Quote:
Originally Posted by XCR-700
Well based on what I see here it appears to be a common story played out time and time again.
Some area of desirable has a pre-established usage partially residential and partially other.
The “other” usage is in decline, but the owners have hopes and plans for revitalization and maybe some growth. This plan may or may not be known or announced/communicated to anyone else as business matters are usually close-hold until the last possible moment, thats just a common business practice.
The residential usage portion of the land in question has been held for a very long time and has fallen into disrepair and the owners finally put it up for sale.
Potential buyers of the residential parcel see opportunity and future value in the parcel and buy with a hope/expectation that the other parcel will stay as is or will eventually fade away.
When buyers of the residential parcel realize that revitalization and some growth are planned for the other parcel, they develop concerns about the impact to their planned usage of the residential parcel and their hopes/plans of increased future value of the property and thus setting up a battle between the 2 parties.
This exact situation is a constant happening across the country where people buy homes next to failing gas station/garages, small businesses, airports. They expect the business will remain as is or decline and the site will revert back to an uninhabited undeveloped parcel or will become something that they see as acceptable. But when the preexisting usage is revitalized and potentially expanded, the new home owners vision is shattered and the lawyers take over. It then becomes a battle of will and money and time. Who can outlast who. The threshold of reasonable gets twisted past the point of recognition and the community is divided in the protracted debate about what is right or wrong. There will be a winner, but the biggest winner will be the lawyers.
I would like to say that potential buyers of the residential property in these situations should not be making such purchases, but in truth if they are willing to fight to their last breath, spend crazy amounts money on lawyers, fight as long as it takes, and do virtually anything necessary, they may very well be successful and it can pay off with huge rewards. Just look at the insane situation with the shut down of the Ames Farm boat ramp. That was a preexisting usage for decades, and it was a benefit to countless untold people. One of the most beautiful and easy to use spots for day boaters to launch a boat, now lost because of one new abutting homeowner that wanted to change what was. So it can be done. Not a big fan of this process or the outcome(s), but it is how the system works. Money, time and stamina very often win out over other competing measures/interests/desires.
It will be interesting to see how this one ends.
|
i thank you so much for the careful thought. one issue of clarification though with "pre-established usage partially residential and partially other". this is only a grandfathered use. grandfather uses remains, provided however, they are on the same lot and no expansion. in this case camp belknap is trying to develop on a separate low density residential lot and take it out of conservation land use. concom has allowed this and shame on them. for the record they a removing a firing range next to the majority of their activities and in a grandfathered lot/status. they themselves identify it a nuisance. then in there words, they are moving it to the periphery of their land and in my words to rid themselves of the nuisance and put it on the burden of others. with regards to expansion they are doubling the size of the firing range. on two counts, among many others, they are in direct violation of the laws we live by. not to mention the defy a superior court judges specific orders. they filed a motion for clarification and the judge reaffirms her orders and again they try to violate it.
and PLEASE remember this: now i beg you to understand my less then perfect domainer. while doing so please ask yourself the following: when was the last time you let one hundred thousand dollars of your children's money slip through you hands on another selfish quest? or as we call it sethfish quest