Monadnock & NES needs your help

Monadnock should sell memberships to keep some revenue coming in. I'd buy one.
Create a "Supporting Member" that has no useage or voting benefits. Have it come with a fancy certificate. Promote it nationwide. Get some notable youtube exposure as its an effort to draw a line and stop the persecution of those that own guns and shoot. You don't have to hit a large percentage of the people nationwide to end up with a multi-million dollar warchest.

The club has been playing nice, time for that to end.
 

Peterborough ZBA says no to Monadnock Rod & Gun Club appeal​

  • pbZBARuling-ml-021022-ph01

    The Monadnock Rod and Gun Club in Peterborough. STAFF FILE PHOTO BY BEN CONANT
By JULIA STINNEFORD
Monadnock Ledger-Transcript
Published: 2/9/2022 11:26:45 AM
Modified: 2/9/2022 11:25:05 AM
Monadnock Rod & Gun Club suffered a setback in its efforts to re-establish a shooting range on its property, as the Peterborough Zoning Board of Adjustment denied its appeal of an administrative decision on the grandfathered status of the property, but left avenues open for the applicants to pursue further action.
The administrative decision, delivered in November by Tim Herlihy, the town’s code enforcement officer and building inspector, was in response to a site plan review application submitted by the club to the Planning Board. The club was shut down after a series of lawsuits from the town and abutters when it was found to have expanded one of its ranges without proper permits, filled in wetland areas and crossed over an abutting property line, and is looking to have a shooting range on the property as a way to recoup legal costs and allow the business to function again.
In his decision, Herlihy stated that the club’s application should not move forward, as the location of the club’s outdoor shooting range was not grandfathered within the town’s 2019 ordinance banning outdoor shooting ranges.

The vote to deny the appeal was unanimous. Vice Chair Peggy Leedberg explained the decision by comparing the shooting range to the example of an illegal boathouse.
“If you have one that was there before they’re made illegal, you can continue using it,” she said. “You have the right to maintain and to use it. What you cannot do is pick it up and move it 50 feet. They had a shooting range, they changed it, and now they want to move it back. Well, you can’t do that, because once you moved it, you abandoned where it was.”
Arguing in defense of his administrative decision, Herlihy presented aerial photographs of the property showing the original shooting range went from east to west from 1997 to 2015, at which point the club began encroaching on abutting property and extending into a new range that went in a south-to-north direction.
“They abandoned the grandfathered location here,” Herlihy said. “Both the direction of firing and the location of firing have changed.”
Upon the board’s decision, Chair Sharon Monahan made it clear that the decision was narrow and focused upon the issue of location.
“I want it to be specific that they are still grandfathered as an outdoor shooting range and that this has to do with the footprint," she said. “I know how important it is for people to retain their grandfathered rights, I just do.”
Just prior to the vote denying the appeal, Monahan recommended that the club next come before the ZBA seeking a special exception.
Attorney Kelly Dowd, representing the club, argued that Herlihy’s decision was flawed, and that the board should focus on the use being grandfathered rather than the location.

“This is not a proper land-use decision,” he said.
Among other arguments, Dowd said state law prohibited the ordinance in question and that the nature of use, having not changed, should allow the overturning of Herlihy’s decision.
“It seems as if this business is being specifically singled out,” he said.
Dowd also acknowledged the club’s history, and said, “They’re trying to do things right and make amends.”
“But they need approval in order to do so,” he said. “My client would like to work with the ZBA and the Planning Board and code enforcement to do this, and do it right, and make amends for everything that was done in the past, and contribute to the community in that way.”
Attorney Phil Runyon, speaking for the Perry family, whose property was trespassed upon by the shooting range, argued that due to the club’s actions, they had given up all rights to being grandfathered.
“I don’t know why the board would think that the club would retain any rights or acquire any rights on a south-to-north range that was a trespass on other people’s property,” he said. “Tim’s decision was right on the money as far as we’re concerned.”
Club members also spoke up during the meeting, expressing their concerns for the future of the club. Member Tom Cooney said the rich history of the club, dating back to the 1940s, should be considered.
“We’re here to fix an egregious thing by maintaining a use that is truly grandfathered,” he said.
Another member, George Striker, pointed out that the club did more than just operate the shooting range, including offering hunter education and fishing.
“That club was there for a long time," he said. “I’d like for everybody to stop beating up on the club, I don’t think that’s right.”
 
Vice Chair Peggy Leedberg explained the decision by comparing the shooting range to the example of an illegal boathouse.
“If you have one that was there before they’re made illegal, you can continue using it,” she said. “You have the right to maintain and to use it. What you cannot do is pick it up and move it 50 feet. They had a shooting range, they changed it, and now they want to move it back. Well, you can’t do that, because once you moved it, you abandoned where it was.”


This is a logical argument, especially if you have case law to back it up. Someone needs to do some research and see if there is any existing case law to support or contradict this line of reasoning. I know a shooting range is a lot different than a boat house however in the case of a boat house she is absolutely right. Try and move a boat house or change the foot print when it is grand fathered in at any of the larger lakes in NH and Maine and you would not be allowed to "revert back" in most cases.

