Seaplane Base and runway 19 Mile Bay Proposed

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

I was unsure at first, but now I definitely think you're ESA's mouthpiece. Far too much passion and length in your posts for us to think you're neutral.

On the specifics--Sure, the optimal height of the posts is debatable and probably not a big deal. The big deals are the noise/intrusion every 30 minutes and the public's ownership of the dock for all. The posts are just one of several tools the town has available if we come to believe this is not in the town's best interest

You don't know me very well, anytime I choose to voice my opinion and do so at length and with passion. Let me speak about my passion in this case, my passion here is not all about ESA, or Seaplanes.... it is about acknowledging the fact that there can be use models outside of the Norm.

Businesses use union wharf all the time. So that isn't a logistical argument here, you can't say that someone can put a dumpster in the middle of the wharf (which I see done yearly if not more often) and call it ok, but then tell someone they can't bring a sea plane into the dock, because the wings extend out over the dock. So if the public access is deemed not suitable for business then it needs to apply to all business period end of story.....Equal treatment is what this is called, and yes I am very passionate about that.

Now In my eyes, as a public access point, I think that any business should require a permit to use the dock, and pay a fee based on hourly usage to do so.... This includes a private citizen that needs a dumpster placed on the wharf to clean out their island property. In this case the Dumpster company is the business, which would require the property owner to gain the permit and pay the fees....Or a construction company that needs to tie up their barge for a few hours, and load materials....And it extends to a commercial entity simply leaving a boat at the wharf for a longer period of time, then would be considered the norm for a recreation user (i.e. overnight, or over a weekend). This allows the town to control the usage of the pier for other then purely recreation purposes. If this is already going on, then why is everyone up in arms at this point. To operate a business from the wharf ESA would have to get the necessary permits. So my guess is this isn't the current situation.

Now if the FAA grants the runway identification, private pilots will see it as a navigation point, and may chose to stop in and check things out. Once on the water they are a boat, and like any boat have the right to tie up at the wharf safely... having lower posts facilitates that.... Once again I am pretty passionate about equal treatment......

Now if down the road ESA wants to run a sight seeing business, he is going to have to get permits from the town, etc.... To my knowledge that hasn't been done, and that is when the argument in this thread becomes relevant. If down the road the store wants to put in facilities to enable selling gas to sea planes, there will be permits from the Town, DES, and likely the FAA... once again that is the time for the arguments I see in this thread.....

Don't think I am 100% in agreement with ESA, I am not... what I do agree with him on is equal treatment.... the arguments here are not separating out the categories that need to be separated out..... The FAA runway designation is harmless not really worth worrying about, it simply adds a way point marking the location... a location where a sea plane operator could land anyway... I am sorry but private sea-plane operators, should have the same rights and accommodations as private boat owners.

Business aspects and concerns are a different debate, if the town doesn't have regulations in place that would prevent a business from utilizing the wharf with out prior notification then that is a town issue, and mistake.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

You don't know me very well, anytime I choose to voice my opinion and do so at length and with passion. Let me speak about my passion in this case, my passion here is not all about ESA, or Seaplanes.... it is about acknowledging the fact that there can be use models outside of the Norm.

Businesses use union wharf all the time. So that isn't a logistical argument here, you can't say that someone can put a dumpster in the middle of the wharf (which I see done yearly if not more often) and call it ok, but then tell someone they can't bring a sea plane into the dock, because the wings extend out over the dock. So if the public access is deemed not suitable for business then it needs to apply to all business period end of story.....Equal treatment is what this is called, and yes I am very passionate about that.

Now In my eyes, as a public access point, I think that any business should require a permit to use the dock, and pay a fee based on hourly usage to do so.... This includes a private citizen that needs a dumpster placed on the wharf to clean out their island property. In this case the Dumpster company is the business, which would require the property owner to gain the permit and pay the fees....Or a construction company that needs to tie up their barge for a few hours, and load materials....And it extends to a commercial entity simply leaving a boat at the wharf for a longer period of time, then would be considered the norm for a recreation user (i.e. overnight, or over a weekend). This allows the town to control the usage of the pier for other then purely recreation purposes. If this is already going on, then why is everyone up in arms at this point. To operate a business from the wharf ESA would have to get the necessary permits. So my guess is this isn't the current situation.

Now if the FAA grants the runway identification, private pilots will see it as a navigation point, and may chose to stop in and check things out. Once on the water they are a boat, and like any boat have the right to tie up at the wharf safely... having lower posts facilitates that.... Once again I am pretty passionate about equal treatment......

