Waterfront Leases

[SAMIAM]

Anyone notice that the executice council (now controlled by democrats) refused to renew a waterfront lease held by a Laconia resident on Paugus bay?Councilor Beverly Hollingworth,who has a home overlooking the Atlantic,is leading the fight to cancel existing leases and not award any new requests.This could have a devastating effect on developements such as South Down Shores.
There are many miles of frontage on lakes Winnipesaukee,Winnisquam and Waukewan that border the tracks.
This could have an effect on home values on hundreds of properties on these 3 lakes as well several planned developements,one for 24 homes on lake Winnisquam.

[onthebay]

I was wondering if anybody had any more info regarding this. I have recently built on that side of Paugus Bay and was preparing a lease application for the State. I knew they were looking closely at new developments but didn't think that they were not renewing existing leases.

[LIforrelaxin]

Are there any articles on this subject that are available? This is a subject matter where the more information you have the more you can understand what is going on

[SAMIAM]

LIFOR.....It was on the front page of the Laconia Sun......pretty sure it was thursday. Don't know if they have an on line edition or not.

[fatlazyless]

I found the article.....front page lead article Wed Jan 17 Laconia Daily Sun....dug it out from my pile.... being a slob is sometimes helpfull. This little paper, the Laconia Daily Sun, has terrific coverage on local governmental issues like this.....very detailed and well researched.....terrific writers...not on the internet....it contains many local display and classified ads so plenty people must know about it.

The article is too long for me to type it out but here's the first three paragraphs.

Waterfront lease is terminated by Executive Council.................. by Michael Kitch

CONCORD - In a major reversal of form the Executive Council last week refused to renew the lease of state-owned waterfront property held by a Laconia resident. By a vote of three to two, the council denied the request of Raymond Spinosa of 5 Paradise Drive to renew his lease of 52-feet of railroad property fronting on Paugus Bay.
Councilors Beverly Hollingsworth (D-Hampton), Debora Pignatelli (D-Nashua) and Ray Wieczorek (R-Manchester) voted in the majority to terminate the lease with Councilors John Shea (D-Keene) and Ray Burton (R-Bath) dissenting. The request was the first to come before the Executive Council since the Democrats captured a majority on the council in the general election last November.
Although the full impact of the decision is not altogether clear, it suggests that the council may not only deny requests for new leases but also refuse to renew existing leases, effectively reversing the practice it has pursued since the mid-1990s. The impact on waterfront developements like South Down Shores in Laconia and 18 Mile Point in Meredith as well as individual homeowners could be signifigant.
................................................

...a middle paragraph


Last year the issue became the source of growing controversy as state agencies, environmental groups. and local officials began expressing concern at the environmental impacts of increasing shoreline developement while some legislators questioned the benefit of relinquishing a public asset, especially for
a fraction of its market value.
...............................................

last paragraph

The Long Range Capital Planning and Utilization Committee tabled the request of developer Phil Brouillard to lease 1305' on Lake Winnisquam in Belmont, which would provide nine seasonal docks for Sun Lake Village, a 24-lot subdivision.

[LIforrelaxin]

FLL, thanks for typing as much of that article as you did. I unfortunatly live too far away and don't get to the lake in the winter. This is very interesting indeed....There are lots of places where I am sure this could have big effect.... It will be interesting to watch more of the story unfold as leases come up and new leases are applied for...

[gillis10]

are their any homeowners on this forum that this is affecting? We have a house on that side of Paugus, neighbors to Ray from the Laconia Sun article. We need to find a way to fight these ********.

[Puck]

I'm sorry Gillis10 but I don't have access to the full article... which side are the ********?

[fatlazyless]

I no longer have that paper as it got thrown out with the trash but here's what I recall. The five member Meredith board of selectpersons, (4 guys & 1 very effective lady cost cutting, budget do-with-outer) have a major concern because the intake for the town water supply is located in Meredith's Lake Waukewan directly in front of a rail road shoreline which some of the abutters wish to lease. The Meredith selectman have shown a lot of concern for the public water quality and do not want the state of NH leasing out the state owned shoreline for what is very low rent to an individual residential home owner(s) for a dock &/or waterfront recreational use.

