|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Calendar | Register | FAQ | Donate | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
07-02-2019, 07:37 AM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
|
Farm Island
Some of you may know that Farm Island in 19 Mile Bay is on the market. Farm Island is one of the few remaining undeveloped islands on Winnipesaukee.The Abenaki used to fish and hunt there, and there is a historic camp in the center of the island that goes back to when livestock spent the summer grazing there. Camp Belknap currently owns roughly 1/3 of the island and that portion is not on the market. There is a buyer interested in subdividing the 13+ acres into 12 buildable lots while preserving the historic camp. There is a hearing on July 18th at 7:00 at the Tuftonboro Town Hall at which this proposal to subdivide will be discussed. If you are interested in the future of Farm Island, come to the hearing on the 18th to learn more.
|
07-02-2019, 10:09 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 52
Thanks: 1
Thanked 35 Times in 15 Posts
|
Farm Island
Back in 1965 my grandfather was looking at property on Cow Island. As he was boating over to Cow from 19 mile bay the real estate broker said he could buy the entirety of Farm Island for 5000 dollars. My grandfather said he wasnt interested in pursuing it because at the time it had no electricity. He ended up buying a lot on Cow for 3500 dollars that October. I am not sure if Farm Island was really for sale then but that is the story I was told.
|
07-02-2019, 06:07 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
|
Anything you buy on Winnipesaukee for storefront, will appreciate in value. Will it beat the market? Who knows. But it will go up in value.
Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
07-02-2019, 08:34 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: White Salmon, WA
Posts: 291
Thanks: 21
Thanked 165 Times in 90 Posts
|
I think you meant shore front. Don't you all miss the days of the big dig in Boston when all that stolen money was used to buy million dollar homes with cash?
|
07-19-2019, 10:35 PM | #6 |
Deceased Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 702
Thanks: 360
Thanked 179 Times in 141 Posts
|
Back in those days I sold boats during the Summer. Many Massachusetts trades guys from "The Dig"came in, with cash, to buy their formally elusive dream.
|
07-20-2019, 04:52 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,388
Thanks: 716
Thanked 1,376 Times in 952 Posts
|
|
07-20-2019, 08:12 AM | #8 |
Deceased Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 702
Thanks: 360
Thanked 179 Times in 141 Posts
|
True.
Many trades people came in, with cash, not just from "The Dig" Face it, under the table income has been around for a long, long time, and it was very noticeable in the boat business back then. |
07-20-2019, 10:28 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,208
Thanks: 1,108
Thanked 934 Times in 576 Posts
|
"Trades guys" with cash stolen from Big Dig? C'mon. The project may have been over budget, and some money might have been misappropriated/stolen (I can't remember the latter), but it's pretty tough to see how money stolen from a government construction project in Massachusetts is stolen in cash by the guys swinging the hammers.
|
07-20-2019, 10:47 AM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: In the hills
Posts: 2,342
Thanks: 1,580
Thanked 761 Times in 456 Posts
|
Quote:
Between the trades and the cop details there was lots of cash to be had. Maybe some worked out deals for under the table, pay. There are always ways to beat the system...especially when big city funds are involved. |
|
07-20-2019, 11:06 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 3,220
Thanks: 1,205
Thanked 1,007 Times in 648 Posts
|
Quote:
Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to joey2665 For This Useful Post: | ||
Hillcountry (07-20-2019) |
07-20-2019, 12:55 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 5,907
Thanks: 2,279
Thanked 4,924 Times in 1,906 Posts
|
I’m not sure about the “working” aspect of those overtime hours but many many contractors took advantage of “no show hours” and putting additional “mannequins” on payroll. Pretty common occurrence on larger projects in Boston and NYC....ever watch the Sopranos?...it was spot on!
__________________
It's Always Sunny On Welch Island!! |
The Following User Says Thank You to ishoot308 For This Useful Post: | ||
Hillcountry (07-20-2019) |
07-20-2019, 05:19 PM | #13 |
Deceased Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 702
Thanks: 360
Thanked 179 Times in 141 Posts
|
You are a cherry picker. I never said the workers stole money (although I bet a lot of it ended up being tax free!)
Hillcountry hit the nail on the head- some of these guys were getting 2-3-4 times overtime pay- why wouldn't they take it? It was the people who were late meeting their "friendly" government contracts who, all of a sudden had to pay through their noses to complete the job (s), that were stealing the money to over pay. You wouldn't have believed the number of weekly/bi-weekly boat rentals that went out on cash. The costs would seem moderate, by today's standards, but they couldn't spend the money fast enough to enjoy themselves- I said good for them!!! |
07-20-2019, 06:12 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,208
Thanks: 1,108
Thanked 934 Times in 576 Posts
|
No need for name calling. But as I reread your original post, I see the confusion--Dickie referred to stolen money, you quoted and replied with under the table, and I connected the two. Sorry
|
07-21-2019, 11:08 AM | #15 |
Deceased Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 702
Thanks: 360
Thanked 179 Times in 141 Posts
|
|
07-20-2019, 06:12 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: White Salmon, WA
Posts: 291
Thanks: 21
Thanked 165 Times in 90 Posts
|
My brother in law was a tradesman on the big dig and he said anything that wasn't bolted to the ground was stolen... that's where alot of the Ill gotten money used to buy houses and boats came from.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to dickiej For This Useful Post: | ||
FlyingScot (07-20-2019) |
07-18-2019, 12:38 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
|
Quote:
Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
|
07-18-2019, 12:50 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
|
Probably 99.9% of all Winnipesaukee island homes are second homes with local property taxes costing from $3,000-8,000/yr and going up every year.
So's with the new, (2018 tax year) federal income tax deduction limited to $10,000 ..... this new limit totally, totally, totally hits the second home owner very very very hard ..... regardless what anyone says ..... you understand!
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! |
07-19-2019, 09:43 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 539
Thanks: 514
Thanked 309 Times in 152 Posts
|
How did the planning board meeting go regarding this proposed subdivision?
|
07-20-2019, 03:19 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melvin village
Posts: 519
Thanks: 509
Thanked 313 Times in 147 Posts
|
Farm Island .....not the Big dig
Quote:
Over 20 people spoke why it should not be allowed to happen. The Planning Board was presented with many documents and studies to review. They have a difficult and challenging job. Nearly 300 people sighed a petition against the subdivision development. Channel 9 WMUR was there with cameras. It was shown on TV Thursday evening. Next hearing is scheduled for August 1 at the Tuftonboro Elementary School up town. This will allow for even more people to attend. |
|
07-20-2019, 06:30 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
|
Quote:
If all the requirements are met neither the citizens nor the town can say no just because we don't want it to be done. That is completely unfair. Do I personally like it, no, however that is no reason to prevent this from happening. If there are 300 people who don't like it and so concerned... then they can all pitch in about $6700 bucks a piece buy the property and turn it into conservation land. |
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post: | ||
07-20-2019, 06:53 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 519
Thanks: 227
Thanked 167 Times in 108 Posts
|
Isn't it obvious?
