no longer bob's mill

woodmills1 · May 22, 2009, 05:32:53 PM

It's mine all mine and so is the edger. GOD I love this thing, can't believe I have the 2 pieces. Never considered this kind of up grade. Did I say GOD I love this thing and it's mine man o man o man it is fast and true

John_Haylow · May 22, 2009, 05:50:54 PM

Congratulations on your new mill and edger. I'm glad you got the paper work all in order. I don't see the edger in the picture. :

John

woodmills1 · May 22, 2009, 06:28:26 PM

as per your request

DanG · May 22, 2009, 11:22:54 PM

So Millsey, how d'ya like that LT70?

thecfarm · May 23, 2009, 04:50:38 AM

How do you really like it? :D :D It's nice to buy something and be that happy with it.

John_Haylow · May 23, 2009, 07:07:35 AM

Quote from: woodmills1 on May 22, 2009, 06:28:26 PM
as per your request

Thanks for adding the picture. Nice looking setup.
John

bandmiller2 · May 23, 2009, 07:23:19 AM

Lt-70 is a sho nuff spoiler especially without the new price tag.I'am sure your planning to put a roof over her.Frank C.

woodmills1 · May 24, 2009, 06:57:30 AM

Now I want to put a roof over everything, however there is a major hurdle to jump. My land is in a low tax program in New Hampshire. It is called current use valuation and has allowed me to own the land at a much reduced tax burden. The program basically says that as long as I keep the land in it current use (mine is umimproved forest land) I stay with reduced property taxes. The logs and sawmill are allowed as they are agricultual activities in NH as well as the driveway, however to put a shovel into the ground for a foundation I will have to pay a so called current use penalty to remove the equivalent of a legal lot from the current use land. The penalty is 10% of the fair market value of the legal lot and could be as little as 13 grand or as much as 17.

So, the plan is to cut more lumber and save to make the payment, then build a nice structure to shield the new iron from Mr. sun and rain.

bandmiller2 · May 24, 2009, 07:07:15 AM

Jimmy, you can't sneek daylight past the rooster??Not even a simple pole with a shed roof.Surely those portable tarp roof garages would be legal their not considered perminant.You know best but I hate to see little lamb chop sit out in the weather.Frank C.

woodmills1 · May 24, 2009, 07:11:18 AM

I have found that the rooster gets the fox to bite me Ifin he misses the sunrise.

stonebroke · May 24, 2009, 09:38:47 AM

Try a Coverall

Stonebroke

woodmills1 · May 24, 2009, 07:42:31 PM

Up here the snow ruins most of the aluminum and tarp like stuff

bandmiller2 · May 25, 2009, 06:54:39 AM

Jim,make a portable shelter with wheels and a trailer plate on it, surely you can park a trailer on your land even if it happens to be parked over the mill.Pull it off when you want to cut.Frank C.

shopteacher · May 25, 2009, 08:56:27 AM

Could you re-deed or sub devide the acre the mill sets off the other land you own and pay the regular tax rate on the new parcel and keep the remaining land under the low tax base?

beenthere · May 25, 2009, 10:16:22 AM

Quote from: woodmills1 on May 24, 2009, 06:57:30 AM
........It is called current use valuation and has allowed me to own the land at a much reduced tax burden. The program basically says that as long as I keep the land in it current use (mine is umimproved forest land) I stay with reduced property taxes. The logs and sawmill are allowed as they are agricultual activities in NH as well as the driveway, however to put a shovel into the ground for a foundation I will have to pay a so called current use penalty to remove the equivalent of a legal lot from the current use land. The penalty is 10% of the fair market value of the legal lot and could be as little as 13 grand or as much as 17........

