Public Launching Ban Gilford

[MAXUM]

Talk about snobbery legislation. What's next put a rope line out on the lake and charge toll to drive through Gilford's section of lake? This is just plain obnoxious and makes me think we should all go over to that section of lake each and every summer day and just hang out, be obnoxious and hell pee in the water for good measure. I am so annoyed at stuff like this it makes my blood boil. If this keeps up I sincerely hope that Don Ames finds a big nasty deep pocketed out of stater developer to really make over that property.

OK I'm really not encouraging people to pee in the water, but you get my point!

[Misty Blue]

Maxim:

How dare you to interfere with the agenda of the local potentates of the lakes region!!!

While not one in ten in the NH legislature has a boat and not one in 50 of them can tie a Bowline, they have our best interestes at heart.

I live on the Lake and get a little Pi..ed off when people who register their boats, pay their taxes, and have the nutz to launch their boats on MY Lake and have the audacity to drop a hook in MY bay!!! Damn your eyes!

Seriously though, the issue is that the "non residents" are are very misrepensented. I do not know the answer. You could band together and not register 10,000 boats and go to Maine for a year. But you and I know that is not going to happen, so do they.

My feelings are that if you want only to paddle a canoe and watch loons without a wake interfererence the go to Kanasaka (you are not welcome), Squam (You are not welcome) Wakiwan (You are not welcome) or some of the other lakes where the folks are not nearly as friendly.

Bottom line: You guys have some smart folks out there. You have to come up with some ideas to protect your access to MY Lake. If you don't, it will be like Squam, no jet skis, no cruisers, just the locals with ther agenda.

Sorry, didn't mean to preach.

Misty Blue.

[lawn psycho]

Can someone scope out who the petitioners are for this attemtped ordinance?

[TOAD]

Sounds like the high and mighty trying to get higher and mightier.

[Lake Lady 6]

Has anyone read or heard the results of the Gilford Planning Board meeting this week with regard to the public launching article.

I agree this is clearly directed to the Ames Farm situation. Ames Farm has been launching boats for many, many years and provides a service for those who don't own property on the lake (but the water belongs to all NH residents). There are always those individuals with a "not in my backyard" mentality with hopes their money talks.

It would be nice to see a large hotel chain buy the property and provide all sorts of amenities for patrons including boat rides, band concerts, fireworks, and a huge increase in traffic - this may make the people behind the hearing wish they had just enjoyed things as they were.

[lawn psycho]

I could not find any updates on the Gilford website. I cross-referenced the Planning Board members and where they live. Of the primary members, John Morgenstern is the one who would be near the Ames Farm property. I have no idea where this whole thing is going or if what his stance is.

Here's the Town Website with email addresses of the planning board members.

Let 'em have it. Start writing.

The members and the email address:

http://www.gilfordnh.org/Public_Docu...Comm/planning2

planning@gilfordnh.org

[Slickcraft]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Here's the Town Website with email addresses of the planning board members.

Let 'em have it. Start writing.

Remember that the PB did not author the proposed ordinance, the "let'em have it" should be reasons why they should "not recommend" the petition warrant article.

[fatlazyless]

"No impact on existing commercial facilities and would not limit public access to Lake Winnipesaukee, which he said is served by 17 public launching ramps." is what Steve Nix, attorney & sponsor for the Gilford petition warrant article is quoted as saying in today's Feb 4, front page article in the www.laconiadailysun.com.

A contradicting opinion is offered at the Gilford deliberative session by Margaret 'Peggy' Ames, who feels that it will indeed restrict boating at the Ames Farm Inn.

It is one of 31 different warrant articles that Gilford voters have to decide on March 9, at the all-day vote, and about the only article that drew any public discussion at the recent Gilford deliberative session, according to the LaDaSun.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Nice to see the Planning Board did not recommend this article; see quote from the Laconia Daily Sun below.

John Ayer, director of planning and land use, told the meeting that the Planning Board chose not to recommend the article because it did not have adequate time to weigh its ramifications and was reluctant to restrict public access to the lake.

RE: Atty Nix's comment, I'd like to see the complete list of the 17 "public" ramps he's referring to. My guess is that probably 2/3 of them are an inconvenience (at best) to someone like me that lives south of the lake; it already takes me 50 min to drive to Ames Farm to spend a day on the lake. Anything longer than an hour and it really becomes pointless to haul up there.

[lawn psycho]

FLL, thanks for the heads-up. Apparently Mr Nix does not like to talk about what it would mean to one of those existing businesses if they decide to make a change or addition to a ramp. Anyone near residences is going to have a non-conforming use. Good luck with any future use changes.

And someone please tell me where John Q. Public from anywhere USA can access a ramp with parking in 17 locations in the Town of Gilford. Puh-leeze.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

LP, I think Mr. Nix was referring to 17 ramps around the lake in general, not 17 ramps in Gilford alone. At least that's the way I read it but I could be wrong.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Wolfeboro_Baja

LP, I think Mr. Nix was referring to 17 ramps around the lake in general, not 17 ramps in Gilford alone. At least that's the way I read it but I could be wrong.

After re-reading you may be correct. However, his statement that this is not about Ames Farm is complete BS.

Bottomline is existing businesses will be impacts because they could be limited in changing their launch facilities or storage of boats in the future. Most importantly, it would lock out a great business from re-opening their ramp and just take one more access point away.

I rent a slip now but my first two years of boating I trailered to Ames Farm until upgraded to a larger boat. I'm glad to say I supported a local business/family. I don't know what their appeal rights are/were.