Quote:
__________________
"I don't take responsibility at all." |
|
07-20-2019, 08:46 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tuftonboro
Posts: 1,162
Thanks: 182
Thanked 297 Times in 220 Posts
|
Variety of issues exist regarding the development. Do any have legs...maybe not. I think the biggest issue is 1/3 of the island was sold a few years back to the ymca and many feel the rest of the island could be preserved in its current state by selling the remainder to the ymca camp. The ymca has made an offer to purchase the remainder at the same price as the developer. It has been turned down.
|
07-21-2019, 12:00 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melvin village
Posts: 519
Thanks: 509
Thanked 313 Times in 147 Posts
|
Quote:
The Winchester keep giving extensions for the last 7 months since the P&S was signed back in October, 2018. Yet the Winchesters sold 1/3 of the island to Camp Belknap back in 2010. This does not make sense. Something is really going wrong in any kind of logic. WMUR and other local news outlets are starting to ask the same questions How and why would anyone want to go through the trouble of all the pain of permitting and cost of development with 300 local folks saying... NO!! This whole deal is really need to be investigated further. There are so many questions about what is going on here. |
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to chasedawg For This Useful Post: | ||
07-21-2019, 08:21 AM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melvin village
Posts: 519
Thanks: 509
Thanked 313 Times in 147 Posts
|
Farm Island article
Quote:
https://www.concordmonitor.com/Savin...sland-26937008 |
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chasedawg For This Useful Post: | ||
DEJ (07-21-2019), samosetguy (01-10-2020) |
07-21-2019, 08:34 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
|
Ahoy there Mate ...... am blocked from reading this .... due to 5-articles/month limit ..... someone do me a favor and post this Concord Monitor article so it can be read .... thanks in advance ..... must be many others in this same boat! Hey, I don't want to buy it, I just want to read it!
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! |
07-21-2019, 11:15 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 2,882
Thanks: 638
Thanked 2,147 Times in 894 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
07-21-2019, 08:17 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,002
Thanks: 61
Thanked 700 Times in 455 Posts
|
|
07-21-2019, 08:39 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,939
Thanks: 1,152
Thanked 1,959 Times in 1,210 Posts
|
Quote:
And if both the Y and the developers offered the same money, why did the Winchesters take the developers over the Y? Other than straight $, it appears pretty clear that the Y's ownership would be much better for the region (see past discussions about dwindling summer camps/public access vs. affluent acquisition). Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
|
07-21-2019, 08:47 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 539
Thanks: 514
Thanked 309 Times in 152 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post: | ||
thinkxingu (07-21-2019) |
07-21-2019, 08:48 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
|
Quote:
While it's noble that lots of people may not want this to happen - in typical not in my back yard fashion, mob rule doesn't or shouldn't come into play here. I'm sure a bunch of so called objectors already own property that probably have the same sketchy "historical" value, may have been a place loons could have nested as well, yet how many sleep well at night knowing they have destroyed loon habitat or plowed under some place the Indians used to camp out on (maybe) hundreds of years ago so common that's just grasping at whatever they can to stop this, none of the objections I have read have any reasonable rational behind them. Far as I'm concerned the owners have every right if they so choose to get what they can out of that property. Finally the town has zero right to steer via legislative power the proposed sale of any property without due cause. It's got nothing to do with additional tax revenue although as noted the end result is beneficial to both the town and tax payers. Any one who wants to preserve this property should appeal directly to the current owners. |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post: | ||
Seaplane Pilot (07-21-2019) |
07-21-2019, 09:59 AM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 539
Thanks: 514
Thanked 309 Times in 152 Posts
|
Quote:
Mission Statement The Planning Board mission is to promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the population of the Town of Tuftonboro, to protect and conserve the rural and recreational value of property, to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the Town, and to promote the efficiency and economy in the process of development. Also to your comment regarding "Any one who wants to preserve this property should appeal directly to the current owners" That has indeed happened. The camp is offering the exact same money as the prospective developer and will preserve it if allowed to purchase it. |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post: | ||
chasedawg (07-21-2019) |
07-21-2019, 10:53 AM | #33 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Meredith Bay & LI, NY
Posts: 3,220
Thanks: 1,205
Thanked 1,007 Times in 648 Posts
|
Quote:
This case has similarities to the people that were looking to rezone Big Island on Paugus were the governments are doing everything in their power to keep these islands as is Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
|
07-21-2019, 02:12 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,208
Thanks: 1,108
Thanked 934 Times in 576 Posts
|
Quote:
An owner is presented with identical prices from two bidders for their land. One bidder will build houses for 12 families, increasing the environmental impact significantly. Another will grant low impact access to hundreds of kids every year, and protect the land forever. If I were the Winchesters, I think I'd know how I'd want to be remembered. |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post: | ||
chasedawg (07-22-2019) |
07-21-2019, 02:25 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 816
Thanks: 256
Thanked 259 Times in 157 Posts
|
I'm actually surprised that the Town of Tuftonboro and/or the State of NH doesn't buy it and preserve it as conservation land......
|
07-22-2019, 10:11 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
|
Hershey?
In the last few years, Tuftonboro bought a huge farm "for conservation". Wasn't that the Hershey Farm?
__________________
Every MP who enters Winter Harbor will pass by my porch of 67 years... |
07-22-2019, 11:32 AM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,388
Thanks: 716
Thanked 1,376 Times in 952 Posts
|
|
07-22-2019, 01:08 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
|
Cheney Farm...
That's the one--thanks!
|
07-21-2019, 09:56 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
|
Quote:
Far as the mission statement of the town goes... that's all well and good but read the language carefully, words such as promote, and encourage they can certainly do and when it comes to say allowing special exceptions for development, these ideals can certainly play a part but they cannot just say you can't build a house there because the neighbors don't like it. Nor can they just inject themselves into a legal transaction between two parties just because. This is a serious overreach and I don't believe they have the authority to do so. Keep in mind I am not taking sides on this just saying if all the requirements are met the town cannot come along and say no without just cause. The owner of the property has rights too. And not for nothing, ANY waterfront lot development creates an impact of some sort so using that as an argument then sets the precedence of what? No more waterfront lot development? Or is it just ok for some but not for others? |
|
07-21-2019, 10:18 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,371
Thanks: 709
Thanked 756 Times in 392 Posts
|
How is it known that the owners were presented with identical offers? Have you seen the offers? It appears that the YMCA offer was contingent on raising funds.
Last edited by Sue Doe-Nym; 07-22-2019 at 06:48 AM. |
07-22-2019, 08:07 AM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,208
Thanks: 1,108
Thanked 934 Times in 576 Posts
|
Quote:
The bigger point, perhaps not articulated clearly enough--it's nice if someone can reap a windfall on property from their own hard work or their grandparents. It would also be nice if that person didn't feel the need to get every last dime and instead thought a bit about what's best for the community long term. |
|
07-20-2019, 08:37 PM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,208
Thanks: 1,108
Thanked 934 Times in 576 Posts
|
That's exactly what has happened. Camp Belknap has asserted that they can raise the money to buy the land.
|
07-19-2019, 03:58 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro
Posts: 5,781
Thanks: 2,080
Thanked 735 Times in 530 Posts
|
2k...
Maxfield Realty is listing Farm Island for $2,000,000.
__________________
Every MP who enters Winter Harbor will pass by my porch of 67 years... |
07-18-2019, 07:37 AM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melvin village
Posts: 519
Thanks: 509
Thanked 313 Times in 147 Posts
|
Farm Island
Quote:
It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Last remaining private undeveloped island on the lake. I heard that a large turn out is expected. |
|
07-21-2019, 03:20 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,867
Thanks: 192
Thanked 590 Times in 395 Posts
|
Follow the money. If the YMCA was to purchase the remaining piece it would come off the local tax haul as they are tax exempt.
Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
07-21-2019, 06:46 AM | #46 |
Senior Member
|
...... way to go, Tuftonboro!
