Freedom—December 22, 2024—It was more than an hour into Thursday night’s Freedom Planning Board discussion of Wabanaki Campground before Board Chair Linda Mailhot turned to the question that many in the audience had come to hear answered.
Did big lake campground owner/manager Mark Salvati start rehabbing the property’s “hutnicks” while the Planning Board was still deliberating whether to allow the work to proceed?
The answer was ‘yes,’ which confirmed the accuracy of photos that circulated days before, showing the “Wooden tent, sinks are outside…not insulated or heated” site plan description of the “hutnicks” was no longer accurate.
At least two of the “hutnicks” now have decks, doors, roofs and windows, the transformations having taken place sometime after Planning Board members viewed the rustic structures in April.
On Thursday night, former Zoning Officer Gary Williams, now a Selectman, said he and newly-hired Code Enforcement Officer Brian Fontaine found 23 violations during a December 16 site review.
Many of the violations that Williams ticked off from a list he held in his hand were unapproved decks attached to trailers. There was also an unapproved apartment in the apartment building, and then there were the “hutnick” expansions.
“Hut 4 had new decking, and Hut 5 has been renovated,” Williams said. “There is a new addition on the rear and an addition on the front, and all these are without permits,” he said.
The front and rear additions to “hutnick” 5 are shown as proposed expansions to the structure in design documents submitted to the Planning Board in April by Wabanaki agent Horizons Engineering.
Planning Board Vice-Chair Anne Cunningham remarked that Salvati was asked at two previous meetings whether work had been done on the “hutniks” and he answered ‘no.’
Salvati replied to say his recollection of the question was whether the “hutnick” work was “complete.” As Cunningham attempted to correct him, he interrupted, saying “I misspoke.”
“Hutnick 5 was falling down…I filed a building permit,” he explained. “I thought this process was going to be a lot quicker than it has been,” he said, adding that he understood there could be a fine for the work.
Cunningham went on.
“Your answer to the question was actually ‘No, I haven’t done any work because that’s what this application is about, to get approval to work on these huts.'”
“I misspoke,” Salvati said again, noting that he was “fully cooperative” with the site inspection.
Horizons Engineering Survey Manager Bryan Berlind suggested that town officials separate the deck violations from the “hutnick” violations because only the “hutnicks” are part of the site plan application.
“Approval of the application tonight can obviously solve that issue,” Berlind offered in reference to the hutnick renovation.
Front and back expansions and finish work were completed while Freedom’s Planning Board deliberated whether to approve the improvements. Source: Horizons Engineering
The existence of Wabanaki’s zoning violations was first raised at a Planning Board meeting in January 2023.
The next month, Salvati emailed Zoning Officer Williams to ask for help in addressing the violations in preparation to convert to a cooperative campground.
Williams did not respond, and the list of violations that Salvati promised to the Planning Board never materialized.
A town official responding to a public records request last month said there was no further correspondence about the violations between Salvati and any town official after February 2023.
An email last week from Ossipee Lake Alliance to Horizons Engineering asking when the firm became aware of the unauthorized “hutnick” construction was not answered.
After a long technical discussion about elements of the design plans, Horizons agreed to make additional changes and Thursday’s meeting was continued to January.
“I’m trying to get to the point when we can, at the next meeting, hopefully with having that information get that finalized in a way to move forward,” Board Chair Mailhot said, adding “I think we’re close.”
Asked by a board member about the zoning violations, Mailhot said “We are not to get involved in that or to consider that as part of this application.”
Editor’s Note: Additional articles about the December 19 meeting will be published after the holidays.
Once again, and clearly, a property owner has blatantly decided to ignore and bypass both the approval process and the permitting requirement at his facility. The only way the local municipalities can insure that all developers, contractors and property owners comply with all the requirements when altering their property, is to not only hold them legally accountable for their violations, but to levy appropriate fines for the obviously intentional violations.
The citizens of each of our towns are obligated to comply with ALL Federal, State AND Local Ordinances, Regulations, Procedures and Policies. When these various requirements and conditions are ignored, the responsible parties MUST be held responsible and liable for their violations!
Agree with the comment above. Reminds me of the Effingham gas station case. We’re in a hurry, have to get going with the work, you can figure it out later (or not). A couple of questions. Pictures were taken from the road and sent to the town by someone and no town official ever drove by and saw the work was being done? That’s a major road. Also, no town official communicated with the campground guy in writing for almost two years? Come on.
Once again….enough money can buy your way out of anything. Better to beg forgiveness than ask permission. We will pay the fines and move on….just as we planned all along. ” I misspoke”. Ya, ok…..thanks for your testimony Mr. Reagan.
I am writing to update your organization on a recent Freedom Planning Board meeting to ensure it is properly documented and to correct some inaccuracies in a few prior stories in order to prevent their republication.
At the December 19 meeting, the Planning Board voted to continue the matter to January 16, asking me to provide a final plan showing the current and future sizes of all RVs and decks. They stated that we are “very close” to approval and this would be all that was required.
On December 16, I walked through the campground with Gary Williams and Bryan Fontaine of the Freedom Building Department. That visit resulted in a violation letter being issued to myself for failing to obtain building permits for certain matters, mainly decks on the trailers. That letter will be properly addressed and any resulting fine will be paid if not appealed. The violations were reported to the Planning Board who confirmed that those matters were strictly within the jurisdiction of the Building Department. I also admitted to the Planning Board that Hutnik 5, as depicted in your December 17 story, was renovated without the proper building permit (albeit applied for back in the spring) and will be properly permitted upon approval of the plan.
