Atkinson Town Hall

Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson

There is a NEW POLL at Right--------------------->

Don't forget to VOTE!
Make your voice heard!

Welcome Message and Mission Statement

Welcome to the NEW Atkinson Reporter! Under new management, with new resolve.

The purpose of this Blog is to pick up where the Atkinson Reporter has left off. "The King is dead, Long live the King!" This Blog is a forum for the discussion of predominantly Atkinson; Officials, People, Ideas, and Events. You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominem personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published. The conversation begun on the Atkinson Reporter MUST be continued!

This Blog will not fall to outside hacks from anyone, especially insecure public officials afraid of their constituents criticism.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Heard around the Town Hall: Selectmen Lift Cease and Desist Order

Yes Selectmen met Thursday to sign a new decree apparently drafted by Town Counsel. The new decree lifts the cease and desist order, while retaining authority over all the previously agreed to provisions signed by both the Osborns and the Town.

The Order apparently advises the Osborns that while the town will not intervene in their construction problems, they may continue at their own risk. The letter takes note of the ongoing civil litigation between the Osborns and Mrs. Davis and notes that the Town will await the outcome.

Apparently the Town wants to retain all of it's authority while exercising none of it. They notify the Osborns that all of the provisions that they agreed to are still in force and that they may suffer penalties for violating those provisions, while patently ignoring the violations already committed, preferring to wait until the resident has spent her own time and money to achieve what the Town should have the moral integrity to do on it's own.

289 comments:

1 – 200 of 289   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

This is an outrage! I can not belive i am reading this.

Anonymous said...

This is an outrage!

So far, so good.

I can not belive i am reading this.

You just fell apart here. You mispelled believe and you used a lower case "i" instead of an upper case. You'll need to do better than that.

Anonymous said...

This should grab ya !!!!! you obviously have no life. Really you are a moron, and i have to tell you i am not torn down or insulted by u at all!!!!!! I think you have no life and have nothing better to do with your life. I actually work about 50+ hrs a week , and i enjoy this blog so when i get a second i like to voice my opinion. So get over it . The last thing i am thinking about on my 3 minute break is some looser with nothing better to do, looking over everyone's grammar. I have seen many of grammar mistakes and i don't point them out because it is IGNORANT !!!! DID I SPELL THAT RIGHT???

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:35PM: I see the grammar police has followed us to a new topic.

Could you please just cut the crap and stay on topic? You're like a little kid. You have nothing to offer for facts or debate so you resort to insults to compensate. If you're that anal compulsive then perhaps you should seek help for your issues.

Anonymous said...

Amen to that!

Anonymous said...

Ignore the grammer police; this is one of the bootlicking shitheads that like to come here and try to interfere with the blog.

Someone predicted that the selectmen would find a way to avoid doing their job and defending the town, other citizens, and the lake from the Osbornes. Once again, the selectmen prove that the only people they are willing to stand against are...

...the townspeople of Atkinson! (See the ignoring of voter mandated decisions like the Vietnam memorial which were ignored when backed up with court orders, or the fear in the eyes of selectmen when the try to reign in our over-vehicles police chief...)

Atkinson; a proud political punchline since the Consentino/Sapia era...

Anonymous said...

To the Grammar cop, Timberlane could surely use a good english teacher, perhaps you should apply.

Anonymous said...

This should grab ya !!!!!

No, not really.

you obviously have no life. Really you are a moron, and i have to tell you i am not torn down or insulted by u at all!!!!!!

Such anger from someone who claims that they're not bothered by the corrections. I would think you would simply ignore the post instead of spewing vile. You're own post contradicts yourself.

I actually work about 50+ hrs a week , and i enjoy this blog so when i get a second i like to voice my opinion. So get over it .

I have taken no issue with people voicing their opinions. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

I have seen many of grammar mistakes and i don't point them out because it is IGNORANT !!!! DID I SPELL THAT RIGHT???

Yes, I agree. The grammer and spelling mistakes do show a certain level of ignorance. I'm glad we were able to come to an accord on that. I hope my post has added to your blog reading enjoyment.

Anonymous said...

The grammar cop isn't familiar with blogging and texting lingo. He must be new to it. IMHFO.

Anonymous said...

this osborn famly sounds like they are gods, they think that they can take peoples land when they please.Sounds like they are paying people off to give them the rights to be doing what they are doing! I think we should all chip in and give these people an island, and ship them there so they can stop destrution of peoples property. That way people would not have to worry about there land being taken from them.

Anonymous said...

this osborn famly sounds like they are gods, they think that they can take peoples land when they please.Sounds like they are paying people off to give them the rights to be doing what they are doing! I think we should all chip in and give these people an island, and ship them there so they can stop destrution of peoples property. That way people would not have to worry about there land being taken from them.

Anonymous said...

Could you please just cut the crap and stay on topic?

At least you asked nicely. The topics stray all the time so why take issue now?

You're like a little kid.

Does that mean I can have a lolly pop?

You have nothing to offer for facts or debate so you resort to insults to compensate.

You mean the owners of this blog are interested in facts? Really... I see a lot of spin, but very little in precious facts. I think perhaps you are taking the "Reporter" name far too literal.

If you're that anal compulsive then perhaps you should seek help for your issues.

I need help. I really do. Will you help me? I'm reaching out to you because I can tell that you truly care about me. Maybe there is hope for me after all.

Anonymous said...

Amen to that!

I don't know. Praying on the blog might be considered straying from topic. Some here may not appreciate it. I, on the other hand, am not bothered by it at all. You have my personal blessing to pray on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Ignore the grammer police; this is one of the bootlicking shitheads that like to come here and try to interfere with the blog.

I never licked boots before. Should I start? Do they taste good? You have such terrible language. I think perhaps the praying person should pray for you. Now how can I possibly interfere? I simply post. It is an open forum after all.

I really think you're straying from topic with this particular section of posts, but I want you to know that I do not object. Others, however, don't like it. Consider this a heads up. Almost like a neighbor helping another neighbor. No need to thank me.

Anonymous said...

To the Grammar cop, Timberlane could surely use a good english teacher, perhaps you should apply.

Hey, if I'm a cop, do I get to wear a badge? I always wanted to have a badge. I don't think I would like working for Timberlane, but I appreciate the interest in my potential career choices. I'm guessing you work in HR. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

The grammar cop isn't familiar with blogging and texting lingo. He must be new to it. IMHFO.

Sigh. No, I'm not new to it, but I do worry about the impact on todays youth. It's such a shame to see young people who don't know how to form a sentence or even write in cursive. No texting lingo they have mastered. No what exactly is a humble fucking opinion anyway?

Anonymous said...

Hey, who stole my "w's"??? I could have sworn they were there when I typed out "now". This is an outrage! Where is the APD when you need them???

Anonymous said...

So is the DES investigating the issues reguarding the Osborn's? If so what exactly is going to be done about this ?

Anonymous said...

"So is the DES investigating the issues So is the DES investigating the issues reguarding the Osborn's? If so what exactly is going to be done about this ?the Osborn's? If so what exactly is going to be done about this ?"

Well, you know, that sounds like an excellent question for the DES. Why are you asking it here?

BTW, it's "regarding". I believe reguarding is what you do when a prisoner escapes and you catch him.

Anonymous said...

le petite monseur

their once was a man not tall
his hair like a cupie doll
rage out of line
no standing no spine
a town meeting a free for all

Anonymous said...

up chuckle
up chuckle

Anonymous said...

hey dont out the grammar guy we need ourselfs educated

Anonymous said...

NO COMMENT!

Anonymous said...

Life's a game but it's not fair I break the rules so I don't care Ibreak the rules so I don't care so i keep doing my own thing walkin tall against the rain victory's within the mile almost there don't give up know the only thing that is on my mind is who's gonna run this town tonight?

Anonymous said...

open a poll i am intersted on were people are at here. the Osborn's vs Mrs.Davis.

The New Guy said...

I'm with the Osborn's and I'm betting Mrs. Davis was too until Leon stepped into the fold. I believe Mrs. Davis would love to lose the traffic using her driveway to access Valcat Rd., but would love it even more if she now gets paid to do it. "Cease and desist" will soon turn into "continue but pay me off."

As for the grammar king/queen, I love it. I get irked by reading posts with lousy grammar and multiple spelling mistakes.(One mistake could be just a typo) It's almost as bad a those old PD letters that always had ALL CAPS. They smartened up so why can't you?

Reminds me of that old saying:
"Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought stupid than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Anonymous said...

Maybe a few million for pain and suffering would be a start!

Anonymous said...

Isn't it great?

Whenever the reason for this blog become blatantly evident (completely disfunctional local government) the idiot here that supports our inept leaders comes on here and tries to clutter things up with multiple nuisance posts.

Just one single twit that hasn't the gonads to actually tackle any issues; just posting like a silly little kid; isn't it great!

Curt Springer said...

RSA 674:41 provides for the issuance of building permits on private roads and Class 6 non-maintained public roads.

It is up to the selectmen to allow permits or not, with non-binding consultation with the planning board. It's yes or no. There is no authorization for the selectmen to attach conditions for allowing the construction.

In this instance, your selectmen entered into an "agreement" with the Osborns not to muck with Valcat Lane, described as a Class 6 road. But in the case of a Class 6 road, it is not an "agreement" of any sort. It is simply a statement of law. RSA 231:21-a makes it clear that Class 6 roads are under the regulation of the selectmen.

If the road is not a Class 6 road, which seems to be the case, then the "agreement" is null and void. RSA 674:41 does not allow conditions for the granting of building permits, and the selectmen have no authority elsewhere in the statutes to regulate the use of private roads.

