No Wake at the Barbers Pole...???

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Guess What??

Tom Hilbink and his non-resident friends are at it again. According to the Laconia Daily Sun, www.laconiadailysun.com, he filed a petition last week for a no-wake zone at the Barber Pole.

What can be done to keep this agitator from making life miserable for so many boaters? Obviously, many of us will attend any locally held public hearings this summer, but it is imperative that we all are kept informed. Can someone get a copy of the new petition so that we have plenty of time to thoroughly investigate all the signers?

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Guess What??

Tom Hilbink and his non-resident friends are at it again. According to the Laconia Daily Sun, www.laconiadailysun.com, he filed a petition last week for a no-wake zone at the Barber Pole.

From the last paragraph of the news report, it says that signers of the petition can be either Tuftonboro residents or property owners, so signing the petition is not just restricted to residents which is an intelligent rule.

Seems REASONABLE & PRUDENT that the local island property owners should be able to sign on to the petition...........doesn't it!

[Sue Doe-Nym]

It would, except that last time they had a lot of non-property owners sign the petition, as I recall.

[Pineedles]

SBONH protected the rights of those living near the Barber Pole and all Winnipesaukee boaters the last time. It will be up to the residents to decide what they want to do with this (5th?) challenge to their rights. Your voice counts! Let the Gov't people know what you want! If you want a no wake zone, let them know. If you don't want a no wake zone let them know!

[lawn psycho]

I think the bar should be much higher for the number of signatures required before passing any law or new regulation on a State owned body of water.

Hopefully the petition is denied after the hearings. What sucks is most of the stuff being requested is not evidence based but simple perceptions.

In Westbrook, ME there was a neighborhood up in arms about the speed limit. After some hub-bub the police did measurements and found the average speed was only 1-2 MPH above the limit. The existing speed limit stayed......

Given how wakes a generated from boats getting off and going onto plane the cure is worse than the disease. However, if it's really not wakes they are after then of course we all know why someone would could possibly want a no-wake zone....

[Pineedles]

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.

What else is new! Wasn't this the same problem last time? Maybe the town should review the petitions first before scheduling a hearing date. Seems like a lot of wasted time on an issue the majority does not want!

Dan

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.

Why am I not surprised!

[Pineedles]

It is amazing though that they would waste the time of all with unqualified signatures, AGAIN! Who are these people? Are they mentally challenged, or do they think the rest of the world is?

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

It is amazing though that they would waste the time of all with unqualified signatures, AGAIN! Who are these people? Are they mentally challenged, or do they think the rest of the world is?

Unfortunately, it's usually people like these that think the rest of the world are idiots! They think they can tip-toe through the grave yard and no one will notice.

[lawn psycho]

Sounds like we should be examing the no-rafting petition signatures as well. No doubt some of the singantures were probably invalid as well.

[ApS]

1) Yesterday at 6:24AM, a barge's front-end loader resumed its noisy construction on a breakwater across from our place: a few minutes later, a front-end loader started up on our shore, and proceeded to move some boulders around.

Because I start my day even earlier, the noise wasn't particularly bothersome to me; however, I would join my neighbors in opposition to construction noises before 8-AM.

2) I don't boat at night, but if manufacturers started building "Ski-Craft" with navigation lights, I would join my neighbors in opposition to nav-lighted "Ski-Craft" after dark.

3) If a NWZ petition is drawn up including signatures of folks who live there temporarily as renters, I would join in supporting those folks—though miles from me.

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Looks like there is a disagreement as to the validity of the petitioner signatures in the latest petition for a no wake zone.

When has this never been the case?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Why should short term seasonal renters have a say in this matter? Should we let these folks help decide what effects everyone? Perhaps APS would like it if the short term renters started a petition that would require all Tuftonboro island owners to install the latest DES approved septic systems and not allow any grandfathering.

Where in an RSA does it state that short term seasonal renters can sign petitions of this type?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Why should short term seasonal renters have a say in this matter? Should we let these folks help decide what effects everyone?

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Where in an RSA does it state that short term seasonal renters can sign petitions of this type?

Here is the crux of the issue:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

The Department of Safety ruled that the legal requirement may not have been met and has ordered the people calling for a no wake zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s “Barber Pole” to show proof of residency. The department also ruled that proper legal notice was given via publication in the only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire.

I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother?

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

APS, you must have been a political operative at some point based on your incredible ability to spin the facts. Where does an RSA state that SEASONAL SHORT TERM RENTERS are residents?

