Farm Island

[Wifi-1]

Wow, I was under the impression that if someone offered full price, cash, with no contingencies, there was no way to refuse the offer.

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by Wifi-1

Wow, I was under the impression that if someone offered full price, cash, with no contingencies, there was no way to refuse the offer.

Sellers aren’t obligated to accept any offer on their property—no matter how much money it’s for

It's perfectly legal for the seller to reject a full-price offer, or indeed any offer (unless the reasons are discriminatory). For example, sellers in a hot market who are expecting to sell for over asking will likely counter a full-price offer—even one without contingencies.

[Major]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Sellers aren’t obligated to accept any offer on their property—no matter how much money it’s for

It's perfectly legal for the seller to reject a full-price offer, or indeed any offer (unless the reasons are discriminatory). For example, sellers in a hot market who are expecting to sell for over asking will likely counter a full-price offer—even one without contingencies.

That's true, but the seller may be obligated to pay his agent a commission fee based on the listing agreement. Presenting a buyer that is willing to pay the listed amount with no conditions may trigger a commission payment clause.

[TheTimeTraveler]

Originally Posted by Major

That's true, but the seller may be obligated to pay his agent a commission fee based on the listing agreement. Presenting a buyer that is willing to pay the listed amount with no conditions may trigger a commission payment clause.

This is true in New Hampshire and I believe 48 other states. I think Massachusetts is the only state where a commission is due only when the transaction is 100% complete.

[chasedawg]

Originally Posted by codeman671

There must be some ugly history in the background between the owners and Camp Belknap? I can't imagine the sellers wanting the property to go to someone that would want to potentially develop it vs a children's camp, but clearly that's the case.

Yes there was some ugly history. I got a text from Randy last night. He and Cindy came to an agreement with the Winchester's. They closed on the deal. Randy and Cindy are now owners of Farm Island.

[tis]

Originally Posted by chasedawg

Yes there was some ugly history. I got a text from Randy last night. He and Cindy came to an agreement with the Winchester's. They closed on the deal. Randy and Cindy are now owners of Farm Island.

AH, so they settled out of court. So it is over. Is the plan the same?

[chasedawg]

Originally Posted by tis

AH, so they settled out of court. So it is over. Is the plan the same?

I don't think they settled out of court. The appeal/suit is ongoing. It is still scheduled for sometime in March. The original plan is probably on hold until there is a settlement in court. Just my guess.

[tis]

Originally Posted by chasedawg

I don't think they settled out of court. The appeal/suit is ongoing. It is still scheduled for sometime in March. The original plan is probably on hold until there is a settlement in court. Just my guess.

Oh ok. Thanks for the info. Why would they go ahead with the sale though with that suit going on?

[codeman671]

It looks like Farm Island did close at $1.2mil.

[Randy Owen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc1ndCtgypE

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by tis

I just read that Camp Belknap has started a lawsuit agains the development of Farm Island.

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
CARROLL, SS. SUPERIOR COURT
YMCA Camp Belknap, Inc.
v.
Town of Tuftonboro, Tuftonboro Planning Board, and
Farm Island Acres, LLC
212-2019-CV-00209
ORDER
The plaintiff, YMCA Camp Belknap, Inc. (“Camp Belknap”), appeals the October
17, 2019, decision of the Town of Tuftonboro Planning Board (“Board”) conditionally
approving an application for a ten lot residential subdivision1 on Farm Island in
Tuftonboro, submitted by C&R NH Realty Trust, LLC (“C&R”). Camp Belknap’s appeal
of the Board’s approval, pursuant to RSA 677:15, was timely filed. The court granted
Farm Island Acres, LLC (“Farm Island Acres”) intervener status2 and conducted a
hearing on this matter on July 20, 2020. Post hearing Memorandum were submitted
through August and September, 2020. Based on review of the record, arguments of
counsel and the applicable law, the court finds and rules as follows.
The following facts are drawn from the certified record (“C.R.”) and from the
exhibits submitted at the hearing. C&R is a development company whose principals
include Cynthia Pratt and Randy Owen. The appellant, Camp Belknap, owns and
operates a summer camp on various properties in Tuftonboro, including a portion of

