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.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
281 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 281 of 281And our selectmen stand by on the sidelines and do nothing, allowing our townspeople to be run over by these bullies. Unbelievable...
yup....some things will never change
Windham house purchased by his parents. Has an in-law suite. Their oldest son has been enrolled in school there and will start after christmas break. Parents move in January. They want them out of Hemlock Heights. I showed their parents home all summer long. They are moving up from Florida. They looked at homes on Winslow Drive, Parents didn't want to build because of their daughter in-laws track record with the building department.
They are going sooner then you think!
Can't go until their house is sold and I think that will be a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOG time happening.
I think it's time for selectmen to hit them with a $500 a day fine for living in the house without an occupancy permit.
How about it selectmen, ready to go to work?
How about it DES, your fines will be even greater!
Osborn's have plenty of money and the fines will keep our tax rate down. Just don't take any checks from them.
The board knows she is living there with no permit they are not going to do anything about it.
"No one would elect you with your record.
"
You elected Fred didn't you? Leon is not facing felony charges, nor has he been convicted of anything.
So Osborns are planning on skipping town before the fines catch up with them. Interesting!
Is Sapia going to move in with them too? (Wouldn't want to break up the wolf pack) Jack Daniels could run for selectman and ZBA in Windham and start the whole big scam again. Jack could teach Maggie how to play tennis while Daniel is away, and they could all be one big happy family. :)
Nice work if you can get it, and Atkinson could score a three for one. Get rid of all three in one move.
NICEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Lies, no proof once again, Realtors take an oath of confidentiality. Wonder if your broker is aware of your tall tails. I'm sure you were not the selling agent. How dare you spread these rumors! We will be calling your boss tomorrow. Your office could be very liable for your comments. Think before you write, more people then you know read this blog for some reason. Busted!
Don't pick on Fred! He is one of the good guys!
3:51 comment should be removed.
I agree. 3:51 should be removed. Let's be a little more civilized. I think what the Osborns have done is wrong. But 3:51 is crossing the morality line.
Ladies and Gentlemen;
Once again, We would prefer your comments to relate to the article at hand, but we do not regulate that, however if you can not keep your personal comments clean, they will be removed.
So a little lathering up shower action would be okay then??? Nice and squeeky clean.
Hee hee. Gonna make her pick up the soap???
Tim wrote:
"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."
Question for Tim (or anybody else who can answer):
Danville voted in 2005 to require sprinklers in all new houses, except in specific situations where cisterns were allowed as an alternate.
At first I thought that Atkinson had voted a blanket requirement with perhaps some exceptions.
But, since the town did not vote to require sprinklers, and the state code does not require them, how is it that **some** people in Atkinson must have them? Who gets to decide that a house is too far from a town road or too close to another house? And what is the legal basis?
Leon is on you tube? I can't find it. I think someone is telling tall tails.HMMMMMM
Ok so the Osborn's are living at the house without occupancy. The police and the town cannot do anything about it? I am confused what do we have a pd and bos for, If neither of them can do anything?????
"And leon did nothing wrong. you people are sick and what goes around comes around."
If Leon did not do anything wrong, why is this blog so quiet about it?
It was a major event when he claimed his freedom of speech rights were violated. This was a blog topic for months. We were promised that justice would prevail, before, of course, the case was dismissed so it would never go to trial.
Then he gets arrested. Compared to a freedom of speech complaint, this is major big league. So, what happens on the blog? Nothing. Other than a few weak claims he was railroaded, nothing.
This does not make any sense at all. Why has there not been the great outpouring of anger at his being arrested than there was after the Deliberative Session? Being arrested, by the Atkinson PD, seems to be fertile ground for a mass outcry. But wait, there was none.
Could it be, gosh oh mighty, he's actually guilty this time. I find no other explanation to explain why his arrest has not been a domineering topic here.
Some say it is payback. Payback for what? He was publicly humiliated with the dismissal of his case given all the hype that preceded it. Why would that PD have any interest in payback? He dug a hole and it got much, much bigger. Even an idiot would not go near it unless there was justification.