Your plea for quality of life is very appropriate and right in line with the need for a new RSA that would prohibit short term rentals on island properties unless there is a state approved septic system. Rental property septic systems are the most overloaded and can create severe health problems. As you certainly are aware, island rental properties, especially those close to the water, are extremely prone to discharging pollutants into the water from old overused septic systems. Since you seem to be so concerned about quality of life issues, please provide the date and DES approval number of your island septic system. This information will let us all know that you truly care about the lake and are not simply pushing your own personal agenda.

[jrc]

Using APS's logic, every hotel guest is a resident. Which means I can vote in about 37 elections. Maybe he believes we are all just citizens of the world.

[NH_boater]

Resident = to reside: to dwell permanently or continuously : occupy a place as one's legal domicile

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.


Here is the crux of the issue:



I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother?

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents.

Interestingly, on the Wolfeboro forum you start a thread titled "Visitors" will make July 4th weekend scary. By "visitors" you refer to people from MA and other out of staters and discuss them with disdain. But now when you need them on your side you are very welcoming of their presence on the Lake!

Do you grant a tiny percentage of your place to renters?

See you Saturday!!

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.


Here is the crux of the issue:



I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother?

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents.

Temporary residents are also more likely to obtain temporary boating licenses (by answering 10 stupid questions asked by greedy marina owners), and are also more likely to cause the "bleeding" that you so readily mentioned. Where's the outrage now?

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.


Here is the crux of the issue:



I see it as a technicality: the major NWZ proponents could grant tiny percentages of ownership to each of his tenants, "legalizing" those signatures as listed in Town records. But why bother?

Among other quality of life issues—this is a safety issue—and temporary residents bleed the same as other residents.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Do you grant a tiny percentage of your place to renters?

No, but any alloted percentage would expire in 14 days!

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

APS, you must have been a political operative at some point based on your incredible ability to spin the facts.

I may have been in the company of lawyers for too long!

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

Temporary residents are also more likely to obtain temporary boating licenses (by answering 10 stupid questions asked by greedy marina owners), and are also more likely to cause the "bleeding" that you so readily mentioned. Where's the outrage now?

1) Who hasn't rented a boat?

2) No amount of testing can correct "splitting the difference" at high speeds in Unsafe Passage situations.

3) Can one raise oneself up by demeaning others?

4) Can the questions be "stupid", if they are drawn from the test we take?

5) "Temporary" Resident? None of us are truly "Permanent": none of us are going to get out of "this one" alive.

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Interestingly, on the Wolfeboro forum you start a thread titled "Visitors" will make July 4th weekend scary. By "visitors" you refer to people from MA and other out of staters and discuss them with disdain. But now when you need them on your side you are very welcoming of their presence on the Lake!

Nowhere did I mention MA visitors.

Here, the "visitors" I refer to are merely trying to get from one side to the other at Barbers Pole—a narrow channel.

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Where does an RSA state that SEASONAL SHORT TERM RENTERS are residents?

Nearly every boating renter is "short-term", on a lake with one season.

What happened to,

"The lake is for everybody".

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Your plea for quality of life is very appropriate and right in line with the need for a new RSA that would prohibit short term rentals on island properties unless there is a state approved septic system. Rental property septic systems are the most overloaded and can create severe health problems. As you certainly are aware, island rental properties, especially those close to the water, are extremely prone to discharging pollutants into the water from old overused septic systems. Since you seem to be so concerned about quality of life issues, please provide the date and DES approval number of your island septic system. This information will let us all know that you truly care about the lake and are not simply pushing your own personal agenda.

I believe that all the "NH-approved" septic systems are inadequate to protect the lake.

Originally Posted by jrc

Using APS's logic, every hotel guest is a resident. Which means I can vote in about 37 elections. Maybe he believes we are all just citizens of the world.

I don't think there are any hotels at Barbers Pole channel.

[OCDACTIVE]

Just a quick reminder so "ALL" interested parties involved can be heard. The hearing for the new Barbers Pole No Wake petition is this coming Saturday at The Tuftonboro Meeting house at 12 noon.

The first issue at hand will be to validate the petitioners. Apparently there has been questions posed to the Dept. of Safety to the validity of those on this petition. If the petition is found to be valid then a public hearing will immediately follow.

Regardless of what side you are on. This is your chance to be heard. You do not have to be a Tuftonboro resident or land owner to be heard at the hearing. Anyone with an opinion can testify.

This is the 4th attempt in the past decade to try to pass the NWZ. Hopefully if enough people on both sides of the issue attend and testify it will allow for enough information that a decision can be ruled on once and for all.