1 The application was originally for a twelve lot subdivision; the application was amended to comply with
zoning and subdivision regulations to comprise ten lots. (C.R. at 317.)
2 Because the positions of the intervener appear to be aligned with the positions of Tuftonboro and the
Board, they are collectively referred to as “the defendants.”
12/11/2020 9:23 AM
Carroll Superior Court
This is a Service Document For Case: 212-2019-CV-00209
2
Farm Island that abuts the proposed subdivision. Camp Belknap is described in the
certified record (“C.R.”) as having made an offer to purchase the parcel that is the
subject of this appeal. (C.R. at 317, 320.)
On June 27, 2019, C&R applied for a twelve lot subdivision on 13.58 acres on
Farm Island. The property, located in the Island Conservation District, is owned by
David, Donald and John Winchester. The lots have waterfront access to Nineteen Mile
Bay on Lake Winnipesaukee. (C.R. at 1-2.)
Farm Island comprises 20.8 acres (C.R. at 21) and is mostly undeveloped. In the
1950’s, the island was subdivided into two parcels – Camp Belknap purchased a 7.5
acre parcel designated 2-2 and the Winchesters retained the remaining 13.4 acre parcel
designated 2-1.3
(C.R. at 402.) It appears no residential development has been
undertaken since the 1950s and Camp Belknap and the Winchesters currently remain
the only owners of property on the island. The principals of C&R have no prior
development experience. (Petition at 1-2.)
Due to its relatively undeveloped state, there was considerable interest in, and
concern about, the subdivision application. The Board conducted hearings on July 18,
August 1, September 5, October 3, and October 17, 2019. (C.R. at 576.) Many
individuals and organizations filed letters and/or spoke at the public hearings. The
certified record comprises 581 pages.
The Board conditionally approved the subdivision, now limited to ten lots, on
October 17, 2019 by vote of 5 to 0. (C.R. at 540.) The Notice of Decision, dated
October 24, 2019, listed fifteen conditions, including documentation of subdivision

3 There is a minor discrepancy in the acreage of parcel 2-1. The difference is not material to this appeal.
3
approval from the Attorney General,
4 septic installation that encouraged use of Clean
Solutions, Advanced Enviro-Septic or like systems, if reasonable, features to prevent
runoff during construction, adherence to erosion controls “as noted in the State
Permit(s)”, and a maintenance agreement addressing the electrical line serving the
subdivision and releasing Tuftonboro of liability regarding electrical infrastructure. (C.R.
at 576-77.) Camp Belknap brought the instant appeal, seeking judicial review of the
Board’s decision pursuant to RSA 677:15.
LEGAL STANDARD
The court’s review of planning board decisions is limited. Motorsports Holdings,
LLC v. Town of Tamworth, 160 N.H. 95, 99 (2010). “The court may reverse or affirm,
wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review when there is an error
of law or when the court is persuaded by the balance of probabilities, on the evidence
before it, that said decision is unreasonable.” RSA 677:15. The court “must treat the
factual findings of the planning board as prima facie lawful and reasonable and cannot
set aside its decision absent unreasonableness or an identified error of law.”
Motorsports Holdings, LLC, 160 N.H. at 99 (quotation omitted). The appealing party
bears the burden of proving that, by the balance of probabilities, the board’s decision
was unlawful or unreasonable. See id. The court’s role is not to determine whether it
agrees with the decision of the planning board, but to determine whether there was
evidence upon which it could have been reasonably based. Id.
ANALYSIS

4 Because the subdivision has fewer than 15 lots, counsel notified the Board it is exempt from subdivision
approval from the Office of Attorney General, pursuant to RSA 356-A:3,I(a). (C.R. at 580.)
4
In the Petition, Camp Belknap raises nine grounds5 upon which it argues that the
Board’s decision was unlawful or unreasonable: I) Farm Island is a unique, ecologically
sensitive island property that, under the balancing required by the Master Plan, should
not be developed; 2) the Board did not adequately address impacts on water quality; 3)
the Board did not adequately address potential archeological resources on the island; 4)
the Board did not adequately protect critical loon habitat on the island; 5) the Board’s
maintenance agreement regarding the electrical power line running to the island is
insufficient; 6) the Board did not adequately address fire safety and traffic concerns on
Route 109 and in the bay; and 7) the Board did not consider the risks associated with
allowing principals of C&R, who have no real estate experience, to develop such a
sensitive property. (Petition at 1-5.) Camp Belknap also states the Board did not
provide adequate due process as it had prejudged the decision and had “scripted out
the conditions it was intending to impose on the project” before deliberations took place.
(Petition at 5.) According to Camp Belknap, a decision on the subdivision was
premature, the nature and extent of its conditions were in error, and multiple issues
were overlooked or inadequately addressed. (Petition at 5.) The defendants assert that
any issues beyond those set forth in the Petition have been waived. Even if they are
considered, the defendants argue the Board’s decision was neither unlawful nor
unreasonable. They note the five public hearings, consideration of the testimony of all
who made presentations or presented reports, compliance with Tuftonboro’s regulatory
standards and Master Plan, and development of conditions adequate to protect the
island and Nineteen Mile Bay. (See generally Board’s Trial Memorandum; Farm Island