Look at the number of responses to this topic. It has to be near a record. But, it has been all about the Osborn's. Leon dropped out of sight and that is very uncharacteristic of this blog.
So, all I'm left with, his arrest had some merit. Prove me wrong, please. And do so with facts, not opinions. Facts hold up. Opinions here are worth the screen space they are written on.
NEW ARTICLE SUBMISSION
Fiscal Responsibility For These Difficult Times
Atkinson is now entering the budget season when department heads will either come in with budgets that (1) show their solidarity with our hard-pressed
taxpayers; or else (2)they will selfishly ’thumb their nose’ at our townspeople.
So many Atkinson households are struggling to make ends meet. The number of our townspeople
who have lost their jobs due to lay-offs, down-sizing or business failures is unbelievable. Many homes have gone on the market because financially-pressed owners can not meet their mortgage obligations.
These are very tough and difficult financial times for so many. Our town officials and department
heads have got to respect that when they submit their budgets for 2010.
Some department heads consistently act responsibly and come in with low budgets or at least, hold the line while other department heads regularly selfishly act like pigs at a trough, demanding more and more every year. Each year’s budget is an increase over the previous year’s.
TO ALL SELECTMEN AND BUDGET COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Please REFUSE to accept ANY AND ALL budget increases from dept. heads. Please hold the line
for the struggling tax payers you
are supposed to represent. Announce and then enforce a ZER0
TOLERANCE LEVEL for those giving taxpayers the bird.
to anon@November 3, 2009 9:53 PM
In our LFOD state, what do you think your selectmen should do, exactly? Do you think they should send armed men to remove a family from their own house on their own property simply because they refuse to install a sprinkler system? If you were an Atkinson selectman, would you personally vote to support such an action?
Thanks Curt. I don't support the Osborns, but how can the town Fire Chief make them sprinkle, what about his son working for both a sprinkling company and getting paid as a town fire employee? Seems that the Chief and his son have a conflict of interest. Mandating their own rules! We the taxpayers are paying for it.
The FD is no better then the other departments this blog hangs out to dry. The BOS have no power over the FD?
If what the town was doing to these people were being done to the blog supports this blog would be taring the FD and BOS apart.
The town has acted poorly again.
We appreciate your educated, honest opinion. Please keep posting.
Remember people: The Osborns AGREED to install a sprinkler system prior to starting the construction of their house.
If they did not want the sprinkler system, they should have done something then, not now. The town wants to insure the safety of the residents up on Valcat Lane. The Osborns are too far from the town road, up a steep incline, and away from any fire hydrants. Maggie keeps referring to the safety of her children. A sprinkler system would allow the family the time they need to escape a fire.
Her neighbor had to install a sprinkler system. Why does she think she is getting picked on. The fire chief has the authority to tell the Osborns to comply with their building permit.
Face it Maggie. The FD, BOS, & ZBA are only demanding you follow the rules like everyone else in town is supposed to.
The Osborn's agree to anything to get a project started, but never live up to their agreements. When the town attempts to hold them to their agreements, they thumb their nose at them.
What should the town do?
1. Evict them from the house until an occupancy permit is given. (It's a life safety issue)
2. Make them tear off the section of the house that was not permitted.
3. Force them to sprinkle.
4. Force them to supply the actual plans the house was built by.
5. Work hand and hand with the DES to verify the house is located on the property properly.
6. Have them remove all illegal docks.
7. Force them to meet ALL CONDITIONS of their building permit.
8. Force them to comply with the land use regulations.
If the Osborn's refuse to meet their obligations, the town should start fining them at $500 a day and have Sumner file a cease and desist order with the Superior Court, just like they did with Mase. Anything else would be showing favoritism to the Osborns.
It's time for our selectmen to get a backbone, or it's time to dissolve the planning board and ZBA. Using building regulations to punish most people while not applying them equally, is a travesty of justice. Shame on the selectmen for allowing this to happen.
Yes bos and town should fine osborns per day for all violations including illegal occupancy.
Why is the town protecting them?
Why, Curt are you not outraged?
Atkinson takes action against Mr. Mason but not these bullies.