Now if down the road ESA wants to run a sight seeing business, he is going to have to get permits from the town, etc.... To my knowledge that hasn't been done, and that is when the argument in this thread becomes relevant. If down the road the store wants to put in facilities to enable selling gas to sea planes, there will be permits from the Town, DES, and likely the FAA... once again that is the time for the arguments I see in this thread.....

Don't think I am 100% in agreement with ESA, I am not... what I do agree with him on is equal treatment.... the arguments here are not separating out the categories that need to be separated out..... The FAA runway designation is harmless not really worth worrying about, it simply adds a way point marking the location... a location where a sea plane operator could land anyway... I am sorry but private sea-plane operators, should have the same rights and accommodations as private boat owners.

Business aspects and concerns are a different debate, if the town doesn't have regulations in place that would prevent a business from utilizing the wharf with out prior notification then that is a town issue, and mistake.

The few on here that are accusing you of being a “mouthpiece for ESA” appear to me to be “self-appointed Town of Tuftonboro Officials” with nothing better to do. I wouldn’t give these people the time of day if it were me setting up this operation.

[DEJ]

LIforrelaxin, the next time you and epic talk or PM ask him why he does not run his sight seeing business from his private dock on Mirror Lake where he has a State approved water runway? Several have asked that question in this thread and so far he has refused to answer this and many other questions. Thanks.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

The few on here that are accusing you of being a “mouthpiece for ESA” appear to me to be “self-appointed Town of Tuftonboro Officials” with nothing better to do. I wouldn’t give these people the time of day if it were me setting up this operation.

No we are residents of the Town of Tuftonboro unlike the "mouthpiece" and we care and are concerned how our town property is or might be used in the future. It is that simple.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by DEJ

No we are residents of the Town of Tuftonboro unlike the "mouthpiece" and we care and are concerned how our town property is or might be used in the future. It is that simple.

How do you know I am not a property owner in the town of Tuftonboro? Just because I chose not to advertise, where I have additional properties, don't assume to know where I do and don't have a vested interest....

As far as caring and concerning, I care about the entirety of the lakes region, and in the past have spent countless hours communicating with State officials regarding issues that I have strong opinions about. I back my communications up with facts and knowledge...

Its amazing that I have been able to create friendships with people on this forum over the years even when we don't see eye to eye on polarizing issues. But yet I do because I am willing to listen and accept not everyone views the world the same way I do.

As you continue to post I realize more and more, you are part of a select few people, that over the years have soured this forum, which was once filled with great conversations and peaceful debates. Instead of realizing that you and I don't see eye to eye, you seem to like to continue to take pot shots and guess at what you really know nothing about.

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

How do you know I am not a property owner in the town of Tuftonboro? Just because I chose not to advertise, where I have additional properties, don't assume to know where I do and don't have a vested interest....

As far as caring and concerning, I care about the entirety of the lakes region, and in the past have spent countless hours communicating with State officials regarding issues that I have strong opinions about. I back my communications up with facts and knowledge...

Its amazing that I have been able to create friendships with people on this forum over the years even when we don't see eye to eye on polarizing issues. But yet I do because I am willing to listen and accept not everyone views the world the same way I do.

As you continue to post I realize more and more, you are part of a select few people, that over the years have soured this forum, which was once filled with great conversations and peaceful debates. Instead of realizing that you and I don't see eye to eye, you seem to like to continue to take pot shots and guess at what you really know nothing about.

Property owner and resident are completely different things. I am a resident and can vote on items that affect the town, a property owner cannot. Sucks but that is the way it is. Thanks for the "pot shot" at my character. Makes you no different than what you claim I do. Take care.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by DEJ

Property owner and resident are completely different things. I am a resident and can vote on items that affect the town, a property owner cannot. Sucks but that is the way it is. Thanks for the "pot shot" at my character. Makes you no different than what you claim I do. Take care.

You're right as a just a property owner I can't vote, but it does mean I have the right to speak to the town board, and with public official if I should so chose. Sometimes the public officials brush you off because they know you can't vote, but as a land owner, you have access to all the towns facilities, personal, and amenities.....

As it happens I am not even a resident of the State of NH, yet I have spent more time lobbying for various things in NH, then most residents. I take the time and have discussed at length many issues, with State Senators, and Congressman a like. I have also done this at the town level, because ultimately I have tax dollars that I invest into the state every year, and while it doesn't give me the right to vote (which I agree with)... it does give me the right to have my say and speak... And I find that most people and officials respect that. Why Because of how I approach the issues, because I look at all sides to the situation, and can take complex issue like we have here and seperate out all the aspects..... There are two issues here:

1. Designation for the 19 Mile Bay runway and Seaplane base, This is an FAA issues, doesn't even concern the town..

2. Issue would be the physical construction and development of said seaplane base and any commercial enterprises from it.