Here is your chance to be heard. Speak now or forever hold your peace!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The RSA says "residents".

A renter is not only "a resident", but human beings who express concerns for their safety—and the safety of their family.

That's the most absurd thing I think I have seen to date posted on this forum.

APS what planet are you from?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Can anyone report on this afternoons public hearing?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Can anyone report on this afternoons public hearing?

While I did not attend I did speak with some individuals who did. So please do not quote me.

First the attorneys on both sides testified and the validity of the petitioners were discussed due to an issue of land trusts and trustees.

There were approx 90 in attendence. 70 Against the NWZ 20 in favor. Apparently the majority of the 20 were from the same 2 families.

The testimoney was the same as last year. Those in favor claimed safety issues i.e. can not swim in the channel, kayak etc.

Those against cited no accidents and claimed it was two families that rent their cottages that want to make it more condusive to their renters to transverse the channel. Also why should 2 families who are not there the majority of the time dictate how thousands of boaters should use the barbers pole.

A decision was not given.

However on a side note, The Marine Patrol did take a position and filed with the committee "Against" the need for a NWZ in the channel.

Personally after speaking with those who were at the hearing and those of the MP. I believe that the ruling for the 4th time will be against.

Hopefully, either way, the issue will be finally put to rest.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

While I did not attend I did speak with some individuals who did. So please do not quote me.

First the attorneys on both sides testified and the validity of the petitioners were discussed due to an issue of land trusts and trustees.

There were approx 90 in attendence. 70 Against the NWZ 20 in favor. Apparently the majority of the 20 were from the same 2 families.

The testimoney was the same as last year. Those in favor claimed safety issues i.e. can not swim in the channel, kayak etc.

Those against cited no accidents and claimed it was two families that rent their cottages that want to make it more condusive to their renters to transverse the channel. Also why should 2 families who are not there the majority of the time dictate how thousands of boaters should use the barbers pole.

A decision was not given.

However on a side note, The Marine Patrol did take a position and filed with the committee "Against" the need for a NWZ in the channel.

Personally after speaking with those who were at the hearing and those of the MP. I believe that the ruling for the 4th time will be against.

Hopefully, either way, the issue will be finally put to rest.

With one exception... One of the 5 people that spoke in favor of the NWZ (16 spoke against it) stated one reason as "you don't want to be back here again next year". So unfortunately, if the NWZ is denied, the supporters will petition again next year for a NWZ.

[lawn psycho]

I rarely go through the BP so not direct dog in this fight. However, what I see is a significant problem with how petitions are allowed to be filed.

The waters on the lake are property of the state, much like I-95, I-89, I-93, Rt 1, etc.

What the NWZ and NRZ do is no different than having 25 people who have a rental unit along a highway and requesting the state to lower the speed limit to reduce noise so they can increase the value of their house.
In fact, the legal standards are so subjective to grant or deny a petition for NWZs and NRZs that it is assinine. In fact, the NRZs can be challenged on constitutional grounds.

There is no way anyone can justify in an objective manner the number of people impacted versus the small number of people who gain whatever perceived advantage they are trying to gain. That standard alone should make it impossible to get an approval for any of these things!

And what happens when this family sells the rental during an up market and then the next buyer doesn't want it?

NRZs and NWZs are not a compromise but a self-serving means for those who bought on the lake to infringe on the masses who use the lake.. If you own near a sandbar or high boat traffic area, learn to deal with it and make the best of it. Asking the rest of the lake to cave to your wishes because you did not buy an area you prefer is not everyone elses's problem.

And for the record, I lived near a busy road in a prior house. I got a major deal on the house when we bought it. At sale we had to pass the savings to the next owner to move it despite being the best house in the hood that showed like a model home. So I speak from experience.....

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

I rarely go through the BP so not direct dog in this fight. However, what I see is a significant problem with how petitions are allowed to be filed.

The waters on the lake are property of the state, much like I-95, I-89, I-93, Rt 1, etc.

What the NWZ and NRZ do is no different than having 25 people who have a rental unit along a highway and requesting the state to lower the speed limit to reduce noise so they can increase the value of their house.
In fact, the legal standards are so subjective to grant or deny a petition for NWZs and NRZs that it is assinine. In fact, the NRZs can be challenged on constitutional grounds.

There is no way anyone can justify in an objective manner the number of people impacted versus the small number of people who gain whatever perceived advantage they are trying to gain. That standard alone should make it impossible to get an approval for any of these things!