5 The Petition did not raise the issue of the intent to cut, though the issue is addressed in Camp Belknap’s
Memorandum. Because it was not raised in the Petition, the issue is waived.
5
Acres’ Memorandum.) The court considers the parties’ arguments in turn.
1. Unique, ecologically sensitive island property should not be developed
Camp Belknap asserts that while residential development is not prohibited in the
Island Conservation District of Farm Island, the area is so unique that residential
development is improper. This general statement of concern rests on the notion that
island property is sensitive and there is no other island tract in Lake Winnipesaukee of
this size that remains undeveloped. Camp Belknap finds Tuftonboro’s regulations
inadequate, as they “do not address the unique features and concerns of a potential
development on an island.” (Camp Belknap Post Hearing Memorandum, “Camp
Belknap Memorandum”, at 2.) To the extent the regulations do provide guidance, Camp
Belknap argues section 4.22 of the Subdivision Regulations addressing the character of
the land was not appropriately considered and expert opinions concerned about the
development were not properly evaluated. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 7.) Camp
Belknap further alleged in the Petition that the Master Plan’s call to balance the needs
of an applicant and the needs of the community at large would not be served by
allowing the project to proceed. It did not, however, raise this issue in its Memorandum.
The court does not find any provision in Tuftonboro’s Subdivision Regulations,
Zoning Ordinance, or Master Plan that would prohibit this development. Residential
development in the Island Conservation District is clearly authorized. Although Camp
Belknap did not appear to pursue the issue of the Master Plan, in the interest of
completeness the court will address the contention. The Master Plan speaks of
balancing of interests, but as the Supreme Court has noted, a Master Plan provides
guidance only and is not a basis to reject a subdivision or site plan application.
6
Rancourt v. Town of Barnstead, 129 N.H. 45, 49 (1986). Further, to apply a different
balancing test or impose greater regulatory standards on a subdivision because of a
general view that the property is special, even in important ways, is not permissible.
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Town of Hanover, 171 N.H. 497, 513-514 (2018). A
board must apply the standards of the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision
Regulations and not impose its own personal sensibilities about a project if the
application otherwise complies with the municipality’s governing documents. The court
finds no evidence to conclude subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the
basis the island is unique or especially sensitive.
2. Impacts on water quality of Nineteen Mile Bay
Camp Belknap asserts the Board erred when it refused to seriously consider the
impacts to water quality and rejected requests to await results of a Nineteen Mile Bay
water quality study underway. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 8-13.) Camp Belknap
notes the Lake Winnipesaukee Association (“Association”) found the subdivision would
cause a 1,636% increase in phosphorus loading in the bay which in turn would increase
the growth of algae, damage fish populations and put loons at risk. (C.R. at 46.)
Because this testimony was not refuted, according to Camp Belknap, it must be
accepted. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 8.) Camp Belknap also asserts the
Horizons Engineering (“Horizons”)6 study was legally inadequate because no water
quality testing or monitoring was done. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 6.) Further,
Camp Belknap argues the Board recognized the need for environmentally advanced
septic design but failed to mandate a particular system or type of system. (C.R. at 431-

