Farm Island

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

You make it sound as if it's a big conspiracy here, bottom line is 12 lots all water front developed have huge profit potential. Now not that I know the exact details of the P&S, but I would think that there is a contingency on the purchase of the property pending successful acceptance of subdivision and lot development. Could very well be that agreement has some financial benefit to the current owners to allow the interested party the allotted time to attempt to get all that done. That is the sellers right to make a contractual agreement with such stipulations. So what would you do if you owned this property and there was a few hundred thousand or more on the table if you allowed extra time the process go through?

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.

Even if this is 100% true (a couple of posters have suggested there may still be legal hurdles), that does not mean it is right for the Winchesters to sell to the developer.

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.

[TheTimeTraveler]

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......

[ApS]

Originally Posted by TheTimeTraveler

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......

In the last few years, Tuftonboro bought a huge farm "for conservation". Wasn't that the Hershey Farm?

[tis]

Originally Posted by ApS

In the last few years, Tuftonboro bought a huge farm "for conservation". Wasn't that the Hershey Farm?

The Cheney Farm.

[ApS]

That's the one--thanks!

[TiltonBB]

Opponents to Farm Island development packed a public hearing before the Tuftonboro Planning Board on July 18.

The board will again hear opinions on the proposal at a meeting on Aug. 1, which will take place at Tuftonboro Elementary School in anticipation of a heavier turnout than normal. However, the board is not likely to vote on the matter until a later date.

From the Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...ntent=headline

[Garcia]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Opponents to Farm Island development packed a public hearing before the Tuftonboro Planning Board on July 18.

The board will again hear opinions on the proposal at a meeting on Aug. 1, which will take place at Tuftonboro Elementary School in anticipation of a heavier turnout than normal. However, the board is not likely to vote on the matter until a later date.

From the Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...ntent=headline

The article was an interesting read. It sounds to me like many people became used to a non-developed island and incorrectly assumed it would always stay that way. From the article, it seems the current owners tried to sell it to an entity that would preserve it, but the funds/interest isn't there.

Sometimes people forget that all the waterfront homes we enjoy were once un-developed, pristine shoreline. Privately owned land should be able to be developed, as long as current zoning and rules are followed.

I would love to see all future development stopped, a limit on the size, speed, sound, and number of boats, free parking and access for island property owners, lower property taxes, and more, but that's not going to happen, nor should it.

I'll be curious as to how this all works out.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by Garcia

I would love to see all future development stopped, a limit on the size, speed, sound, and number of boats, free parking and access for island property owners, lower property taxes, and more, but that's not going to happen, nor should it.

And yet there are people that think it can still happen! Greed is our worst enemy!

These folks should move to Squam Lake, instead of rattling our cage!

[DEJ]

My opinion has changed. Looks like camp Belknap had a few opportunities to purchase this property and for several reasons could not at the time pull the trigger. According to the article it appears the Winchesters tried to sell to the camp but it did not work out. The NIMBY crowd has no standing here, I wish the new owners well.

[FlyingScot]

Good article in LDS. If the buyers are sincere that they do not wish to develop the island beyond one simple home and only need a security blanket of sorts, then the solution is pretty obvious--in a 3-way deal, Camp Belknap could buy the development rights to the island from the current buyers for $500K to $1MM (I leave the exact number to the principals). The current buyers could pocket a big slug of cash today, dramatically reducing their risk; and Belknap could insure its tranquility for a lower price than would otherwise be possible.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...6e83059d7.html

[chasedawg]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Good article in LDS. If the buyers are sincere that they do not wish to develop the island beyond one simple home and only need a security blanket of sorts, then the solution is pretty obvious--in a 3-way deal, Camp Belknap could buy the development rights to the island from the current buyers for $500K to $1MM (I leave the exact number to the principals). The current buyers could pocket a big slug of cash today, dramatically reducing their risk; and Belknap could insure its tranquility for a lower price than would otherwise be possible.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...6e83059d7.html

Flying Scout ding ding ding...you hit the target...but in reality it won't work. The developer has said flat out I will not sell any part of the island to the camp. They have said "I don't want any part of the camp functions and activities near my development". Yet Camp Belknap owes 1/3 of the island and the boundary lines between the homestead home to be restored and camp owned property is only 25' feet away. So go figure!!

