This has nothing to do with wealth. As I stated previously: Some of the information that is out in public is just factually incorrect. Many significant facts that affect this matter are not public information. Both of the individuals mentioned are fine. successful gentlemen.

Any attempt to criticize the character of people you don't even know is totally inappropriate.

Any citizen has the right to work within the system to stand up for what he believes in and fight for what he feels is right. A politician has the right, and really the obligation, to serve his constituents as he sees fit. If the government has overreached then it is appropriate to attempt to find a resolution and mitigate the damage.

That is exactly what has happened here. Nothing more, nothing less.

So, go buy a lottery ticket and maybe some day you can own your own island on Winnipesaukee too!

Just stepping back and staying on the facts of this particular case--The $1,000/day fine is because the property owner refused to work within the system when he ignored the court. Also, the politician has the obligation to serve all of his constituents equally--it is truly amazing that one property owner was able to persuade 3 political leaders to help (in person!) with his home. So let's not be too surprised when that raises questions in some minds.

I agree that it is amazing that three political leaders have agreed to try to help Mr. Brown.

He has explained the real facts of the case to each of them individually and apparently they have seen enough merit in what he has said they they are willing to stand up for him. That is how the system should work.

I have seen and been involved with projects that require the approval of wetlands boards and conservation commissions. While some are helpful and reasonable, many over reach and have an arrogant attitude, happy to flex their muscles against the little guy.

Again, there is nothing on this island that endangers the lake in any way and isn't that what these boards are supposed to be concerned with as a primary mission?

So this thread is turning into a train wreck.

I don't know, I'll let you know when I see it.:D

Financial markets just closed a few minutes ago at record highs. Time to get off this thread for the weekend. Go read your 401k statement and think about which island you want to buy.

Looks like the first floor is the same and the second extends over. There's a 1998 satellite photo showing the camp and it looks similar to the 2005. Looks like the foot print of the structure might be original in the photos... maybe a site inspection would prove otherwise.

Does anyone actually know this guy? From the stories I've heard about him he deserves the largest fines/penalties possible. Even if he might be right it's hard to take his side with his reputation around the area.

Regardless of reputation, if he is in the right is this situation then maybe his reputation is unfounded, but if he is indeed wrong then it will just add to his "poor" reputation. I have no knowledge of his reputation but I think this needs to be played out a little more before either side is condemned

I found this article interesting. Is this a case of agreeing to something only to change his mind and look to renegotiate? If so, everyone's time, money, and focus is being wasted.

TiltonBB must know him. He seems to be the only guy on here that thinks everything he's done with that Island home is just fine.

Welcome to the forum. :rolleye1:

If the current owner get elected as a state representative and get a 'land grant' from the current governor. He can probably get away with it. That is how one of my neighbors get away with state and municipal rulings.

Situation Resolved
 

This story is a lot closer to the truth than previous stories and allows Robert Brown to keep the existing structure. It is sad that someone had to spend a half million dollars and end up not being found guilty of anything. It is difficult to go up against the state.

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/newsx...and-settlement

Seems to me he's clearly "guilty of something as he had already paid $30,000 in fines before this ruling. I dont really have an opinion on what has transpired is right or wrong but he is clearly a fighter for where he believes he stands and agreed to pay those previous fines for a reason. Also, are we to believe that he has spent well over $400,000 for his own legal fees? If so that was one expensive addition when added to the build cost. fwiw

He did spend over $400,000 on his own legal fees. He knew all along that he was right and what he did was legal and correct. It says a lot about the mans character and determination that he would spend that amount of money to prove his point. If life were fair the state would be required to reimburse him for his legal expenses.

The state, even with almost unlimited resources, eventually stopped their actions and agreed to the settlement. The politicians who got involved on Robert Brown's behalf did so after hearing the whole story and understanding the facts. They would not have put their names on the line if they thought he was wrong.

From the outset, anyone who knew what the real story was would have sided with Robert Brown. His age and illnesses impeded his defense but in the end he gets to keep his house.

The greater point is that the house and any construction on the island has had no negative impact on the lake, water quality, or any neighbor. Isn't that what these laws and empowered people are supposed to be protecting?

You are correct. I’m very happy that it was settled in his favor and he keeps his home. I believe the DES was really overstating their bounds especially since there was NO environmental impact.
Congratulations to Mr Brown!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

The incompetence and corruption in government today only exists because the people allow it... those responsible for the attacks on the public under the shield of government should NOT get away with it! Names should be released of those officials that used the power of the sword and be held accountable!