Why is that?
Why do you support our selectmen remaining ineffective?
Yes Curt why do you defend them so? Why should one member of the community be treated differently than another if i were Mr.Mason i would be bringing this issues up to the board....What is so different?
Mr Springer will you tell us a story? Yes Uncle Curt, tell us a bedtime story. Yawn. Tell us the one about RSA 193:12
The two issue are very different. The FD and BOS can't not force through coercion applicants to do something that is not forcible lawfully to obtain their building permit. Sounds like the town was holding the permit unless the applicant agreed under duress to their demands. The building department has broken some laws in this case that are defendable in a court of law. The town will claim anonymity but will have to grant the C.O. and pay damages. If the town wants to spare taxpayers the expense they will resolve this before it goes to court. If the home meets condition of town building codes and regulations they must issue the C.O. it is not lawful to hold the applicant to conditions agreed or not over and above. The applicants are within their right to seek relief of these conditions if hardship can be proven. That is what they are probably being advised by their attorney. Hardship 101 paying on a mortgage for a livable home that has no c.o. and can't be sold.
This is not defending the Osborn's it's law and you would want the same rights if the town was forcing additional expenditures against you as well.
Unfortunately the neighbors have forced the town to remove themselves. The town will let the courts decide on your tax dollars so they don't have to deal with the nay sayers. This helps the applicant not the town. The town and it's council don't mind going to court. It cost them nothing, the costs goes to you, the taxpayer.
Looking from the outside in you are doing more damage then good!
BEATING AROUND THE BUSH AGAIN WHAT MAKES THE OSBORN'S DIFFRENT FROM MR.MASON????????????
THAT's a RIOT! Ok, BOS has TOTAL control over Fire as well as Police!
If Murphy's kid works for a sprinkler co. how is that a conflict, as long as the dept. doesn't mandate using his company?
At the same time, the police chief starts his own private charity, runs it out of the PD, and uses PD dispatchers to work on the PD clock sending out donation letters to his private business, but that is ok, for you?
The Osborns created their own hardship and will depend on the courts to bail them out of having to abide to the conditions of their building permit.
This must not be allowed to happen. The town must enforce every condition and make the Osborns pay the appropriate fines. The Osborns must not be allowed to escape their responsibilities, otherwise they will just go out and do it again.
It's time to use the Osborns as an example of how not to abuse the system, or others will follow the Osborn example.
It's time to real in the Osborns, once and for all. The Osborns must be made to pay for their mistakes and pay big.
JMHO
Osborns, Osborns, Osborns, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
JMHO=Frank
Duck and cover!!!!
The town of Atkinson has requested help from the court to require a local resident to remove work he had done to his house without permission from the town or state....NOW THIS SOUNDS ALL TO FAMILAIAR!!!!
Ya, and when will they do the same to the Osborns? Will they wait two more years, until she has moved and can't do anything about it? Will they let them off the hook? My guess they will and protect one of their own.
Great place America, unless you live in the Socialist Republic of Atkinson with Consentino at it helm.
I am disgusted and disappointed. I guess it pays to have pull or know people. A,nd that is a slimy way to dues business if u ask me .
Who has pull with whom and what are they pulling?
What police personnel are working on the clock for Phil's slush fund? and what are they doing? and why haven't you told the selectmen?
"Yes bos and town should fine osborns per day for all violations including illegal occupancy.
Why is the town protecting them?
Why, Curt are you not outraged?
Atkinson takes action against Mr. Mason but not these bullies.
Why is that?
Why do you support our selectmen remaining ineffective?
November 4, 2009 9:05 AM"
"Yes Curt why do you defend them so? Why should one member of the community be treated differently than another if i were Mr.Mason i would be bringing this issues up to the board....What is so different?
November 4, 2009 9:35 AM"
OK, since you asked:
First off, there are several issues involved here. Somebody can be right on one issue and wrong on another.
I don't know anything about the Osborns other than what I have read in this blog and in the ET, neither of which are unimpeachable sources of information. My focus is on rights and responsbilities. Maybe they are jerks, maybe not. It doesn't matter to me. Even jerks have rights.