[ursa minor]

I’ve heard that the property may be in “current use” tax status. From my understanding that would mean either the seller or the potential buyer would need to come up with the difference between the reduced current use tax rate and the residential rate from the time the current use variance was granted. Depending on how long the island has been in “current use” that could be a tidy sum.

[chasedawg]

Originally Posted by ursa minor

I’ve heard that the property may be in “current use” tax status. From my understanding that would mean either the seller or the potential buyer would need to come up with the difference between the reduced current use tax rate and the residential rate from the time the current use variance was granted. Depending on how long the island has been in “current use” that could be a tidy sum.

Good thought....The potential buyer is going to continue with the "current use" status. From what I understand it will be a tree farm to gain "current use" status. Many trees will be removed especially the umbrella trees that have been there for 90 years.

[SAB1]

Lot of rumors out there. Who knows if half are true but I have heard there are tax issues ie. back taxes owed. I’m sure the town wants it developed for the tax revenue. Don’t believe the camp pays taxes.

[Wifi-1]

According to my sources, there is no back taxes owed on the land, and hasn't been.

[SAB1]

Originally Posted by Wifi-1

According to my sources, there is no back taxes owed on the land, and hasn't been.

Good. I found it hard to believe since it wasn’t long ago the camp bought part of the island.

[hemlock]

Originally Posted by chasedawg

Good thought....The potential buyer is going to continue with the "current use" status. From what I understand it will be a tree farm to gain "current use" status. Many trees will be removed especially the umbrella trees that have been there for 90 years.

The way current use works is that the owner gets a reduced tax rate for keeping the property in its current use as farmland ,woodland, unproductive land etc. Once the property is developed it is considered a change in use and a tax penalty is applied in the amount of 10 percent of the ad valorem value of the land. So 12 house lots at 300k each equals a penalty paid to Tuftonboro of 360000. Current use is only applicable if the property is at least 10 acres in size. Subdivision below that size triggers the penalty.

The only way to avoid the penalty is to not develop the property

[Outdoorsman]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Good article in LDS. If the buyers are sincere that they do not wish to develop the island beyond one simple home and only need a security blanket of sorts, then the solution is pretty obvious--in a 3-way deal, Camp Belknap could buy the development rights to the island from the current buyers for $500K to $1MM (I leave the exact number to the principals). The current buyers could pocket a big slug of cash today, dramatically reducing their risk; and Belknap could insure its tranquility for a lower price than would otherwise be possible.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...6e83059d7.html

These "feel good" propositions always make me laugh.

How about letting the OWNER decide? or...... BUY IT and divide it your way and make that "3way" deal!

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Outdoorsman

These "feel good" propositions always make me laugh.

How about letting the OWNER decide? or...... BUY IT and divide it your way and make that "3way" deal!

You have confused a proposition that will make people feel good with a "feel good proposition". It is NOT a feel good proposition, it's a business deal. Obviously, all 3 parties would have to agree it was in their best interest. These types of transactions happen regularly. Here's a recent example of a current owner getting cold hard cash to forego development, it's an especially apt one because the developer had no emotions or town pressure

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/n...ir-rights.html

[tis]

I hate to see Farm Island developed too but I keep wondering why didn't Camp Belknap didn't buy the whole thing, or why somebody else didn't buy it to save it if they want it saved. It has been for sale for quite a while.

[SAB1]

At the time they purchased the one third they didn’t have the money I believe. Lot changes going on there in past couple years to make needed improvements.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Good article in LDS.

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...6e83059d7.html

Just tuning in to this thread? Here's a little background music with a July 26 replay from the LaDaSun; 'Island plan leads to unhappy campers in Tuftonboro' .... a Lake Winnipesaukee summer camp, island melody with two color photographs showing 20-acre Farm Island plus a photo with campers in three sailboats.