Across the 19-Mile Bay, a close boat ride away, there's Camp Winaukee with its' summer camp campus situated on both the main land neck, and on an island as well. Does Camp Winaukee pay property taxes to Moultonborough for using their mainland/island properties as a summer camp? Yes, Camp Winaukee pays property taxes.
So, why does the YMCA Camp Belknap get to be property tax exempt in nearby Tuftonboro? Is most gracious that Tuftonboro will agree to their tax exempt, summer camp status. Way to go ....... Tuftonboro!
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! |
The Following User Says Thank You to fatlazyless For This Useful Post: | ||
Wifi-1 (07-21-2019) |
07-21-2019, 07:03 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,867
Thanks: 192
Thanked 590 Times in 395 Posts
|
Camp Winaukee is a private owned camp as the YMCA Is a nonprofit organization, but I am positive you knew this before writing
Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
The Following User Says Thank You to WinnisquamZ For This Useful Post: | ||
Wifi-1 (07-21-2019) |
07-29-2019, 04:41 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: formerly Winter Harbor, still Wolfeboro
Posts: 1,130
Thanks: 284
Thanked 480 Times in 271 Posts
|
Farm Island
You are so right, WinnisquamZ , that is why so many of the private, independent camps are no longer operating. The tax bite got so large that private camps were forced to either significantly raise their summer tuition rates and run the risk of pricing themselves out of business, or, re-organize themselves within the protection of an existing non-profit organization and enjoy the financial relief afforded therewith. If the government 'tinkers' with the tax Code and makes changes to the non-profit qualifications or the amount an individual may deduct with respect to non-profits, then these camps will disappear, also.
|
08-01-2019, 03:51 PM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melvin village
Posts: 519
Thanks: 509
Thanked 313 Times in 147 Posts
|
2nd tuftonboro hearing is tonight 7:00 Tuftonboro elementary school
Quote:
See you there... |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to chasedawg For This Useful Post: | ||
Descant (08-01-2019) |
09-06-2019, 01:03 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 79
Thanks: 42
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
Corruption at Camp Belknap! Parents Beware!
Corruption at Camp Belknap! Parents Beware!
Camp Belknap has illegally built two structures on Farm Island and one on the mainland in Tuftonboro. All are in violation. The town has found numerous other violations. Farm Island is zoned Residential. Property owners at the hearing provided audio and video displaying the illegal and deliberate violation of law. Zero respect for abuttors and what young people should learn. In a previous town meeting they even persuaded an innocent young teenage camper to speak of how he enjoyed the opportunity were the camp directed him on residential property breaking the NH law. Camp Belknap also has violated New Hampshire Shore-land Protection laws as well. Seth Kassells directed the use a landing area for sail and paddle boats in one of NH prime Loon Nesting areas. For gain Camp Belknap also engaged in a conservation easement. With this easement they specified no power boats would go to Farm Island. Power boats do frequent Farm Island. Young people should not be exposed to this corruption and exploitation of State law with zero respect for residential abbutors. Parents need to be vigilant. This camps alleged alignment with Christianity and the YMCA is disgusting. Parents choose your children's future first! |
09-06-2019, 01:34 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 391
Thanks: 20
Thanked 130 Times in 93 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Lakeboater For This Useful Post: | ||
09-06-2019, 01:35 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,208
Thanks: 1,108
Thanked 934 Times in 576 Posts
|
Quote:
Are those pesky kids making it difficult for you to build your McMansion? |
|
09-06-2019, 01:37 PM | #53 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilford, NH / Welch Island
Posts: 5,907
Thanks: 2,279
Thanked 4,924 Times in 1,906 Posts
|
Glass House
Quote:
https://owens-marine.pissedconsumer.com/review.html
__________________
It's Always Sunny On Welch Island!! |
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ishoot308 For This Useful Post: | ||
09-06-2019, 01:40 PM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,939
Thanks: 1,152
Thanked 1,959 Times in 1,210 Posts
|
|
09-06-2019, 02:10 PM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 539
Thanks: 514
Thanked 309 Times in 152 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post: | ||
chasedawg (09-06-2019), ursa minor (09-06-2019) |
09-06-2019, 02:35 PM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tuftonboro
Posts: 1,162
Thanks: 182
Thanked 297 Times in 220 Posts
|
Interesting. I guess the meeting last night didn't go well for this guy? FWIW and being in direct sight of the Belknap landing area they utilize to access the land they own, they do not land power boats, just canoes, kayaks and once in a while a sail boat gets blown in there. Having been there since early 2000's I have yet to see a nesting loon on that side of the island.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to SAB1 For This Useful Post: | ||
ursa minor (09-06-2019) |
09-06-2019, 03:51 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Merrimack and Welch Island
Posts: 4,004
Thanks: 1,204
Thanked 1,498 Times in 975 Posts
|
Help Belknap
I contributed to Camp Belknap's purchase of 7.5 acres a decade ago. I would be happy to help them again. More so, after seeing Randy Owen's post.
|
09-06-2019, 04:45 PM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Tuftonborough & Franklin MA
Posts: 265
Thanks: 99
Thanked 143 Times in 64 Posts
|
Not quoting the post as several have already done so....should be some interesting reading coming up on this thread.
The bar for debate going forward has certainly been moved. Im not sure that posting unsubstantiated accusations on a public forum is the best way to sway public opinion in your favor...
__________________
" Any day with a boat ride in it is a good day" |
The Following User Says Thank You to ursa minor For This Useful Post: | ||
DEJ (09-06-2019) |
09-06-2019, 04:50 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melvin village
Posts: 519
Thanks: 509
Thanked 313 Times in 147 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to chasedawg For This Useful Post: | ||
DEJ (09-06-2019), ursa minor (09-06-2019) |
01-03-2020, 09:46 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Tuftonborough & Franklin MA
Posts: 265
Thanks: 99
Thanked 143 Times in 64 Posts
|
Quote:
For reference, this was the first post on the subject by Mr. Owen back in September.
__________________
" Any day with a boat ride in it is a good day" |
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ursa minor For This Useful Post: | ||
Susie Cougar (01-03-2020), Top-Water (01-03-2020) |
01-03-2020, 11:03 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Ice in = CT / Ice out = Winnipesaukee
Posts: 431
Thanks: 100
Thanked 262 Times in 139 Posts
|
Snake oil salesman?
If the eventual fate of Farm Island is ten residential lots, then hopefully it isn't Randy Owen that develops them. Based on his posts and 130+ others here, he doesn't seem to be the sharpest tack in the box and I'm sensing he isn't one to be trusted. I'm thinking future headaches are in store for those that must deal with him - including eventual homeowners that discover he sold them a bill-of-goods.