Since you have not voted to require sprinklers, as my town did, I think RSA 154:18 is the claimed source of authority for your fire chief to promulgate regulations requiring sprinklers in dwellings. That law has been on the books for years, but from googling (not an entirely accurate or complete research method), it appears that only 3 other towns have used it to require sprinklers, Bow, Brookline, and Newington, and only in the last three years.
I have to wonder if it was the intent of the legislature to authorize this expansive and in my opinion arbitrary authority. I really don't know. It just seems to go against the grain in NH towns where most local regulation of land and buildings is done by town votes, not by local officials deciding what is best for us. My suspicion is that somebody in one NH town decided to be creative in their interpretation of the law, and then a few other towns followed suit.
I agree that the Osborns should make their intentions clear. If they think the town lacks authority to require sprinklers, they should say so and then go to court if the town continues to insist. If they are not going to object, they should comply.
But of course it is not that black and white, because of this exemption for a private driveway that meets certain standards. I think your fire chief has set you up for this kind of conflict by creating a "life safety" regulation that applies only to a handful of people in town, as I understand it. It naturally leads to charges of discrimination and arbitrariness.
(continued to next post)
(continued from prior post)
I don't claim any expertise on sprinklers or fire safety. But I do recall some of the high points when the Danville fire wards and chief made the case to the town for mandatory town-wide sprinklers four years ago. One thing to understand is that sprinklers not on town water don't give you much water. You have a tank with a fixed capacity and if a sprinkler head goes off you get 5-10 minutes max of sprinkling before it ends, whether or not the fire is extinguished. The point was that in towns like yours or mine we are ALL at risk because of the way we are spread out and the time that it takes for the fire department to get the alarm and arrive at the public road nearest your house. The sprinkler buys you time to get out of your house before the fire truck arrives. The additional time to travel down your driveway, be it 10 feet, 20 feet, or 100 feet is insignificant. And of course you can have a 20 or 40 foot driveway that is too steep for a fire truck to ascend.
And I particularly don't understand this business of requiring sprinklers where houses are too close to each other. How close together could any two houses be in Atkinson? How often do fires spread from one house to another on city lots in Haverhill or Lawrence?
So it seems to me that if your chief believes that sprinklers save lives and that he believes he has the legal authority to require them, then he should have required them for all new residential construction in town, not just a few select people. As it stands from a life safety point of view, a regulation that applies to only a few people increases life safety in your town by an insignificant amount, not enough to justify all the regulatory noise that you have to go through to decide if a partiular property should or not be sprinkled. You would have a stronger case for making the Osborns sprinkle if you made EVERYBODY sprinkle.
As one of you asked above, "Why should one member of the community be treated differently than another." I think that is exactly what is going on here with respect to sprinklers if you compare the Osborns to most other people building houses in your town.
A few words on other points of contention, while I have your attention:
Shoreland protection violations: If Tim D says they are in violation that's good enough for me.
ROW over Carol Davis's land: I think the Osborn's claims could be refuted in court. But I think that other people could have rights. Valente reserved the ROW when he conveyed to Catalano. I think the ROW could be construed to be a reservation to access other land of Valente. As well as dealing with Osborn, I think Davis should secure quitclaim deeds from people who bought from Valente after he sold to Catalano.
Valcat Lane: There seems to be an assumption that the present Valcat Lane and the "proposed road" on the 1920s Pedler plan are one and the same. But they are not. I mostly think that the Osborns have no right to block the road to travel beyond them. But there are some nuances involving the actual location of the traveled way and when people used it versus other routes to their property that I have not had time to look into.
Well done Curt! Thank you for facts.
from Planning Board Minutes of 3/16/08
Discussion: Ms. Osborn re: 8 Valcat, Map 22, Lot 47 -Class VI Road, Deed Addendum.