By comparsion, the city of Laconia has its public water intake on Paugus Bay just up stream and next door to the large Irwin Marine business which operates a boat gasoline station. The Laconia public water supply and Irwin Marine have coexisted, side by side neighbors for about eighty years, and one can be sure that Laconia takes their water quality very seriously.

Also, a big issue has got to be the relatively low price that the state is getting for their rent. Comparing the sliver of waterfront shoreland sandwiched between the railroad tracks, or railroad right of way, and the lake water to an entire waterfront lot is in no way an apples to apples comparision. But, the state of NH is short of money, and the waterfront property is where NH towns and in this case the State, can tap into mostly out-of-state money.

[Puck]

I should say that I'm not unfamiliar with the issues; just this particular article. It is not just about water quality and money earned from leases. The law in question was passed to allow individual homeowners cut of from lakes, ponds and rivers by the railroads to regain access by leasing the land along the waterfront. However in recent years an increasing percentage of the lease applications have been filed by developers looking to market landlocked property as waterfront and thus substantially increase their profit margin. It raises some questions of, for lack of a better word, ethics, since the developer can added about $100,000 more to the selling price for a dock that sits on land that the buyer does not own. In 5 years the state may have cause to not renew the lease, for instance if the rail use increases and safety becomes a concern. It puts the state in a very awkward position because the buyers have invested a significant amount of money, and they would then have to pay even more money to have the dock(s) removed. Ultimately it is the buyer who stands to get shafted.

In addition, there is a perception that the lease will never be revoked and therefore effectively constitutes a transfer of ownership of the land and water rights. This is not true and it creates another problem in that that land is still public. Anyone who wish to boat up to that frontage, drop anchor, and swim, picnic or whatever can do so (just stay clear of the tracks). Once the docks are put in on leased lands there is a perception that this frontage is no longer "open to the public" so to speak. Most people, no not all, will try to respect others space and will avoid these areas. Some lease holders have on occasion contacted the MP to have "trepassers" removed.

The vast majority of people will never get an opportunity to own lakefront property. There are not that many places that people who do not own lakefront can go. By leasing these long stretches of undeveloped shoreline the state may be restricting their options even further. This would not seem to be in the public's best interest. It does come down to a question of value. Which is worth more; the money paid directly to the state by a few for the leases, or the money that is put into the local economies by keeping those shorelines open and possibly more appealing to the general, boating public.

[fatlazyless]

Hey Puck...you raise a bunch of good points and show how this has some different issues going on.

I'm scratching my head as I turn up the intensity on my La-Z-Boy massage recliner and ponder all these issues. ...just try to that with a 'puter....gotta have a web-tv!

If Laconia can pull their drinking water from next to Irwin Marine with a boat gasoline station for 80+ years with no water quality problems then why is Meredith so concerned about two or three small private seasonal docks?

Probably, the state will just raise their rental rates, and nothing else will change. All the builder's and developers......ready.....set....go......time to find one more undeveloped lot of land....if there's any land left. Every lake is basically all built out. It would take a great big crowbar to pry out just one more buildable lot of land, from around here.

[Puck]

It may be helpful to consider that Irwin Marine is both downwind and "downstream" from Laconia's intake. Paugus Bay is also larger and has a much higher flushing rate than Waukewan.

[Woodsy]

It is not that the Laconia intake is upstream from Irwins... it is downstream from Channel Marine... LOL!!

I gotta say I am pretty torn on this issue... its a no win.

Woodsy

[fatlazyless]

Yes, that's all true as the entire 75 billion gallons of Winnipesaukee drain through that one spot. Probably no one in Laconia, especially in Laconia city hall ever ever drink just straight tap water straight from the water faucet. An old Laconia tradition is to always pre-mix their drinking water................here's to the next Bike Week!