And what happens when this family sells the rental during an up market and then the next buyer doesn't want it?

NRZs and NWZs are not a compromise but a self-serving means for those who bought on the lake to infringe on the masses who use the lake.. If you own near a sandbar or high boat traffic area, learn to deal with it and make the best of it. Asking the rest of the lake to cave to your wishes because you did not buy an area you prefer is not everyone elses's problem.

And for the record, I lived near a busy road in a prior house. I got a major deal on the house when we bought it. At sale we had to pass the savings to the next owner to move it despite being the best house in the hood that showed like a model home. So I speak from experience.....

While I totally agree with what you've said, the bottom line is the squeaky wheel gets the oil and if these people persist I bet one day they will get their way, right or wrong it seems as though that's the way it goes. What really bothers me about this is you buy in a location like this deal with the consequences, don't like it move. It's like me buying a piece of property on an island then start petitioning the state to put in a bridge to it.

Far as I'm concerned I think a new petition should circulate that caps the number of petitions that can be filed within a certain time frame for the same thing so that time and effort is not wasted re-hashing the same things over and over again. I mean really - this is pathetic. If the MP indeed did take a position against said NWZ that says a lot.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

While I totally agree with what you've said, the bottom line is the squeaky wheel gets the oil and if these people persist I bet one day they will get their way, right or wrong it seems as though that's the way it goes. What really bothers me about this is you buy in a location like this deal with the consequences, don't like it move. It's like me buying a piece of property on an island then start petitioning the state to put in a bridge to it.

Far as I'm concerned I think a new petition should circulate that caps the number of petitions that can be filed within a certain time frame for the same thing so that time and effort is not wasted re-hashing the same things over and over again. I mean really - this is pathetic. If the MP indeed did take a position against said NWZ that says a lot.

Maxum, if Marine Patrol does not take action based on the sour grapes comment from the NWZ proponent, it's time for a new director.

Repeated filings is blatant abuse of the system and MP should be already drafting new language to eliminate such behavior. They should also draft specific language on how to rescind the NWZ and NRZ areas as well.

If the person thinks that pouting is the answer and MP lets that influence the decision than it's another reason to get rid of the director.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Maxum, if Marine Patrol does not take action based on the sour grapes comment from the NWZ proponent, it's time for a new director.

Repeated filings is blatant abuse of the system and MP should be already drafting new language to eliminate such behavior. They should also draft specific language on how to rescind the NWZ and NRZ areas as well.

If the person thinks that pouting is the answer and MP lets that influence the decision than it's another reason to get rid of the director.

But is that really a unilateral decision the director can make? If a petition is filed and it meets all the legal requirements he/she may not have a choice but to go through the motions. I don't speak from a position of authority on this only wonder if there is any difference between this and say getting a question on the ballot sponsored by the electorate? Seems like the process is similar.

[lawn psycho]

Maxum, it's an adminstrative hearing. Every criteria listed is subjective. Read the requirements and you can quickly see how there are no lines in the sand.

Where are the engineering studies? Surveys? Depth charts? etc. From what I have seen most of the testimony is based on perception and not much more.

You have testimony largely against it. You have MP taking a no position on it.

It comes down to the opinion/discretion of the director. It's that simple.

Of course I am sure the petition filers may feel they can sue but they have an uphill battle. Courts are very reluctant to supersede the powers of governmental bodies. Given the subjective standards and a no vote from MP the filers have the burden to overcome if the director denies the petition.

Using your logic would imply just getting the signatures is automatic approval. That's not the case as the petitioners have the burden to prove the need for a NWZ. The reason why many of the petitions for NRZs and NWZs have gotten through in the past is they are done in February at local town halls so opposition is reduced significantly. Transparency does wonders.....

The DOS better get in front of this and get cooling off periods and NRZ/NWZ revocation petitions procedures written into the adminstrative rules.

The statement about holding their breath until they get what they want may very well come back to bite them.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Using your logic would imply just getting the signatures is automatic approval. That's not the case as the petitioners have the burden to prove the need for a NWZ. The reason why many of the petitions for NRZs and NWZs have gotten through in the past is they are done in February at local town halls so opposition is reduced significantly. Transparency does wonders.....

Not quite what I was implying, so let me re-phrase. I understand the ultimate decision is made by the Director, but if the proper paperwork is filed and signatures gathered is the Director obligated to hold an administrative hearing on the petition? Doesn't mean he/she has to approve it.