The Board reviewed RSA 674:41, Erection of buildings on Class VI roads. Ms. Killam outlined the issue and procedure. Ms. Osborn asked for an explanation of various Road Classifications. Mr. Stewart explained briefly that if a road is not state or town maintained, it is recognized as a Class VI. Mr. Dziechowski added further information in regard to the road classifications relative to Life Safety. Ms. Osborn noted that Valcat was a pre-existing road with pre-existing structures. Ms. Killam offered additional information regarding the permit process and requirements of a Deed Addendum under the RSA. Ms. Killam believed that any building permit on a Class VI road would require conformance with the RSA. Mr. Dziechowski reported that Town Counsel has recommended that a Deed Addendum should be required if a major addition is done. Ms. Osborn explained her understandings and her reluctance to do an Addendum. She reported that she had completed a Deed Addendum but was concerned about the possibility of decreasing the property value. She reported that she bought the property without the Deed Restriction and now is required to add this addendum to her deed. It does raise concern regarding what impact it may have on the property value. Mr. Dziechowski advised Ms. Osborn that she should check on the access issue onto Valcat, from Chase Island Road given that access is a civil matter, which might affect any future sale.
Mr. Friel, as Selectmen stepped off for the planning board vote because of his seat on the ZBA. Ms. Osborn explained the scope of work and read her Deed Addendum. Mr. Dziechowski had an issue with the language.
Ms. Miner made a motion that the board voted unanimously to recommend the Selectmen allow Malborn Realty Trust to obtain a Building Permit to build on a Class VI road, 8 Valcat Road, Map 22, Lot 47 as per RSA 674:41. The motion was seconded by Harold Morse and approved.
Selectmen Meeting 5/19/08
Scheduled Appointment
Daniel and Maggie Osborn came in for a building permit for 8 Valcat Lane. They were seeking the permission from the board for a building permit for a year round home on this Class VI road as the Osborns need to sign a waiver against their deed. Town Counsel had sent some material as to the form of this document. Mr. Friel reviewed the notes such as items #6 and #7 that were meant for the Road Agent to review and Mr. Kalman cited items #9 and #10. Item #10 addressed the building permit and that it needs to start construction within 12 months. Mr. Friel made a motion to accept the waiver under RSA 674.41 by the Osborns for 8 Valcat Lane if they add items #9 and #10 to the document. Mr. Childs seconded the motion and the vote was 3-0.
ZBA minutes of 3/11/09
Correspondence
Incoming
Atkinson Fire Department dated 2/18/09 re: 8 Valcat Lane, Denial of request to install a fire access road in lieu of proposed residential sprinkler system.
Understanding Residential Sprinkler Systems and Related Codes.
NH Communities with residential sprinkler ordinances
Curt, great information. It is still not clear to me where Atkinson stands. R-3 areas with single family dwellings? Is this area in question under that rule?
I don't feel comfortable commenting on the specifics of your town's requirements for sprinklers. Just from googling and comments in this blog there seem to be 3:
-- driveway longer than 150 feet
-- rural cluster developments
-- houses "too close" to each other.
I did some more googling and it appears that only Atkinson cites RSA 154:18 to require residential sprinklers. The other towns used it to regulate stuff like blasting.
It also seems from googling that the norm for adoption of sprinklers is by town vote, and that the requirement is town-wide.
I always say it "seems" or "appears" from googling because there is always the possibility of missing something relevant.
Here is some discussion from Salem that you might find helpful:
From Salem Planning Board minutes 1/13/09
Planning Board Amendment # 6 – Adopt 2006 NFPA Uniform Fire Code and 2006 International Fire Code
Mr. Moldoff explained that this deals with updating the 2006 NFPA Fire Code. The board has a letter that summarizes the changes and you also have a slightly updated version of the actual code.
Mr. Belanger stepped down from the board. Mr. Haroutunian joined the board.
Jeff Emanuelson, Fire Marshall for the Town of Salem, said this is primarily a housekeeping issue on a number of issues in the code. The NFPA and International Code Council are the two consensus bodies that we get our codes from. They are updated every three years. The Town of Salem hasn't updated their code on the Fire Department side since the 2003 Life Safety Code and the 2003 International Fire Code was adopted. What we're proposing is to update it to the 2006 International Fire Code and 2006 Life Safety Code and 2006 Uniform Fire Code (NFPA1). The State has adopted the 2006 International Building Code. Mr. Emanuelson discussed the major changes. These are highlighted in the packet.
