New 52 slip yacht club at Burger King

[meredith weekender]

I thought that I saw somewhere that Olive Garden Rest. was also interested in this site. Anyone else hear of this????

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by meredith weekender

I thought that I saw somewhere that Olive Garden Rest. was also interested in this site. Anyone else hear of this????

I heard that this group bought both and are looking for someone to come in and lease/build on the Burger King footprint. My understanding is that you can not increase the footprint of the building, but you can go up. So a two level restaurant is possible. Note that if the marina goes in, that likely only leaves parking to the right of this (looking at the lake).

I took another look at Google maps and 600' into the lake WOULD PROTRUDE 1/2 WAY ACROSS PAUGUS BAY IN THIS LOCATION. Allowing this would be a complete travesty. In addition, this is in close proximity of the town water intake. This is completely political and inappropriate; this makes no sense to allow in this location.

Jetskier

[Onshore]

I can't make any comment about the viability of this proposal at this time simply because this isn't the appropriate venue or time. However I do feel obligated to say that the dimensions for the facilty stated thus far are off by about a multiple of 2.

[jrc]

Shore Things, since this is a legal permitting process, it should be out in open. Everyone should see that it is fair to all and evenly applied, regardless of the political connections of the permit requester.

Why are you so shy on this project, when you were so open on other projects? What's wrong with this venue and time?

If Jetskier has the wrong information, why not tell us the correct information? Surely this is all public information?

[HUH]

The lake can realy use a 150 more wave makers

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by jrc

Shore Things, since this is a legal permitting process, it should be out in open. Everyone should see that it is fair to all and evenly applied, regardless of the political connections of the permit requester.

Why are you so shy on this project, when you were so open on other projects? What's wrong with this venue and time?

If Jetskier has the wrong information, why not tell us the correct information? Surely this is all public information?

"Shore things" - The formal plans are circulating amonst the various departments in town. How about posting the plans; they are going to have to be shown in the public hearing anyhow. I got my information from someone who saw the plans; I did not.

I am certainly interested in hearing the merits of this project; right now it is unseamly that a member of the planning board would be pushing this project in a clandestine fashion for personal gain. This has the earmarks of small town politics. Show me that I am wrong...I am listening. Also, don't accuse me of having wrong information unless you come forward with the correct information.

Jetskier

[spinker]

I believe 600' into Paugus Bay is incorrect, but my concern is the combination of the proposed breakwater wall along side of Spinnakers breakwater wall will be almost 1200' 0f wall side by side with only approximately 150' between them (this does not show on their proposed plans) and this is where "Black Brook" flows into the lake.

I am concerned about the flow of water into the lake from the brook even though the wall is to be similar to Spinnakers which stops about 3' from the lake floor it still will affect the natural flow from the brook causing it to posssibly become stagnant as well as the navigational hazard of having the length of the two walls almost side by side.

I am not an environmentalist but it seems that a second wall could cause some problems with the City of Laconia water supply as well as a change in the flow if water from the brook.

[Onshore]

DES has not received an application pertaining to this project as of yet. We have been involved in preliminary discussions with the applicant. They have sent us conceptual plans. Those plans are public record. Anyone who wishes to see them may come in and take a look. (We don't have an official application yet so for the time being they're in the old Erin Foods file...) The reason I didn't list any specific dimensions this morning is because it's Sunday, I'm at home, and I haven't completely memorized the plans yet. It has nothing to do with not wanting to be transparent.

As for discussions about the viability of the project... DES will conduct those directly with the applicant as we do on all projects. We will discuss general policy, regulation, and environmental concerns here, but not decisions on specific projects. It simply is not appropriate.

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by shore things

DES has not received an application pertaining to this project as of yet. We have been involved in preliminary discussions with the applicant. They have sent us conceptual plans. Those plans are public record. Anyone who wishes to see them may come in and take a look. (We don't have an official application yet so for the time being they're in the old Erin Foods file...) The reason I didn't list any specific dimensions this morning is because it's Sunday, I'm at home, and I haven't completely memorized the plans yet. It has nothing to do with not wanting to be transparent.

As for discussions about the viability of the project... DES will conduct those directly with the applicant as we do on all projects. We will discuss general policy, regulation, and environmental concerns here, but not decisions on specific projects. It simply is not appropriate.

Clearly, you are associated with DES and are reticent to discuss the specifics. Fair enough. So, let's air out the concerns, so when you do review this it is clear why there are objections:

1. The current permit allows for 52 floating docks. That is not a permanent structure. This project is for 52 docks (and a gazebo, and a clubhouse) and clearly the docks are a permanent structure. This should require a new permit as the old permit is for something completely different. I assume that this will be part of the formal permit application to DES. This clearly should be considered as a new request for 52 permanent docks (I am sure it will be).
2. Even if the project projects 300' from shore that is roughly 100' further than the current Spinnaker Club and it is clearly intrusive to traffic and the bay (as can be seen from the Google Earth photo earlier in the post). The bay is approximately 1200' in width in this area and that will be 1/4 of the way across (assuming 300').
3. The project appears to call for a "breakwater". I understand that this structure would be permanent and designed to block waves, but not currents. My understanding is that Paugus Bay is not approved for breakwaters anywhere in the confines of the bay. I am assuming that the Spinnaker Club was grandfathered long ago...it has been there forever. I does not appear appropriate to allow this project to construct a structure of that nature.
4. This project is in very close proximity to the Laconia town water intake. I know that this has been a point of concern with projects much further away.
5. Probably not a DES concern, but there is clearly not enough parking in this area and no traffic control at the proposed intersection with Lakeshore Drive.
6. This project is being built to personally benefit a member of the Laconia Planning Board (again, not a DES consideration, but...). That is clearly a conflict of interest IMHO and poor form in this day/age.