[jrc]

That's how I read the law:

270:12 Operating Restrictions. –
I. The commissioner of safety shall, after receiving a petition signed by 25 or more residents or property owners of each affected town or towns in which a lake, pond or river is located and after notice and hearing, at which it appears that the public interest requires, adopt rules...

"Shall" usually means he can't ignore the petition. He has to schedule the hearing quickly but he is not obligated to have the hearing in any hurry:

Saf-C 409.02 Scheduling of Hearing. The commissioner shall schedule a hearing within a reasonable period of time, but in no event more than 60 days after the date he received the request.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Maxum, it's an adminstrative hearing. Every criteria listed is subjective. Read the requirements and you can quickly see how there are no lines in the sand.

Where are the engineering studies? Surveys? Depth charts? etc. From what I have seen most of the testimony is based on perception and not much more.

You have testimony largely against it. You have MP taking a no position on it.

It comes down to the opinion/discretion of the director. It's that simple.

Of course I am sure the petition filers may feel they can sue but they have an uphill battle. Courts are very reluctant to supersede the powers of governmental bodies. Given the subjective standards and a no vote from MP the filers have the burden to overcome if the director denies the petition.

Using your logic would imply just getting the signatures is automatic approval. That's not the case as the petitioners have the burden to prove the need for a NWZ. The reason why many of the petitions for NRZs and NWZs have gotten through in the past is they are done in February at local town halls so opposition is reduced significantly. Transparency does wonders.....

The DOS better get in front of this and get cooling off periods and NRZ/NWZ revocation petitions procedures written into the adminstrative rules.

The statement about holding their breath until they get what they want may very well come back to bite them.

How many meetings in NH have you been to? How much testimony have you heard in regards to any petition that was filed and heard concerning Lake Winni?
Have you visited these areas and talked to the petitioners to get a face to face view point or do you just want everything to be your way or the highway?
I think you want to Lake Winni be a free for all and to heck with what the NH residents want.
Show me some evidence that you have done any research into any petition and then you might have some credibility.

[lawn psycho]

Originally Posted by jrc

That's how I read the law:

270:12 Operating Restrictions. –
I. The commissioner of safety shall, after receiving a petition signed by 25 or more residents or property owners of each affected town or towns in which a lake, pond or river is located and after notice and hearing, at which it appears that the public interest requires, adopt rules...

"Shall" usually means he can't ignore the petition. He has to schedule the hearing quickly but he is not obligated to have the hearing in any hurry:

Saf-C 409.02 Scheduling of Hearing. The commissioner shall schedule a hearing within a reasonable period of time, but in no event more than 60 days after the date he received the request.

But the petition must also state the reason and impacts. Again, just applying with signatures does not imply carte blanc approved. You posted the hearing but did not post the criteria so be considered.

Otherwise, why even have the hearing if all you need is the validated signatures?

Look at the DOS compendium and you will see petitions denied over the years. Not just on procedural grounds.

The petitioners must show good reason, not just wish it so. Trust me, shorefront owners would only dream to have it be as easy as collecting signatures.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

But the petition must also state the reason and impacts. Again, just applying with signatures does not imply carte blanc approved. You posted the hearing but did not post the criteria so be considered.

Otherwise, why even have the hearing if all you need is the validated signatures?
Look at the DOS compendium and you will see petitions denied over the years. Not just on procedural grounds.

The petitioners must show good reason, not just wish it so. Trust me, shorefront owners would only dream to have it be as easy as collecting signatures.

Please go to a hearing about any petition concerning Lake Winni and then get back to us about how much "good reason" the people who signed the petition had.
That's all I'm asking of you.
Then you can get up and give a nice presentation about how everything should be done. I'm sure we will read about it in the news.

Thank You

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Rusty

How many meetings in NH have you been to? How much testimony have you heard in regards to any petition that was filed and heard concerning Lake Winni?
Have you visited these areas and talked to the petitioners to get a face to face view point or do you just want everything to be your way or the highway?
I think you want to Lake Winni be a free for all and to heck with what the NH residents want.
Show me some evidence that you have done any research into any petition and then you might have some credibility.

Thankfully, guys like Lawn Psycho have the fortitude to speak up and stand up against people that want to practice isolationism and close the lake to all but themselves. We need more people like him rather than the pushovers like the state legislators. Keep up the good work, Lawn Psycho.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Rusty

Please go to a hearing about any petition concerning Lake Winni and then get back to us about how much "good reason" the people who signed the petition had.
That's all I'm asking of you.
Then you can get up and give a nice presentation about how everything should be done. I'm sure we will read about it in the news.