Mr. Campbell asked, on the issue of the sprinkler system, especially in one and two family residences, is it presently in any code or is it a proposed Salem change?
Mr. Emanuelson said its part of the 2006 Life Safety Code. It will be in the 2009 International Fire Code and subsequent additions of the Life Safety Code.
Mr. Campbell asked, why isn't this cited in Chapter 216?
Mr. Emanuelson replied, we're on 187 at the moment.
Mr. Campbell said he is concerned because Salem has a lot of places without municipal water supply. Putting a sprinkler system in a place without municipal water is an expensive process. Its a big project and he is not sure that its appropriate where there is no public water supply. He'd like to know what the cost is and what we're imposing on the community.
Mr. Emanuelson said he is sympathetic to the cost of construction. Most of the developments that have come in require residential sprinklers in those developments. A residential sprinkler in a non-water district, includes tank, pump and the reservoir tank, which is generally a 200 to 300 gallon tank. They are designed to hold a fire to allow for evacuation of the home. Most times, they put the fire out. The cost to do these systems is, on average about $3 per square foot in new construction. Its a small percentage of the actual construction cost being incorporated into a residential sprinkler system. There will be savings that the homeowner will be able to achieve based on their insurance. We won't require them to have a fire alarm system and to have the sprinkler system report directly to the fire department. The annual cost would be routine maintenance. We believe that this is a progressive step forward in the life safety of our community.
Been off the net for awhile because I've been sick.
Curt, you are looking in the wrong places for where the sprinkler and fire road requirements get pulled in.
RSA 155-A:2 I and II mandate that all new buildings built in NH adhere to the state building code and state fire code.
The state fire code is contained in rules at Saf-C6000, and pulls in the 2003 editions of NFPA 1, the fire prevention code, and NFPA 101, the life safety code.
You can go to nfpa.org, create an account, and read the 2009 versions of the NFPA documents online. The 2009 version of NFPA 101 requires sprinklers for all new one and two family residential buildings (chapter 24). I don't believe the 2003 version (our current code) does.
The requirements for fire department access are laid out in NFPA 1 18.2.3, and this is unchanged from 2003 to 2009 AFAIK. This is where the 150' driveway length requirement comes in. The side setback isn't a distance, it's a requirement that the FD be able to access all side of the structure. I believe the minimum for this is 20'. The AHJ (local fire chief) can waive some of the FD access lane requirements for one and two family structures IFF the building is sprinkled.
There was a long thread about this on the state planner's email list about a year before you joined it.
The state agency that is responsible for state building codes is getting ready to adopt the 2009 International Residential Code, which also (independently of the NFPA 101) requires residential sprinklers.
Every time I slog through this stuff it makes me want to vote for Ron Paul.
Hi Tim,
Welcome back to the world of the well!!
I cited RSA 154:18 because it is on your town's ordinance page in an area labeled "sprinklers."
I had checked out RSA 155-A:2 and Saf-C6000.
I saw the reference to NHPA-101 2003 edition but missed the reference to NHPA-1 2003 edition.
NHPA-101 (2003) says that sprinklers are "permitted" in one and two-family dwellings. So I took it to mean not required.
So now I'm looking at NHPA-1 (2003), Chapter 18 Fire Department Access and Water Supply.
I guess I'm reading it differently from you. It lays out all sorts of requirements. But there is nothing saying that sprinklers are required if the requirements can't be met. Rather, it says "18.2.2.1.2 When access roads cannot be installed due to location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades, or other similar conditions, the AHJ shall be authorized to require additional fire protection."
So I take it to mean that the chief could require sprinklers, but he doesn't have to.
I just noticed that you can also select the 2003 versions at nfpa.org.
NFPA 1 2003
18.2.2.3
Additional requirements
18.2.2.3.1 Fire department access roads shall be provided such that any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located not more than 150 ft from fire department access roads...
18.2.2.3.2
When buildings are protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system that is installed in accordance with NFPA 13, NFPA 13D, or NFPA 13R, the distance shall be permitted to be increased to 450 ft.
