat. Otherwise.... "it's not a residence, it's a camp!"

.............

With regard to Dean Dexter's letter requesting a No vote on Meredith warrant article #2, I'm going with the No vote since he's a very smart guy and has written all those historical NH articles. Plus, I think I agree with him.

[Bear Islander]

It isn't up to the selectmen. There are powerful state and federal voting rights laws that govern your voting rights. Many Americans have no permanent address, and I don't mean just the homeless poor. Some people live on boats and a growing number, mostly seniors, live in RV's and have no permanent home.

Under pressure from RV associations the New Hampshire Secretary of State recently confirmed that if you are in a NH town on election day, and you are not registered elsewhere, you can vote.

This has also been a hot issue in college towns. Small towns sometimes discourage college students from voting. In these cases the local officials are themselves breaking the law. Like the selectmen were years ago when they demanded year round plumbing.

I think I may register to vote in Meredith next month.

[bilproject]

Me too Bear Islander!!! My vote is wasted in NJ. We only get offered the next candidate in the corruption line down here! I too have looked into this and since I will be living on the island from ice out till ice in I planned on making NH my state of residence in 3 years. Why not just change now!!! Maybe we should petition for a change of government form to a ward system. That way you can be the first selectman representing Bear Island. Come to think of it Bear Island has two families living out there year round now.

[snowbird]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

You can make your island home your primary residence and vote locally.

There is a common belief this is not possible but it is.

Bear Islander is correct. I have done so for 14 years. Of course, one cannot also declare a 2nd place of residence for voting purposes. And it helps if your picture ID, i.e. driver's license, confirms your address.

[froggy]

Just like people who winter FL and summer NH, one needs to decide where one wants the primary residence, which all goes together: voting, car registration, address on drivers license, car "garaging" for insurance purposes, etc.

Bear Isl, Meredith, NH or any other NH town: decisions! Minimum 50%

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

...This is not what you may think it is. This is a big lie on the part of Mr. Dexter...

Apparently the voters did not feel Mr. Dexter was lying, as they supported his position and decided not to overide the frontage requirement.

From today's Citizen:

"...Voters defeated — 509 to 540 — a proposal from the planning board pertaining to island building lots but overwhelmingly approved four other planning board-supported amendments..."

By the way, I know Dean. Dean can be accused of a lot of things when it comes to politics; flamboyant, zealous, rambunctious and very passionate and extremely articulate...but I have never known him to be a liar.

Good work Dean!

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

Apparently the voters did not feel Mr. Dexter was lying, as they supported his position and decided not to overide the frontage requirement.

From today's Citizen:

"...Voters defeated — 509 to 540 — a proposal from the planning board pertaining to island building lots but overwhelmingly approved four other planning board-supported amendments..."

By the way, I know Dean. Dean can be accused of a lot of things when it comes to politics; flamboyant, zealous, rambunctious and very passionate and extremely articulate...but I have never known him to be a liar.

I would like to think most voters were unaware of what they were really voting for. As I hope you are.

Good work Dean!

Good Work Dean?

Skip, I don't understand. Are you unaware of the realities of the situation? Or do you believe that islanders should have to meet the frontage requirements?

In my opinion the way he represented the warrant in his letter is an outright lie. It does not do what he claims. The residents are losing no power except the power to totally block ALL work requiring a permit by using a technicality that was obviously never intended for islands.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

Good Work Dean?

Skip, I don't understand. Are you unaware of the realities of the situation? Or do you believe that islanders should have to meet the frontage requirements?

Its a mute point whatever my personal beliefs of the situation are, it was a decision to be made by the voters of Meredith.

And those voters have spoken.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

Its a mute point whatever my personal beliefs of the situation are, it was a decision to be made by the voters of Meredith.

And those voters have spoken.

I would like to believe most of the voters did not understand what they were really voting for.

However it is far from over. Clearly this insane situation will not stand in the long run.

I don't think you really understand what this is about.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I would like to believe most of the voters did not understand what they were really voting for.

However it is far from over. Clearly this insane situation will not stand in the long run.

I don't think you really understand what this is about.