Thank You

I all for hearings/petitions regarding the lake. But, when the signatures are not of "legal" residents of NH, I don't think so!

[jrc]

OK, when you get to the hearing, assuming the petition was not filed in a fraudulent manner, this lists what they should consider. You don't win automatically just because you got 25 names listed:

Saf-C 409.04 Criteria for Review.
(a) The commissioner shall, after the hearing, adopt rules of the type authorized by RSA 270:12 if it appears that, consistent with RSA 270:1, II, the rule shall provide for the safe and mutual enjoyment of a variety of uses, taking into consideration the factors in (b) below.
(b) In determining whether to adopt such rules the commissioner shall consider the following:
(1) The size of the body of water or portion thereof for which rulemaking action is being considered;
(2) The effect which adopting or not adopting the rule(s) would have upon:
a. Public safety;
b. The maintenance of residential, recreational, and scenic values;
c. The variety of uses of such body of water or portion thereof;
d. The environment and water quality; and
e. Threatened and endangered species.
(3) The number of people affected, either directly or indirectly, by adopting or not adopting the rule(s); and
(4) The availability and practicality of enforcement of the rule(s).

[lawn psycho]

Now you see what I was referring to as the subjective nature of the criteria. So even if someone presents data, what is the threshold they must meet? Very poorly written from a legal standpoint......

What is important for people to notice is the requirements are all to be considered, not just cherry pick one.

In a past request for a no-rafting zone people have claimed water quality issues. In fact UNH was involved with the testing "analysis" and it was bad, bad, science. Unfortunately as happens in meetings when things get technical people hear fancy terms thrown out and don't have the training to challenge or confirm claims.

Bottomline is the director must consider all of the critieria.

Given item #3, I don't see how the NWZ would pass muster. Add in the no vote from MP and I think this petition should get a torpedo up the tailpipe

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Now you see what I was referring to as the subjective nature of the criteria. So even if someone presents data, what is the threshold they must meet? Very poorly written from a legal standpoint......

What is important for people to notice is the requirements are all to be considered, not just cherry pick one.

It may be subjective, but at the same time it is not always effective to bog down the decision making process with immovable criteria either. There comes a point in time where to much of that creates a situation where the people who are entrusted to make these kinds of judgement calls end up hog tied. In other words at least how I look at it, the only way to reasonably govern is to create a framework that provides the flexibility for decision making on the part of the Director and if need be prior decisions can be used (as in a court of law) to help establish some precedent for or against. There is no way to get to any level of detail legislatively because there are such massive variations in each case that could be presented. Not to drag up an already beaten subject or hijack the thread here, but this is why I thought there was no real need for a SL since there were already laws on the books that gave the MP the tools necessary to deal with irresponsible operation, speed included. It did however require the MP to make a judgement call.

I guess the way I look at it people such as the Director are placed in these positions to make these decisions and one would think they are there because they have the necessary experience to be well versed enough to do this successfully based on the facts present weighed against the criteria spelled out above.

The requirements listed are not all encompassing or at least that's the way I read it. Some of those may not be applicable, so if one or two doesn't apply does that mean the petition is without merit? I think not, just as some may have more weight then other do. For example if a petition is filed solely on the basis of a perceived safety issue there is absolutely no reason for that to be invalidated. However I do agree that with any evidence presented there is perception passed off as fact and fact dismissed as perception. This is where the DOS needs to be careful to evaluate the petition and accompanying testimony. Like a judge and jury separate the fact from fiction ultimately resulting in a decision that is in the best interest of the public. We can have neither a free for all out there, nor a bunch of land owners locking the lake up like it belongs to them.

Maybe we all should realize that we're all human and not perfect. In making these decisions there are winners and losers - just the way it is. I'd prefer that the DOS be given the benefit of the doubt and thus enough freedom to make judgement calls without the burden of undo restrictions. I have enough faith in the DOS to be confident they will not pass this NWZ because at no level does it make any sense whatsoever.

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by lawn psycho

Now you see what I was referring to as the subjective nature of the criteria. So even if someone presents data, what is the threshold they must meet? Very poorly written from a legal standpoint......

What is important for people to notice is the requirements are all to be considered, not just cherry pick one.