Regarding the driveway on the claimed ROW on Carol Davis's land, the selectmen have no authority to intervene directly with a cease and desist order. The issue is whether the Osborns can use the driveway to justify not having a sprinkler system in their new house. If the Osborns have not established that the design meets the physical requirements for an adequate road, then the selectmen could take action against them for occupying their house. If they have established that the design is adequate, but their right to use the driveay is at issue, the selectmen could decide to delay enforcement actions pending the outcome of the court case.

Anonymous said...

Will write more about this later, but what I object to about Curt Springer's edittorializing is he generally straddles both sides of the fence. He argues one side, then shifts to the other.

It is disturbing because in this world, you stand for something or you are lost.

It is with amazement that I witness normally acute observers like like Mr. Arturo or Mr. Acciardo bend their knee and bow before a character who shifts with the wind.

Let me suggest that perhaps what motivaes this continual shape-shifting on the part of Mr. Springer is a need for attention. There are no kind words for this.

Since you only live once, is it not honorable to live like a soldiers rather than a rambling vagabond?

As previously stated this observation must be continued latter after the concressence.

Anonymous said...

Is it 'attention-hunde' or 'hoare'? Alas my Old English is rusty.

Anonymous said...

So the town is unable to help so,what exactlty do they do over there at town hall????

Curt Springer said...

I don't shift with the wind. My position is clear and consistent. People have exaggerated notions of what NH selectmen can and should do. The selectmen have no mandate to right all the wrongs in the town. They are not in charge of everything and everybody in town government. They have no broad executive authority, like a president, governor, or mayor. Rather, they have a whole bunch of very narrow specific powers. In any given situation, if they can't cite a specific RSA that authorizes action, they have no authority.

The main issues here are neighbor versus neighbor involving rights to use private property. That's what courts are for.

Anonymous said...

Whenever the reason for this blog become blatantly evident (completely disfunctional local government) the idiot here that supports our inept leaders comes on here and tries to clutter things up with multiple nuisance posts.

Interesting. My posts have offered no support nor critique of our local government.

Just one single twit that hasn't the gonads to actually tackle any issues; just posting like a silly little kid; isn't it great!

Such cutting language from the brave soul who courageously posts anonymously against our "disfunctional local government". I can only assume the gonads to which you speak refer to lawsuits that do nothing more than fill the pockets of those courageous individuals who file them. If that is the courage to which you refer, then I am happy to lack those kind of gonads. I prefer to earn my money rather than try to gain it through the courts.

Since you are one who can identify an inept government and you have such courage to tackle these tough issues, then I expect your next post will not be anonymous. I also expect your next post will be telling us that you are running for a local office to right the ship.

Now in regards to the mispelling, etc, if you have something that is important to relay, then I would think it would be important enough to try to get your sentences formed clearly. I personally find it very distracting to read something filled with errors. I tend to focus on the errors and not the content.

Anonymous said...

IMHFO

In my humble but FIRM opinion. Your mind is trashy.

Anonymous said...

le petite monseur

their once was a man not tall
his hair like a cupie doll
rage out of line
no standing no spine
a town meeting a free for all

tim dziechowski said...

I have raised this issue before and I believe Curt is wrong in his interpretation.

RSA 674:41 states that no building permit shall be issued unless there is a waiver of municipal liability on file. The agreement signed by the Osborns -is- the waiver of municipal liability. If it is null and void because Valcat Lane is not a Class 6 road as stipulated in the agreement, then the Osborns are not entitled to a building permit and construction must cease.

Anonymous said...

"No texting lingo they have mastered."

Hey spelling queen, how will adding a stolen "w" fix this sentence?

Go back to school you fool!

Anonymous said...

Just wanted to say ,I know for a fact Mrs.Davis never agreed at any time for Mrs.Osborn to make a new row through her property.Another fact , Mrs.Osborn did come to Mrs.Davis with the idea. Mrs.Davis did not agree. And Mrs.Osborn told Mrs.Davis "well I am sorry you feel that way but I am going to do what I have to do". Those are the facts. Don't assume Leon has anything to do with Mrs. Davis's decisions, concerning the theft and destruction of her property that the Osborn's have caused.

Curt Springer said...

Tim,
Sorry, I should have been more clear. The overall waiver of liability is required and legal, as you state. The only part I took issue with was the stipulation that the Osborns not mess with Valcat Lane without permission. That implies that the selectmen can impose conditions on their approval of the building permit, which they can not. If Valcat is class 6 then the clause is unnecessary, just restating the law, and if it is not then it is improper as it would exceed the selectmen's authority to grant the Osborns any sort of permission regarding the road.

Anonymous said...

Hey 10:42, she doesn't lose that! Maggie isn't discontinuing that ROW. She cant it is on everyone's deed up on valcat. No, Mrs. davis now has TWO ROW over her property. only one was granted.

This is outright theft.

Anonymous said...

YOU CAN'T STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S LAND. DO YOU REALIZE HOW DUMB YOU SOUND??????????????????

GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!! GO DO YOUR HOMEWORK ON WHAT A RIGHT OF WAY IS. GO LEARN WHAT AN EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION IS. GO GET EDUCATED ON PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS. BUT PLEASE STOP SOUNDING LIKE A COMPLETELY UNINFORMED BLATHERING IDIOT.

Anonymous said...

temper temper
what's this about?
loud and rude
so please don't shout

Anonymous said...

If you cannot steal some one's property, What do u call what the Osborn's doing to Mrs. Davis. Clearly taking her land without permission. Sounds like theft to me. No matter how you sugarcoat it.

Anonymous said...

To my Blathering Idiot at 12:36;

Your comments are almost too idiotic to comment on but lets try...

1.) The implication of outright theft is referred to legally as an "unauthorized taking".

2.) A ROW by prescription means that the ROW has been in "regular use" for at least 20 years. Maggie admitted SHE opened her new ROW. It has NEVER been opened or used previous to her building it this year.

Sorry 12:36 but it you who sounds like the uninformed idiot.

Anonymous said...

To my Blathering Idiot at 12:36;

Your comments are almost too idiotic to comment on but lets try...

I believe you are the idiot for one.

1.) The implication of outright theft is referred to legally as an "unauthorized taking".

What ever stealing theft unauthorized taking. It's all the same no matter how you want to put it.

2.) A ROW by prescription means that the ROW has been in "regular use" for at least 20 years. Maggie admitted SHE opened her new ROW. It has NEVER been opened or used previous to her building it this year.

Blah Blah What ever!!!!

Sorry 12:36 but it you who sounds like the uninformed idiot.

Now that is not nice calling names! And did you mean it's? Lets not forget out proper grammar you IDIOT !!!!!

October 29, 2009 1:50 PM

Anonymous said...

Easement by necessity

Parcels without access to a public way may have an easement of access over adjacent land, if crossing that land is absolutely necessary to reach the landlocked parcel. There is an implied easement arising from the original subdivision of the land for continuous and obvious use of the adjacent parcel (e.g., for access to a road, or to a source of water). This easement is extinguished upon termination of the necessity (for example, if a new public road is built adjacent to the landlocked tenement). An easement by necessity is distinguished from an easement by implication in that the former easement arises only when "strictly necessary," whereas the latter can arise when "reasonably necessary."

The Pennsylvania Courts have described these easements as follows:Distinguished from implied easements from existing use: Implied easements on the grounds of necessity must be distinguished from implied easements from a prior use (also referred to as easements by implied reservation). The two types of easements are often confused by both litigants and the courts because both easements require unity of ownership and subsequent severance. Graff v. Scanlon, 673 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Commonw. 1996). (Citing 11 Am.Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 601, Way of Necessity.) An easement by necessity arises upon a showing that there was a conveyance of a part of a tract of land in such a manner that the part conveyed or the part retained is denied access to a public road. Conversely, an implied easement from a prior use "[is] based on the theory that continuous use of a permanent right-of-way gives rise to the implication that the parties intended that such use would continue, notwithstanding the absence of necessity for the use." Id. Requirements: (a) unity of ownership prior to severance by common grantor; (b) severance by conveyance; and c) easement must be “strictly” necessary in order for the owner of the dominant tenement to use his land, with the necessity existing both at the time of the severance of title and at the time of the exercise of the easement. Phillipi v. Knotter, 748 A.2d 757, 761 (Pa. Super. 2000)

Curt Springer said...

Re easement by necessity, the March 1975 NH Bar Journal wrote:

"A fascinating case of easements by necessity and mutual mistake is Plastic Laminated Products, Inc. v. Seppala, decided January 31, 19i5. Here, the plaintiffs brought an action to establish an implied easement by necessity in a situation where the plaintiff's deed to land by a pond expressly provided for an access easement to the land over retained land of the defendant seller from a nearby road. Unknown to both parties, the road was a limited access highway, and, thus, the plaintiff could not gain access from the road to his land over the easement, nor did he have access elsewhere. The defendant, on the eve of trial, moved to rescind the sale on
grounds of mutual mistake. The plaintiff opposed rescission, apparently because, even though landlocked, the land was worth more than it had paid for it at the time of sale. The trial court rescinded the contract, and ordered the defendant seller to repay the purchase price to the purchaser plaintiff. The supreme court reversed, and, in a careful and logical, step-by-step opinion by Justice Duncan, reviewed the different principles applicable to the facts. First, the court held there could be no easement by necessity, not because there was no necessity (there clearly was), but because such an easement is founded upon an implied grant, and, here, the express grant precluded a presumption of an implied grant of easement. Secondly, the defendant was not entitled to rescission because of mutual mistake, because the mere fact that the parties were ignorant of the limited access nature of the road was not a sufficient foundation for rescission. The plaintiff, although hurt by the mistake, "can swallow his hurt and enforce the contract". The case sounds almost like a hypothetical question from a New Hampshire bar examination, and may yet reappear in that form in the future."

