New 52 slip yacht club at Burger King

[spinker]

This project has been veiwed by the Laconia Planning Board. It will have 52 slips and a wall simular to Spinnaker Cove Yacht Club with only "approximately" 150' between walls.

[jetskier]

I heard that there are two lots and this will be based upon one lot. The lot that Burger King is on is still being shopped.

Did I get correct information?

Jetskier

[no-engine]

Originally Posted by jetskier

I heard that there are two lots and this will be based upon one lot. The lot that Burger King is on is still being shopped.

Did I get correct information?

Jetskier

I've seen nothing about the project, BUT yes there are two different deeds. (Pieces of land) Apparently the franchise of BK business was leasing the other one, even though they abut each other. Maybe was a family relationship, at one time. The line is the fence on left side building, perpendicular to road.

[AC2717]

Doesn't this go against everything that the State and the Coutnry was trying to prevent in way of preservation?

Not to mention where is there going to be enough parking

Can you say - Speacial Interest, Howcome they will be allowed to drive a wall into the bottom of the lake?

Not that I am a fanatic for the lake, but this one smells completey rotten to me

Also who is going to use this place with X-amount of slips avaialble in the immediate area already due to the economy

Hope this company has some spending cash to loose over the next couple of years

[spinker]

The developer of this project is a member of the Laconia Planning Board

[AC2717]

Originally Posted by spinker

The developer of this project is a member of the Laconia Planning Board

What a Surprise on this one

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by spinker

The developer of this project is a member of the Laconia Planning Board

Even if he/she is, how do you suppose they plan on getting it through DES?

[Irrigation Guy]

Originally Posted by Gatto Nero

Even if he/she is, how do you suppose they plan on getting it through DES?

A bunch of slips were already existing for one thing. The other thing is how does one get approved for a breakwater when they build a house on the broads. They demonstrate need. I know whenever I parked my boat at BK I was always concerned about wakes causing havoc with my tie up and fender arrangement and I have extra large fenders from a previous larger boat.

[Formula260SS]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

A bunch of slips were already existing for one thing. The other thing is how does one get approved for a breakwater when they build a house on the broads. They demonstrate need. I know whenever I parked my boat at BK I was always concerned about wakes causing havoc with my tie up and fender arrangement and I have extra large fenders from a previous larger boat.

Boat Wakes do not Qualify for a breakwater "need", there is a DES map showing approved areas around the lake, they are based on exposure and fetch.

Are there separate rules for Docking Facility's?? Based on me experience in 07 everything is based on either existing or frontage.

[jrc]

This should be fun to watch. How does a department the makes you count trees allow someone to build a wall in the middle of the lake? My guess the rules only apply to regular folks. Accomodations will be made for this, a loophole will be found.

I'm guessing that the wall that Spinaker has is a breakwater. These are the rules regarding breakwaters:

http://des.nh.gov/organization/commi...ents/wb-12.pdf

Key section:

DES will consider approving a breakwater only on Lake Winnipesaukee and only on shoreline frontage of 100 feet or more. (Detailed criteria have been established that specify which portions of the lake warrant the need for a breakwater.) A map has been developed to illustrate these areas and
may be obtained from the DES or by visiting the DES Wetlands Bureau web site. DES may consider approving a breakwater in areas other than those depicted on this map only if certain site-specific criteria can be demonstrated. Breakwaters will not be permitted in portions of the lake that have significant sand migration.


And the map, no Paugus Bay:

http://des.nh.gov/organization/commi...appendix_a.pdf

[jetskier]

How much frontage is required to install 52 slips?

I am not sure how one would handle the parking on that lot for 52 slips. There does not appear to be enough room. In addition, I would imagine that there would need to be a changing facility etc...

Jetskier

[jst_4_kiks]

here is a link that explains the yacht club proposal
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...WS02/702269736

and some news/comment article on the same subject....
http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ON02/702289994

the first one is more informative and explains the process and future of the burger king site

[Gatto Nero]

Originally Posted by LocalRealtor

A bunch of slips were already existing for one thing. The other thing is how does one get approved for a breakwater when they build a house on the broads. They demonstrate need. I know whenever I parked my boat at BK I was always concerned about wakes causing havoc with my tie up and fender arrangement and I have extra large fenders from a previous larger boat.

I don't doubt the need for a breakwater in that location so I assume that could be overcome with lots of due diligence on the developer's part. My question is more about the number of slips they are requesting. There certainly are not 52 slips there now and I would tend to doubt there is enough frontage there to justify the net add without lots of negotiation.

[Chickie]

I question the wisdom of putting that many more boat slips in so close to the city water supply intake. I hope the Laconia Water Dept. will weigh in on this one.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by jrc

This should be fun to watch. How does a department the makes you count trees allow someone to build a wall in the middle of the lake? My guess the rules only apply to regular folks. Accomodations will be made for this, a loophole will be found.