Issue #1 is in process and does no real harm, except add a way point, and an offical landing strip to maps and aeronautical GPS systems.... Sea Planes have the right to land on the lake already, and once on the water are considered a boat... The FAA paperwork has changed nothing, does not give ESA or the pier19 store the right to physically create a sea base, stop arguing over it.

Item #2, is what everyone is in arms over..... If Pier 19 wishes to work on the fuel dock or create a physical Sea Plane base, they will have to apply for permits from the state, DES etc. etc. etc. That is when and where you need to have this fight.... As for ESA, I would assume that the town of Tuftonboro would require him to have a business license to operate in the town, and further more an additional permit for him to utilize the Union Wharf to conduct that business. If the town doesn't have those requirements, then there is a problem with the town bi-laws, and that is where the frustration should be.

To this point, I have not seen evidence that a law has been broken, or a short cut been taken to try and avoid consequences... What I continue to see however is people afraid of change, that isn't change they agree with.....

Once again I will come back to a statement I made earlier:
I always thought the moto for New Hampshire was "Live Free or Die".... The older I get, the more I realize the moto is "Live Free our way, or get the hell out"......

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Don't think I am 100% in agreement with ESA, I am not... what I do agree with him on is equal treatment....

ESA does have "equal treatment"--he can use the town's existing structures in accordance with the town's existing rules. He is asking for preferential treatment--changing existing structures, changing the length of time one can use those structures.

All for a business that is very likely to annoy his neighbors in order to entertain folks from out of town. Still hard to understand why you're so passionate about this particular topic

[The Real BigGuy]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

You don't know me very well, anytime I choose to voice my opinion and do so at length and with passion. Let me speak about my passion in this case, my passion here is not all about ESA, or Seaplanes.... it is about acknowledging the fact that there can be use models outside of the Norm.

Businesses use union wharf all the time. So that isn't a logistical argument here, you can't say that someone can put a dumpster in the middle of the wharf (which I see done yearly if not more often) and call it ok, but then tell someone they can't bring a sea plane into the dock, because the wings extend out over the dock. So if the public access is deemed not suitable for business then it needs to apply to all business period end of story.....Equal treatment is what this is called, and yes I am very passionate about that.

Now In my eyes, as a public access point, I think that any business should require a permit to use the dock, and pay a fee based on hourly usage to do so.... This includes a private citizen that needs a dumpster placed on the wharf to clean out their island property. In this case the Dumpster company is the business, which would require the property owner to gain the permit and pay the fees....Or a construction company that needs to tie up their barge for a few hours, and load materials....And it extends to a commercial entity simply leaving a boat at the wharf for a longer period of time, then would be considered the norm for a recreation user (i.e. overnight, or over a weekend). This allows the town to control the usage of the pier for other then purely recreation purposes. If this is already going on, then why is everyone up in arms at this point. To operate a business from the wharf ESA would have to get the necessary permits. So my guess is this isn't the current situation.

Now if the FAA grants the runway identification, private pilots will see it as a navigation point, and may chose to stop in and check things out. Once on the water they are a boat, and like any boat have the right to tie up at the wharf safely... having lower posts facilitates that.... Once again I am pretty passionate about equal treatment......

Now if down the road ESA wants to run a sight seeing business, he is going to have to get permits from the town, etc.... To my knowledge that hasn't been done, and that is when the argument in this thread becomes relevant. If down the road the store wants to put in facilities to enable selling gas to sea planes, there will be permits from the Town, DES, and likely the FAA... once again that is the time for the arguments I see in this thread.....

Don't think I am 100% in agreement with ESA, I am not... what I do agree with him on is equal treatment.... the arguments here are not separating out the categories that need to be separated out..... The FAA runway designation is harmless not really worth worrying about, it simply adds a way point marking the location... a location where a sea plane operator could land anyway... I am sorry but private sea-plane operators, should have the same rights and accommodations as private boat owners.

Business aspects and concerns are a different debate, if the town doesn't have regulations in place that would prevent a business from utilizing the wharf with out prior notification then that is a town issue, and mistake.

Just an FYI. The dumpsters you see placed on the wharf yearly are placed there by the town of Tuftonboro (owner of the Wharf) and at the towns request to support island residents with the disposal of large trash. Apples & oranges to ESA’s proposed use.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app