It may be subjective, but at the same time it is not always effective to bog down the decision making process with immovable criteria either. There comes a point in time where to much of that creates a situation where the people who are entrusted to make these kinds of judgement calls end up hog tied. In other words at least how I look at it, the only way to reasonably govern is to create a framework that provides the flexibility for decision making on the part of the Director and if need be prior decisions can be used (as in a court of law) to help establish some precedent for or against. There is no way to get to any level of detail legislatively because there are such massive variations in each case that could be presented. Not to drag up an already beaten subject or hijack the thread here, but this is why I thought there was no real need for a SL since there were already laws on the books that gave the MP the tools necessary to deal with irresponsible operation, speed included. It did however require the MP to make a judgement call.

I guess the way I look at it people such as the Director are placed in these positions to make these decisions and one would think they are there because they have the necessary experience to be well versed enough to do this successfully based on the facts present weighed against the criteria spelled out above.

The requirements listed are not all encompassing or at least that's the way I read it. Some of those may not be applicable, so if one or two doesn't apply does that mean the petition is without merit? I think not, just as some may have more weight then other do. For example if a petition is filed solely on the basis of a perceived safety issue there is absolutely no reason for that to be invalidated. However I do agree that with any evidence presented there is perception passed off as fact and fact dismissed as perception. This is where the DOS needs to be careful to evaluate the petition and accompanying testimony. Like a judge and jury separate the fact from fiction ultimately resulting in a decision that is in the best interest of the public. We can have neither a free for all out there, nor a bunch of land owners locking the lake up like it belongs to them.

Maybe we all should realize that we're all human and not perfect. In making these decisions there are winners and losers - just the way it is. I'd prefer that the DOS be given the benefit of the doubt and thus enough freedom to make judgement calls without the burden of undo restrictions. I have enough faith in the DOS to be confident they will not pass this NWZ because at no level does it make any sense whatsoever.

[lawn psycho]

Maxum, on principle I agree you don't want things rigid. I was hoping a decision was rendered by this point...

However, this situation is the classic reason why rigid standards are necessary. The NWZ has been brought forward multiple times now. You have a homeowner/attorney who thinks he can manipulate the system to get a result he wants. The subjective nature is rife with opportunity for people like the petition initiator to take advantage of poorly written standards.

My personal opinion is there should be no ability for homeowners to file a 25 signature petition and alter boat passage on the lake. Have NWZs near all public docs, make NWZs at obvious narrow channels like at the Weirs and Hole in the Wall, etc. If there is enough space for two boats to safely pass, then that's the way it is. Spot zoning via NRZs and NWZs just keeps proliferating and based on what? "I bought this house here and I don't want you driving or anchoring near me". That's the reality of what is happening.

The lake has fixed shorelines. You can set max limits for raft locations and mooring fields. It's not hard to make engineering evaluation for where NWZs are needed or not and case closed. From there, remove the homeowner petition languauge. *GASP* Yes, it is that simple!

Could you imagine if homeowners everywhere could just get together in town and with 25 signatures have an impact on vehicles on state highways and roads? I'd call that insanity. Why is the lake any different?

What is interesting is how DOS will handle the previous approval and now with majority siding against it they will have to craft languauge why to deny it know. DOS is in a box, however it appears the real desire or lack thereof for a NWZ is truly known. I'm sure the petition initiator will cry but this NWZ is screaming for a denial. Having traveled through the BP I don't see the need for it.

I will also be posting why I think the 150 ft rule for two passing vessels causes more problems than it solves. This case adds to why I believe it too be the case. People are hard wired to think it solves problems, I used to be one of them but my observations show otherwise.

[MAXUM]

Hey LP I just thought before I comment on your posting that it's great to have a reasonable and civil exchange of opinion and ideas. I think not only for myself but for any casual observer here this kind of discussion is extremely useful and beneficial. Plus you do bring up some very interesting points worth thinking about. It's truly unfortunate this is not always the case....

OK on to a few of your comments.

However, this situation is the classic reason why rigid standards are necessary. The NWZ has been brought forward multiple times now. You have a homeowner/attorney who thinks he can manipulate the system to get a result he wants. The subjective nature is rife with opportunity for people like the petition initiator to take advantage of poorly written standards.

My personal opinion is there should be no ability for homeowners to file a 25 signature petition and alter boat passage on the lake.

I personally would prefer not to see the standards changed for a number of reasons, however as you and I have both pointed out and agree the continued effort to bring forth the same petition should be capped/limited. This is a really hard one to deal with and yes with the right legal representation and deep pockets any system can be abused, but you really don't want to take the ability for the regular folks to be able to have their voices heard either. No matter if the rules were to change or not people with deep pockets and lawyers always seem to get heard, I think making the standards to strict is not going to serve the intended purpose from my point of view anyways.