He should be trying to partner with the camp instead of vilifying them. He should be asking this forum for suggestions rather than pushing his own agenda. Most of all, he should be showing empathy for the opinions of others. Anything else comes across as uncaring, vengeful and opportunistic. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Winilyme For This Useful Post: | ||
SAB1 (01-04-2020) |
01-04-2020, 12:09 AM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,208
Thanks: 1,108
Thanked 934 Times in 576 Posts
|
I watched Mr Owens's video, and I have a new level of understanding. Dozens of children laughing, paddling, sailing. Oh the horror of it all!
|
09-06-2019, 07:53 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,939
Thanks: 1,152
Thanked 1,959 Times in 1,210 Posts
|
Wait, is Randy trying to buy the property for sale? I don't understand why this tact is being taken. And the Randy Owen I searched on the Google has a lot of...history.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
09-20-2019, 08:55 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melvin village
Posts: 519
Thanks: 509
Thanked 313 Times in 147 Posts
|
Farm Island continued
This is the latest....on Farm Island....Regional Planning Commission involved
"We need your help! The remainder of the island directly across from Camp Belknap is attempting to be purchased by a developer for subdivision into 10 lots on only 13 acres. Camp Belknap currently uses and conserves the 8 acres which Belknap purchased by donations for overnight camping and nature exploration. We are gravely concerned that a development of this size has the potential of polluting the water, creating noise and light pollution, creating congested waterways, as well as, parking and traffic concerns in our area. Due to the concerns regarding the proposed subdivision’s potential environmental impact to Lake Winnipesaukee, the Tuftonboro Planning Board has requested a review by the Regional Planning Commission. As a regional item of concern anyone living in a town on the lake needs to come voice their opinion. Please come to the meeting on October 3 at 7PM at the Tuftonboro Central School to show your support against the development. To learn more please see the links below." Thank you in advance for the Support. -Save 19 Mile Bay Group https://www.concordmonitor.com/Savin...sland-26937008 https://www.tuftonboro.org/sites/tuf...ttachments.pdf https://www.tuftonboro.org/sites/tuf...ttachments.pdf Last edited by chasedawg; 09-20-2019 at 08:56 PM. Reason: including quotes |
The Following User Says Thank You to chasedawg For This Useful Post: | ||
Grant (10-08-2019) |
10-08-2019, 07:46 AM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melvin village
Posts: 519
Thanks: 509
Thanked 313 Times in 147 Posts
|
|
10-18-2019, 06:54 PM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 184
Thanks: 2
Thanked 42 Times in 34 Posts
|
Tuftonboro planning board approved the subdivision last night.
|
10-18-2019, 07:21 PM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 213
Thanks: 196
Thanked 86 Times in 56 Posts
|
Towns need put minimum lot sizes, such as Sandwich does. So, planning boards can't be goaded into default granting tiny lots, then turn into a Moultonboro.
|
12-06-2019, 08:19 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,388
Thanks: 716
Thanked 1,376 Times in 952 Posts
|
I just read that Camp Belknap has started a lawsuit agains the development of Farm Island.
|
12-06-2019, 08:24 AM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,939
Thanks: 1,152
Thanked 1,959 Times in 1,210 Posts
|
Quote:
Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
|
12-06-2019, 09:21 AM | #71 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 539
Thanks: 514
Thanked 309 Times in 152 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to DEJ For This Useful Post: | ||
thinkxingu (12-06-2019) |
02-04-2024, 02:34 PM | #72 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 79
Thanks: 42
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
legal victory against YMCA Camp Belknap
I am thrilled to share an encouraging development in the aftermath of my recent legal victory against YMCA Camp Belknap.
I have received the following communication from Tim Kelly, Chief Editor of the Manchester Union Leader, and Mark Hayward, the retired reporter who authored the original article: “Mr. Owen: Thank you for your emails and voicemail. I agree with you that we should update the story with the filing of the camp's motion for nonsuit, and we have been collecting documents to that end. However, it's probably going to have to wait until after the primary.” T Kelly “The Union Leader wrote an article about a powerful organization that made defamatory statements against you. Now the organization has dropped the lawsuit. It only seems fair that the Union Leader reports that the lawsuit has been unilaterally withdrawn.” M Hayward This correspondence reinforces the merit of my position and serves as a testament to the truth prevailing in this matter. |
02-04-2024, 05:32 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2021
Posts: 2,909
Thanks: 2
Thanked 523 Times in 431 Posts
|
The Primary has been over for days.
Do they mean the whole primary season? |
12-06-2019, 11:52 AM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
|
Quote:
“There is no known precedent in Tuftonboro or even on the lake itself for a subdivision of an undeveloped and ecologically sensitive island,” the suit reads. “The Tuftonboro Master Plan specifically requires the planning board to balance the needs of the applicant with the needs of the community as a whole. The planning board paid lip service to this balancing but then did not engage in any meaningful analysis of whether it was appropriate to permit a 10-lot subdivision on Farm Island.” The suit notes the camp paid for an archaeological survey, which reported the site is a potentially invaluable window into the past and a source for pre-contact Native American and post-contact European American archaeological resources. Johnson said the planning board acted unreasonably and unlawfully in asking the court to send the case back to the planning board for a full and proper consideration of the applicant’s plan. |
|
12-06-2019, 01:07 PM | #75 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,345
Thanks: 206
Thanked 759 Times in 443 Posts
|
After going through Shoreland permitting last year on an island lot, the state wanted me to do an archaeological survey on our parcel, claiming that there COULD be artifacts present as some had been found elsewhere on different islands. When I pushed back on it, I actually wasn't required to, they made it sound like it was a requirement but in all reality it was a suggestion. Unless they found arrowheads or indian pottery there, its probably a stretch claiming its a window into the past...
I haven't been following the Farm Island saga too closely, but something seems fishy. It has been under contract for ages. Did the camp not get a chance to buy this in the first place, or didn't want to spend the money? Or was the deal done before it even hit the market? |
12-06-2019, 01:25 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kuna ID
Posts: 2,755
Thanks: 246
Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts
|
Ironic that the YMCA who had a chance to purchase this property but had no money can secure legal council and sue the town.
Frankly it is the town's prerogative to approve or disapprove whatever they see fit in whatever manner they see fit so long as it meets the stated town requirements. That is their job. They cannot find favor in one party or another because one more belligerent or outnumbers the other. They have done nothing illegal or outside the typical process. The entire argument being made is irrelevant and stupid. Hopefully the court puts and end to this nonsense as it is nothing but a waste of time. |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MAXUM For This Useful Post: | ||
chasedawg (12-06-2019), Randy Owen (12-10-2019) |
12-06-2019, 01:34 PM | #77 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Whortleberry Island
Posts: 107
Thanks: 15
Thanked 37 Times in 24 Posts
|
Quote:
Doesn't sound like a strong argument for a suit. |
|
12-06-2019, 01:40 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 539
Thanks: 514
Thanked 309 Times in 152 Posts
|
The only people that will benefit from this are the attorneys.
|
12-06-2019, 06:24 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 2,882
Thanks: 638
Thanked 2,147 Times in 894 Posts
|
|
12-06-2019, 07:06 PM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melvin village
Posts: 519
Thanks: 509
Thanked 313 Times in 147 Posts
|
Farm Island
That is so true. And do you know who will be paying for all of attorney fees the public tax payers of Tuftonboro? Of course they will be. Our tax increase has gone up this assessment by 51%. So hear again this lawsuit will increase all tax payers in Tuftonboro. What does Camp Belknap pay in taxes....? NOTHING!
|
12-06-2019, 07:32 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 67
Thanks: 9
Thanked 89 Times in 24 Posts
|
Great Historical Information
Hey thanks for sharing this information.
I learned something, of interest to me, that i would have otherwise not known of and would likely not have voiced my opinion. we would do fuel runs every week or more usually every weekend to pier 19. I Like that part of the lake. I would love to walk the island before it gets destroyed mike |
The Following User Says Thank You to Sandyisl For This Useful Post: | ||
WinnisquamZ (12-06-2019) |
12-06-2019, 08:35 PM | #82 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Melvin village
Posts: 519
Thanks: 509
Thanked 313 Times in 147 Posts
|
walking the isalnd
Quote:
|
|
12-07-2019, 12:59 PM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Jackson Pond, New Hampton
Posts: 210
Thanks: 37
Thanked 128 Times in 69 Posts
|
So many ills in our US society could be quickly cured if the legal system was changed by requiring the plaintiff to have to pay the legal costs of the defendant should they lose their case ...but this is a pipe dream because there would be need for half as many lawyers and residents of Washington DC would never vote for such a sensible but self crippling move.
