Freedom—July 19, 2024—Leavitt Bay residents and conservation organizations have joined to ask the Governor and Executive Council to intervene in DES’s approval of a large boat docking structure on the bay’s Loon Island.
DES in May approved an application by the island’s owners, Deborah and Kevin Randall, to build an 82.5 ft. x 3 ft. wharf, with five 34 ft. x 3 ft. piers accessed via a 6 ft. x 4 ft. walkway. Loon Island is undeveloped and uninhabited except as a documented loon nesting site.
The size of the structure and its nine boat slips would make it the largest known approved non-commercial docking structure on Ossipee Lake. Opponents of the plan say the approval was unreasonable and will threaten Leavitt Bay’s boating, wildlife and environment.
The state ranks Ossipee Lake as the state’s sixth largest, which is misleading because much of its size is contained in three bays connected by headway speed channels. Leavitt Bay is the second-smallest body of water in the lake system.
Opponents of the plan were furious that the agency decided a public hearing on the application was unnecessary because the issue was “not of major public interest.” They said a public hearing would have educated officials about the bay’s small size, shallow depth, and crowded boating conditions.
They also pointed to a letter to the state from Ossipee’s Conservation Commission opposing the docks and stating that the island could not sustain the additional use.
The Randalls told Ossipee officials they needed the boat docks to deter trespassers, but also said they may want to rent the slips in the future. Their DES application did not state a reason for the docks, one of many alleged errors and omissions in the document.
After the docks were approved, more than 200 lake property owners joined three local conservation organizations, a children’s summer camp, and Moultonborough-based Loon Preservation Committee in a June 12 request that DES enter into mediated discussions over the approval. The agency declined to do so.
Faced with an expensive and time-consuming appeal to the Wetlands Council as the only remaining legal option, opponents chose instead to appeal directly to the Governor and Executive Council, whose approval of the docks is required.
The appeals asked that the decision be remanded to DES for a public hearing and a new review of the proposal.
Responses from the state started coming back last week—not from the Governor and Executive Council, but as a form letter from Adam J. Crepeau, the Assistant Commissioner of DES.
Crepeau said that DES was “confident that the permit…meets the requirements set forth under RSA 482-A and corresponding rules,” and that there is no mechanism to hold a public hearing after a permit has been issued.
Tiny (0.91-acre) Loon Island is a loon nesting site in Leavitt Bay. Photo: John Rowe Photos
Crepeau noted that the appeal docket for the request for mediated discussions was still open despite being rejected by his agency. This week, Ossipee Lake Alliance, the lead organization in the request for mediation, asked the state to close the docket since an appeal to the Wetlands Council was deemed to be inexpedient.
But the organization said letters to the Governor and Executive Council will continue.
“The Governor and Executive Council still have to sign off on the approval, and we want to be sure they understand what they are signing off on and why we oppose it,” the organization said in a statement.
Frustration with the State
The letter writing effort comes at a time when there is a high level of frustration with the state among lake communities, many of which are aligned with NH LAKES to put lake issues on the table in the November elections.
In a recent Conway Daily Sun editorial, the founders of Ossipee Lake Alliance wrote that “lake property owners are watching lakes deteriorate in real time and are trying to do something about it, while state agencies shrug their shoulders and legislators tell us to stay in our lane.”
The Alliance and Green Mountain Conservation Group sent a joint letter to DES in February asking that the Randalls’ dock application be denied for being “inaccurate, incomplete and non-responsive.”
“We believe it is impossible to make an informed assessment of the proposal’s environmental impact based on the information provided,” the letter stated.
As an example, the organizations pointed to Question 7, which asked the applicant how “resource-specific criteria” for each of four chapters of state regulations would be met. The Randalls’ six-word response was “Docks in accordance with applicable rules.”
The non-profits said the application lacked a certified plan and verified data, and did not explain how the Permanent Impact Area was computed. They said the agency had failed to exercise reasonable oversight of the review process.
An email obtained through a public records request shows a DES employee helped applicant Kevin Randall estimate the frontage of the island by holding up a piece of string against the bar scale of an outdated 1992 topographic map submitted with the application.
The employee’s calculation was then used to establish that the island could accommodate nine boat slips.
Looks like another fight loss by the tree hugger of the lake.
There are two legitimate sides to this story. On the one hand there are docks all over the shoreline of the lake. It would not be fair to deny a dock on “Loon” island while so many other docks exist on the lake. A valid argument can be made for a dock based on this alone.
On the other hand, compared to most docks on the lake, the Randall’s are asking for a very large dock. The premise being that this “over-sized” dock would keep people from trespassing on their property. It’s tough to see how any sized dock would prevent trespassers on the island. However, it does seem reasonable that dock slips could be used as a commercial endeavor. It is from this perspective that an argument can be made against the dock as boat traffic and population would increase in an already crowded bay. Safety and pollution concerns immediately come to mind as anyone who witnesses the sandbar spectacle might conclude.
All that said it might be a reasonable compromise to allow a dock, comprable in size to others around the lake, on the island. To those involved a compromise should be the goal.
If there was a real interest in preserving and protecting the lake action would have been taken years ago. The lake has now been over developed, the state has advocated abundant access and we now have, in my opinion, a significantly overcrowded and environmentally compromised lake. So, any efforts now to “save the lake” almost seem a bit too little, too late.
So the answer is to give up? I don’t think so. BTW, the Randalls applied for a Statutory Permit by Notification for a single dock in 2020. SPNs are basically a short-cut method of gaining approval for a dock or docks. DES said the impact to the shoreline from the proposed dock installation was too much and they needed to submit a Dredge and Fill Application, which then morphed into five docks. Since DES has already approved five docks via their Dredge and Fill Application, it is a sure thing they would approve one dock instead if they revise the ask. No public hearing, no angry neighbors. Ball is in their court.
Spot on with “compromise”. Yes, a landowner has a right to a dock. That just makes sense. But this is an uninhabited island. A completely unique property!!! A more modest plan seems much more appropriate in keeping with the character of the lake and community. A landowner should be able to put a single dock on their uninhabited island. Any more should be scrutinized with intensity.
Boat docks to deter trespassing? Just a place for them to dock their boats. Where will these people launch there boosts? Where will they park? What about safety? What about an emergency? How would emergency vehicles reach the island. Loud music, trash, people using the water as their bathroom. You will scare the loons away. This will just become sand bar II. The boys camp canoe and sail around that island all summer. What protection will they have from from boats speeding off from the docks. This is a follow the money issue if I ever saw one.
I don’t ever see people pull up to a dock that isn’t theirs but i see people beaching their boats on other people’s property every day i’m out on the lake.