Perhaps Ames Farm should get a counter petition going. Either that or sell to some developer and put in 200 condos on the property with an major outdoor pool/party area complete with 10,000 watt stereo system.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

"...Talk about snobbery legislation..."

I'm wondering if the abutters' gripe is with bass-boaters at all.

Anyway, Ames Farm has had glowing reports at this forum, and I'd support continuation of their ramp practices: the abutters are trying a "back-door approach" to restrict a long practice and Ames Farms doesn't seem up to defending themselves!

Surely, Ames can continue to rent one cottage to one tenant (with dozens of boating co-tenants) and continue a legal business as usual.

That would keep Ames Farms "to-the-letter" of any Zoning regulations there.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I'm wondering if the abutters' gripe is with bass-boaters at all.

Anyway, Ames Farm has had glowing reports at this forum, and I'd support continuation of their ramp practices: the abutters are trying a "back-door approach" to restrict a long practice and Ames Farms doesn't seem up to defending themselves!

Surely, Ames can continue to rent one cottage to one tenant (with dozens of boating co-tenants) and continue a legal business as usual.

That would keep Ames Farms "to-the-letter" of any Zoning regulations there.

I wonder who owns the lot(s) across the street from the Ames Farm property

[Formula260SS]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I wonder who owns the lot(s) across the street from the Ames Farm property

Ames does, I've stayed across the street. The own the large "houses" and each one has multiple rooms in it.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by Formula260SS

Ames does, I've stayed across the street. The own the large "houses" and each one has multiple rooms in it.

So if Ames owns the property across the street and they can't make money with a ramp, then we all know what the inevitiable will be. They'll be pressured to sell property to a developer.

So the question is who is preying on the situation and what is Nix's (and other petition signers) true intent. It's going to be up to the Gilford voters to put the brakes on the railroading that's taking place.

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

So if Ames owns the property across the street and they can't make money with a ramp, then we all know what the inevitiable will be. They'll be pressured to sell property to a developer.

So the question is who is preying on the situation and what is Nix's (and other petition signers) true intent. It's going to be up to the Gilford voters to put the brakes on the railroading that's taking place.

I believe I read an article recently that mentioned another petition that wanted to restrict the combining of lots. I also believe there was little discussion about that petition. If I was Ames, I would be as concerned about this as I was about the public launching petition.

It is almost like the public launching petition is a smoke screen for the petition to restrict the combining of lots.

R2B

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

I believe I read an article recently that mentioned another petition that wanted to restrict the combining of lots. I also believe there was little discussion about that petition. If I was Ames, I would be as concerned about this as I was about the public launching petition.

It is almost like the public launching petition is a smoke screen for the petition to restrict the combining of lots.

R2B

I believe the petition to restrict the combining of lots is aimed at preventing the town from the practice not the owner of the lots, at least that is how I read it. My parents had this happen to them, they owned the lot that their house is on and then had first option on the lot next door, well they got the chance to purchase and did. Two years later, the town, combined the two lots together because they abutted each other and had the same owner of record. The property then had to be surveyed to be split again when the land was offered to a family member.

[tis]

I don't see how that could happen legally jmen. The deed would have to be changed and recorded to combine the two lots so is that what the town did? I am very interested in that because we have three combined lots and the town does combine our tax bill on two of them. The third is not combined with the others. I don't mind one tax bill but never intended them to become one lot. That is very scary.

[jmen24]

Tis, I will get a solid answer for you from my folks. Now that you mention it, I do not believe that the deeds changed, but they had to jump through some hoops with the town when they sold the lot off. They did move a boundary line and that was the reason for the survey. I will get back to you.

[Woodsy]

The land issue you are discussing originally stems from a property dispute on Govenors Island... there is a Gilford policy/law that combines 2 non-conforming lots into 1 when they are owned by the same person...

Way too much to type but there is plaenty to read about online...

http://nhpropertyrights.com/

Woodsy

No dog in the fight... just passing on the info!

[jmen24]

Tis, here's the deal.

What Woodsy pointed to in the link is how the situation with my folks land went down, the only difference is the two lots they owned were conforming. Both at over five acres (2 acre min. zoning area), both had over 200 feet of frontage (200 foot zoning area), but the reason the town merged them is because they share a common access point for a driveway, even though the existing lot that their house is on actually has two openings for a driveway (grandfathered). They had absolutely no knowledge of this until they sold the land.

The reason for the survey was not related to this issue, but was to help the buyers (family member) get a more favorable location for the house without encroaching on a lot line, this was about 10 years ago.

[tis]

OK. Thanks for that! I feel a little better. Still, I don't believe that towns should in any way be able to make a decision to combine lots. It is very sad that our land is only ours for as long as the government allows it to be ours.

[DRH]

Originally Posted by tis

OK. Thanks for that! I feel a little better. Still, I don't believe that towns should in any way be able to make a decision to combine lots. It is very sad that our land is only ours for as long as the government allows it to be ours.

I know a West Alton resident who owned two adjacent lots, each with a house on it. Each of them is a conforming lot and they were held in the same name. A number of years ago, Alton combined both the lots into one for property tax purposes and began to send the owner one tax bill instead of two. The owner did not realize what had happened until he began to do some estate planning and discovered that he would not be allowed to pass on one house and lot to one child and the other house and lot to another child because the Town had combined them into one lot with two homes on it. He obtained legal counsel and was able to get the Town to re-divide the property back into the original two lots.