----------------

The main point for this discussion IMHO is that there cannot be an implicit "easement by necessity" if the deed contains an explicit easement to provide access.

I don't think that an "easement by necessity" could apply to any of the lots in the current situation, because AFAIK all the deeds mentioned explicit easements connecting back to the public road system.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Curt, but the problem here is that the Osborns HAVE access via an easement that has existed for 75 years leading from Chase Island rd. to Valcat ln. along the side of Carol Davis' house. They have arbitrarily built a SECOND ROW across Mrs. Davis' land where one never existed before. The proposed ROW that is shown on Mrs. Davis' plot plan was never put into effect, nor granted or deeded to anyone. And Mrs. Osborn has no right to someone else's deed, no matter what she may think.

Curt Springer said...

I'm not defending the Osborns. I'm simply saying that it is not an issue for the town government to resolve.

It's interesting, there were 2 deeds from Valente to Catalano for the Davis property in 1995. They both refer to the same Lavelle plan. The first deed excludes the paper ROW from the conveyance.

The second deed is identical except that it includes the paper ROW in the conveyance and makes it subject to a ROW as shown (doesn't say who has the right). It says this is a corrective deed adding land to deal with a "building violation".

Just a hunch: The first deed would have been an illegal subdivision without application to and approval by the planning board. Somebody must have figured that out. There must be somebody alive and around who could recount the exact circumstances of this paper ROW.

Anonymous said...

Actually it was because the first deed reduced the size of the lot below what is conforming. It needed the extra land to be able to bbuild a house on it. Catalano wanted to move the ROw, but the rest of valcat neighbors never agreed. also he fund out that the grade was too steep for access. Too much work, too much money. Catalano never built the ROW, nor did he grant rights to anyone to use it.

Curt Springer said...

So one or more credible people could testify about the circumstances in court, right? Is Catalano still alive and in the region?

Anonymous said...

Curt, the bigger issue is that Maggie is trying to use Carol's deed to give her rights over Carol's property.

She is trying to tie the language on her deed stating "a right of way from the town road accessing said lots" with a plot plan on CAROL'S deed showing a proposed ROW.

Anonymous said...

Very smart lady, I would do the same. It's redickulus to have cars go up the Davis's drive. Go see for yourself.

Anonymous said...

it is not her driveway, but adjacent to it, and people have been doing it for 75 years, who is Maggie to change it, especially without the property owners permission?

Anonymous said...

The laws the law. It is their drive spinmaster.

Anonymous said...

aka Ms Comma

Anonymous said...

Can anyone show me how the Osborn's have a legal right to do what they are doing?

I have gone to the registry of deeds website and read the deeds, and I can't see it.

Anonymous said...

This should be a lesson to anyone who lives first, in Atkinson and second, in NH. This town and this state do not uphold the law in the way in which the ordinary law abiding and respectful resident might expect.

The town of Atkinson COULD have put their foot down and hold the fort for the generous property owner who has allowed all to pass without hinderance for 20+ years. But no, this is not the case. The town has taken their usual stand "not my problam, man (bitch).

And as the man said, "All hope abandon, ye who enter here".

Anonymous said...

The town of Atkinson COULD have put their foot down and hold the fort for the generous property owner who has allowed all to pass without hinderance for 20+ years.

How so? It sounds like this is an issue between two property owners over which the town has no jurisdiction. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, people like to blame everything on our town officials. I still can't believe they allowed that ice storm to hit us.

Anonymous said...

It's always difficult to respond (why do we bother?) to those who nit pick a single point and go to their grave (I wish) with it.

Here goes....

"How so? It sounds like this is an issue between two property owners over which the town has no jurisdiction. "

Well, so how about if the town government take a firm stand on whether they accept this as a town road or not. This has not been determined by town officials and is a major point in your loose argument.

ps - Last I heard, the town did not control the weather. The town does not control it's AMERICAN residents either.

Anonymous said...

Well, so how about if the town government take a firm stand on whether they accept this as a town road or not. This has not been determined by town officials and is a major point in your loose argument.

All indications are they want nothing to do with it. You're argument isn't exactly tight either. You better get that glass fixed after you started throwing stones in your glass house.

go to their grave (I wish) with it.

I wish you nothing but the finest of health. Hopefully you won't be taking your resentment towards your town officials to the grave with you as I'm sure the likes of the Artus' and Brownfield's will.

Anonymous said...

The town could have exercised their authority with regards to all of the conditions placed upon the Osborns in return for their building permit, and said, you will bring yourself into compliance with the provisions YOU AGREED TO or you will not obtain the permits you need to proceed.

Anonymous said...

Article submission:

A Letter to the Atkinson Board of Selectmen, from a resident.

Sirs,

I have been a resident of Atkinson, NH for many years and I am disgusted at the way the town has been evolving.

Why do you continue to passively support this Police Department and their bold display of power with every new budget? Why does the budget increase even when the staff decreases? Even when the responsibilities are removed? Even when the obvious is revealed? This dept. is over staffed and under qualified to begin with. WE DESERVE BETTER.

This Chief of Police has been bullying the town for years and I have been, in my cowardice, giving him money, year after year to avoid having problems with him and his crew of over paid under performing (so-called) police officers. I apologize for any reference to those who are doing an honest job. We all know who those other officers are and we know who they are NOT.

Why don't you stop the unfair treatment of my neighbors and why do you look away when a neighbor is bullied by a brazen couple with self serving interests?

Why don't you prevent unfair and unequal treatment of your elderly residents who are defending their property?

Where is the Elderly Affairs Dept when an elderly resident is bullied by a town witch?

YOU are supporting the destruction of this town and this WILL NOT END until you deal with it in an appropriate fashion.

Sincerely yours,
A Townie

Anonymous said...

"All indications are they want nothing to do with it. You're argument isn't exactly tight either. You better get that glass fixed after you started throwing stones in your glass house.

WHERE IS YOUR TIGHT ARGUMENT?

Ok, I guess you don't have any real important response.

Anonymous said...

Why does the PD STINK? Well, I meant,,,, other that for the OBVIOUS reasons.

Why is there a DOG in there? Who needs walking..............and bathing................

Anonymous said...

That's the Chief's personal dog, he brings him in alot. Ok, so he smells but we got used to it.

He pretends he is a real police dog and he uses him to keep people away and intimidate them. He is afraid of the residents with all the accusations about his skimming from the town budgets, using PD employees to work his private corporation, and fearing for his image because of the lawsuits and the quiet mutiny.

Anonymous said...

Hahahahaha.

Good.

Serves him right.

Let him pay for cleaning the building when he gets his spine back too.

Anonymous said...

WHERE IS YOUR TIGHT ARGUMENT?

Valcat is not a town owned road. The BOS does not want Valcat as a town owned road and if I'm not mistaken, they don't have the authority to make it one. I believe it needs to be put forth in a warrant article and voted upon. It has not. The town has no authority over the dispute between the Osborn's and Davis. Your claim that they somehow do does not hold water. It is an issue for the courts.

Now, let me turn around the question. Where is your tight argument?

Anonymous said...

"The BOS does not want Valcat as a town owned road and if I'm not mistaken, they don't have the authority to make it one. I believe it needs to be put forth in a warrant article and voted upon. It has not. The town has no authority over the dispute between the Osborn's and Davis. Your claim that they somehow do does not hold water. It is an issue for the courts. "

Well then.....WHEN has the town declared in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that Valvcat is private road? They have not, they have danced around this issue and issued a C&D order, recinded it (not really) and they never seem to take a stand on anything!!


So I stand my ground...I want a firm formal statement from the town about whether this is a town road or not. They claim is as such on reports tot he state but it is not voter accepted. They don't know what they are doing now do they?

Why can't they stop the BS?

Anonymous said...

I think the Osborns are very twisted disfunctional people and you cannot reason with people who have no conscience.

I don't have any faith in the town and I hope the universe intervenes and turns the tables on the unfair plans of the wicked.

Anonymous said...

First the Osbornes go to the town for supprot for screwing their neightbor and they get it.

The town gets wind of another lawsuit and they run away and don't take a firm position. Typical.

The Osbornes threaten eveyone who comes along.

Travel with others, take pictures and video. They will go away in the end.

It's going to be a very long and documented life for the Osbornes should they choose to accept the lifestyle they designed.

Anonymous said...

Well then.....WHEN has the town declared in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that Valvcat is private road?

If they have or have not, so what? I fail to see what your point is here. Do they need to declare every private ROW is not town owned?

They have not, they have danced around this issue and issued a C&D order, recinded it (not really) and they never seem to take a stand on anything!!

It was obviously a complicated issue. The recinding of the C&D order was because they didn't have legal authority to issue it. Should they have let it stand anyway so they can open themselves up to a lawsuit just so they can defend themselves against accusations by those such as yourself that they don't take a stand? It's a private property issue between two citizens. The town has no authority, just as they would have no authority over you if you started cutting down your neighbors trees. Just what about this don't you get?

Anonymous said...

First you say..It was obviously a complicated issue.

Then you say..Just what about this don't you get?

Just what about this don't YOU get? You are worse than a simpleton, you are are a hypocrit.

Why do you expect others to give you slack when you cannot see beyond your own nose? You cannot take what you don't give.

unless you are a thief.

Anonymous said...