Its unfortunate that you take the tact that if someone carries a political opinion contrary to yours that "...most of the voters did not understand what they were really voting for..." or that I don't "...really understand what this is about..." or most unfortunately, that good folks that disagree with you must be "liars".

It is much more conducive to polite and intelligent debate to agree to disagree without calling in to question the integrity or intelligence of those that hold a different belief or opinion.

You are obviously a very intelligent and passionate individual. I just wish sometimes you would re-read your posts and count to ten before you punch the "submit reply" button.

But now we are wandering off topic, please feel free to contact me off line if you would like to chat about this further!

Skip

[Islander]

I wonder is Mr. Dexter understands the damage he is doing. I know of two septic system upgrades that could not be done last year because of Him. It was assumed that this could be resolved and work started after ice out. I guess this is now going to court. I wonder how the voters of Meredith will like the attorneys bill for defending an indefensible position. Well I guess it doesn't matter as long as Mr. Dexter's favorite lake view is not disturbed.

[tis]

I don't think it matters much what passes now. It is going to be very difficult to deal with the state getting permits. I think the state is getting what they want, no building on the lake.

I personally have dealt with getting a new septic system which was approved for four and they wanted it converted to two. It doesn't make sense, because the old system could remain but if you want to put in a new one they only want you to have two.

The state has now said that if you build a boathouse, you have moved the reference line, (previously defined as the natural mean high water level on natural fresh waterbodies) so that if you are building another building, it must be 50 feet away from that (new) reference line. So if you want to build a house, it must be 50 feet away from the inside of the boathouse, not 50 feet from the lake. That is pretty tough to do on many lots. It is taking so much time-they have a million ways to stall, and so much money that it will really hurt the economy around the lake. Some like BI may like it until they want to do something themselves.

[Islander]

I am in favor of limiting lakeside development. There are legitimate ways to do it. Buy up the land and put it in a trust. Pass reasonable restrictions and building codes.

Legal tricks are not the way to do it. Preventing homeowners from replacing their windows, upgrading plumbing or electric, or putting in a new septic system is not the way to do it.

Using lies to play on voter fears just before an election is not the way to do it.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Skip

Its unfortunate that you take the tact that if someone carries a political opinion contrary to yours that "...most of the voters did not understand what they were really voting for..." or that I don't "...really understand what this is about..." or most unfortunately, that good folks that disagree with you must be "liars".

It is much more conducive to polite and intelligent debate to agree to disagree without calling in to question the integrity or intelligence of those that hold a different belief or opinion.

You are obviously a very intelligent and passionate individual. I just wish sometimes you would re-read your posts and count to ten before you punch the "submit reply" button.

But now we are wandering off topic, please feel free to contact me off line if you would like to chat about this further!

Skip

I don't see where this is off topic. I don't regret anything I posted, although you may be reading more animosity into it than I intended.

He is not a liar because he disagrees with me. He is a liar because he is telling lies.

"Warrant Article 2, which if adopted, would eliminate forever"

That warrant would not have eliminated any of the voters rights forever. Anything done with this warrant could be undone with another. Trying to scare the voters in the days before they vote sometimes works, it's never right.

He could have been up front with the voters and told them that the warrant would close the loop hole he is using to prevent development of one small island. He could have told them the the loop hole is also screwing a lot of innocent people on other islands but that he doesn't care about them, only his pet crusade.

But of course he couldn't do that because he would have lost the vote. And it was very close.

The funny thing is that I agree with what he is trying to do. I just hate the way he is going about it.

This may put out of business some of the companies that do island work. Boats, barges and water access on the mainland cost plenty. That is one of the things I was talking about when I suggested people don't understand what this is really about.

[fatlazyless]

This warrant question, Meredith Article 2, was still way too over my head by the time I got to the voting booth, so I voted NO because I thought that having a totally undeveloped and heavily treed island definately improves the view. Having kayaked around the island (believe it is Sheep Island) at the center of this lengthy litigation. Just look at Timber Island, Winnipesaukee's 7th largest island, and picture that all built out!

