![]() |
Farm Island decision upheld
Camp Belknap petitioned the courts of 9 grounds upon which it argued that the town of Tuftonboro Planning Boards decision to approve development of Farm Island was unlawful and unreasonable. The courts ruling was upheld for the Planning Board on all nine counts.
|
That should be that then. Now just have to hope the owners of that side of Farm don’t put a rooster on the island again next summer!
Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
Quote:
|
Does someone have a link to that decision that they can post here? I would think it may be some interesting reading to look at.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Rooster
The roosters were a funny and then welcomed prank from my great friend, Donald. Don raises pigs and chickens on the mainland. I was jokingly complaining about the noise and he just moved two rosters on Farm Island. They are now my pets and busy eating the ticks. We welcome that. Since I gave up drinking too I don't much mind the early wake up and frankly because Camp Belknap has wasted so much of my time I need to wake up at 4:45 am. I have changed 57 windows in my camp so far because unsupervised Camp Belknap kids shooting up my windows and antiques with 22 rifles.
Don and I take turns sueing Camp Belknap, documenting their lies, exploitation of the neighborhood, the land and the lake. For years Camp Belknap has had an insufficient septic system draining right into the watershed. In the town documents there is a letter from Winnie Shores substantiating this and the horrific smell and safety issues. A few years ago the sewage system was way over capacity and Seth Kassel just had the lagoon breached and poured thousands of gallons of raw sewage right into the watershed. We have photos. Currently the camp is attempting another massive expansion without proper approval. The expansion is under appeal and has a stay order. As always the camp has acted above the law and ignored a court ordered stay with the honorable superior court. If anyone interested in the bay, the lake and the area I beg you to align with my great friend Don, my fantastic partner Cody and I to not close but to "contain" Camp Belknap. With regards to all these lawsuits triggered by Camp Belknap please understand that the camp really doesn't sue me but sues your town. In the past year between their selfish attempt to take over Farm Island and now this massive expansion your town has been paying several lawyers. We speculate this might be heading toward 100k of your money. I suggest you ask your town. God knows they wasted more than 100k of my money. As you should be aware Camp Belknap appealed our acquisition of Farm Island. As of this writing the bogus and now failed actions of Camp Belknap are now dead and Cody and I are ready to save the 1906 Winchester home and begin to enjoy the island with all of the Owen family and friends. Please visit Owen Outdoors to see what we are up to. As for the Roosters they will return to the mainland for the winter in Don's chicken coop. Going forward we are discussing Christmas trees and my maple syrup equipment is already on the island. So if it's tree farming or rooster farming please feel free to critique Randy and Cody for "farming" on "farm island". |
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 |
Quote:
|
Randy could you gloat just a little more? If this is the way you do business good luck to you.
|
Quote:
|
https://owens-marine.pissedconsumer.com/review.html
Strange, this website says business closed.....but yet there’s a building that’s been going up almost forever down in Hooksett that has Owens signature boat scrap heap outside. Maybe Farm Island will the new home of the marine business. |
Quote:
|
Shenanigans
Quote:
|
.22
Quote:
|
Quote:
Exactly. I was there 70 to 77, brother was there ~75 to ~80s, and both sons attended well into 2000s. NO opportunity for any unsafe rifle handling. None. Pure BS. And, yes, Camp was closed this year due to pandemic. |
Quote:
|
Ha. I can tell you this. There were no kids in the camp last year. The year before that the pistol range at the camp was closed as it was decided improvements were needed. I believe it was rebuilt this fall. I would think a rational man would realize that for the camp to operate a pistol range there is a fair amount of liability associated with kids shooting. That in mind do you seriously think the operators of the camp allowed kids to check guns out, take them in canoes and paddle to your island to shoot out your windows? Give me break. That is ridiculous.............