' It's a private property issue between two citizens. '

If so, why can't the BOS just make a formal statement of this ?

They weren't sure of it themselves, so go home and get out your umbrella. It's gonna rain this weekend.

Anonymous said...

First you say..It was obviously a complicated issue.

Because it is. There was question as to whether or not Valcat was a class 6. It appears it is not.

Then you say..Just what about this don't you get?

Now that it's been determined to be a private property issue, the town has no authority. That is the question I was asking even if you do try to portray it out of context.

Just what about this don't YOU get? You are worse than a simpleton, you are are a hypocrit.

Why do you expect others to give you slack when you cannot see beyond your own nose? You cannot take what you don't give.

unless you are a thief.


Ah yes, insults. The sign that the persons argument doesn't stand up so they resort to insults. So tell me, why, exactly, should the town try to interject itself into a private property dispute when they have no legal authority to do so? This seems to be what you are angling at is it not? You have failed to show that the town is wrong. You have failed to show that I'm a hypocrit. Please enlighten us with a "tight" argument as to why your position is correct.

You have implied that I am some sort of a thief. I have provided a tight argument. You have not. I do not, however, consider you to be a thief. What I do believe is that you are wrong in your assertions. It happens.

Have a terrific weekend.

Anonymous said...

You say:

"Because it is. There was question as to whether or not Valcat was a class 6. It appears it is not. "

APPEARS? This is a value judgement of yours, not a fact. Please present the supposting fact (if you even have one).

Then you say: "Now that it's been determined to be a private property issue, the town has no authority. That is the question I was asking even if you do try to portray it out of context."

WHEN AND BY WHOM was this determined? I ASK YOU AGAIN, AND AGAIN. WHEN? AND BY WHOM? Back yourself up with the facts.

"Ah yes, insults. The sign that the persons argument doesn't stand up so they resort to insults. '

And you respond with nothing? Ah-ha! You have nothing to respond with!!!

"You have implied that I am some sort of a thief. I have provided a tight argument."

Where is any argument, weak as it is? You have provided nothing except empty words. I guess you cannot argue and you are then a thief!!

So I challenge you to answer with documented facts :

1) When did the town declare this a private road?

2) Who declared this a public road (hint: the town id's this as a town road in state reports).

3) By what authorithy does anyone have to alter, trespass, misrepresent, or otherwise claim the property of another?

Anonymous said...

Happy Halloween.

Anonymous said...

Happy Halloween to all!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

And you respond with nothing? Ah-ha! You have nothing to respond with!!!

Were you looking for me to stoop down and return the insults? I see no point in that.

Where is any argument, weak as it is? You have provided nothing except empty words.

The argument is simple. Valcat is a private ROW. The town has no authority over the dispute. I do see, however, that you dodged my questions.

I guess you cannot argue and you are then a thief!!

Back to the insults I see. Is that really all you have?

1) When did the town declare this a private road?

I don't believe it was declared in a public session, at least not that I'm aware, but if the C&D order was lifted because it didn't have legal bounds, that would imply that Valcat is not town owned. If it was town owned, then they would have legal authority to issue a valid C&D order. They do not.

2) Who declared this a public road (hint: the town id's this as a town road in state reports).

Based upon the deed research, Valcat is not a class 6 but a private ROW.

3) By what authorithy does anyone have to alter, trespass, misrepresent, or otherwise claim the property of another?

By no authority. I believe Mrs Davis will win her suit. I believe the Osborn's are in the wrong. I also believe the town has no authority in this private property matter.

Now, why do you think the town is in the wrong here? Can you show documentation that Valcat is town owned? Has Valcat ever been on the town ballot to be voted in as a town road? Finally, should I expect answers or more dodges and insults?

Have a great day.

Anonymous said...

I asked you why the town is calling it a public road in their storm water reports to the state.

They thought it was a town road, that's why they put the C&D in place to begin with.

Now, if you can just answer the questions instead of attacking me for asking them. You deserve to be insulted when you cannot answer them, then start a fight.

The town changed their position but never even had the spine to explian themselves. This is typical of them.

Anonymous said...

The BOS don't know anything, that's why.

Anonymous said...

Jack and Maggie went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water.

Jack fell down and broke his crown
(not surprising),
and Faggie came tumbling after.

Jack had a buck
inside his tuck,
and Faggie knew where is was,

(not surprising)

She took out her knife,
Sliced off the guck,
And ran off to Daniel Yelling
"I've got it" "I've got it" "I've got it ".

(NOT SUPRISING)

Anonymous said...

Can anyone show me how the Osborn's have a legal right to do what they are doing?

I have gone to the registry of deeds website and read the deeds, and I can't see it.

The New Guy said...

I'll make some assumptions.

Not sure if there was any real "legal rights" as much as there were assumptions made by all parties.

Mrs. Osborn assumed the penciled in ROW on the maps was the true ROW for Valcat Ln., but everyone before her, being somewhat lazy over the years, just used Mrs. Davis' driveway since it was paved.

Mrs. Osborn also assumed her neighbors on Valcat Ln. would want to chip in to build a new driveway from Chase Island Rd. to Valcat Rd. Let's assume some even said they would.

And she also assumed since Valcat Ln. was a private road and she owned the last 3 lots, she owned that section of the road.

Now Mrs. Osborn may have assumed Mrs. Davis would favor this change since her grandchildren play in the driveway at times and are in danger due to the traffic through it. The current access is right into Mrs. Davis' driveway towards her garage, around the side of her house and up onto Valcat Rd. at the top of the hill.

Now let me assume Mrs.Davis was OK with this new driveway construction and believed the penciled ROW was legal until Mr. Artus stirred the pot. At that time lets assume she acted like the balloon boys parents and denied everything. Again, let's assume it was for the money.
To make matters worse, let's assume Mr. Artus also filed the watershed complaint with the state to really gum up the works.
This is starting to make me assume Mr. Artus has what some here would call a personal vendetta against Mrs. Osborn.

But you know what they say when you assume?
If you do it will make an ASS out of U and ME.

Anonymous said...

You make alot of assumptions.

Actually, Mrs. Osborns deed refers explicitly to a plot plan showing the ROW coming down the side of Davis house as it has for 75 years.

Mrs. Osborn needs the new driveway to get her occupancy permit, and not sprinkle her McMansion.

The ROw she is building is referred to on Davis deed, not her own.

She first cut the trees, and started the work while Mrs. Davis was gone at work. She works 12 hour shifts as an OR Nurse.

Because the construction area is hidden from mrs davis house by a hill, and she generally arrives home after dark, she didn't see the work when it started.

When she demanded that Mrs. Osborn stop and get off her property, Mrs. Osborn told her, she couldn't o anything about it.

When Mrs. Davis called the police for criminal trespass, they told her it was a civil matter, and they couldn't get involved, but when she put the car across her property, the police were up there to tell her to move it, or they would town it.

We report, you decide

Anonymous said...

thanks jack sapia (new guy)for story of how theft of davis land is the right thing for carol davis and town jesus

more than artus encourage carol davis to get her land back theres a lot of people. artus is doing the best What a great guy Not only he only is shocked by the building violations and all going on

Anonymous said...

Hey, Anon October 29, 2009 9:23 AM:

Since you're nit picking everyone else's grammer and spelling, you should take a step back and look at your own writings.


"Now in regards to the mispelling, etc, if you have something that is important to relay, then I would think it would be important enough to try to get your sentences formed clearly."

The word you SHOULD have used is "regard". I'm surprised at you.

Anonymous said...

I asked you why the town is calling it a public road in their storm water reports to the state.

Where do you see that? I just looked at the report and it doesn't list any streets.

http://www.epa.gov/NE/npdes/stormwater/assets/pdfs/nh/reports/2008/Atkinsnh08.pdf

They thought it was a town road, that's why they put the C&D in place to begin with.

No. The C&D order was just illegal. That's why they pulled it. The only way they could have given a valid one in this case was if Valcat was a town owned road. It is not. Teddy and crew don't plow it, one of the residents do.

Now, if you can just answer the questions instead of attacking me for asking them.

Are you for real? I challenged your position because I disagree with it. I didn't attack you for asking them. Also, you have yet to answer one of my questions so you're in no position to be lecturing on this.

You deserve to be insulted when you cannot answer them, then start a fight.

This statement says much about your character. As to starting a fight? It's called a debate. Look it up in the dictionary.

The town changed their position but never even had the spine to explian themselves. This is typical of them.

Whatever. Run for selectman and kick some ass then.

Anonymous said...

The word you SHOULD have used is "regard". I'm surprised at you.

I have trained your eye well. The master must make mistakes so the student will learn. You have caught on well grasshopper.

Anonymous said...

Happy Halloween

Anonymous said...

Happy Halloween

Anonymous said...

Clearly, the Osbornes have attempted to use their connections within town boards and their knowledge of how to work the system to take any number of shortcuts to save themselves from having to spend money on whatever any of the rest of us would have to pay for.

That's the problem with the town boards in this town; if you're just one of the poor ordinary slobs that live here, and believe that the law is the law, you do whatever they tell you to do.

But if you're like Mrs. Osborne you just work the system and your friends on the board and get away with whatever you can.

This is obvious to anyone with a brain, but we should be thankful for the clowns that come here and attempt to defend them; who knew clowns were so cheap?

Anonymous said...

Yes you can steal other people's land...just look to the Osborns for an exampl.

Osborn deed states "Together with a right of way from the Town Road to each of said lots. Subject to and with the benefit of easements, restrictions and rights of way of record insofar as they are in force and applicable."

To really understand what this means, you have to look back to when this was created & what it referred to at that time.

