Quote:
Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE
GRANTED!
"the Original Petition fails to provide the requisite number of signatures with supporting proof that the co petitioners are either residents or property owners pursuant to RSA 270:12,I. Based upon my response within section IV, (sub. 3), the Appellants Motion to Reopen pursuant to RSA 541:3 are granted."
The original petitioners must provide proof that a minium number of the original 25 co-petitioners listed in the original document are residents or property owners in Tuftonboro by use of official town record.
Since many petitioners are of the same family / property this will be impossible to do.
Basically this will cancel the petition outright.
|
Wow. Nice to see that the SBONH group was able to change the outcome of this attempt buy a few to slip this No Wake Zone proposal through the system.
To me it seemed that
SBONH did not take sides on the issue but rather challenged the process. I find that to be a very important distinction and applaud them and their efforts to see that a small vocal minority could not push their agenda through the system without allowing ALL in the area the opportunity to provide their input on the proposed NWZ.
This was NOT a Go Fast agenda but a DO IT the RIGHT WAY initiative. Regardless of the eventual outcome of the Barber Pole NWZ I admire the goal of SBONH.
Responsible legislation makes noting but good (and proper) sense.
Wonder how Turtle Boy, Sunset on the Dock, El Chase and their very few verbose and prolific posting cohorts will try to spin this success.
Bravo SBONH
and thank you.