You are combining two different things, the breakwater and slips would require only a wetlands permit only, when you are filing for permits on a project that falls in the grey zone of Wetlands or CSPA, wetlands trumps. I would still expect that CSPA will come into play regarding parking and other issues, but wetlands and the CSPA are still two very different dogs.

[jrc]

The CSPA people and the Wetlands Bureau are both part of the Department of Environmental Services (DES). They are in the same department of our state governement. That department believes that Lake Winnipesaukee is so fragile that land owners must count the number of trees on the shore before cutting any. Plus they created a group to police that rule.

How can the same department believe that creating a wall in the middle of the lake, like Spinaker's, is not more destructive to the lake? How can they maintain any sense of credibilty?

Yes, I know that credibilty is not always necessary for goverment bureaucrats, but I can hope.

[catman2]

Ok, I haven't been on here for a while but I'll jump out into traffic and say that I miss the old BK! I prefer BK over the others and I really liked the little parking lot off to the left (my secret hiding place). I used to go there a lot and sit and watch the lake summer and winter. Sometimes as a "legal" customer but sometimes when the crowds were gone, just to sit and chill out or even read a book when it was quiet.

Chickie hit the nail one the head and as I was going say I would be concerned about the public water supply as well. And as we all know...........ya right "just 52" spaces?

I'd just hate to see another part of the lake closed off to the public........and on course my not so secret place!

Happy Spring to all!

[jmen24]

Wetlands and The CSPA are apart of the same department, but they are different permiting processes. Breakwaters, docks, moorings, etc fall under a wetlands permit and not under CSPA. The criteria for a permit is different the process is different. As I said, CSPA will surely be involved regarding the parking and access issues.

You only have to count trees if your impermiable surface area exceeds 20% of your land. These rules and this program make it easier to develop on waterfront, but it does restrict the ability to completely destroy the water front buffer zone.

Some serious time needs to be spent with DES through their outreach seminars to get up to speed with how these programs interact.

[jetskier]

Hi all,

I talked to someone who had a chance to look at the plans for this and it is pretty interesting. Historically, the Burger King has approval for 52 floating docks based upon their overall frontage (about 600'). Some of the rather interesting aspects of this plan are:

• Parking - the plan shows 55 parking spaces associated with the marina. This is going to be insufficient as the intent is to have large slips that will support casual and live-on boats. In reality, at least another 25 spaces are likely required
• The slips are arranged in a reverse 7 orientation and they extend 500' into Paugus Bay. In addition, there is a "breakwater" planned to extend another 90' out. Overall, this extends about 600' into the bay. I don't know how far Spinnaker Cove extends, but this seems like a pretty large encroachment to me.
• Clearly, the plan calls for permanent slips and rather large ones. The intent is to accommodate large boats.

Jetskier

[sa meredith]

Originally Posted by jetskier

Hi all,

I talked to someone who had a chance to look at the plans for this and it is pretty interesting. Historically, the Burger King has approval for 52 floating docks based upon their overall frontage (about 600'). Some of the rather interesting aspects of this plan are:

• Parking - the plan shows 55 parking spaces associated with the marina. This is going to be insufficient as the intent is to have large slips that will support casual and live-on boats. In reality, at least another 25 spaces are likely required
• The slips are arranged in a reverse 7 orientation and they extend 500' into Paugus Bay. In addition, there is a "breakwater" planned to extend another 90' out. Overall, this extends about 600' into the bay. I don't know how far Spinnaker Cove extends, but this seems like a pretty large encroachment to me.
• Clearly, the plan calls for permanent slips and rather large ones. The intent is to accommodate large boats.

Jetskier

600 feet? Imagine standing on the shore, and the breakwater is going to be two full football fields away. That really is quite an encroachment.
Seems a bit much...

[jrc]

Well I guess there was 52 slips. But anyone who docked there, knows you could not dock 52 large boats there. Don't get me wrong I'm not against new docks and a marina. This just seems counter-intutive given the prevaling sentiment on overcrowding and overtaxing the lake.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...04458&t=h&z=18

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

600 feet? Imagine standing on the shore, and the breakwater is going to be two full football fields away. That really is quite an encroachment.
Seems a bit much...

It appears (from the provided Google map) that this is going to be way out there. The breakwater for the Spinnaker marina appears to be about 200' offshore. This one is going to be 3 times further out. This really appears to be inappropriate especially from a planning board member.

Jetskier

[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

[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.

[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

[Sunbeam lodge]

Originally Posted by jrc

Well I guess there was 52 slips. But anyone who docked there, knows you could not dock 52 large boats there. Don't get me wrong I'm not against new docks and a marina. This just seems counter-intutive given the prevaling sentiment on overcrowding and overtaxing the lake.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie...04458&t=h&z=18

The Citizen had an article on the Marina this AM. this is going to generate a lot of interest and we may need a new thread.

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

The Citizen had an article on the Marina this AM. this is going to generate a lot of interest and we may need a new thread.

Here is the link:

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...939/-1/CITNEWS

The only new information is that it is on the planning board agenda for June 1st.