When the Osborns property first was created the town road was Rt 111 also know as West Road.

Osborn property is comprised of 3 lots from a 1924 plan of land. Those lots had access over a "proposed road" now known as Valcat Lane" to an existing roadway (road that runs directly next to Davis' property. And then ROW to the Town Rd (Rt 111). The ROW at the time the Osborns' property was created was Hemlock Heights, and Chase Island Rd.

The ROW on Davis' property did not come into effect until much later. Therefore Osborns' deed can not refer to the ROW that Osborns have built, because the ROW did not exist in 1924.

You have to look to when ROW are created if the language is ambiguous on a deed such as the Osborns deed is.

Anonymous said...

The BOS and the rest of the building department, including the conservation people are doing the same "good old boy" tactics at 9 emery drive. That damn un-permitted Quonset hut sitting 15 feet from a swamp is still there. And not a peep from anyone. Unbelievable, well not really this is Atkinson the most laughed at town in the State!

Anonymous said...

So, what is a pencil ROW? If Mrs. Davis deed is subject to that right of way, who gets to use it?

Anonymous said...

Why can't Mrs. Davis close one of the rights of way? Does she have to have two?

Anonymous said...

What the blog doesn't report is that Mrs. Davis driveway is a mess. She has five cars at her home. A asphalt truck that her tenant keeps their over night. Before the Osborn's purchased their property neighbors on Valcat were tired of glass, unattended toddlers playing in the driveway, street, taking mail out of neighbors mail boxes, garbage everywhere. All of this reported to the APD and code enforcement. The Town did nothing about the continues complaints. Mrs. Davis has had five different children going to Atkinson Academy over the last four years all claiming to be her grandchildren. She has an illegal in-law apartment, and rents her home. The gentlemen living their are not her grandson. Another gentlemen lives their as well. She claims that one is her brother. The neighbors on Valcat Lane are all paying for the new ROW so they don't have to drive past the Davis junk yard to get to their lake homes. A Judge made Mrs. Davis remove the dumbed vehicle not the APD. APD did nothing because it was a conflict for the Chief with elderly affairs. Mrs. Davis should clean up her act. She purchased the property with knowledge of both ROW. She has not right to keep the neighbors from improving deeded access to their property. The neighbors will be seeking damages from Mrs. Davis. This may look like the Osborn's but it is a neighboring effort to improve Valcat Lane. The neighbors also paid to pave Mrs. Davis's driveway a few years ago and have been plowing it for her as well. Maybe Mrs. Davis doesn't want to lose all her free assistance. Any one who gets involved with a character like Leon, speak volumes about them. You are the company you keep.

Hemlock Heights Assoc. who has come to her defense now. Has had her so called grandchildren escorted of their beachs by the APD.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones!

The New Guy said...

To 9:27am How dare you attack the "victim" in this dispute? Please don't clutter up this blog with facts. Children, glass and junk in a community driveway? Free plowing? Extra apartment? Extra grandchildren? Mail theft?
Must all be scurrilous rumors.

To 11.57am, As for "Am I Jack?" No. I would answer or respond to the rest of your post if I could comprehend what it says. Please go back and rewrite it before the grammar queen/king gets to you.

At the end of the day, the only winners in this dispute will be the lawyers.

I say "Can't we all just get along?"

Anonymous said...

"Must all be scurrilous rumors." meaning you don't know if it is truth or rumor.

There has been a lot of mud slinging at the Osborns. I neither know them, nor care if any of it is true.

However, since both the Osborns Mrs. Davis claim to be victims, and have dragged our town government, and its citizens, into their dispute, it is only fair that we hear both sides of the story. In fact, we should demand it

For instance, if the story about Mrs. Davis's grandchildren is true, and they are not indeed her grandchildren, we are paying for their education. If we are doing so based on false pretenses, that is a criminal violation.

Now, I don't know Mrs. Davis either, nor care about her legal, though questionable, activities. But, if she is breaking the law, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't call this attacking the victim. If there are laws being broken by either party, they should be prosecuted and we have a right to know.

Anonymous said...

All documented at town hall, code enforcement has been notified and so has the school. People living at Davis's children live in MA, three cars parked at Davis's have MA plates. Since you like to drive by Valcat to look at the ROW look in Mrs. Davis's driveway. Would you like to drive past that to your home?

Anonymous said...

Yeah, people who really live in Mass pretend to live here and keep their Mass plates. Sure, now that makes sense.

Anonymous said...

The Osborns are saying that Carol Davis blocked their driveway by placing a car on the property line, which is about 10 feet in from Chase Island Rd.

How is that for a bunch of lies around town?

Anonymous said...

I have to say that this entire issue is disgraceful. I am appalled that the Osborns (who I don't know) could install a driveway through another persons property (who I don't know) without permission and without a clear right to do so.

What gall.

Anonymous said...

"Any one who gets involved with a character like Leon, speak volumes about them. You are the company you keep."

I persons true nature exposed during difficult times. I think the Osborns have exposed themselves as bullies and liars.

I do not for one second believe that Leon Artis would ever harm anyone and this type of personal attack is shameful. I do believe the several neighbors who have been hit with rocks and other weapons by Dan Osborn.

I also think the police are biased and should be investigating before they arrest one party who has no proof anything happened. The police are famous for their corruption and we are probably in for another lawsuit over Artus' arrest.

Anonymous said...

"APD did nothing because it was a conflict for the Chief with elderly affairs. "

So hey Chief, the Osborns are upset that you are not doing your job. Your conflict of interest between the Pd and Ea is preventing you from doing your Pd work. According to them, you choose Ea over Pd. Why don't you tell them how you can do both jobs, you remember the line you gave the State?

"All of this reported to the APD and code enforcement. The Town did nothing about the continues complaints."

Yup, the Osborns think the town is neglecting their duties. They imply that you are useless.

What say you?

Anonymous said...

And for the record it's 2 cars with Mass plates. And maybe just maybe both of them work so much they have not had time to transfer ....But if you are that concerned why don't you offer to do it for them. If it bothers you that much. Not transfering your mass plates to NH asap is pettie.Tearing up someone else's property priceless.....for everything else there is Master card.

Anonymous said...

From what I've seen walking by the area is that the ROW next to Davis has never been blocked preventing people from passing to their homes. I have never seen unattended toddlers playing in the driveway. If people think fail is taken out of mailboxes then they should report it to the post office, it is a federal offense. There used to be lots of garbage, but the area has been kept nicely lately. The area where there is garbage is for 5 homes. As for children going to Atkinson Academy. What about the Osborn children. The Osborns sold their last home in April of 2008, yet their children go to Atkinson Academy. Where have their children been living for the last 1-1/2 yrs? It couldn't have been on their island, because that is seasonal, and has no winter access. Can the Osborns answer that question. Are they PAYING for their children to go to AA. The people living at Davis' are relatives. As for neighbors on Valcat Lane paying for the new ROW...the only one is Shea. Davis is only subject to one ROW not 2. If it ends up there is only 1 ROW, then the Osborns can look forward to the trash for all of Valcat Lane at the end of their driveway. And there is no conflict of interest w/Chief because the police have not responded to complaints against the Osborns, only against Davis. The paper ROW was designed after the 1924 plan of land which is what the Osborns deed refers back to. The paper ROW is not deeded to the occupants of Valcat Lane. The Osborns have created a ROW/driveway through Davis' property.

Anonymous said...

The Osborns have built an illegal 2nd ROW over their neighbors land. They claim it will benefit all the occupants of Valcat Lane. Have you seen the turn off of the new ROW to Valcat Lane. Talk about sharp & steep...can't wait to see what happens in the dead of winter during a snow storm. The Osborns obviously did not consider their neighbors when they built that ROW.
Guess the Osborns can get used to trash being left at the end of their driveway.

Anonymous said...

WOW actually all that live in the Davis home are realted And they do LEAGALLY live at that home. Not in Mass your fruit cake...I have to laugh because you are a moron and it is obviouse that you are talking out your ass,ABOUT SOMETHING YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT! SO WHY DON'T YOU GET BACK TO YOUR RENOVATIONS AND STOP HARRASING THE DAVIS FAMILY OR ARE YOU BOARD NOW AND HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN HARASS ON THIS BLOG?! YOU DISGUST ME AND I WILL PRAY FOR YOU TONIGHT, THAT SOMEDAY YOU CAN FIND PEACE IN YOUR LIFE AND THAT SOMEDAY YOU CAN MIND YOUR OWN. SO THAT OTHERS CAN FINALLY BE AT PEACE AS WELL.

Anonymous said...

11/1 @ 8:38

NO ONe Gets to use it because Mrs. DAVISe has not granted the right to use it to anyone.
That right is hers to grant. Not Maggies to take.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Shea, your complaints are duly noted but wrong.

ALL of the valcat neighbors are not paying for Maggies driveway. Only Maggie and you are.

Numerous complaints have not been filed, or if thy have nobody knows about them.

There have been no reports of toddlers playing in the driveway, and the ROW is adjacent to her driveway, not the driveway itself, and has been for 75 years.

Her brother does live with her, not that it is any of your business. As does her adopted son.

She works 12 hours shifts at the VA hospital in Dorcester, and is not home too often in daylight which allowed your scurrilous neighbor to destroy trees on Carols property.

Maggies does not have "deeded access" to carols land, and if she did, that does not give her a right to build on that land.

Carols deed shows ONE ROW across her property NOT TWO.

You will have to try harder or in February you are going to be tearing your pretty new driveway up, just like the Judge said.

Anonymous said...