6 The Board retained Horizons for third party engineering review of the application. (C.R. at 317.)
7
432.)
The defendants argue any claim regarding the adequacy of the Horizons study
was not raised in the Petition and thus is waived. To the extent this claim is considered,
they argue the engineering study adequately considered water quality impacts. (C.R. at
446-451.) As to the phosphorous loading projections, according to the defendants, the
conclusions of the Association were indeed refuted as to whether they were applicable
to this project. The Board questioned the use of mainland conditions in the study,
noting that roads and lawns are heavy contributors to phosphorous loading and are not
a significant feature of this island proposal. According to the defendants, Farm Island
properties are discouraged from having lawns and the lots will not create the same
phosphorous increase seen in mainland subdivisions. Horizons concluded there would
be no significant impact as there were few roads or other impervious surfaces, lawns
that contribute heavily to phosphorus loading, or beaches that disturb the shore land.
(C.R. at 405, 409.) The Board agreed and found no need to await the water quality
analysis being done. (C.R. at 431.) Regarding the septic conditions, the Board did not
mandate a particular system or type of system, as septic design is within the regulatory
purview of the Department of Environmental Services (“DES”). (C.R. at 535.)
The court does not find Camp Belknap to have waived any issues regarding
water quality and the request for the results of the water study. The Petition explicitly
identified water quality and phosphorous loading as issues and characterized the
approval process as premature and incomplete.
On the merits of its argument, however, the court does not find the Board’s
decisions regarding water quality to have been unreasonable. The Board considered
8
and found the phosphorous loading projections not applicable, as they relied on
assumptions appropriate for mainland subdivisions and not island development. (C.R. at
431.) While Camp Belknap is correct that the phosphorous projections submitted by the
Association were not countered with an alternate percentage, it is not accurate to say
the Association data must be accepted. The Board’s clear findings were that the
assumptions were flawed and the results inapplicable to this project. (C.R. at 431.)
Regarding septic systems, DES is responsible for approval of the specific septic design.
The Board encouraged state of the art systems, if approved by DES (C.R. at 535) and
C&R’s engineering consultant appears to have committed to this type of system. (C.R.
at 4.) As a Board member stated, the Board would “be in trouble” if it were to mandate
use of a particular design rather than leaving that to DES. (C.R. at 535.) The Board
was more concerned with potential water quality impacts during the construction phase
and established conditions to minimize those risks. (C.R. at 536.) The court finds no
evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis
it would cause a significant degradation of water quality.
3. Impact on archeological resources
Camp Belknap asserts the Board’s approval was unreasonable and illegal as the
property has historic significance. Despite 19th and early 20th century stone walls, and
potentially pre-contact Native American and post-contact European American
archeological artifacts, the Board failed to perform an archeological review. (Petition at
3.) Camp Belknap retained Victoria Bunker, Inc., to assess Camp Belknap’s portion of
the island. (See generally C.R. at 167-181.) She described how the island had been
connected by a natural land bridge that disappeared when the lake level increased by
9
three to five feet, after the Lakeport dam was built. (C.R. at 170.) Bunker found Farm
Island to be a “valuable resource for archeological sites” (C.R. at 168) and located stone
walls and other late 19th and early 20th century artifacts on the Camp Belknap portion of
the island. She concluded the island could be eligible for placement on the National
Register of Historic Places. (C.R. at 81, 88, 160-161.) Camp Belknap argued that
because its portion of the island had stone walls and might have pre-contact and postcontact artifacts, the Board should have required a similar archeological study of parcel
2-1. Camp Belknap asserts the Board failed to include any of these issues in its
deliberations. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 19.)
The defendants note that nothing in the Bunker report identifies actual
archeological artifacts, but rather that such might potentially be present. (C.R. at 171,
175.) They argue that Camp Belknap cites no local, state, or federal regulations that
address development in areas with potential but not identified archeological resources.
(Farm Island Acres Memorandum at 7.)
The court has reviewed the Bunker report regarding archeological conditions.
Bunker noted no pre-contact archeological finds present on Camp Belknap’s parcel and
only speculated such might be found on parcel 2-1. According to Bunker, “while no precontact Native American archeological sites have been previously recorded for the
island, the island exhibits the potential for North American archeological site occurrence
in both terrestrial and submerged contexts.” Camp Belknap is correct that the Board’s
deliberations did not address the Bunker report. The defendants are correct that Camp
Belknap has cited no provisions in Tuftonboro’s governing documents, state or federal
law that would prohibit development when there is a potential for archeological artifacts
10
but no identified resources. The potential for being placed on the state or national
registry was described to the Board, but Camp Belknap has not asserted that such
designations, if they were to occur, would prohibit or limit development. The court
cannot impose burdens on a municipality or create mandates were none exists. The
fact that Bunker’s report of a mere possibility of archeological resources was not
discussed by the Board does not, in the court’s view, invalidate its approval. The court
finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on
the basis the property potentially has archeological significance.
4. Impact on critical loon habitats
Camp Belknap states the Board’s approval was illegal or unreasonable as it
disregarded the impact to the habitats of loons and other sensitive species. It notes the
importance of nesting pairs and need to rebuild the population of loons on Lake
Winnipesaukee. The New Hampshire National Heritage Bureau, the Loon Preservation
Committee, and the Association expressed concern about development impact on
sensitive species, including loons and eagles, particularly in light of the Association’s
projections for phosphorous loading. (Camp Belknap Memorandum at 3.)
The defendants clarify that neither the Loon Preservation Society nor New
Hampshire Fish and Game found active loon nesting sites on the island or indication of
nesting pairs from the recent past. (C.R. at 44, 87.) Of the two potential nesting sites,
according to Fish and Game, one was on Camp Belknap’s shoreline where campers
regularly enter the water with canoes and kayaks, and one was in a wetland within the
subdivision property. (C.R. at 319, 522 sheet 2.) As a wetland it cannot be developed.
Fish and Game found no evidence of eagle nesting on the island. (C.R. at 234.)
11
The court finds the record demonstrates no current nesting loon pairs, and no
recent history of loons nesting around the island. The potential nesting site on parcel
2-1 is within a wetland already protected from development, for reasons unrelated to
this subdivision application. Fish and Game found no evidence of eagle nesting. The
Board noted adjustments made to provide buffers if loons were present. (C.R. at 534.)
The court finds no requirement that the Board should have prohibited or further
restricted development under these conditions. The court cannot conclude the Board’s
approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the subdivision would disturb habitats
of loons or other sensitive species.
5. Maintenance agreement for electrical line
Camp Belknap asserts the provisions for the 40-year-old electrical power line
running to the island do not adequately protect Camp Belknap, the Town, or the
property owner where the line enters the Lake. The Board heard concerns the line is
aging (C.R. at 88, 90, 267, 269, 462) and yet Horizons failed to review the functionality
or capacity of the line. (C.R. at 412.) The New Hampshire Electric Cooperative
(“NHEC”), owner of the line, will not guarantee the line’s longevity or serviceability.
(C.R. at 309.) The agreement between the Town and NHEC provides for maintenance
but does not address potential replacement or expansion of the line. (C.R. at 537.)
These were issues raised in hearings (C.R. at 88, 90) but, according to Camp Belknap,
not adequately addressed by the Board. Camp Belknap also raises questions about the
impact on the shoreline where the line enters the Lake (C.R. at 267, 269, 529) and
safety concerns due to the proximity of campers, kayaks, and canoes. (C.R. at 462.)
Camp Belknap also states the Board has not taken appropriate steps to protect
12
landowner Craig Starble.
The defendants note the Board’s third party engineer Horizons reviewed the
application and documents from NHEC. (C.R. at 412.) The defendants find no mandate
in its governing regulations for the Board to have further addressed the potential
problems Camp Belknap raises regarding the line. With no such mandate, the
defendants argue that to deny on the basis of these concerns would be an ad hoc
analysis prohibited by Dartmouth Trustees, 171 N.H. at 508. Finally, the defendants
argue Camp Belknap did not raise in its petition the assertion that the Board should
have required testing of the functionality of the line therefore the issue is waived.
The electrical line agreement is a delineation of responsibility and liability
between Tuftonboro and the electric utility, NHEC. The agreement does not address
obligations to expand or replace the line. The Board noted the NHEC had ‘tested the
line because it had been out of service for a period of time and was comfortable that it is
serviceable as it stands today to be energized.” (C.R. at 537.) The Board also noted
that there was no proposal to relocate the line, which was already operational. (C.R. at
537.) Whether the Board should have required its own testing of the functionality of the
line was not raised in the Petition and thus is waived. As to the concerns of Craig
Starble, the Board is not empowered to negotiate on behalf of a landowner. If Mr.
Starble seeks an agreement with NHEC, he should negotiate directly. The court finds
no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the
basis the electric line provisions are inadequate.
6. Impact on traffic and other safety concerns
Camp Belknap argues the Board erred when it refused to require a traffic study
13
to consider the impacts of these ten lot owners and their guests on Route 109 and
Nineteen Mile Bay. (C.R. at 89-90, 267-68, 320-21.) It asserts it was unreasonable for
the Board to refuse, given the concerns raised in public hearings and the lack of traffic
analysis in the Horizons study. (Petition at 4.) Finally, Camp Belknap asserts the Board
did not adequately address fire safety concerns, in that the Fire Department never
stated it was satisfied with plans for fire safety within the subdivision. (Petition at 4.)
The defendants argue that the issue of a traffic study was not raised in the
Petition and thus is waived. If the issue were to be considered by the court, the
defendants assert the Board fully considered the potential traffic impacts on both Route
109 at its public hearings and in deliberations and found no appreciable increase in
traffic. (C.R. at 429, 532-33.) The Board noted a 23 lot subdivision previously approved
in Tuftonboro without need for a traffic study and stated this ten lot subdivision did not
pose significant concerns. (C.R. at 430.) On fire safety, the defendants note that the
Fire Chief reviewed the application and signed off on it, with recommendations. (C.R. at
542.)
The court finds the Petition specifically identified traffic concerns and the Board’s
decision not to order a traffic study. Therefore, these issues are not waived. The court
disagrees with Camp Belknap, however, that these issues were inadequately
addressed. The Board stated this application had been scrutinized more than any other
in recent memory. As one Board member put it, the “Board has heard it all in the last
five meetings; every question, every subject, everything has been brought up.” (C.R. at
533.) The Board found this ten lot subdivision to have no appreciate increase in traffic
and did not warrant a traffic study. (C.R. at 430, 537-38.) It noted a far larger
14
subdivision that did not require a traffic study. (C.R. at 430.) The court finds no
evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis
of traffic impacts.
Regarding fire safety, the record is clear that the Fire Chief has reviewed the
subdivision application and stated the lots would be served by the Fire Boat. He made
recommendations but noted explicitly the recommendations “do not affect approval.”
(C.R. at 542.) The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval was
illegal or unreasonable on the basis of fire safety.
7. Developers’ lack of experience
Although lack of experience was raised in the Petition, Camp Belknap’s
Memorandum does not address this issue. It should be noted that some members of
the public alleged one of the developers had an unsavory business reputation and had
had financial problems in a prior business. Camp Belknap did not advance these
arguments.
The defendants argue there are no requirements in the Tuftonboro regulations
that an applicant have prior development experience or to impose greater restrictions on
those without prior experience. The Board is compelled to treat all applicants fairly and
uniformly, they argue.
The court agrees that there is no experience threshold required for development
and the Board would be without authority to impose greater limits on a new developer
than on an experienced one. The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision
approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the applicant had not previously
developed a subdivision.
15
8. Proposed Conditions on Approval
Camp Belknap argues the Board prejudged its decision with conditions already
written before the final deliberation session. The defendants argue this issue was not
identified in the Petition and thus has been waived. The court agrees with the
defendants that the issue was not raised and thus is waived. Even if not waived, the
court does not find having a list of conditions to be imposed in the event of an approval
to be impermissible. Municipal boards often move from deliberations to compilation of
final conditions without need to adjourn, reschedule and notice a new meeting. Having
a list of conditions prepared to discuss, if the Board votes to approve, does not render
the approval illegal. The court finds no evidence to conclude the subdivision approval
was illegal or unreasonable on the basis the Board turned to a list of conditions to
impose after it deliberated and voted to approve the subdivision application.
9. Premature Approval
Finally7
, Camp Belknap argues the Board’s approval was illegal and
unreasonable because its decision was premature. (Petition at 5.) Camp Belknap
asserts that because this is the island's first residential development in approximately 50
years and the parcel of undeveloped land is so large, more time was needed. It asserts
Horizons’ review was not sufficient in that Horizons did not perform its own calculations
regarding lot dimensions and relied on the representations of the developers. (Camp
Belknap Memorandum at 6.) Camp Belknap argues development of a parcel of such
character should not be rushed and there was no need to act on the application before