While I agree that government can very much overstep their bounds, let's not forget that there are many people who do so, too, affecting all of us. The current snowmobiling-trails-being-shut-down and post-Meredith-bay-fishing-derby/bobhouse threads are good examples.

My sense of things when this story first broke is that they were using this case to make a point.

Side note: there's a podcast called Outside/In about NH that has an episode about a person's fight with the government after building a dock. Pretty interesting, and I think objective, look at the situation.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

I don't see any corruption here. Nobody took a bribe or did anything hat resulted in any sort of personal gain. Names of state employees and their duties are readily available on the state website. I doubt that a public employee can be chastised for doing his job, especially when something like this goes up and down the chain of command. I don't understand the part of the story that says DES didn't take any action until four years after construction.

It's still clear that what he did was over the top compared to the way the rest of us are asked to respect the lake. We need for the state to enforce the rules

Agreed. The guy incurred and paid fines so he admitted quilt on some level. If he had gone through the proper process he would have avoided this mess.

For the record
 

Just because you pay a fine doesn't necessarily mean that you did anything wrong. Based on everything I read about this matter, the home owner seems to have been under the impression that he obtained the necessary and required permits to remodel his home. Something changed after it was built. From what I can read between the lines, he fought this for a long, long time, and settled the matter by paying a fine and other "restitution" just to be done with the matter. This happens every day. Litigation is expensive, and sometimes you have to pay damages to get out of it.

100% correct. Sometimes in business the best way out is a settlement to put it behind you.

He did what was best for him and took the option that represented the most economical solution. From the start, he knew he was right and what he did was correct with the proper permits. There is a long history on the lake, well before the island issue, and that had some bearing on the matter. Sometimes things are not exactly as they seem.

What he did on the island was not "over the top" and the contention that he did not go through the proper process is just plain incorrect. If he was wrong he would have been convicted of something and the state would not have waited 4 years to initiate the action they took. When codes are violated there is generally a Cease and Desist order issued as the project is in process.

Can someone tell me how he was able to install a septic system on the 0.18 acre island for a 3 bedroom home with 2 1/2 baths? From the pictures it looks like it is only 3 or 4 feet above the lake level. How did he pass the perk tests? How was he able to get the required permits required by the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act?

Holding tank maybe??....

Well, we can argue no environmental impact vs following the rules wrt lakeside building until the cows come home and never agree. I for one think that the rules have to apply to all, as long as they are not being enforced too long after the fact. One should not be allowed to "buy" one's way out of noncompliance with shoreline protection and other building restrictions, or we wind up with what we had before, where builders or homeowners would do whatever they please and just add the fine to building cost. But there are always the odd, borderline cases that can be argued either way.

One thing that puzzles me is the line in the story that says as part of the agreement: “no land-based activities may take place on the boathouse roof.” How does one define such activity, and why would it in some way have some environmental impact? Would parking himself in a chair on the boathouse roof while reading the Sunday newspaper harm the lake or shoreline in some way? Was this line somehow the state's way of sneaking some "sour grapes" into having to come to agreement?

Correct. There is a holding tank.

Thanks TiltonBB

I am also trying to understand what "no land based activities" means, especially in regards to boathouse roof.:confused:

C'est la guerre
 

All that stress and he didn't get to enjoy it. Simple is best


https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...5KK/story.html

I wonder how much of the legal problems you're buying with it. I love it.

Wasn't it settled? I thought I read that.

Up For Sale...Lawyers Happy...
 

The link has a "paywall". :rolleye2:

Can you give us the Cliff Notes version? :confused:

.

You are correct. The matter has been settled. The legal issues are behind him now and the new owner will not have to deal with it. The state made him make some site modifications, placed restrictions on further construction, and agreed to end the matter.

This is a link that shows that the island is for sale:

http://www.newhampshire.com/apps/pbc...WS02/180729504

Another article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...19million.html

And this one also
 

Developer gets away with it again, meanwhile the rules that should have stopped this will get tightened and law abiding people will get their chops busted.

Karma...?
 

Maybe all of his lies, dishonest manipulations, and attempts to bully his way past the rules, and the courts, and by using his money to have politicians take up his case when he couldnt hood wink DES & the courts, caused this scumball to lose his ability to enjoy the place. With any luck he will have spent more fighting for this illegal monstrosity than he will gain from its sale.