I knew it had to be Mr.Shea. What he is complaining about may be valid. But in the past 6 months ther has not been a shard of glass any unsupervised children wandering about. and the row has never been blocked so that residents could not reach their home. try again Mr.shea try again

Anonymous said...

It's amazing; the same people that accuse people that use this blog of talking badly about the chief and other local tyrants and hacks are quite willing to go after the innocent victims of some of these same local hacks here. What hypocrites...

The try to drag Mrs. Davis through the muck but I don't think anyone here is going to fall for this crap. The people here know what the issue is; a former ZBA member is attempting to use their knowledge of the system to cut corners that NONE of the rest of us would be allowed to. They are doing so to the detriment of their neighbors and their community, and we're not going to let that happen.

So much for your campaign to attack innocents bootlickers...

Anonymous said...

We need to come together as neighbors and friends and be there and support the Davis's family during this time. i feel so bad that they are being attacked.I know that Mrs Davis and her daughter in law are both nurses and work very long hours I don't see her daughter in law pul lin untill almost 7 pm at times and Mrs . Davis son is a truck driver and works long hours also. I think they are very nice people and to attack them here on this blog is sick. As a neighbor of the Davis family I have to say i think they are doing a great job and so do most of us. your children are sweet and you have our support. I am sorry what you are going through don't give up. And don't let a few bad eggs ruin you. I have seen what you guys deal with and others see it to. Just know you are not alone in this fight.

MAcciard said...

Unfortunately it has been my personal experience that when you criticize the goings on in Atkinson, you become a target. It is sad, and not the way my home town used to be, but for some people in power it is much easier to "shoot the messenger" than it is to answer their complaint. It is much easier to shout that you have done nothing wrong, than to answer the question asked and show why the complaintant is wrong, on the issues. 42 years in town and this is the worst that I have ever seen this type of behavior get.

Anonymous said...

This blog plays right into that behavior.

Anonymous said...

How so?

Anonymous said...

Polito and Sapia! I have a big stack of their blog postings in my bathroom. Now they are on the floor before me. Shortly they will be behind me.

Anonymous said...

Our town officials dont need this blog to shoot the messenger, they do it right in public meetings.

I went to school with Mark Accard. I remember Phil starting off selectmen meetings reading his statements about him. And Acciard just filed a complaint about Phil voting on police stuff as a selectmen, DUH, No brainer! nobody can survive those attacks in a small town. And what the jackass did to Mrs. Grant wasn't much better. If I was her husband I would have punched him, when he came across the room and started screaming at my wife nose to nose. That would have been IT! But it was ok, for our selectmen.

And you wonder why they have no respect?

Anonymous said...

It's obvious you didn't graduate from the academy since you're grammer is worse than the typical
5 th grade student. Grammer policeman, where are you?

Anonymous said...

To Mr Duh, I thought you left town.....DUH

Anonymous said...

Didn't Carol or a family member get convicted for dumping sugar into a certain person's vechicle?
What a nice and sweet victim she is!!

Anonymous said...

The critic falls back on grammar and spelling because that is all they got. They have no defense against the truth. So they go after spelling errors.

Anonymous said...

What are you going to say when BOTH Maggie and Daniel Osborn get convicted of Criminal Taking?

Since such a conviction has jail time attached, will you be taking them their bread and water meals?

Who will be taking care of their kids while they are away?

Anonymous said...

Didn't Carol or a family member get convicted for dumping sugar into a certain person's vechicle?
What a nice and sweet victim she is!!

I do not believe this but we "see" you.

Anonymous said...

I drove down the real Valcat the other night and drove out the illegal end. No way can the residents get thru this is winter. The place where the illegal meets the old road is at a right angle and is about 30 percent grade.

That area is stripped of trees and looks terrible now.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry, the Osborns don't intend to live there. They want to turn the place over and leave another mess for the next buyer to pick up. They only intended to rob from the poor and pocket the profit.

Definition of Osborn = Thief, liar, crook, and opportunist.

JMO

Anonymous said...

I do not believe this but we "see" you.

November 2, 2009 11:57 AM

Can you "see" through my ninjacloak
even when you're in a circle jerk
with your cronies? I'm suprised you could type with you're hands
preoccupied.

Anonymous said...

JMO,
We support you even if you twist the facts a little. Who cares since the perps use the same technique all the time!
Keep twisting JMO and I'll believe
you!
JMHO aka JMO aka circle jerker

Anonymous said...

Very smart lady, I would do the same. It's redickulus to have cars go up the Davis's drive. Go see for yourself.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Carol or a family member get convicted for dumping sugar into a certain person's vechicle?
What a nice and sweet victim she is!!

IS THIS THE NEWEST POLICE REPORT FILED BY THE OSBORNS?

Anonymous said...

Driving up by the Davis house is the only legal right to pass. Just continues to show you won't do anything right. Life is NOT ALL ABOUT U, MAGGIE, DANIEL AND PAUL SHEA!

Anonymous said...

I'm confused I thought his name was Jack?

Anonymous said...

I'll make some assumptions.

Not sure if there was any real "legal rights" as much as there were assumptions made by all parties.

Mrs. Osborn assumed the penciled in ROW on the maps was the true ROW for Valcat Ln., but everyone before her, being somewhat lazy over the years, just used Mrs. Davis' driveway since it was paved.

Mrs. Osborn also assumed her neighbors on Valcat Ln. would want to chip in to build a new driveway from Chase Island Rd. to Valcat Rd. Let's assume some even said they would.

And she also assumed since Valcat Ln. was a private road and she owned the last 3 lots, she owned that section of the road.

Now Mrs. Osborn may have assumed Mrs. Davis would favor this change since her grandchildren play in the driveway at times and are in danger due to the traffic through it. The current access is right into Mrs. Davis' driveway towards her garage, around the side of her house and up onto Valcat Rd. at the top of the hill.

Now let me assume Mrs.Davis was OK with this new driveway construction and believed the penciled ROW was legal until Mr. Artus stirred the pot. At that time lets assume she acted like the balloon boys parents and denied everything. Again, let's assume it was for the money.
To make matters worse, let's assume Mr. Artus also filed the watershed complaint with the state to really gum up the works.
This is starting to make me assume Mr. Artus has what some here would call a personal vendetta against Mrs. Osborn.

But you know what they say when you assume?
If you do it will make an ASS out of U and ME.

Anonymous said...

Sugar in a gas tank you have got to be kidding me? Is that another new one? You can work over 50 hrs a week and not be home. And still be blamed for someone else's childish behavior this is blasphemy.

Anonymous said...

What the blog doesn't report is that Mrs. Davis driveway is a mess. She has five cars at her home. A asphalt truck that her tenant keeps their over night. Before the Osborn's purchased their property neighbors on Valcat were tired of glass, unattended toddlers playing in the driveway, street, taking mail out of neighbors mail boxes, garbage everywhere. All of this reported to the APD and code enforcement. The Town did nothing about the continues complaints. Mrs. Davis has had five different children going to Atkinson Academy over the last four years all claiming to be her grandchildren. She has an illegal in-law apartment, and rents her home. The gentlemen living their are not her grandson. Another gentlemen lives their as well. She claims that one is her brother. The neighbors on Valcat Lane are all paying for the new ROW so they don't have to drive past the Davis junk yard to get to their lake homes. A Judge made Mrs. Davis remove the dumbed vehicle not the APD. APD did nothing because it was a conflict for the Chief with elderly affairs. Mrs. Davis should clean up her act. She purchased the property with knowledge of both ROW. She has not right to keep the neighbors from improving deeded access to their property. The neighbors will be seeking damages from Mrs. Davis. This may look like the Osborn's but it is a neighboring effort to improve Valcat Lane. The neighbors also paid to pave Mrs. Davis's driveway a few years ago and have been plowing it for her as well. Maybe Mrs. Davis doesn't want to lose all her free assistance. Any one who gets involved with a character like Leon, speak volumes about them. You are the company you keep.

Hemlock Heights Assoc. who has come to her defense now. Has had her so called grandchildren escorted of their beachs by the APD.

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones!

Anonymous said...

Nice try at slander, but Carol Davis NEVER put or was convicted of putting sugar in someone's gas tank, you ass.

Anonymous said...

classic blame the victim.

Anonymous said...

Hey 1:41;

1.)been up to Valcat 3 times a week since this started watching the show. No trash, or mess in the ROW going up the side of the Davis house.

2.)Neither APD or Code Enforcement is aware of the complaints you mention, so they are probably filed with the Osborn house vandalism, and the numerous, vehicle run down attempts from 3 different people.

3.) ALL the valcat neighbors have NOT pitched in on Maggies driveway. Dubrov said at the meeting that she sent him a bill for $6000. and he wasn't paying it because Valcat was fine for him, he didn't need the new construction. The only neighbor paid to date is Paul Shea.

4.)The Judge made her move the car this past Thurs. but when Maggie first called APD, APD, a month ago, told Carol's kid to move it or they would tow it. That is why the first car placed on CAROL'S PROPERTY was moved.

5.)Carols deed(see it online at NHdeeds.gov) only mentions ONE ROW across her property, not two.

6.) Maggies deed9see it online at nhdeeds.gov) doesn't mention Carol's property at all, and does not mention an easement deed across carol's land.

Oh Paul and Maggie, February is going to be a costly month.

Anonymous said...

Carol Davis can do what ever she wants, but don't cry victim and help me when you have two young men living with you who play with their shot guns in the front yard, stand at the garage door with their two pit bulls. That like their cars are not registered or licensed in our town. LAW ( must register your cars and dogs within 30 days!) The children going AA don't live at 6 Chase Island road, just visit with their mother who is one of the tenants sisters from MA.