Last edited by NH.Solar; 12-13-2019 at 08:54 AM. |
12-07-2019, 01:54 PM | #84 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Laconia
Posts: 1,045
Thanks: 429
Thanked 996 Times in 413 Posts
|
Quote:
Personally, I would like to see caps on fee awards. |
|
12-08-2019, 04:06 PM | #85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,208
Thanks: 1,108
Thanked 934 Times in 576 Posts
|
Quote:
I'm sure this would reduce frivolous lawsuits, but it would also reduce appropriate lawsuits--it would make it impossible for an individual or small corporation to ever sue a large corporation. The large corporation would simply run up a few million dollars in expenses (chump change for them, but big money for the plaintiff), then tell the small plaintiff they could settle for nothing or take their chances in court. |
|
12-06-2019, 10:50 PM | #86 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to fatlazyless For This Useful Post: | ||
FlyingScot (12-08-2019) |
01-04-2020, 06:11 PM | #87 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 79
Thanks: 42
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
Quote:
legal shenanigans. |
|
01-04-2020, 06:42 PM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,371
Thanks: 709
Thanked 756 Times in 392 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
12-12-2020, 11:17 PM | #89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 79
Thanks: 42
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
Failed camp Belknap action
Quote:
CARROLL, SS. SUPERIOR COURT YMCA Camp Belknap, Inc. v. Town of Tuftonboro, Tuftonboro Planning Board, and Farm Island Acres, LLC 212-2019-CV-00209 ORDER The plaintiff, YMCA Camp Belknap, Inc. (“Camp Belknap”), appeals the October 17, 2019, decision of the Town of Tuftonboro Planning Board (“Board”) conditionally approving an application for a ten lot residential subdivision1 on Farm Island in Tuftonboro, submitted by C&R NH Realty Trust, LLC (“C&R”). Camp Belknap’s appeal of the Board’s approval, pursuant to RSA 677:15, was timely filed. The court granted Farm Island Acres, LLC (“Farm Island Acres”) intervener status2 and conducted a hearing on this matter on July 20, 2020. Post hearing Memorandum were submitted through August and September, 2020. Based on review of the record, arguments of counsel and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows. The following facts are drawn from the certified record (“C.R.”) and from the exhibits submitted at the hearing. C&R is a development company whose principals include Cynthia Pratt and Randy Owen. The appellant, Camp Belknap, owns and operates a summer camp on various properties in Tuftonboro, including a portion of 1 The application was originally for a twelve lot subdivision; the application was amended to comply with zoning and subdivision regulations to comprise ten lots. (C.R. at 317.) 2 Because the positions of the intervener appear to be aligned with the positions of Tuftonboro and the Board, they are collectively referred to as “the defendants.” 12/11/2020 9:23 AM Carroll Superior Court This is a Service Document For Case: 212-2019-CV-00209 2 Farm Island that abuts the proposed subdivision. Camp Belknap is described in the certified record (“C.R.”) as having made an offer to purchase the parcel that is the subject of this appeal. (C.R. at 317, 320.) On June 27, 2019, C&R applied for a twelve lot subdivision on 13.58 acres on Farm Island. The property, located in the Island Conservation District, is owned by David, Donald and John Winchester. The lots have waterfront access to Nineteen Mile Bay on Lake Winnipesaukee. (C.R. at 1-2.) Farm Island comprises 20.8 acres (C.R. at 21) and is mostly undeveloped. In the 1950’s, the island was subdivided into two parcels – Camp Belknap purchased a 7.5 acre parcel designated 2-2 and the Winchesters retained the remaining 13.4 acre parcel designated 2-1.3 (C.R. at 402.) It appears no residential development has been undertaken since the 1950s and Camp Belknap and the Winchesters currently remain the only owners of property on the island. The principals of C&R have no prior development experience. (Petition at 1-2.) Due to its relatively undeveloped state, there was considerable interest in, and concern about, the subdivision application. The Board conducted hearings on July 18, August 1, September 5, October 3, and October 17, 2019. (C.R. at 576.) Many individuals and organizations filed letters and/or spoke at the public hearings. The certified record comprises 581 pages. The Board conditionally approved the subdivision, now limited to ten lots, on October 17, 2019 by vote of 5 to 0. (C.R. at 540.) The Notice of Decision, dated October 24, 2019, listed fifteen conditions, including documentation of subdivision 3 There is a minor discrepancy in the acreage of parcel 2-1. The difference is not material to this appeal. 3 approval from the Attorney General, 4 septic installation that encouraged use of Clean Solutions, Advanced Enviro-Septic or like systems, if reasonable, features to prevent runoff during construction, adherence to erosion controls “as noted in the State Permit(s)”, and a maintenance agreement addressing the electrical line serving the subdivision and releasing Tuftonboro of liability regarding electrical infrastructure. (C.R. at 576-77.) Camp Belknap brought the instant appeal, seeking judicial review of the Board’s decision pursuant to RSA 677:15. LEGAL STANDARD The court’s review of planning board decisions is limited. Motorsports Holdings, LLC v. Town of Tamworth, 160 N.H. 95, 99 (2010). “The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review when there is an error of law or when the court is persuaded by the balance of probabilities, on the evidence before it, that said decision is unreasonable.” RSA 677:15. The court “must treat the factual findings of the planning board as prima facie lawful and reasonable and cannot set aside its decision absent unreasonableness or an identified error of law.” Motorsports Holdings, LLC, 160 N.H. at 99 (quotation omitted). The appealing party bears the burden of proving that, by the balance of probabilities, the board’s decision was unlawful or unreasonable. See id. The court’s role is not to determine whether it agrees with the decision of the planning board, but to determine whether there was evidence upon which it could have been reasonably based. Id. ANALYSIS 4 Because the subdivision has fewer than 15 lots, counsel notified the Board it is exempt from subdivision approval from the Office of Attorney General, pursuant to RSA 356-A:3,I(a). (C.R. at 580.) 4 In the Petition, Camp Belknap raises nine grounds5 upon which it argues that the Board’s decision was unlawful or unreasonable: I) Farm Island is a unique, ecologically sensitive island property that, under the balancing required by the Master Plan, should not be developed; 2) the Board did not adequately address impacts on water quality; 3) the Board did not adequately address potential archeological resources on the island; 4) the Board did not adequately protect critical loon habitat on the island; 5) the Board’s maintenance agreement regarding the electrical power line running to the island is insufficient; 6) the Board did not adequately address fire safety and traffic concerns on Route 109 and in the bay; and 7) the Board did not consider the risks associated with allowing principals of C&R, who have no real estate experience, to develop such a sensitive property. (Petition at 1-5.) Camp Belknap also states the Board did not provide adequate due process as it had prejudged the decision and had “scripted out the conditions it was intending to impose on the project” before deliberations took place. (Petition at 5.) According to Camp Belknap, a decision on the subdivision was premature, the nature and extent of its conditions were in error, and multiple issues were overlooked or inadequately addressed. (Petition at 5.) The defendants assert that any issues beyond those set forth in the Petition have been waived. Even if they are considered, the defendants argue the Board’s decision was neither unlawful nor unreasonable. They note the five public hearings, consideration of the testimony of all who made presentations or presented reports, compliance with Tuftonboro’s regulatory standards and Master Plan, and development of conditions adequate to protect the island and Nineteen Mile Bay. (See generally Board’s Trial Memorandum; Farm Island 5 The Petition did not raise the issue of the intent to cut, though the issue is addressed in Camp Belknap’s Memorandum. Because it was not raised in the Petition, the issue is waived. 5 Acres’ Memorandum.) The court considers the parties’ arguments in turn. 1. Unique, ecologically sensitive island property should not be developed Camp Belknap asserts that while residential development is not prohibited in the Island Conservation District of Farm Island, the area is so unique that residential development is improper. This general statement of concern rests on the notion that island property is sensitive and there is no other island tract in Lake Winnipesaukee of this size that remains undeveloped. Camp Belknap finds Tuftonboro’s regulations inadequate, as they “do not address the unique features and concerns of a potential development on an island.” (Camp Belknap Post Hearing Memorandum, “Camp Belknap Memorandum”, at 2.) To the extent the regulations do provide guidance, Camp Belknap argues section 4.22 of the Subdivision Regulations addressing the character of the land was not appropriately considered and expert opinions concerned about the development were not properly evaluated. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 7.) Camp Belknap further alleged in the Petition that the Master Plan’s call to balance the needs of an applicant and the needs of the community at large would not be served by allowing the project to proceed. It did not, however, raise this issue in its Memorandum. The court does not find any provision in Tuftonboro’s Subdivision Regulations, Zoning Ordinance, or Master Plan that would prohibit this development. Residential development in the Island Conservation District is clearly authorized. Although Camp Belknap did not appear to pursue the issue of the Master Plan, in the interest of completeness the court will address the contention. The Master Plan speaks of balancing of interests, but as the Supreme Court has noted, a Master Plan provides guidance only and is not a basis to reject a subdivision or site plan application. 