|
I'm actually surprised they are kids going to camp being exposed to any kind of firearms. I thought these camps are more interested now in social engineering, and guns ain't part of that equation.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
NRA Targets vs. NEA "Targeting"
Quote:
Four years of woolen NRA patches were also stitched onto my uniform jacket. Let's see, am I leaving one out? Pro-Marksman, Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert. :confused: Was it eight "gold stars" at Sharpshooter to achieve Expert? Anyway, the same rifle used at summer camp was the same caliber and manufacturer which I qualified with at U. S. Navy boot camp—Great Lakes, Illinois: :eek2: 22LR Harrington & Richardson model 190. :o In Florida, High School students transported rifles and shotguns in their vehicles in afternoon combat against the feral hogs that were ruining Clay County cropland. But this was The South. :coolsm: Up north, debate was burgeoning as to what bathroom to use! :emb: |
Another patch was MARKSMAN 1st. CL, and the Expert full name was EXPERT RIFLEMAN. All five 3" diameter patches also said 50 FT in the center of the patch so it read 50 FT with two crossed rifles in the center, and NAT'L RIFLE ASS'N and AWARD.
MARKSMAN, PRO-MARKSMAN, MARKSMAN 1st CL., SHARPSHOOTER, and EXPERT RIFLEMAN were the full set and made in varying colors. For $29.99, shipping included, you can buy a set of all five patches in "pre owned vintage" condition from someone in Asheville, NC on ebay. |
"Exposed"?
Quote:
I went to a dude ranch in WY a few years ago that advertised, among other things, a rifle range. I asked an d they pointed. WShen I got there, arifle and a box of ammo was there. Help yourself. Hmmm. First exposure was to BB guns was at Camp Belknap. At an older age, .22 caliber. Highly structured safety protocols. Got a Marksman Ribbon in the Navy (.45 caliber) although we learned safety protocols on many different guns. As a kid, many schools had riflery clubs and Jr. ROTC. Boy Scouts had parallel programs. And most kids learned hunter safety. This BS about no guns is pretty recent and only comes from ignorance and inexperience. Last year, for Father's Day, my son and I went to a shooting event with automatic rifles, 12,000 rounds, $20 a turn, as a fund raiser. Hundreds of participants. I'm not a gun nut, or an anti-gun freak, it's a sport, like many others. Probably safer than many others, but unfortunately, subject to misguided PR in recent times. |
I think every Boy Scout camp in America has riflery. Even Cub Scout camps have BBs and archery.
From what I see in America, most people want sensible policies, not to ban guns outright. But, as usual, the message gets distorted. In any case, there's no way I buy the OP replacing 52 windows because kids shot them out—we've seen enough posts, and he's got enough online history, to know his game. Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app |
Quote:
I also agree very much with the comments regarding the roosters. It is a tough sell to be upset at animal noise when you moved near an island called Farm Island. We do plan on having more animals on the island, but they will not be as noisy. :laugh: |
Bemused to say the least. Though reasonable thought is apparent accuracy is compromised at best. So let me state the facts:
Owen Marine, LLC is in its new building in Hooksett Covid-19 delayed final bank lending, slowing construction and now my bank has restarted lending the building is up and running. I am proud to report I built the new building myself with my employees and a fantastic group of subcontractors. Evinrude is changing their outboards as we know them and I suggest you google “Evinrude give up the ghost” We remain a full line Evinrude dealer and will continue monitoring the future with ghost Owen Marine, LLC just engaged with Honda Marine and will sell Honda full line Owen Marine, LLC and Farm Island will have no connection other than our own personal race boats, fishing boats, ATVS, hovercraft and snowmobiles. We have no intention of ruining Farm Island. Farm Island will be the Owen compound for my children, my fantastic partner Cody Owen, his children (when he gets that all going on) and perhaps many future generations. Hell the Winchester ran with it from 1905 till 2020. Hopefully the Owen family can enjoy this too. Please watch Owen Outdoors to keep you updated with our fun The 1906 six bedroom Winchester cottage will be restored with limited updates to protect the 1906 “feel”. (but yes just maybe a flush toilet) Tension between the owners of Farm Island and Camp Belknap began long before the Owen family purchased Farm Island Both the Winchester family and the Owen family have been lied to and exploited by Camp Belknap and especially Seth Kassels The mainland families too are lied to and exploited by Camp Belknap as well Information of camp mischief