She was told about the right of way a year ago, when her other brother, wife, granddaughter, boyfriend and 4 kids lived with her. Why didn't she send a letter saying she didn't want it, call the town then? No, waited of Leon to come along to tell her what to do.

Leon tells her let's play the age card, we will make you a victim. If the town won't help you buy a crashed car and block them! Wrong, buy a car say it's yours, on your property unregistered. That will stop them! Poor Carol needs better advice.

From, MAGGIE,DANIEL,JACK, PAUL of course! Because we know you can "see" us.

Anonymous said...

Since when is it a crime to take your work vehicle home? And may I ask what is it your business? No one calls the cops or complaints about the machines you have had running in the past at the ass crack of dawn. People in glass houses should not throw stones? Now we know who the stone thrower is don't we Maggie? Also Mrs.Davis does have her brother staying with her which is really none of your business is it? The other man you talk about is her adopted son by law would you like to see the papers nosey? NOT THAT IS ANY OF YOUR BUISNESS EITHER ! LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE APERSONAL VENDETTA AGAINST THE DAVIS HOUS HMMMM ,You are pathetic you have nothing left so you are going to attack a family just to make you feel better about what you have done. You are pathetic, absolutely pathetic and I truly deep down inside feel bad for you. Notice I still smile and wave to you when I see you because I am not going to lower myself to your level. "Love thy neighbor" the good book says and I will. As cruel and as mean and revengeful as you have been there is a difference between You and I. I will not lower myself like you have i am trying to teach my children to be right. and protecting what you want and trying to make lives miserable in the process is not a good thing to teach your children.So go ahead and throw your stones at my glass house if it makes you feel better you do you.

Anonymous said...

FOR ONE IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE ACCUSATIONS GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT YOU IPATANT .LOL LOL THERE IS 1 DOG ONE GUNS YOU ARE A COMPLETE MENTAL CASE DOES A BBGUN CONSTITUTE FOR A SHOT GUN YOU ARE REALLY MAKING YOURSELF LOOK LIKE THE CRAZY ONE .AND TO TOP IT OFF THE CHILDREN WHO LIVED THERE LEAGALLY LIVE IN THAT HOUSE THEY SLEEP THERE THEY EAT THERE THEY PLAY THERE THERE MAIL IS SENT THERE SO THEY LIVE THERE PICK ON SOMEONE ELSE MOVE ON MAGGS!

Anonymous said...

Carol Davis can do what ever she wants, but don't cry victim and help me when you have two young men living with you who play with their shot guns in the front yard, stand at the garage door with their two pit bulls. That like their cars are not registered or licensed in our town. LAW ( must register your cars and dogs within 30 days!) The children going AA don't live at 6 Chase Island road, just visit with their mother who is one of the tenants sisters from MA.

She was told about the right of way a year ago, when her other brother, wife, granddaughter, boyfriend and 4 kids lived with her. Why didn't she send a letter saying she didn't want it, call the town then? No, waited of Leon to come along to tell her what to do.

Leon tells her let's play the age card, we will make you a victim. If the town won't help you buy a crashed car and block them! Wrong, buy a car say it's yours, on your property unregistered. That will stop them! Poor Carol needs better advice.

From, MAGGIE,DANIEL,JACK, PAUL of course! Because we know you can "see" us.

Anonymous said...

MISSPELLED WORDS DUE TO BEING PISSED OFF ABOOUT PEOPLE SPEAKING SH*T THEY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT??? SICK

Anonymous said...

I don't have to post anon because I am not scared of you . How ever you are speaking about my children stating they are not my kids and that they are not residents of this town you are mistaken. And I am asking you nicely to leave my children out of your personal attacks to get back at whomever. I ask as MOTHHER in frot of this whole blog to leave us alone!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nicole

Anonymous said...

To November 2, 2009 12:19 PM

nasty, filthy trash

Anonymous said...

OSBORN CHILDREN ILLEGALLY ATTENDING ATKINSON ACADEMY.
The only children I know of going to AA illegally is the Osborn children. The Osborns sold their last home in April of 2008, yet their children still go to Atkinson Academy. Where have their children been living for the last 1-1/2 yrs? It couldn't have been on their island, because that is seasonal, and has no winter access. Can the Osborns answer that question. Are they PAYING for their children to go to AA.

Anonymous said...

Excuse me you are pathetic and childish that you can even state your name you post anon call me nasty filthy and trash....That just proves to me what kind of person you are i am not insulted by you i am sorry you have nothing left but to insult my children and I. You are not making yourself look to good here. I feel sorry for you:( shame
Nicole

Anonymous said...

The other residents of Valcat have deeded rights to the real ROW. If they were to use anything else, they could be held liable for damage as well. Also, thinkof all the deeds that are affected by all this. If anything changes, all these people will have to get their deeds redone and refiled, plus attorney fees, mortgage affected, title searches again.

Nice going.

Anonymous said...

I recall an incident that the Grants were involved in where they were caught dumping sugar into a vehicle's tank. Can anyone verify this?
To posters with poor writing skills: go take an adult course on basic reading and writing. Your posts will have an air of credibility....
spelling police wannabee

Anonymous said...

Lots of accusations about vandalism, sugar and threats. Where are the police reports that they MUST have filed?

Bet there aren't any.

Anonymous said...

Real seeing is done with the mind, not the eyes. We see what you are about by your words and your vulgarity.

Anonymous said...

The Grants have never stooped to the level of their accusers and now after too many years of being targeted and slandered, we see what great people they are and what good they have done for this town.

Anonymous said...

The Osborns do live in that house. Kids are dropped off and picked up by other parents for play dates. Parents who are so concerned about their children should not keep their kids living in a construction zone. Maybe someone should call DSS and ask if it's ok for the children to be there, is it safe? We all know how concerned they are for the kids safety.

Anonymous said...

Nicole, the remark about the trash was not directed at you or your children.

Anonymous said...

You know don't drag Maggie's kids into this this is not right!!! I am angry at her for bashing my family and children, but don't lower yourself. Children are innocent and that is totally not right to call DSS on someone if you truly do not have proof or facts familys get torn apart that way.

Nicole

Anonymous said...

I feel your pain anon 3:36 pm but please don't threaten with DSS unless there is clearly abuse.

Anonymous said...

Thank you anon3:38 pm

Nicole

Anonymous said...

Those kids shouldn't be living in a house that's under construction and without permits. This house has no sprnkler system OR FD approved road.

So, sorry but the kids should not be there and someone should be looking out for them, even if it means calling DSS.

Anonymous said...

I totally understand what you are saying. But there has to be another way. That's all I am saying.

Anonymous said...

Wow, this is priceless, more victims! Leon's new name should be Sibble! How many more people can he, Brownfield and Mark play to keep slandering others. At least they are not picking on the BOS, PD or Frank today. But wait till after tonight's meeting. Tomorrows a new day for the blog.

Anonymous said...

Maybe they will move on this is getting old and boring.

YAWN!

Anonymous said...

Sibble?
hahaha. Get the spelling police back.
It's Cybil.

Anonymous said...

or Sybil

Curt Springer said...

RSA 193:12 Legal Residence Required (for school enrollment)

Anonymous said...

Thanks Curt for your imput, it's people like you that will help us
take care of the pond scum that dirties our good town. I hope these
relatives and friends that may or may not be legal are paying attention to your post. The rsa's are plain and simple: read them.
JMO

Anonymous said...

As someone who has been following this on the blog and has no connection to either side in this dispute, I must say that the Osborns are coming off here as quite a despicable group of people, and it's getting worse with each post.

Besides attempting to circumvent our zoning and conservation laws, the try to get around the same fire codes the rest of us must follow. Now they want to alter other peoples' land and trash what may be a public road?

Besides making it appear that they believe that only suckers have to follow the law, they want to try to get their neighbors' children thrown out of school? And they lie and exaggerate to try to make their neighbors look badly here. Have the Osbornes no shame? And while their own children are residing in a home that still violates fire codes and may not have an occupancy permit?

They repeatedly attack Leon, someone who has worked tirelessly to get other people rebates at no charge to them? It seems the Osbornes have become nothing less than a poisonous tick on our town, and i wish they could learn that the more they post, the WORSE they look on here.

Anonymous said...

Curt thank you for that tad of info it was very helpful....as for you JMO we are legal residents and so are our children. But thank you for your concern I appreciate it . How can your children not be residents, if they eat, bathe, wipe there ass, play and sleep at there home???? hmmmm So I think people should get there facts straight before attacking.

Anonymous said...

"..while their own children are residing in a home that still violates fire codes and may not have an occupancy permit?"

A fire or other disaster and the illegal occupants will sue the town, BOS, ZBA, and fire department for not enforcing codes resulting in child endangerment.

Oh how sweet it is.

Anonymous said...

Thank you morons for distracting the town away from the real problems in our town. Two people in a property dispute is much more important than the real issues.

On behalf of Phil, thank you so much cause he needed a distractsion to push through his stupid budget and mismanagement of tax dollars while your all wasting your time bitching on the blog.

Curt Springer said...

How / when are sprinklers required in this case?