6 Rancourt v. Town of Barnstead, 129 N.H. 45, 49 (1986). Further, to apply a different balancing test or impose greater regulatory standards on a subdivision because of a general view that the property is special, even in important ways, is not permissible. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Town of Hanover, 171 N.H. 497, 513-514 (2018). A board must apply the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Regulations and not impose its own personal sensibilities about a project if the application otherwise complies with the municipality’s governing documents. The court finds no evidence to conclude subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the island is unique or especially sensitive. 2. Impacts on water quality of Nineteen Mile Bay Camp Belknap asserts the Board erred when it refused to seriously consider the impacts to water quality and rejected requests to await results of a Nineteen Mile Bay water quality study underway. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 8-13.) Camp Belknap notes the Lake Winnipesaukee Association (“Association”) found the subdivision would cause a 1,636% increase in phosphorus loading in the bay which in turn would increase the growth of algae, damage fish populations and put loons at risk. (C.R. at 46.) Because this testimony was not refuted, according to Camp Belknap, it must be accepted. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 8.) Camp Belknap also asserts the Horizons Engineering (“Horizons”)6 study was legally inadequate because no water quality testing or monitoring was done. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 6.) Further, Camp Belknap argues the Board recognized the need for environmentally advanced septic design but failed to mandate a particular system or type of system. (C.R. at 431- 6 The Board retained Horizons for third party engineering review of the application. (C.R. at 317.) 7 432.) The defendants argue any claim regarding the adequacy of the Horizons study was not raised in the Petition and thus is waived. To the extent this claim is considered, they argue the engineering study adequately considered water quality impacts. (C.R. at 446-451.) As to the phosphorous loading projections, according to the defendants, the conclusions of the Association were indeed refuted as to whether they were applicable to this project. The Board questioned the use of mainland conditions in the study, noting that roads and lawns are heavy contributors to phosphorous loading and are not a significant feature of this island proposal. According to the defendants, Farm Island properties are discouraged from having lawns and the lots will not create the same phosphorous increase seen in mainland subdivisions. Horizons concluded there would be no significant impact as there were few roads or other impervious surfaces, lawns that contribute heavily to phosphorus loading, or beaches that disturb the shore land. (C.R. at 405, 409.) The Board agreed and found no need to await the water quality analysis being done. (C.R. at 431.) Regarding the septic conditions, the Board did not mandate a particular system or type of system, as septic design is within the regulatory purview of the Department of Environmental Services (“DES”). (C.R. at 535.) The court does not find Camp Belknap to have waived any issues regarding water quality and the request for the results of the water study. The Petition explicitly identified water quality and phosphorous loading as issues and characterized the approval process as premature and incomplete. On the merits of its argument, however, the court does not find the Board’s decisions regarding water quality to have been unreasonable. The Board considered 8 and found the phosphorous loading projections not applicable, as they relied on assumptions appropriate for mainland subdivisions and not island development. (C.R. at 431.) While Camp Belknap is correct that the phosphorous projections submitted by the Association were not countered with an alternate percentage, it is not accurate to say the Association data must be accepted. The Board’s clear findings were that the assumptions were flawed and the results inapplicable to this project. (C.R. at 431.) Regarding septic systems, DES is responsible for approval of the specific septic design. The Board encouraged state of the art systems, if approved by DES (C.R. at 535) and C&R’s engineering consultant appears to have committed to this type of system. (C.R. at 4.) As a Board member stated, the Board would “be in trouble” if it were to mandate use of a particular design rather than leaving that to DES. (C.R. at 535.) The Board was more concerned with potential water quality impacts during the construction phase and established conditions to minimize those risks. (C.R. at 536.) The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis it would cause a significant degradation of water quality. 3. Impact on archeological resources Camp Belknap asserts the Board’s approval was unreasonable and illegal as the property has historic significance. Despite 19th and early 20th century stone walls, and potentially pre-contact Native American and post-contact European American archeological artifacts, the Board failed to perform an archeological review. (Petition at 3.) Camp Belknap retained Victoria Bunker, Inc., to assess Camp Belknap’s portion of the island. (See generally C.R. at 167-181.) She described how the island had been connected by a natural land bridge that disappeared when the lake level increased by 9 three to five feet, after the Lakeport dam was built. (C.R. at 170.) Bunker found Farm Island to be a “valuable resource for archeological sites” (C.R. at 168) and located stone walls and other late 19th and early 20th century artifacts on the Camp Belknap portion of the island. She concluded the island could be eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places. (C.R. at 81, 88, 160-161.) Camp Belknap argued that because its portion of the island had stone walls and might have pre-contact and postcontact artifacts, the Board should have required a similar archeological study of parcel 2-1. Camp Belknap asserts the Board failed to include any of these issues in its deliberations. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 19.) The defendants note that nothing in the Bunker report identifies actual archeological artifacts, but rather that such might potentially be present. (C.R. at 171, 175.) They argue that Camp Belknap cites no local, state, or federal regulations that address development in areas with potential but not identified archeological resources. (Farm Island Acres Memorandum at 7.) The court has reviewed the Bunker report regarding archeological conditions. Bunker noted no pre-contact archeological finds present on Camp Belknap’s parcel and only speculated such might be found on parcel 2-1. According to Bunker, “while no precontact Native American archeological sites have been previously recorded for the island, the island exhibits the potential for North American archeological site occurrence in both terrestrial and submerged contexts.” Camp Belknap is correct that the Board’s deliberations did not address the Bunker report. The defendants are correct that Camp Belknap has cited no provisions in Tuftonboro’s governing documents, state or federal law that would prohibit development when there is a potential for archeological artifacts 10 but no identified resources. The potential for being placed on the state or national registry was described to the Board, but Camp Belknap has not asserted that such designations, if they were to occur, would prohibit or limit development. The court cannot impose burdens on a municipality or create mandates were none exists. The fact that Bunker’s report of a mere possibility of archeological resources was not discussed by the Board does not, in the court’s view, invalidate its approval. The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the property potentially has archeological significance. 4. Impact on critical loon habitats Camp Belknap states the Board’s approval was illegal or unreasonable as it disregarded the impact to the habitats of loons and other sensitive species. It notes the importance of nesting pairs and need to rebuild the population of loons on Lake Winnipesaukee. The New Hampshire National Heritage Bureau, the Loon Preservation Committee, and the Association expressed concern about development impact on sensitive species, including loons and eagles, particularly in light of the Association’s projections for phosphorous loading. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 3.) The defendants clarify that neither the Loon Preservation Society nor New Hampshire Fish and Game found active loon nesting sites on the island or indication of nesting pairs from the recent past. (C.R. at 44, 87.) Of the two potential nesting sites, according to Fish and Game, one was on Camp Belknap’s shoreline where campers regularly enter the water with canoes and kayaks, and one was in a wetland within the subdivision property. (C.R. at 319, 522 sheet 2.) As a wetland it cannot be developed. Fish and Game found no evidence of eagle nesting on the island. (C.R. at 234.) 11 The court finds the record demonstrates no current nesting loon pairs, and no recent history of loons nesting around the island. The potential nesting site on parcel 2-1 is within a wetland already protected from development, for reasons unrelated to this subdivision application. Fish and Game found no evidence of eagle nesting. The Board noted adjustments made to provide buffers if loons were present. (C.R. at 534.) The court finds no requirement that the Board should have prohibited or further restricted development under these conditions. The court cannot conclude the Board’s approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the subdivision would disturb habitats of loons or other sensitive species. 