around Farm Island while the Winchester family owned the island is supported with direct information from former camp counselors and disgruntled former employees. Camp counsellors did break into the camp with the young campers and ignored the private property signage. All damage to the camp occurred prior to the Owen family acquisition to of Farm Island The Owen family has cameras monitoring everything that is going on around the camp and on the rest island Seth Kassels does lie continually and has covered up huge issues of direct lake pollution and medical issues with the campers Under the directions of Seth Kassels the camp cut a lagoon with an excavator and discharged thousands of gallons of raw sewage into the lake watershed and ultimately into the lake (we have the pictures) Seth Kassels designed and used a illegal sewage transfer/storage system and it discharge thousand of gallons of raw sewage in a different incident This triggered huge algae blooms and illnesses with the campers The sewage discharge went right through the Winnie Shores as supported with the winnie shores letter in town records As abutters we have confirmed the use of recreational drugs by the councilors Seth Kassels refuses to have the counselors drug tested and we feel this issue and guns is a poor risk The Camp has a superior court certiorari order not to proceed with construction on the mainland and has ignored it The camp has lied to the abutters and stated it built structures in 1960 to perfect a lie of a grandfathered action when it didn’t even own the property until 13 years later. Many other Tuftonboro town records with Camp Belknap are riddled with lies. On January 6th the Camp will answer to the Honorable Superior Court Judge Amy L. Ignatius as to why they ignored her certiorari order and once again acted above the law. The actions of engaging in full construction while ignoring a court ordered stay are likely to trigger a charge of contempt and require conservation land to be restored to its original undisturbed status. Please understand it is not my wish to shut down Camp Belknap but to contain it reasonably. The Camp is expanding and increasing a non conforming use with excessive boats, noise and pollution. We are perfectly willing to accept the existing non conforming use but no expansion. I do think Camp Belknap, our neighborhood and the campers themselves greatest disservice is with its current director Seth Kassels. I had direct business interaction with the prior camp director Mr. Gene Clark. Gene was a perfect gentleman and completed his part of every aspect of our contractual agreement flawlessly. Seth Kassels is a pathological liar. |
Good fences make good neighbors
Good fences make good neighbors ...... is the last line in a famous poem from 1914 written by NH poet, Robert Frost.
With 20.5-acre Farm Island in Tuftonboro divided up with 7.5-acres-Camp Belknap, and 13-acres-Randy Owen it seems like a plain white, 18" high, open picket fence dividing the island could help to make for good neighbors. Maybe the two island owners could agree to share the cost of a new, 18" white picket fence as well? ..... :cheers: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/446841...autologin=true Today a very collectable motor and one I would love in my collection. |
Quote:
i too was a "kid" on winnie. my dad built a modest house on cow island where we enjoyed and loved the lake. my opportunity with the lake is one where it included an unmatched family bond. at 35 years old it still was what are we doing this weekend DAD. there is a whole other lake life and opportunity with a family bond that will continue with the Owen family. our kids and their friends will enjoy Farm Island without compromise |
Quote:
https://flyingscot.com/ |
Quote:
till then Merry Christmas |
Owen Outdoors
|
Timber king
|
So here is my question.... Will the Roosters return to Farm Island next summer....
Although I am sure they didn't have many fans.... it was a nice surprise to hear them one morning.... and then actually be able to see them running around on the island. |
Hoping not. A touch irritating................
|
Hey Randy, is there a TimberKing-1600 portable saw mill coming to Farm Island in the Spring-2021 to slice up some of the many tall pine trees into usable lumber?
Maybe use it for building that Farm Island fence, an umpteen foot long white picket fence, 18"-high, dividing Farm Island into a "Good fences make good neighbors." type of an island. For about $18/gal, Walmart has excellent Glidden exterior flat white paint that lasts fifteen years when painted over an exterior primer. Using it on a fence made with green lumber seems just perfect for that olde rustic Farm Island look. Here in NH-2021 you can easily find a real NH painter for just $7.25/hour that will paint it like it was his/her own fence! |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.