Grand fathered in boathouse on Kezer Lake ME. Needs a complete rebuild. We had to jack up the boathouse and leave it in place and then pour a new foundation that was the exact footprint. After the foundation was done we had to lower the old boathouse back on the foundation and then proceed to rebuild it one section at a time so it was counted as fixing the existing structure. When we were done we had a brand new boathouse that cost way more because of the contortions we had to go through to rebuild it.
 
Last edited:
Vice Chair Peggy Leedberg explained the decision by comparing the shooting range to the example of an illegal boathouse.
“If you have one that was there before they’re made illegal, you can continue using it,” she said. “You have the right to maintain and to use it. What you cannot do is pick it up and move it 50 feet. They had a shooting range, they changed it, and now they want to move it back. Well, you can’t do that, because once you moved it, you abandoned where it was.”


This is a logical argument, especially if you have case law to back it up. Someone needs to do some research and see if there is any existing case law to support or contradict this line of reasoning. I know a shooting range is a lot different than a boat house however in the case of a boat house she is absolutely right. Try and move a boat house or change the foot print when it is grand fathered in at any of the larger lakes in NH and Maine and you would not be allowed to "revert back" in most cases.

Grand fathered in boathouse on Kezer Lake ME. Needs a complete rebuild. We had to jack up the boathouse and leave it in place and then pour a new foundation that was the exact footprint. After the foundation was done we had to lower the old boathouse back on the foundation and then proceed to rebuild it one section at a time so it was counted as fixing the existing structure. When we were done we had a brand new boathouse that cost way more because of the contortions we had to go through to rebuild it.
Problem is, it's not a boathouse, its not on a lake. Its a gun range that changed "the direction of fire" until it was told it couldn't. Now it wants to change it back.
 
Problem is, it's not a boathouse, its not on a lake. Its a gun range that changed "the direction of fire" until it was told it couldn't. Now it wants to change it back.

"Changed the direction of fire" and expanded beyond the Grandfathered in size. Add the wetlands BS and crossing the property line and it just makes it all the more problematic.

Look, I'm not trying to bust anyone. I think most of this is BS by the town and I would love to see the club prevail. On a general level from reading most of the pages in this post and reading most of the material externally linked I know and understand the situation. All I am saying is that most people you would find at a town meeting or a ZBA, selectman meeting are going to look at what is being said by the town officials and agree with it. It sucks but it is reality.
 
 
I don’t understand how the town has the authority to pass the ordinance banning shooting ranges, but that for me to research. Do they have a fund set up that people can donate to?
 
Create a "Supporting Member" that has no useage or voting benefits. Have it come with a fancy certificate. Promote it nationwide. Get some notable youtube exposure as its an effort to draw a line and stop the persecution of those that own guns and shoot. You don't have to hit a large percentage of the people nationwide to end up with a multi-million dollar warchest.

The club has been playing nice, time for that to end.
Great idea, I'm surprised a member didn't think of this before. Can they appeal the town's biased ruling to the State? Is money the problem? Good lawyer? They need to go full scorched earth tactics.
 
Great idea, I'm surprised a member didn't think of this before. Can they appeal the town's biased ruling to the State? Is money the problem? Good lawyer? They need to go full scorched earth tactics.

Scorched earth was already attempted via courts after attempting a very generous cash and land negotiation with neighbor. The neighbors, neighbors lawyer and town people all hate guns and want the range closed.
 
Scorched earth was already attempted via courts after attempting a very generous cash and land negotiation with neighbor. The neighbors, neighbors lawyer and town people all hate guns and want the range closed.

I would say the neighbors want the land, too. Scum. Villainy.

I know it won't happen due to the 'lead contamination and clean up costs'. Though, I would like to spoon feed the berm to them.
 
Last edited:
I haven't read the whole thread, but how much $$$ did Wayne and the NRA throw into the fight? Are they helping the club?
Seems to me it would be a big headline promoting the NRA as a supporter of its members and the shooting sports.
 
What was the very generous cash and land offer? I read that that came after the fact and unfortunately the earth was already scorched at that point.
 
What was the very generous cash and land offer? I read that that came after the fact and unfortunately the earth was already scorched at that point.

No it came way before. The club offered twice the market rate per acre AND equal land attached to the neighbors property as a package deal. The neighbor declined.
 
I question whether the town / court would permit the club to operate at all. And they can't sell it without paying / settling the judgement. Without income the taxes will eventually go unpaid and I would imagine the town will confiscate the property, then sell it.

If the club does manage to stay viable, they should build as high and ugly a wall as possible, ugly side toward the Perrys

Interestingly, the building on the tax map is listed as a restaurant. Revitalizing the property could leverage that. It's not a "bad" location for a nice BBQ restaurant. The grounds surrounding the building are awesome and the pavilion would provide outdoor seating even in inclement weather.

Expand the "restaurant" to modern standards, groom the grounds, the place could catch on and make money hand over fist, eventually paying off the judgement and then reorganize the shooting range to be similar to original.

It could work and should not be seen as changing the use of the property, since they've been paying taxes on the building as a restaurant. (see the tax map property card)
I'm thinking sell it to Monsanto for their new acid factory but hey I'm just that kind of guy.
 
No it came way before. The club offered twice the market rate per acre AND equal land attached to the neighbors property as a package deal. The neighbor declined.

Isn't that neighbor a grandson or great grandson of one of the founding members, who would have walked the boundaries like 70 years ago?

Curious how that ancestor would feel about his descendent destroying the club he founded...
 
Back
Top Bottom