Have NWZs near all public docs, make NWZs at obvious narrow channels like at the Weirs and Hole in the Wall, etc. If there is enough space for two boats to safely pass, then that's the way it is. Spot zoning via NRZs and NWZs just keeps proliferating and based on what? "I bought this house here and I don't want you driving or anchoring near me". That's the reality of what is happening.

This I do agree with you on -but also keep in mind that things do change over time and what may not be a problem now could be later on. If we were having this discussion 50 years ago based on the use of the lake back then it's a far picture today so are the laws. Any attempts to make spot zoning as you say overtly in the interest of the abbuters is an entirely different story. So I really don't see a good way to solve this problem other than to leave it as is and let the Director and DOS make the decision based on what they think is in the best interest of the public.

Could you imagine if homeowners everywhere could just get together in town and with 25 signatures have an impact on vehicles on state highways and roads? I'd call that insanity. Why is the lake any different?

That's easily explained. highways are designed and routed based on the design of engineers and where it makes the most sense to put them. How much money is spent on studying this stuff floating plans and determining the best solution? The lake, well that was naturally formed so it is what it is.

What is interesting is how DOS will handle the previous approval and now with majority siding against it they will have to craft languauge why to deny it know.

I think the decision to keep that area as is will prevail.

I will also be posting why I think the 150 ft rule for two passing vessels causes more problems than it solves.

I'll be interested to read your thoughts on this one because I believe this is a very important safety measure. Not that anyone necessarily adhere's to it, but having it on the books and having the discussion as to why it exists is a very useful in that it bring attention to people about safe passage and also the importance of understanding the affects of the wake you leave behind.

[chipj29]

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ad.php?t=12897

Any bets on how long it takes for an appeal (or a new petition) to be filed?

[OCDACTIVE]

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire
“To promote safety through education and effective legislation”
http://www.SBONH.ORG

No Wake Zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s Barber Pole rejected

Practicality of the restriction called not reasonable or sensible

For Immediate Release:



Safe Boaters of New Hampshire is applauding the decision by John Barthelmes, Commissioner of Safety in rejecting the latest attempt at restriction of New Hampshire’s public waterways by imposing an unnecessary speed restriction on thousands of boaters traveling through Lake Winnipesaukee’s Barber Pole located near Cow Island.

In his decision Commissioner Barthelmes noted that a No Wake Zone will contribute to a bottleneck of vessels within the channel of the Barber Pole and possibly contribute to boaters selecting alternate routes that will take longer to traverse and for smaller craft, in more open-water conditions, more difficult to navigate. Bathelmes also wrote in his decision that a No Wake Zone in this main travel area will affect more people than the number of persons seeking the limitation of speed.

Rejection of the No Wake Zone was also supported by the NH Marine Patrol who provided statistical data collected over a period of years which continues to show that a majority of the few violations in the area are categorized as violation of the Safe Passage Laws and the most recent data shows a decline in these types of violations.

Lt. Tim Dunleavy of the Marine Patrol also noted that creating a No Wake Zone would contribute to shoreline erosion, damaged waterfowl nests and noise pollution adjacent to the proposed No Wake Zone’s boundaries. Commissioner Barthelmes ruled the practicality of a No Wake Zone in Barbers Pole is not reasonable or sensible in his denial of the petition.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire supports the NH Marine Patrol and its findings of statistical fact and the decision of Commissioner Barthelmes in denying the No Wake Zone at the Barber Pole.

Given that this is the fifth time that a petition for a No Wake Zone at Barbers Pole has been denied, Safe Boaters of New Hampshire is calling on the supporters of the restriction to drop the issue and not call for yet another hearing in the future at additional taxpayer expense.

[lawn psycho]

I hope people read the comments in the decision. Prominent SL supporters stating negative things about 150 ft rule.

[hazelnut]

The majority of the residents along the Barbers Pole appreciate this decision. I'd like to thank SBONH for helping to publicize this hearing so that this decision could take place in the light of day. Unlike last years "cloak & dagger" hearing in which some neighbors lied to, and hid information about the existence of a hearing from others. They knew what we all knew that the vast majority are against a No Wake Zone. It has been proven as fact now.

[Belmont Resident]

Wow, not sure what’s going on and I’m not going to read into all the post to find out. But having traveled thru the area where the barber pole was and not finding it a NWZ was great. I finally backtracked far enough in this thread and saw that the ruling was reversed.
The trip from Glendale to Black Island was a lot easier without a NW zone.