[onthebay]

Water quality may be the issue on Waukewan, but I think it is mainly an issue of money on Winnipesaukee. The state doen't feel like it is getting its fair share (whatever that is). The towns also don't receive any additional property tax for the leased land. If you lease 75 feet which is the minimum to put in a dock you would pay 75 x $25 per foot leased = $1875.00 per year. The town can't tax as waterfront because it is owned by the state so they don't get their money.
I would assume that if you lease the land then you could prevent others from using it. Why would it be different than renting a house, dock or a campsite.
I think that if a homeowner would otherwise have waterfront except for the tracks they should be able to lease that land. Technically no one else should be able to access because they would have to trespass from the owners property or trespass on the tracks to access it. Only the owner of that land can petition to put in and maintain a crossing.
Now I know that everyone walks and crosses the track at will but technically it is trespassing according to the RR. (Except of course from Jan 15 to March 15th for Snowmobiling)
When it comes to largescale developers that put in a bunch of docks to raise the value of all the houses in a particular development I can see where the state feels they are getting cheated.
Here is a another case of the state and the town not being able to stop the big guys (developers) from doing what they want so they flex their muscle and take it out on the little guy)homeowner.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Woodsy

I gotta say I am pretty torn on this issue... its a no win.

Woodsy

Well I must say I am with Woodsy on this issue....I can see both sides...

I do wonder how heated this debate will get...certainly there are many areas where this is an issue.

Also can someone answer me this...As you drive along through area where the road is next to a Lake with house on the other side, do they fall into the same issue? or is this simply a RR right of way issue? I am guessing that they might but I really don't know

[Puck]

I'm not why but it is different for roads. I think it may by related to the fact that many rail lines were in place long before the roads were. Some state highway road beds are owned by the state. In those instances NH DOT may simply give permission to a land owner to put a dock in. I do not know why a lease is not required, but it is not at this time. In other instances such as Rte 3 along Winnisquam the state highway is a built on a right of way over private lands and since the frontage is still privately held, no permission is needed from NH DOT to obtain a dock permit through DES. Towns may choose to lease their land or not at their own discretion.

[onthebay]

I found the executive council minutes regarding this issue.

"#111 FAILED – Councilor Hollingworth, Councilor Wieczorek and Councilor Pignatelli voted no, the request of the Bureau of Rail & Transit to enter into a lease agreement for a parcel of land with private pedestrian crossing with Raymond Spinosa, Woburn, MA, on the State-owned Concord to Lincoln Railroad Line in Laconia for $1,300 per year failed. Effective upon G&C approval through December 31, 2011"

In the same meeting they aproved 3 other waterfront issues although not related to leasing land.

#69 Authorized Skiffington Homes’ request to repair an existing breakwater with a gap at the shoreline and replace two piles supporting an existing pier connected to a piling pier by a walkway in a “U” configuration, and install a permanent, piling supported boatlift in the center slip of an existing “U” shaped docking facility on property located at Lake Winnipesaukee in Gilford.

#70 Authorized Theodore Goodlander’s request to amend permit to add a seasonal canopy over two outer boat slips and reconstruct a failing beach wall on property located at Lake Winnipesaukee in Gilford (previously approved by G&C on 8-23-06).

#71 Authorized Patricia Drive Association’s request to reconfigure an existing 10 slip permanent docking facility and relocate existing rock navigational hazard easterly of frontage on property located at Lake Winnipesaukee in Meredith.

[onthebay]

I checked the Decemeber 12th meeting minutes and they authorized the buiding of two dug in boat houses. I thought these were no longer going to be approved. I wonder if it has to do with who you are and where on the lake you are.


#91 Authorize with Councilor Spaulding and Councilor Pignatelli voting no, Moore to the Point Revocable Trust’s request to dredge lakebed and excavate shoreline to construct a dug in boathouse, reset 6 boulders on the existing breakwater, and install two bumper piles adjacent to the walkway to the dock on frontage on property located at the Lake Winnipesaukee in Alton.

#92 Authorize with Councilor Spaulding and Councilor Pignatelli voting no, Michael & Wendy Tata’s request to remove abandoned crib material, deck, and a seasonal pier; dredge lakebed, excavate shoreline, and temporarily disturb bank and shoreline to construct a dug-in boathouse with 3 interior slips on frontage on property located on Advent Cove at Lake Winnipesaukee in Meredith.