7Camp Belknap asserts the Board failed to adequately limit timber cutting and by doing so violated
section 4.2.4 of the Tuftonboro Subdivision Regulations addressing preservation of natural resources.
This issue was not raised in the Petition and thus is waived.
16
a traffic study was done, further water study results were received, and other open
questions resolved. (See generally Camp Belknap Memorandum.)
The defendants argue these issues have been waived because they were not
included in the Petition. If considered, they assert the application was thoroughly
evaluated and issues of concern were addressed. (See generally Farm Acres Island
Memorandum.)
The court agrees in part and disagrees in part. The general assertion that the
approval was premature is clearly raised. (Petition at 5.) The Petition argues a traffic
study should have been done and the Board should have considered broader issues of
water quality. The specific and very particular complaint about Horizons not doing its
own calculations, however, was not raised in the Petition and is waived.
On the issues that have not been waived, the court disagrees with Camp
Belknap that the decision was made prematurely. The Board conducted five public
hearings, considered letters and testimony of numerous interested parties. The certified
record is 581 pages long. The Board publicly deliberated on the matters before it and
issued a written decision. While it did not call for a traffic study or agree to wait for the
results of another water study, it addressed its reasons why it did not find such further
data necessary, a determination the court finds supported in the record. The argument
that this project should receive greater scrutiny or be given a balancing test that
otherwise would not apply is not supported in the law. The Board Chairman stated, “this
application is probably the most heavily reviewed thirteen acres in the Town of
Tuftonboro.” (C.R. at 535.) The court finds no evidence to conclude the Board’s
approval was illegal or unreasonable on the basis that it was made prematurely or
17
without a complete record.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the unanimous decision of the Tuftonboro Planning
Board is AFFIRMED.
So Ordered.
December 4, 2020
Amy L. Ignatius
Presiding Justice
10
on
Document Sent to Parties
Clerk's Notice of Decision
12/11/2020