Jetskier

[sa meredith]

Jetskier...I'm curious...
We keep our boat in Paugus Bay, so we travel by that area everytime we use the boat. And, we frequent the restaurants/bars/businesses on that end of Paugus Bay. And I don't really see the big deal about this site as a possible new marina/boat club. Maybe I'm not thinking it thru, I don't know.
But it does not bother me. And, possibly, it does not bother you. But you do seem to have some issue with it.
Thoughts?????

[HUH]

We already stay on shore most summer weekends due to the plethora of boneheads and wake monsters on the lake.. When is enough, enough?
I oppose the speed limit and would prefer it be replaced with a weight limit !

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by sa meredith

Jetskier...I'm curious...
We keep our boat in Paugus Bay, so we travel by that area everytime we use the boat. And, we frequent the restaurants/bars/businesses on that end of Paugus Bay. And I don't really see the big deal about this site as a possible new marina/boat club. Maybe I'm not thinking it thru, I don't know.
But it does not bother me. And, possibly, it does not bother you. But you do seem to have some issue with it.
Thoughts?????

Hi Sa Meredith,

Let me reiterate my points from the prior email(s):

This facility will extend approximately 340' into Paugus Bay and that is 140' beyond the current breakwater of the Spinniker Club. This is in an area where the bay funnels down toward Lakeport.

The project calls for a breakwater and that is not allowed according to the current DES regulations. (The Spinniker Club breakwater has been there for many years and is grandfathered).

The project is in close proximity to the town water inlet. That just seems like a bad idea.

There has been an issue with sedimentation in the area and this likely exacerbates the issue.

There are only 57 parking spaces for 52 slips and that seem insufficient. In addition, there is no light or traffic control in that area.

The project is being developed by a member of the planning board and that is clearly a conflict of interest.

In general, I am not opposed to development and improvement but this one seems ill advised.

Jetskier

[Chickie]

As I understand it, this will be an exclusive and private yacht club. Any use of the facilities will be for members only. Will the general public be allowed to dock their boats there in order to access the restaurants and other businesses in the vicinity? I don't think so.

[spinker]

Chickie,

This Yacht Club will be for private use only.

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by spinker

Chickie,

This Yacht Club will be for private use only.

The new club is private, however, the Burger King lot is being sold in two parcels. The restaurant part of this is being sold separately and the hope is that someone will buy it and put in an upscale cafe (at least that is what I have heard).

I am assuming that the new marina will sell the slips as their business proposition.

Jetskier

[spinker]

Crown Shore Yacht Club has missed their deadline for submitting the requested revised plans. There will not be a public hearing on June 2, 2009. The new deadline for revised plans is June 10, 2009, but general opinion was not confident that the Developers would make that deadline either.

The Developers, the city and DES have had informal meetings. The Developers are having a difficult time with DES in getting approval. No Official permit has been applied for on the State level. There is a handwritten note dated 4/15/09 in the Crown Shore planning board department file that states "DES told them that the proposed docking will not be approved because it extends too far in public waters (230' into Paugus Bay). DES said to keep it closer to the 60' measurement and if so they may permit dredging"

[jetskier]

Originally Posted by spinker

Crown Shore Yacht Club has missed their deadline for submitting the requested revised plans. There will not be a public hearing on June 2, 2009. The new deadline for revised plans is June 10, 2009, but general opinion was not confident that the Developers would make that deadline either.

The Developers, the city and DES have had informal meetings. The Developers are having a difficult time with DES in getting approval. No Official permit has been applied for on the State level. There is a handwritten note dated 4/15/09 in the Crown Shore planning board department file that states "DES told them that the proposed docking will not be approved because it extends too far in public waters (230' into Paugus Bay). DES said to keep it closer to the 60' measurement and if so they may permit dredging"

Very interesting...I would imagine that it will be very difficult to stay within 60' and support 52 slips. Clearly we were correct on this forum that the current encroachment into the bay was of issue. The other question is whether DES will allow the breakwater as that is technically not allowed in Paugus Bay.

As has been pointed out, this is a poorly planned initiative that will not add value to the community or shore front. It is supported by a member of the planning committee for personal gain and constitutes a conflict of interest.

Spinker - thank you for keeping us informed.

Jetskier

[tis]

That doesn't surprise me. We have thought DES would not allow it!

[spinker]

Well I guess their back.

The latest info that I have is that although they missed the June 10th 2009 deadline They do anticipate meeting the July 15, 2009 monthly cycle final submission deadline.

They expect to have another preliminary meeting with NHDES coming up and they expect a PRODUCTIVE session.

spinker

[jetskier]

Hi Spinker,

Do you have any visibility into the new proposal? I know that you are typically in the know.

Jetskier

[spinker]

I have no idea, will have to wait to see the new plan. I did find out that the proposal by DES to stay within 60" of the shore was only in the form of a note in the Crown Shore file and not on an official letterhead so they could change their original comments.

spinker

[spinker]

Update:

Crown Shores Yacht Club will miss the deadline of July 15th to submit their final plans.

They have requested to keep their site plan application open.