Having read the letter below from the Planning Board chairman, on Monday the day before the election, I was still plenty confused. So, I figured....all things considered....what the heck...Dean Dexter writes some good historical NH articles so I'd go NO.
..........

From yesterday's March 10, 2008, Laconia Daily Sun, letters to the editor

To the editor,

A recent letter to the editor by Dean Dexter states that the Meredith Planning Board's proposed Article 2 zoning amendment would "exempt all islands in Meredith from the special exemption process...." This is simply untrue. The article would only exempt islands that are served exclusively by boat, with no motor vehicle access, from a statutory requirement that currently specifies all building lots must have access to a street. Further, Article 2 would not permit commercial developement on islands, as he claimed, nor would it preclude or avoid Planning Board review of safety, town services, or environmental and quality of life issues falling within the Planning Board's authority. And, it has nothing to do with special exceptions, as he also incorrectly implied.

In a court case in which Mr. Dexter and others have sued the town and others, the Superior Court said that "...an absolute requirement of street frontage on (an island accesible only by boat) would be absurd..." but that absurdity could be avoided by either obtaining an exemption (not a special exception) from the Zoning Board of Adjustment, or by having the town create a statutorily available general exemption to street access on islands where there are no streets. That is what Article 2, if adopted, would provide.
Such a general exempion as provided by Article 2 would avoid the necessity of ZBA proceedings solely to provide relief from the street access requirement where the requirement would be absurd, and from the expense to the town of litigation that might follow.

Herb Vadney, chairman
Meredith Planning Board
.............
This is so far over my head I have nothing intelligent to say about it

Article 2, island zoning development requirement - results: 509-yes (48.5%) vs 540-no (51.5%)

One side question that it raises for me is why is it that this Article #2 needed just a a 50% majority, while the two SB-2 Articles, #1-school and #7-town, required a 60% majority?

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I don't see where this is off topic. I don't regret anything I posted, although you may be reading more animosity into it than I intended.

He is not a liar because he disagrees with me. He is a liar because he is telling lies.

"Warrant Article 2, which if adopted, would eliminate forever"

That warrant would not have eliminated any of the voters rights forever. Anything done with this warrant could be undone with another. Trying to scare the voters in the days before they vote sometimes works, it's never right.

He could have been up front with the voters and told them that the warrant would close the loop hole he is using to prevent development of one small island. He could have told them the the loop hole is also screwing a lot of innocent people on other islands but that he doesn't care about them, only his pet crusade.

But of course he couldn't do that because he would have lost the vote. And it was very close.

The funny thing is that I agree with what he is trying to do. I just hate the way he is going about it.

This may put out of business some of the companies that do island work. Boats, barges and water access on the mainland cost plenty. That is one of the things I was talking about when I suggested people don't understand what this is really about.

Your compromise warrant will state?

[Airwaves]

I certainly don't know the legal definition of a "street" or "road" in Meredith, but what if island homeowners, or potential homeowners, "built a road with the proper 'frontage'" along the boundry of their property?

Does a "road" have to be paved, accepted, or can the old fashioned dirt road or glorified path qualify? Does it actually have to go somewhere?

If what people are saying about Mr. Dexter is true and he pushed this to forward his own agenda (sounds familiar) then why not use the same loophole if there is no hard and fast definition of what a "road" is?

So, does Hawaii really have an interstate highway?

[Bear Islander]

...." This is simply untrue. The article would only exempt islands that are served exclusively by boat, with no motor vehicle access, from a statutory requirement that currently specifies all building lots must have access to a street. Further, Article 2 would not permit commercial developement on islands, as he claimed, nor would it preclude or avoid Planning Board review of safety, town services, or environmental and quality of life issues falling within the Planning Board's authority. And, it has nothing to do with special exceptions, as he also incorrectly implied."

Mr. Vadney is also saying that Mr. Dexter is lying. He just does it a lot nicer than I do.

[tis]

Skip, I probably should have posted this somewhere else, but I already posted the first one here and I know this has your attention. Anyway, can you give me your opinion on RSA 483-B: 9 II regarding the 50 reference line. Maybe I should PM you. Thanks.