Waivers are at the discretion of the AHJ (fire chief). So, yes, if you build a new house anywhere in NH and it is more than 150' from a fire lane (typically class 5 road or better), you have to either sprinkle it or turn your driveway into an approved fire lane.
I posted a screen shot of NHPA-1 (2003) Chapter 18.
Tim,
You could be right. I think it comes down to whether either route to Osborn's property, the existing one, or the new one (without regard to the legal issues), is a "fire department access road."
Your position (I think) is that a "fire department access road" is any private road or driveway that is available for use by the FD to access the building, regardless of whether or not it meets requirements for slope, width, turning angles, etc. That would mean that either route is a "fire department access road", and the 150 foot requirement would apply.
My position is or was (??) that these routes are not "fire department access roads", because they don't begin to meet any of the requirements.
Which is exactly why our fire chief told the Osborns they had to have sprinklers.
I just get more confused trying to figure this stuff out.
Look at 18.2.2.1.1 about no more than 2 one-family or two-family dwellings.
Tim, it's interesting that this did not come up in the Blake Road thing in Danville that you commented on. The house is most likely more than 150 feet from 111-A.
Went by the new driveway dug into Valcat and saw the Palmer Gas repair van stuck trying to climb it. Rear wheels on the shoulder of Chase Rd while the rest of the van was stuck up at a big angle. I turned around and saw the driver working to free his vehicle. Couldn't wait round to see if a tow truck got there. Have no idea why the driver tried to climb it. Hope the fire dept. knows better.
8 Valcat Lane Sold, Judge issue CO!
ZBA sent Baggie Maggie packing. Boathouse goes, Baggie Maggie goes. How sweet it is. Couldn't happen to better people.
Maggie Osborn bored the ZBA to death last night, with her relentless repeating of useless excuses of why she should be allowed to keep her boathouse / bunkhouse.
The board was more polite than I would have been, apparently because of fear of another lawsuit that she might bring if they didn't listen to her. I think they should have fined her a thousand dollars a minute as a whining fee. This woman just doesn't get it; the bunkhouse has to go. What part of NO doesn't she get? Is it the N or the O?
Where does she get the mentality that if she complains, threatens, and bullies town officials enough, they will give in to her demands? This woman is out of control and needs a swift kick right in the ass. Her dim-witted husband is to scared to do it, so it was nice to see the ZBA did it for him. They sent her packing with a promise she could back again next month. Let's see if she is stupid enough to take them up on their offer, or have the frontal lobotomy she needs in the meantime. I think the board is hoping for the latter.
If she does come back, perhaps the board could put up a circus tent and sell tickets for the freak show. That would drop our tax rate a couple dollars a thousand.
Watch what you wish for, the state would not require the boathouse to be removed. If the town does, maybe all the other sheds and boathouses in the future will be removed. There is a reason for the protective laws for pre-existing structures.
I know we want these people to have to pay, but what other structures have been removed and will this give ZBA the ability to make others remove structures to build a house. This is not what the state requires!
Be careful, your letting the local government take over. Would you feel the same if this was you?
We should probably be asking the town to follow the laws set forth by the people for the people.
The destruction of the shack called a bunkhouse, was a condition of issuing the building permit in the first place. Now that the building is done, once again, they don't want to honor their agreements.
The boathouse goes or the house goes. Which do they want to keep?
I am just saying watch what you wish for!
Maggie starts her paving today, with no Permit! This thing will stop at nothing to get what she want's. I hope the judge throws the book at her in Feb..... And he will you watch all that work for nothing!!!!!! Go look for yourself!! This woman is mad.
Who said they could not pave? The cease and desist was lifted?
You have to admit! It looks much better, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Why doesn't Carol Davis have all the neighbors use the new right of way, and move away from her house and driveway. Thats what I would want?
JMO
Can she do that?