5. Maintenance agreement for electrical line Camp Belknap asserts the provisions for the 40-year-old electrical power line running to the island do not adequately protect Camp Belknap, the Town, or the property owner where the line enters the Lake. The Board heard concerns the line is aging (C.R. at 88, 90, 267, 269, 462) and yet Horizons failed to review the functionality or capacity of the line. (C.R. at 412.) The New Hampshire Electric Cooperative (“NHEC”), owner of the line, will not guarantee the line’s longevity or serviceability. (C.R. at 309.) The agreement between the Town and NHEC provides for maintenance but does not address potential replacement or expansion of the line. (C.R. at 537.) These were issues raised in hearings (C.R. at 88, 90) but, according to Camp Belknap, not adequately addressed by the Board. Camp Belknap also raises questions about the impact on the shoreline where the line enters the Lake (C.R. at 267, 269, 529) and safety concerns due to the proximity of campers, kayaks, and canoes. (C.R. at 462.) Camp Belknap also states the Board has not taken appropriate steps to protect 12 landowner Craig Starble. The defendants note the Board’s third party engineer Horizons reviewed the application and documents from NHEC. (C.R. at 412.) The defendants find no mandate in its governing regulations for the Board to have further addressed the potential problems Camp Belknap raises regarding the line. With no such mandate, the defendants argue that to deny on the basis of these concerns would be an ad hoc analysis prohibited by Dartmouth Trustees, 171 N.H. at 508. Finally, the defendants argue Camp Belknap did not raise in its petition the assertion that the Board should have required testing of the functionality of the line therefore the issue is waived. The electrical line agreement is a delineation of responsibility and liability between Tuftonboro and the electric utility, NHEC. The agreement does not address obligations to expand or replace the line. The Board noted the NHEC had ‘tested the line because it had been out of service for a period of time and was comfortable that it is serviceable as it stands today to be energized.” (C.R. at 537.) The Board also noted that there was no proposal to relocate the line, which was already operational. (C.R. at 537.) Whether the Board should have required its own testing of the functionality of the line was not raised in the Petition and thus is waived. As to the concerns of Craig Starble, the Board is not empowered to negotiate on behalf of a landowner. If Mr. Starble seeks an agreement with NHEC, he should negotiate directly. The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the electric line provisions are inadequate. 6. Impact on traffic and other safety concerns Camp Belknap argues the Board erred when it refused to require a traffic study 13 to consider the impacts of these ten lot owners and their guests on Route 109 and Nineteen Mile Bay. (C.R. at 89-90, 267-68, 320-21.) It asserts it was unreasonable for the Board to refuse, given the concerns raised in public hearings and the lack of traffic analysis in the Horizons study. (Petition at 4.) Finally, Camp Belknap asserts the Board did not adequately address fire safety concerns, in that the Fire Department never stated it was satisfied with plans for fire safety within the subdivision. (Petition at 4.) The defendants argue that the issue of a traffic study was not raised in the Petition and thus is waived. If the issue were to be considered by the court, the defendants assert the Board fully considered the potential traffic impacts on both Route 109 at its public hearings and in deliberations and found no appreciable increase in traffic. (C.R. at 429, 532-33.) The Board noted a 23 lot subdivision previously approved in Tuftonboro without need for a traffic study and stated this ten lot subdivision did not pose significant concerns. (C.R. at 430.) On fire safety, the defendants note that the Fire Chief reviewed the application and signed off on it, with recommendations. (C.R. at 542.) The court finds the Petition specifically identified traffic concerns and the Board’s decision not to order a traffic study. Therefore, these issues are not waived. The court disagrees with Camp Belknap, however, that these issues were inadequately addressed. The Board stated this application had been scrutinized more than any other in recent memory. As one Board member put it, the “Board has heard it all in the last five meetings; every question, every subject, everything has been brought up.” (C.R. at 533.) The Board found this ten lot subdivision to have no appreciate increase in traffic and did not warrant a traffic study. (C.R. at 430, 537-38.) It noted a far larger 14 subdivision that did not require a traffic study. (C.R. at 430.) The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis of traffic impacts. Regarding fire safety, the record is clear that the Fire Chief has reviewed the subdivision application and stated the lots would be served by the Fire Boat. He made recommendations but noted explicitly the recommendations “do not affect approval.” (C.R. at 542.) The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis of fire safety. 7. Developers’ lack of experience Although lack of experience was raised in the Petition, Camp Belknap’s Memorandum does not address this issue. It should be noted that some members of the public alleged one of the developers had an unsavory business reputation and had had financial problems in a prior business. Camp Belknap did not advance these arguments. The defendants argue there are no requirements in the Tuftonboro regulations that an applicant have prior development experience or to impose greater restrictions on those without prior experience. The Board is compelled to treat all applicants fairly and uniformly, they argue. The court agrees that there is no experience threshold required for development and the Board would be without authority to impose greater limits on a new developer than on an experienced one. The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the applicant had not previously developed a subdivision. 15 8. Proposed Conditions on Approval Camp Belknap argues the Board prejudged its decision with conditions already written before the final deliberation session. The defendants argue this issue was not identified in the Petition and thus has been waived. The court agrees with the defendants that the issue was not raised and thus is waived. Even if not waived, the court does not find having a list of conditions to be imposed in the event of an approval to be impermissible. Municipal boards often move from deliberations to compilation of final conditions without need to adjourn, reschedule and notice a new meeting. Having a list of conditions prepared to discuss, if the Board votes to approve, does not render the approval illegal. The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the Board turned to a list of conditions to impose after it deliberated and voted to approve the subdivision application. 9. Premature Approval Finally7 , Camp Belknap argues the Board’s approval was illegal and unreasonable because its decision was premature. (Petition at 5.) Camp Belknap asserts that because this is the island's first residential development in approximately 50 years and the parcel of undeveloped land is so large, more time was needed. It asserts Horizons’ review was not sufficient in that Horizons did not perform its own calculations regarding lot dimensions and relied on the representations of the developers. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 6.) Camp Belknap argues development of a parcel of such character should not be rushed and there was no need to act on the application before 7Camp Belknap asserts the Board failed to adequately limit timber cutting and by doing so violated section 4.2.4 of the Tuftonboro Subdivision Regulations addressing preservation of natural resources. This issue was not raised in the Petition and thus is waived. 16 a traffic study was done, further water study results were received, and other open questions resolved. (See generally Camp Belknap Memorandum.) The defendants argue these issues have been waived because they were not included in the Petition. If considered, they assert the application was thoroughly evaluated and issues of concern were addressed. (See generally Farm Acres Island Memorandum.) The court agrees in part and disagrees in part. The general assertion that the approval was premature is clearly raised. (Petition at 5.) The Petition argues a traffic study should have been done and the Board should have considered broader issues of water quality. The specific and very particular complaint about Horizons not doing its own calculations, however, was not raised in the Petition and is waived. On the issues that have not been waived, the court disagrees with Camp Belknap that the decision was made prematurely. The Board conducted five public hearings, considered letters and testimony of numerous interested parties. The certified record is 581 pages long. The Board publicly deliberated on the matters before it and issued a written decision. While it did not call for a traffic study or agree to wait for the results of another water study, it addressed its reasons why it did not find such further data necessary, a determination the court finds supported in the record. The argument that this project should receive greater scrutiny or be given a balancing test that otherwise would not apply is not supported in the law. The Board Chairman stated, “this application is probably the most heavily reviewed thirteen acres in the Town of Tuftonboro.” (C.R. at 535.) The court finds no evidence to conclude the Board’s approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis that it was made prematurely or 17 without a complete record. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the unanimous decision of the Tuftonboro Planning Board is AFFIRMED. So Ordered. December 4, 2020 Amy L. Ignatius Presiding Justice 10 on Document Sent to Parties Clerk's Notice of Decision 12/11/2020 |
|
12-13-2020, 08:11 AM | #90 |
Senior Member
|
...... pop quiz today at noon!