I like that kind of a tax plan. Wish WI would do the same.
Here, the tax accessor assesses the land to what its potential is, and that often is for residential development. If a persons' intent is to leave it in unimproved forest land, that makes no difference to the accessor.
It does encourage one to keep the land in its present use (by low tax) rather than sell off just to pay the higher taxes. A good way to control development, if that is the overall intent.
Our land and improvement assessments just doubled this year. Wonder who is buying in this so-called "poor" economy. Must be someone :

:

woodmills1 · May 25, 2009, 09:43:09 PM

yes the NH current use plan is a good way to encourage forest and farm land preservation. In massachusetts the plan is even better they readily buy up the consevation value, paying the difference between full use valuation and current use. They pay real money and you get to keep the land and use it, forest, harvest and enjoy.

woodmills1 · May 25, 2009, 09:45:08 PM

Well it really is my mill now as I succucceded in cutting both the hydraulic log stop and also the mechanical one a bit later on a log that I positioned wrong. Those blades are toast. :D :D :D >:( >:( >:(

woodmills1 · May 25, 2009, 09:48:01 PM

shopteacher, if I take any approach other than paying the penalty I run the risk of opening everything back up to zoning and planning. I would rather pay the expensive penalty than run the risk of having to do a 30 thousand dollar wal mart style site plan.

DR Buck · May 25, 2009, 09:52:29 PM

Quote from: woodmills1 on May 24, 2009, 06:57:30 AM
Now I want to put a roof over everything, however there is a major hurdle to jump. My land is in a low tax program in New Hampshire. It is called current use valuation and has allowed me to own the land at a much reduced tax burden. The program basically says that as long as I keep the land in it current use (mine is umimproved forest land) I stay with reduced property taxes. The logs and sawmill are allowed as they are agricultual activities in NH as well as the driveway, however to put a shovel into the ground for a foundation I will have to pay a so called current use penalty to remove the equivalent of a legal lot from the current use land. The penalty is 10% of the fair market value of the legal lot and could be as little as 13 grand or as much as 17.

So, the plan is to cut more lumber and save to make the payment, then build a nice structure to shield the new iron from Mr. sun and rain.

It's similar here in VA. Except pole barns and sheds are agriculture use and don't affect the tax base. You might look into an Ag use structure.

DanG · May 26, 2009, 01:10:37 AM

Or, ya could just continue to cover the engine with a tarp at night and let the DanG thing turn pink, like a proper Woodmizer. ;D

woodmills1 · May 26, 2009, 09:10:37 PM

talked with the assessor today and he is down to 120 thousand for lot values so I just went from 17k penalty to 12

DanG · May 26, 2009, 11:04:13 PM

WHAT? Are they charging you guys 10% of appraisal?

woodmills1 · May 27, 2009, 06:48:45 AM

that is the current use penalty, it is written into the states RSA (state laws), so I have known about it all along. Also, you can not take a parcel out of current use untill something is done, like digging the foundation or putting in posts. On the flip side here is my tax total for second half of 2009

My house with 3.5 acres = $2,595

My land 79 acres in current use = $46

The penalty money stays in my town, under the control of the conservation committie

So, I have known and expected this penalty, but it just hurts to pony up that much money and not see anything from it.

bandmiller2 · May 28, 2009, 05:48:48 AM

Jim,mayby I don't get the whole picture but why don't you include the mill with your house lot and leave the exempted land alone?? Frank C.

woodmills1 · May 28, 2009, 09:50:24 AM

I had to take the town to court to keep what I had, that is when I moved here the zoning administrator said I could operate at this new location with out planning board action or any site plan. Two years later my ex neighbor asked for a zoning opinion from the then new administrator, He wrote the same opinion. The neighbor appealed that decision and his buddies on the zoning board overturned the decision on a 3 to 2 vote at 11:45 after 4 hours of testamony and discussion. effectivly that meant I needed a full blown wal mart/dunkin donuts site plan with traffic study, environmental impact statement etc. Faced with a 30 or 40 grand study I chose to apeal the decision to superior court. That cost me 6 grand as well as no income for 5 months as the town had to place a cease and desist on me untill resolution.

The town made one fatal mistake, the entire above process was limited to the house lot.

In court I finally got the judge to see that the original opinions of the administrators was correct, but he also sympathized with the town, so the decision was he up held the need for a site plan on the house lot. The judge explained that he meant that the mill and operation should be excluded from the house lot and confined to the large lot, except that I could do repairs and mantainece to equipment on the house lot. If I agreed and followed that plan no site plan would be required.