[Randy Owen]

I appreciate all the input. The news is not anything but the facts. For the record I have had no problem with the camp in prior years. I held a contract with Gene Clark and Gene did everything he promised and the transaction was flawless. Currently management there is acting like they are above the law. Zoning is zoning. Shoreline protection laws are what New Hampshire requires.

Protecting the loons is important. When a person points to me for my custodial efforts for the protection of the environment and then builds an extremely busy boat landing right on top of one of the lakes best potential loon nesting areas I must speak out. This is a fraction of the broken laws. In turn I ask what are
we teaching our children? I felt a duty to inform

Sorry for any collateral frustration.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Randy Owen

I appreciate all the input. The news is not anything but the facts. For the record I have had no problem with the camp in prior years. I held a contract with Gene Clark and Gene did everything he promised and the transaction was flawless. Currently management there is acting like they are above the law. Zoning is zoning. Shoreline protection laws are what New Hampshire requires.

Protecting the loons is important. When a person points to me for my custodial efforts for the protection of the environment and then builds an extremely busy boat landing right on top of one of the lakes best potential loon nesting areas I must speak out. This is a fraction of the broken laws. In turn I ask what are
we teaching our children? I felt a duty to inform

Sorry for any collateral frustration.

To the Winchesters, is this how you want the legacy of the island to be remembered that has been in your family for decades?

[Randy Owen]

The Camp has done very many evasive things already directly to the Winchester family members. I am certain the lack of care the camp has demonstrated with Loons and the law only accelerates the ill feelings.
Thank you for your input.

[SAB1]

Sorry randy but I’ve lived right there since 2002. The only loon nesting area that has occurred on the island since then is off the two black pins on northwest side of the island, more precisely the northernmost pin of the two which just so happens to be the land up for sale. I have no beef in this at all but the tact you displayed in your post is anything but professional and honestly with that type of attitude you displayed in your post I certainly wouldn’t want to be in a real estate transaction your involved in

[Descant]

Randy Owen:
There are a lot more Camp Belknap alumni/supporters out there than you can imagine, plus the conservationists. Every time you post here, you lose ground. At the very least you should hire a PR firm to be your spokesman. At the best, you should just leave. It is obvious that maintaining or improving Lake Winnipesaukee is at the bottom of your to do list, if on the list at all.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

I continue to be amazed at the lack of civil discourse whenever a contentious topic rears its head. Even a thin dime has two sides. In the case of Farm Island, can’t there be a civilized debate without the rancor?

[ursa minor]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

I continue to be amazed at the lack of civil discourse whenever a contentious topic rears its head. Even a thin dime has two sides. In the case of Farm Island, can’t there be a civilized debate without the rancor?

You’re aware that Randy Owen is in negotiations to purchase Farm Island from its long time owners correct? And that the YMCA camp already owns a portion of the island?

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

I continue to be amazed at the lack of civil discourse whenever a contentious topic rears its head. Even a thin dime has two sides. In the case of Farm Island, can’t there be a civilized debate without the rancor?

Sue, I agree in general. But Mr Owen has smeared a beloved institution that appears to be a great citizen, and he has done so with virtually no substitution at a time he is in a land dispute with that institution where he appears to be the less community-minded party. So I think those of us who have jumped on him have been relatively fair

On the plus side, he seems to have united the rest of the group

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Even if this is 100% true (a couple of posters have suggested there may still be legal hurdles), that does not mean it is right for the Winchesters to sell to the developer.

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.

Whether it is "right" or not is a matter of an emotional measure of right or wrong and while I get that it is still the owner's decision who they sell to. It would be no different than holding prejudice against one party because you simply don't like them or what they are interested in doing with property they one day could own.

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?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

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.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

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.

This is a fair point. Similarly, it appears the developer's offer is contingent on gaining town approval.

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.