THE WHOLE POINT IS THIS WOMAN DID THIS WITHOUT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY'S PERMISSION!!!!!!HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF IT WERE YOU THIS WOMAN THINKS SHE OWNS EVERY ONE AND EVERYTHING AND SHE CAN DO WHAT EVER SHE WANTS!!!!!!! MUST BE NICE!! SHE WILL GET HER'S IN FEB AND I CAN'T WAIT TO READ ABOUT IT LOL
What if carol wanted to build on that land? It is her land. now she cannot do anything cuz magz has her personal driveway there, that now that leads up to her unsprinkeld house!!! I think i am going to clear some trees in jmo's yard and make a basket ball course and you cannot do a dman thing about it. How about that! Just so i don't have to walk so far to play at the park!!!!! how is that any diffrent!
Anonymous said...
Can she do that?
Well no! But this is a woman who does not care if she can or can't do anything.
loL SHE HAS NO PROBLEM USING THE ORIGONAL ROW NOW THAT HER ASPHAULT HAS TO SET WHAT A MORON!!
OOPS TYPO!!
Carol could not build on the right of way. She is subject to the ROW on her deed. Have you read the deed Curt posted. The ROW listed is the new one! I don't know if the driveway can be put there? How do you know whose right here. I don't know much about deeds but Carols is pretty clear.
2:02 p.m.. You are being ignorant to the law. You do not need the owners permission to utilize a deeded ROW. You just have to make sure it is a ROW! A basketball court does not allow right of passage a driveway is an improvement and allows right to pass. That is NH law. A licensed surveyor could clear this up. Has Carol or Magz done that much? You will need that in a court of law.
JMO
a row already exsits why does maggie need another ?????????? across someonelses property ?
This woman is CROOK!!
CANT YOU SEE THAT SHE HAD ACESS TO HER HOME IN THE FIRST PLACE SO THER WAS NO NEED FOR ANOTHER ONE!!!! MAGGIE TRIED TO PLAY IT OFF AT FIRST THAT IS WAS LIFE SAFTEY ISSUE. WELL THE FIRE CHEIF ALREADY TOLD HER THAT THEY CANNOT DRIVE UP THERE THE WAY SHE HAD IT GRADED. SO WHAT NOW WHAT'S THE EXCUSE NOW THERE IS NOT ONE SHE KNEW WHAT SHE WAS DOING ALL ALONG. AND THE SNEAKY SLIMY WITCH.... AND NOW SHE FEELS SO THREATEND THAT SHE VIDEO TAPES HER NEIGHBORS.WHAT A FREAK NONE HAS DONE ANYTHING TO HER SHE BROUGH ALL THESE PROBLEMS ON HERSELF. AND NOW WANT'S TO CRY VICTIM...PLEASE!
and there was silence!!!!
But he has now decided to Get hold of on Las Vegas Experience no bankroll, appear for no-deposit bonuses. [url=http://www.onlinecasinoburger.co.uk/]online casino[/url] online casino The BetSafe casino PR management organizing the rivalry hoped that the Plump for for your represent as a benefit to their participant's Baseball club members. http://www.tasty-onlinecasino.co.uk/
Primary, you need to understand that your will be a short term personal loan [url=http://www.lobjy.co.uk/]same day payday loans[/url] loans same day What if you needed a to generate leads system that offered free of charge marketing training that coached you how to utilize the most advancements and techniques to rate yourself on line where individuals who are looking can buy you http://www.hayeo.co.uk/
Those that have bad credit information can also get in financial terms helped [url=http://www.bvtloansforbadcredit.co.uk/]bad credit loans uk[/url] bad credit payday loans Third http://www.bvtloansforbadcredit.co.uk/
Only asking for opportunity remaining for bad creditor is payday loans [url=http://www.gucxk.co.uk/]payday loans uk[/url] uk payday loans These types of credits are useful for individuals which has a nasty credit rating conjointly http://www.gucxk.co.uk/
vertisements more, to acquire this loan deal on the reasonable prices, you have to make a deliberate online research [url=http://www.mummypaydayuk.co.uk/]payday loans uk[/url] payday loans To solve the problem of such future candidates, many universities have developed up, wherever different courses are being offered http://www.bvnvpaydayloans.co.uk/
Post a Comment