So, I appreciate your transparency; if you would post the dimensions, that would be appreciated. I was recanting what I was told. In addition, I will stop in when I am in the area and pick up a copy of the plan; I would like to see the details.

Jetskier

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by jetskier

The project appears to call for a "breakwater". I understand that this structure would be permanent and designed to block waves, but not currents. My understanding is that Paugus Bay is not approved for breakwaters anywhere in the confines of the bay.

Jetskier

Just wait until they find out much fun it is to prove need for one of those. They better hope their abutter likes the idea.

[Onshore]

Jetskier, I'll have file E-54, Erin Foods left at the front desk for you. When you come into DES ask the receptionist for Wetlands and let them know which file you want to see. Calling ahead always helps...

D. Forst
Shoreland Section Supervisor
NH DES Wetlands Bureau

[Rose]

Originally Posted by jetskier

[*]Even if the project projects 300' from shore that is roughly 100' further than the current Spinnaker Club and it is clearly intrusive to traffic and the bay (as can be seen from the Google Earth photo earlier in the post). The bay is approximately 1200' in width in this area and that will be 1/4 of the way across (assuming 300').

Using the ruler on Google Earth, the shortest distance from where the BK docks are attached to the shore and the opposing shore is slightly over 1900'. Assuming the breakwater is 300' from shore, that leaves ~1600'. The shortest distance between Spinnaker's breakwater and the opposing shore is roughly 1060', so they narrow the bay more than the proposed marina...unless of course the new marina is planning a Dubai-like project by building islands out from shore.

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by Rose

Using the ruler on Google Earth, the shortest distance from where the BK docks are attached to the shore and the opposing shore is slightly over 1900'. Assuming the breakwater is 300' from shore, that leaves ~1600'. The shortest distance between Spinnaker's breakwater and the opposing shore is roughly 1060', so they narrow the bay more than the proposed marina...unless of course the new marina is planning a Dubai-like project by building islands out from shore.

It does depend upon the angle. I did measure about 5" across adjacent to Spinnaker Club at a scale of about 500'/1.5". That is about 1666' and you are right that at that location it is more than the 1200' I originally measured. The real issue is going to be the angle of the thing (size of the breakwater too) as the bay narrows pretty quickly in this area. So 1666' down to around 1366' is still a reduction of 20% and that is pretty significant. That is in the cross section of the bay at that location. Clearly the bay narrows as you move toward Lakeport; so it is in cross section that the measurement seems the most representative.

I will post the actual information when I get the plans. At the moment, it is clearly supposition on my part. All things being equal, this project seems fraught with issues and not in the interest of the community. Just my 2 cents.

Jetskier

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jetskier

"...The project appears to call for a "breakwater". I understand that this structure would be permanent and designed to block waves, but not currents..."

Perhaps a mini version of this?

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Perhaps a mini version of this?

I sure hope not. That thing butt ugly.

[no-engine]

Weren't the 52 slips discussed here small since they were designed for short term tie-up while people in the smaller boats go to BK often for take-out orders? NOT at all for extended nor overnight stays of the small boat.

There is no way to compare that kind of usage with the new proposal!

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by no-engine

Weren't the 52 slips discussed here small since they were designed for short term tie-up while people in the smaller boats go to BK often for take-out orders? NOT at all for extended nor overnight stays of the small boat.

There is no way to compare that kind of usage with the new proposal!

The BK docks are permitted as floating docks and are pretty small. At least so they seem when I go over there. This proposal is for large boats (I will let you know how large when I see the plans) and it is a permanent facility including the breakwater. As I indicated in my prior posts, this is a completely different animal.

Jetskier

[no-engine]

Originally Posted by jetskier

The BK docks are permitted as floating docks and are pretty small. At least so they seem when I go over there. This proposal is for large boats (I will let you know how large when I see the plans) and it is a permanent facility including the breakwater. As I indicated in my prior posts, this is a completely different animal.

Jetskier

For sure: a completely different animal; I was trying to say that, but used different words!

[Onshore]

Proposed docks extend approximately 240 feet from shore.
Breakwater proposed to be located approximately 340 feet from shore.

[Chickie]

The BK docks were put into the water each year around May 1 and removed at the end of October. They are still stacked on the southerly portion of the property. They were definitely not permanent fixtures on the Bay.

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by shore things

Proposed docks extend approximately 240 feet from shore.
Breakwater proposed to be located approximately 340 feet from shore.

Using Google Maps and my handy dandy ruler...the Spinnaker Club breakwater is 200' from the shore line. This would extend 140' beyond that.

Jetskier

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by jrc

Shore Things, since this is a legal permitting process, it should be out in open. Everyone should see that it is fair to all and evenly applied, regardless of the political connections of the permit requester.

Why are you so shy on this project, when you were so open on other projects? What's wrong with this venue and time?

If Jetskier has the wrong information, why not tell us the correct information? Surely this is all public information?

Is this even a project yet as far as DES is concerned? Has a permit application been submitted? If so, it would be on the web, right? That's pretty public but I couldn't find it.