[lakershaker]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Also can someone answer me this...As you drive along through area where the road is next to a Lake with house on the other side, do they fall into the same issue? or is this simply a RR right of way issue? I am guessing that they might but I really don't know

That is an interesting point. In Gilford along Rt. 11 near Ames Farm, that road used to be the RR, but the homeowners own the land where their boathouses and docks are. When the RR was turned into the highway, maybe the state officially transfered ownership of the waterfront?

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Lets say that there is a hypothetical subdivision.... That Originally deeded lake access to all lots. Along comes the state in the 80's and takes over the RR Line, and also takes by eminent domain frontage for a regional sewer system. Therefore technically severing the owners access to the waterfront. No one says anything for 20 yrs or so.... Then this issue about waterfront leases comes up, No one in said association thinks we should pay to lease that land that has been in use. But alas the RR and the state says technically anyone crossing is a trespasser. So where does that leave the 25-30 landowners with "deeded lake access"? Oh by the way those same owners are taxed according to lake access. Good one huh?

[onthebay]

I would say it is probably not so hypothetical.
I can understand your reluctance to bring attention to your situation. I am finding that sometimes it is better to let sleeping dogs lie.

[fatlazyless]

In Meredith Bay located between Meredith Marina and Grousse Point, a steep undeveloped wooded hillside of maybe 20 acres called Milepoint, or something, has been developed in the past two years. Maybe 15 large, expensive homes have been built so far. As well as overlooking the watery bay and the southern white mountains on their horizon, living at Milepoint includes access down a paved golf cart path and a long steep flight of outdoor stairs to a permanent dock system which can hold maybe 20 boats. To get to the water and the docks, one has to cross the railroad tracks.

The state of NH and not the town of Meredith owns the railroad embankment and has leased it out to the abutters for relatively low rent compared to the value of the abutters' property.

A major reason why the land was developed was and is because abutting or association home owners can access the lake via the state's embankment. Without that access, most likely imho, the land would not have been developed and/or would be worth a lot less.

The town of Meredith and Belknap County both benefit from the new high property taxes from these new homes.

The state of New Hampshire has a money shortage. After all, this is tax-free New Hampshire, great and beautifull land of no income, no sales, no capital gains, and no five-cent bottle deposits. For example, the New Hampshire Fish & Game Dept which is extremely important to maintaining a healthy fishing habitat in Lake Winnipesaukee is seriously out-of-money!

I cannot imagine that access will be denied to railroad embankments and the water beyond. This is all about just raising the rents so the state can make more money, which it needs, big-time!

[gillis10]

FLL,

I agree but they should not single out the people who have RR tracks in their front yard. It's simply not worth as much as a piece of property that has no tracks in their yard. For one you can't get a beach out of it. Our lease about 5 years ago was about $300 and now it's $1300 for 50 feet of frontage. They need to stop singling out the RR waterfront leasers for their tax money. They need to spread this out and make it affordable, tax boaters and other tourists. They already get a rediculous amount of money through real estate taxes and all us out-of-staters don't use nearly any of the services that the taxes go toward, such as school systems. I'd say they should just sell us the land with right of way access, like the people on rt. 3 in winnesquam have.

[fatlazyless]

My situation is somewhat similar. Three years ago, my Meredith prop taxes were $2800 and now they are $10,000 per year. And this is for a little bit under a quarter acre with 55' of waterfront. Similarly, looking at the town, county, school and state school services that I actually use......you know the story.

I notice that Fergus Cullen, the new politcal leader for the NH Republican party, has backed off from promoting 'the New Hampshire advantage' because he says that after the November election this is just not working anymore. Sen Judd 'easy-money' Gregg calls the Republican Party the 'party of purpose,' and that 'we must maintain no income or sales tax.' Senator Gregg says "We are a party of purpose, and must remain that way." Yes, very good Senator Gregg, its' purpose is to have a tax system where you personally win 800+ thousand dollars in the Powerball and owe ZERO in NH TAXES while a poor schmoo like me gets property tax-socked and pays for all these very necessary government services, which however I do not personally use. Yes, this is the 'purpose' of the NH Republican Party.