Attention all forum posters:
Today, Sunday, December 13 at noon, there will be a very picky-wicky 20-question, 4-answer multiple choice quiz on this 9-part adjudication between Camp Belknap and Randy Owen with regard to the future use on Farm Island that was very recently decided with this December 11, 2020, decision by the Carroll County Superior Court, Amy L Ignatious, Presiding Justice. In addition to the 20-multiple choice questions, there will be an essay question, as well. Anyone who receives a score below 85% is thrown off this thread, and will no longer be allowed to comment, here ....... you all understand this.... ! ............. Well, this definitely shuts me up ...... and, like why bother even reading this court decision ...... like, and further more ...... blah-blah-blah! ... :laugh .... think I'll go read the Boston Herald, instead of actually trying to comprehend this lengthy ruling.
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! Last edited by fatlazyless; 12-13-2020 at 08:54 AM. |
The Following User Says Thank You to fatlazyless For This Useful Post: | ||
Pricestavern (12-15-2020) |
04-17-2020, 07:28 PM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 79
Thanks: 42
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
|
12-07-2019, 12:17 PM | #92 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,097
Thanks: 107
Thanked 409 Times in 243 Posts
|
I still wonder where those who buy property on the island will keep their boats when not at the island. Good luck finding slips.
Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
12-09-2019, 10:54 AM | #93 |
Senior Member
|
... help save Farm Island for YMCA Camp Belknap
For those unfamiliar with Farm Island: It is a 20 1/2-acre Lake Winnipesaukee island in Tuftonboro, NH with heavily treed, flat land with the mostly pine trees growing untouched since about 1904. 7 1/2-acres are already owned by nearby https://campbelknap.org, and the remaining 12-acres is proposed to get divided by an owner/developer into ten single, waterfront house lots, each with a house, dock, septic system and electric power.
Farm Island currently has one 100-plus year old cottage in its center with an outhouse and no electricity anywhere on the island. YMCA Camp Belknap - Giving Overview .... www.campbelknap.org/giving/ Support Belknap - Do your share You can donate online. Once Farm island gets developed, it will be built up with homes, docks, septic systems, accessory out buildings and will never again be an undeveloped, wooded island
__________________
... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake! |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to fatlazyless For This Useful Post: | ||
ApS (12-09-2019), chaseisland (12-09-2019), FlyingScot (12-09-2019), Grant (12-10-2019), pondguy (12-09-2019) |
12-09-2019, 02:31 PM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,208
Thanks: 1,108
Thanked 934 Times in 576 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post: | ||
ApS (12-09-2019), chaseisland (12-09-2019), Descant (12-10-2019), Grant (12-10-2019), pondguy (12-09-2019), thinkxingu (12-09-2019) |
01-03-2020, 05:51 PM | #95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Farm Island
Posts: 79
Thanks: 42
Thanked 9 Times in 8 Posts
|
Protect residential land as residential land
Hello Neighbor,
I am writing to share my concerns of the expansion of Camp Belknap. Please be advised that Camp Belknap has requested special exception for a commercial use on Farm Island. The camp has been illegally using Farm Island and only with ZBA approval can a commercial use of this type be continued. The meeting is January 8, 2020. It is time to protect your investment and stop the expansion of Camp Belknap. Recently the NH Fish and Game walked Farm Island to inspect the property. Illegal tent platforms were discovered. An area noted as privacy rock that wreaked of urine. Also noted was one of the best loon nesting sites in northern part of Winnipesaukee was exploited and converted into a landing area used in conjunction for this presently illegal commercial use. The Camp Belknap requests states that they use a “leave no trace” experience and that counselors and campers handle human waste. This is not the case and a blatant lie. The smell of urine was intense many weeks after the camp had stopped using Farm Island. Each time Camp Belknap increases its presence, your property value goes down. Each time they purchase a tax earning property and convert it to a non tax earning status, your tax burden increases. Camp Belknap pays no property taxes on any land it owns and acquires. Farm Island is only an example of the many violations. There are more mainland violations where they exploited residential zoning laws. These illegal buildings and structures too are part of the expansion. Shore-land protection laws on farm and mainland are also ignored and violated. I ask you to please voice your concern to protect residential land as residential land. Please see the attached video. This what we have to deal with and they want to expand and exploit us and the lake even further. https://youtu.be/EAqexY8nC_Q |
01-09-2020, 06:20 PM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 815
Thanks: 113
Thanked 193 Times in 126 Posts
|
The only 'smell'..... many weeks after the camp had stopped.... Hopefully is KARMA!
|
01-10-2020, 01:15 PM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 57
Thanks: 38
Thanked 35 Times in 14 Posts
|
Camp Belknap
I didn't care about this issue until someone started attacking Camp Belknap. I'm 100% in support of Camp Belknap's interests. We need to preserve ways for more people (especially those less fortunate) to enjoy the lake.
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to samosetguy For This Useful Post: | ||
01-10-2020, 01:17 PM | #98 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Parrish, Florida
Posts: 525
Thanks: 229
Thanked 184 Times in 132 Posts
|
Wasn’t there a meeting the other night? Does anyone know what happened?
|
01-11-2020, 08:21 AM | #99 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Moultonborough & CT
Posts: 2,534
Thanks: 1,058
Thanked 652 Times in 363 Posts
|
Quote:
Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
|
01-11-2020, 11:29 AM | #100 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Tuftonboro and Sudbury, MA
Posts: 2,208
Thanks: 1,108
Thanked 934 Times in 576 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to FlyingScot For This Useful Post: | ||
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|