From the **2008** version of the Atkinson zoning ordinance:

http://www.town-atkinsonnh.com/2008%20zoning%20ord.pdf

620.10 Sprinkler systems
a. Residential buildings.
1) DELETED 1994
b. Commercial or industrial buildings.
1) All commercial or industrial facilities shall have a sprinkler installation
which is in accordance with NFPA 13 standards and which consists of
the following:
(a) A dry sprinkler system. "Dry sprinkler system" shall mean a
system employing automatic sprinklers attached to a piping
system containing air under atmospheric or higher pressures,
with loss of pressure from the opening of a sprinkler or detection
of a fire condition allowing fire-suppression agents to be injected
into the piping system and out the opened sprinkler.
BC-6
(b) Exterior connections to the dry sprinkler system which meet the
approval of the Atkinson Fire Department for adequacy and
accessibility and are equipped to connect with a public water
system in the event it becomes available.
2) Storage buildings may or may not be required to have sprinkler system
installations. Determination shall be made by the Atkinson Fire
Department.
c. Places of public assembly
1) Sprinklers shall be installed in all buildings used to accommodate public
assembly of more than fifty (50) persons. The Atkinson Fire
Department shall determine the type of sprinkler system required by
taking into account the largest potential number of persons who can
safely assemble within the structure at one time and the relationship of
that number to NFPA 13 and 13-D standards as applicable.
d. Occupancy and life-safety classifications
1) Buildings which are classified as occupancy hazards or life safety
concerns, as determined by NFPA Codes 101 and 1231, shall have a
fully working fire suppression system on site, with extinguishing agent
being either chemical compounds, CO2, halon, water, or any
combination thereof, as required by the Atkinson Fire Department.
(1988)

I saw nothing about sprinklers in the 2009 warrant articles in the latest town report

Anonymous said...

the house right next door had to sprinkle why is that

Anonymous said...

Because the town is playing favorites that is why.Plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

WTF do the Grants have to do with Maggie's ill treatment of her neighbors?

The New Guy said...

Who stole my last post and re-posted it? I'm not going to start to make assumptions, but did you like it that much?

This place is starting to turn into a riot. Quick, get out the riot gear.

As always, there are 3 sides to every story. Pick a side.

And I can not believe you old guys would accuse a resident of pouring sugar into a car gas tank. That is just wrong. My friend who read the FAA report never mentioned a car.

Then again, what do I know? I'm a new guy.

Curt Springer said...

From Atkinson Building Code Guide

"Complete building plans must be submitted at the time of foundation permit. Dwelling height is not to exceed 35’. If driveway exceeds 150’ from the edge of a public road, it’s width must be improved to 20’ of unobstructed width (NFPA 3-5.1 Fire Lanes) or the dwelling must be sprinkled."

Is this the basis for requiring the Osborns to install sprinklers?

State law authorizes administrative creation of a statewide fire code with extensions by local vote. The state has adopted NFPA 101 2003 edition with some modifications.

I don't see a requirement there for sprinklers in one or two family dwellings although they are permitted.

I could be wrong, but I don't see any statutory basis for requiring sprinklers in one or two family houses absent a town vote.

Anonymous said...

Curt,
Once again you have great wisdom and vision. Did anyone mention to you that the FD chief's son just happens to run a sprinkler enginering company?

Anonymous said...

New guy - sapia

Anonymous said...

Interesting: Google Osborns' attorney Tony Soltani 2006 accident.

Anonymous said...

Valcat ln. is only 14 or 16 ft. wide. I believe that was the basis. Not to mention that it is a McMansion way overbuilt. 400-600 sq.ft. more than plans used to obtain variance for excess building. Foundation 2ft wider. Living space above garage. etc.

Anonymous said...

No doubt Maggie is in a VERY DESPERATE situation. She has got caught in many lies, failure to follow conditions of her building permit, stealing land and trees from her neighbors, engineering a road without designs, building a house larger than permitted, faltered on DES requirements which is being investigated, dropped property values of her neighbors, got her husband arrested, made enemies of her neighbors, living in a house without occupancy permit, in multiple fights with town officials, angered road agent & fire chief, kids illegally enrolled in Atkinson school system, being sued in superior court, lied to her attorney, and still hasn't been able to bully an occupancy permit from the building inspector.

She has done all this to herself, and still wants to paint herself as the victim? Give me a break! She is the neighbor from hell.

Best solution would be to revoke her building permit, bulldoze the house, seize the land, tar and feather the whole family, and ride them out of town on a rail. Neighbors from hell should be sent back to where they came from. Never be allowed to build in Atkinson again. Osborns are a plague on our land.

Anonymous said...

"No doubt Maggie is in a VERY DESPERATE situation. She has got caught in many lies,"

The problem is they are not her lies, but the blog's lies. I'm glad I don't have to live in that trash infested neighborhood and I'm not speaking about the litter.

Anonymous said...

No, they are lies of her own doing. Selectmen told her that and made it clear she dug her own hole and craweled into it.

She now has to did herself out by meeting all the conditions of her building permit. She can't meet those conditions, so she is done.

As one wise man said: "It couldn't happen to better people"!

Anonymous said...

Valcat was a nice neighborhood until the rich, white trash moved in a built an over sized house.

Most trash can be picked up and disposed of, but that white trash will always be trash no matter where they live.

Anonymous said...

"got her husband arrested"

do tell. Daniel was arrested?

Anonymous said...

craweled,

She now has to did herself,

white trash moved in a built an over sized house.

Whats that saying? Oh, I remember!
White trash can't read or write.....very well.

It's the parents who need to sneak into the academy and learn 3rd grade writing skills.

Let me guess, you're too upset to spell with any clearity.
JMO

Curt Springer said...

Taking the sprinkler regulation at face value, if the Osborns can travel down their claimed ROW less than 150 feet to the town road, there is no need for approval of the engineering of the driveway. There are no slope requirements for driveways less than 150 feet. From the the plan of Davis's lot, it appears that it is about 150 feet.

I'm not saying that they are entitled to use the ROW.

Anonymous said...

Friday, May 12, 2006
Soltani Sip and Run
Everyone's favorite New Hampshire bigot, Tony Soltani, pleaded innocent to hit-and-run charges.

The Granite State's number one elected homophobe became infamous for his railroading of the state marriage commission. He denied reality there too. This time though, the minority opinion is likely to come from a judge.

From accounts, including the woman whose car he knocked off Interstate 393 around lunchtime on Valentine's Day, he'll need more than his bluster and bull to get out of this one.

State police charged him with negligent driving and conduct after an accident. They say he slammed into the side of the other car, knocking her onto the shoulder and forcing his own car into the median. He then took off without slowing or stopping.
lol lol lol

Anonymous said...

State Rep. Tony Soltani of Epsom has been charged with leaving the scene of an accident on Interstate 393, according to complaints prepared by the state police.

Soltani, 44, will be arraigned May 8 at Concord District Court for conduct after an accident, a misdemeanor charge, and negligent driving, a violation, according to the complaints.

The state police say that Soltani knowingly struck another car on I-393 in Concord Feb. 14, knocked the vehicle into the shoulder and continued westbound without stopping.

Soltani yesterday called the Valentine's Day accident a minor dust- up and said he was unaware of the collision until state troopers contacted him later in the day. When they examined

nice !!

Anonymous said...

State Rep. Tony Soltani of Epsom has been charged with leaving the scene of an accident on Interstate 393, according to complaints prepared by the state police.

Soltani, 44, will be arraigned May 8 at Concord District Court for conduct after an accident, a misdemeanor charge, and negligent driving, a violation, according to the complaints.

The state police say that Soltani knowingly struck another car on I-393 in Concord Feb. 14, knocked the vehicle into the shoulder and continued westbound without stopping.

Soltani yesterday called the Valentine's Day accident a minor dust- up and said he was unaware of the collision until state troopers contacted him later in the day. When they examined

nice !!

Anonymous said...

Curt, the problem is that she agreed to submit engineered plans so that the Fir Chief could determine that it can hold the weight of a truck. Add to that the slope requirement placed upon her by the fire chief of 8%, do to the length and weight of the fire trucks. That reg has to do with fire access roads. Her slope is 13.7%, btw, how are her neighbors up there going to get their boat trailers up there with that slope and a 90 degree bend in it?

tim dziechowski said...

I measured the length of the right of way with a wheel. Distance to the house is >150'. There is also the issue of the distance of their house from the neighbor's house. Mr. Dobrov next door had to (and did) sprinkle his house because it was too close to the Osborns. I believe they have to sprinkle their house because it is too close to his.

We discussed the cost of residential sprinkler systems at a recent planning board meeting. It's $7K and up for an average house according to builders we asked. The PB has no interest in forcing residential sprinkers on people but there are organizations trying to backdoor it into the international residential code. So far NH building associations and our state legislature have resisted this unfunded mandate.

Given what the ROW work must be costing, I can't imagine why the Osborns didn't just sprinkle the house. Unless they're planning to flip it like they did with their last house.

Anonymous said...

I feel bad for the people that bought her other house what a disaster they have been dealing with. Just goes to prove how ignorant some people can be.

Anonymous said...

Leon just jealous, he has lost his lawsuit against the BOS, Chief not afraid to arrest his crazy ass. Getting his girlfriend sued. Osborns get to use the new ROW he does not. Jack and Daniel will run for Selectmen and then what will he do? No one would elect you with your record.

He may have to get a real job!

Anonymous said...

When the Osborn's put this house up for sale, perhaps the neighbors can put up signs warning potential buyers against buying it. Better to warn those buyers than having to listen to them after buying.

Anonymous said...

Leon Artus of Maple Avenue, age 62 , has been charged with misdemeanor reckless conduct for a motor vehicle-related incident.

See video on u-tube!

Anonymous said...

Dancing to the "Jail House Rock"

Anonymous said...

No Leon Artus on youtube.

Anonymous said...

You are sick you know just as well waht happend that day. And leon did nothing wrong. you people are sick and what goes around comes around.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 289   Newer› Newest»