In regards to your stories of December 2, 5, 12 , 17, and now the 22nd, I find it disappointing, if not irresponsible, for those stories to be published without giving me an opportunity to comment, especially after my prompt and forthcoming responses to your past inquiries. You had called and emailed me in the Spring and I believe I answered your questions without objection and did not indicate an unwillingness to do so going forward. In the future, I would appreciate that opportunity to give my side of the story, especially considering your mission statement that “we interact with property owners…” as set forth on the website.
One prior article stated that “in the 1970s, the town approved a residential subdivision plan for 16 single family homes that were never built. Instead, the owners began allowing friends and family to camp there.” That is grossly inaccurate. Around 1978, my in-laws considered getting out the camp business and recorded the subdivision plan. They chose not to move forward with that, as was their prerogative. This was NOT the time they started using the land as a campground. That occurred as soon as they purchased it in 1963. It has been in the same use since then, with no interruption and no “shutdown” by the State.
In 2000, the State of NH instituted the septic requirements. At that time, the family had to make the difficult decision whether to close or spend upwards of $250,000 to make the improvements. Because the decision was not timely made, the State issued the violation, which was subsequently corrected by the 2001 septic approval. In that approval process, the requirement at the time was that the building department review and approve the site plan as filed with the State. Therefore a town subdivision approval document was not required. There were never 80 trailers on this property. At the most at anytime, there may have been 60.
The December 5 statement that I did not respond to the Attorney General’s requests for edits to my Cooperative filing is flat out wrong. I responded with about 60 edits to the documents and am now simply waiting for the Planning Board approval to finalize.
The December 2 and 12 articles stated the hutniks were “supposed to be removed and converted to campsites in 2001 to settle legal issues with the state” is not correct. As stated above, the only reason for the 2000 denial was untimely filing. The plan had a note on it that stated the hutniks were to be removed when practicable but, because of continued use, we decided to keep them, which I believe, as the Manager and Attorney for the campground at the time, was not in violation of any order.
The above inaccuracies could have been avoided by asking for my comment or talking to any of the hundreds of campers, or the nine members of my wife’s family, that have enjoyed our campground over the years, one of whom has been there 61 of his 65 years of his life. Based on the above, I contest your representation that Ms Hoople had “extensively” researched this matter. I do not believe that a historical hobbyist should be the sole source of any story for any publication.
While I respect the mission of the Ossipee Lake Alliance, I feel your strictly negative reporting does not do justice to our campground or properly provide the public with all the information to which it is entitled. We have provided an affordable and environmentally friendly way for hundreds of people to enjoy Lake Ossipee. They are respectful campers and boaters and if you asked any of them, you will be told they are committed to the preservation of the lake.
We have paid Freedom taxes for 60 years and have barely used the services of the town as year round residents would do. In our time here, I can count less than 10 times the fire or police departments had to visit the site. In 2007 in fact, after a fire at one of the buildings, we donated money back to the Town in an amount we thought equivalent to the cost of the response. We do not burden the school system, barely use the dump and basically only use one road into the camp, with no winter use while bringing substantial income to the area.
I had previously thought this would go without saying, but now feel it should be stated. We could have pursued a much larger and more burdensome re-development of this site which would have yielded a much greater income, especially using the land across the street that we own.
We are not trying to “expand” the campground. We are trying to properly permit what is existing. Yes, the trailers and decks, and to a very small degree, the hutniks, are getting bigger. That is a natural occurrence when people love where they are and want to be more comfortable. The implication in your articles that we are attempting to rape the land and ruin the lake is blatantly one sided. With this letter, I hope the public can see the other side.
Thank you for any opportunity you can provide to clear the air.
Mark J Salvati, Manager
Wabanaki Campground
We are all well aware of our responsibilities when we live on a lake. We are well aware of the confusion between over utilization because we love something, and abuse. We are all well aware of the habit of individuals who feel they have the ‘right’ to go ahead with executing what they desire, ( like cutting down that border marking tree), and then expecting forgiveness.
Those less self empowered ask for permission, and wait for the approval. This simple rule needs to be enforced and violators need to pay the price. What is done on Ossipee Lake has an effect on the entire flow of water throughout all the different towns.
Forgiveness is for the innocent who don’t repeat behavior they should have learned decades ago. Retroactive fines are indicated and very appropriate behavior modifiers in such cases.
I don’t know about anyone else but that old saying, “It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission” At work all ‘round the lake?
I guess so.
“Nothing to see here” they say.
I am not sure how it came to be that I am guilty until proven innocent (perhaps because of prior articles) but I had every right, and even a duty, to remove the tree in question.
The tree is on my property and while it may have been in a deed as a “border tree”, that definition includes trees which simply hang over another property. Regardless, I had a certified arborist classify the tree as diseased and dangerous. The threat of it falling was greatest to my property and occupants, it was also a threat to the neighbor. Once I am on notice, the NH Courts have said that I have a duty to make it safe.
I obtained approval from the State of NH and the Town of Freedom to remove a dangerous tree. If anyone had asked me or simply called the town, you would realize that I was NOT executing a right without permission. Again, I think it irresponsible to make accusations without facts. Either investigate properly or say nothing.
Now we have crickets ?? After explanations from Wabanaki not one negative response??? Typical