[fatlazyless]

Attention all forum posters:

Today, Sunday, December 13 at noon, there will be a very picky-wicky 20-question, 4-answer multiple choice quiz on this 9-part adjudication between Camp Belknap and Randy Owen with regard to the future use on Farm Island that was very recently decided with this December 11, 2020, decision by the Carroll County Superior Court, Amy L Ignatious, Presiding Justice.

In addition to the 20-multiple choice questions, there will be an essay question, as well.

Anyone who receives a score below 85% is thrown off this thread, and will no longer be allowed to comment, here ....... you all understand this.... !
.............

Well, this definitely shuts me up ...... and, like why bother even reading this court decision ...... like, and further more ...... blah-blah-blah! ... :laugh .... think I'll go read the Boston Herald, instead of actually trying to comprehend this lengthy ruling.

[Randy Owen]

I am thrilled to share an encouraging development in the aftermath of my recent legal victory against YMCA Camp Belknap.
I have received the following communication from Tim Kelly, Chief Editor of the Manchester Union Leader, and Mark Hayward, the retired reporter who authored the original article:
“Mr. Owen: Thank you for your emails and voicemail. I agree with you that we should update the story with the filing of the camp's motion for nonsuit, and we have been collecting documents to that end. However, it's probably going to have to wait until after the primary.” T Kelly
“The Union Leader wrote an article about a powerful organization that made defamatory statements against you. Now the organization has dropped the lawsuit. It only seems fair that the Union Leader reports that the lawsuit has been unilaterally withdrawn.” M Hayward
This correspondence reinforces the merit of my position and serves as a testament to the truth prevailing in this matter.

[John Mercier]

The Primary has been over for days.
Do they mean the whole primary season?

[Randy Owen]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The Primary has been over for days.
Do they mean the whole primary season?

Just seeing your comment. Time delays create confusion. The timeline then was during the primaries when the YMCA unilaterally withdrew from their baseless lawsuit. This withdrawal or PLAINTIFF YMCA CAMP BELKNAP’S ASSENTED-TO MOTION FOR NONSUIT WITH PREJUDICE fully vindicated me, Randy Owen. A long battle but justice finally prevailed and the truth with polution issues finally learned.

[John Mercier]

And they couldn't write an apology within a day or two after the case was dropped?

[Descant]

I'd guess an apology or other statement might prejudice any further "discussions". Silence is golden.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Randy Owen

Just seeing your comment. Time delays create confusion. The timeline then was during the primaries when the YMCA unilaterally withdrew from their baseless lawsuit. This withdrawal or PLAINTIFF YMCA CAMP BELKNAP’S ASSENTED-TO MOTION FOR NONSUIT WITH PREJUDICE fully vindicated me, Randy Owen. A long battle but justice finally prevailed and the truth with polution issues finally learned.

My understanding is that your criminal conviction for harassment still stands--4 months in jail. So I would not use the phrase "justice fully vindicated me".