Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Owen
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
|
Again too many issues are being addressed in one thread.
If the alleged violations of zoning are an attempt to develop "for sale residential housing" that is in a conservation area, and that is not housing for use by the camp, this is its own matter and one the state of NH should be taking up. Not sure how that ever becomes a private matter or how this could possibly result in you spending any of your kids money on legal action. Stop wasting your money on this and call state IG or your reps.
Now if you are talking about the camp developing housing for use by the campers or staff, is a very different matter, and one would hope not a problem for anyone. How is this any different than putting up fire watch towers, or warming huts, or housing for rangers in conservation land in state and national parks. Its not something most people would object to.
As for the rifle range, I suspect they used poor judgment in selecting those words. That may also have been written before the plan to change from .22 rifles to air rifles. That being said please see my previous post about air rifles, I think the proposed air rifle range is a non-issue. But if after observing an air rifle being fired in a location with any reasonable background noise,you then still have concerns and objections that 600 feet is not enough buffer for you, it would seem to be an easy to resolve matter with the camp to discuss options to add buffer or add landscaping elements to reduce the noise transmission. But hanging your hat on that concern and expending even one dollar on lawyers over this just appear futile and petty. Life is too short for this to be a major issue for anyone, it just doesnt make any sense.
Again, would your rather they simply said forget it and just continued using the .22 rifles at the current range, that would be the real tragedy, and I can 100% assure you, you will notice the .22 rifles far more even in that old location, than you will notice the air guns at 600 feet.
Be careful what you seek, you might just get it.