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.

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Report from the Courtroom: Atkinson v. Osborns

Yes, although it is not known to most the Town has been in court twice in the last week against the Osborn's. This stems from the eviction Order obtained by the Town this summer against the Osborn's. The Osborn's are trying to do an end around the town by attempting to get the Court to rescind the eviction Order and allow them to live in the home until the issues are resolved "because it is the Christmas Season".

Maggie, in her Court testimony claimed to be "homeless", And Town Counsel, Sumner Kalman dropped the ball by not following up asking her where they stay every night, which would be the home that sits at 8 valcat ln. that they were evicted from in May.

Maggie in her court testimony also claimed that "they have done everything that the town has asked of them, except for two issues, which are in dispute" those being the sprinkler system and the tearing down of the boathouse. She conveniently ignores the fact that she agreed to the sprinkler system because the town can not get a fire truck up that road because it is too steep. She also claimed that she "thought she didn't need the sprinkler system after talking to the fire chief". She re-counts the town's numerous attempts to help her with a work around, but ignores her end of the proposals, for example:

She proposed a dry hydrant drawing from the lake in lieu of sprinklers: Problem is no one has a pump that can pump the volume of water necessary to fill an 8" pipe(hydrant width) to a height of 130', (roof elevation above the lake.)

She then proposed a cistern at the top of the ridge, which she claimed would benefit her neighbors as well. This never materialized.

She then claimed to have a "deeded right of way, directly to chase island rd.". Chief Murphy told her that if she did have that, and the grade was such that he could get a pumper up there, he would work with that as soon as she provided engineered plans for it. She provided no engineered plans, but went ahead and built her driveway(which it now looks like she may lose, because she built it) across Carol Davis' land, and even after cutting through Valcat ln 8' thereby cutting off access to the lots beyond hers, the grade is still 13.6%, FAR too steep for a 63' long, 17 ton fire truck.

Maggie's lawyer, made the claim that there was no access problem for their house, because her neighbor gets his pickup up there to plow, UPS and FEDEX get up there. Once again, Sumner dropped the ball by not following this juvenile comparison up by asking the relevance in these examples to getting a 63' long, 17 ton fire truck up that hill.

Forgotten also in Maggie's cloak of victimhood was the fact that the town ONLY gave her permission to build a 2,600 sq.ft. home because she claimed ownership of a direct right of way to Chase Island rd.and agreed to sprinkle, without that she would only have been allowed to build a 1,400 sq. ft. home on that site. She also forgot to mention that after submitting plans for a 2,600 sq.ft. home to get the building permit, she had Silverlake assoc. design a 4,400 sq.ft. home which is what was built.

The town, for their part does not want to "beat up" on the Osborn's during the Christmas Season, but spent the money, time and effort to go to Court to obtain an eviction Order, which they are now content to ignore. Why did they spend the money in the first place if they were not going to enforce it? The town is also faced with the hypocrisy of obtaining a court order for Mr. Mason to tear down the overbuilt portion of his home on the lake, while ignoring the VASTLY overbuilt Osborn Manse.

And our selectmen wonder why people get pissed at the high handed manner in which they selectively enforce and prosecute laws and violations in this town.


Anonymous said...

I am confused.

Moderator says the town is "content to ignore the eviction order". Yet the town just spent a couple days in court trying to get the eviction order upheld and enforced.

Which is it?

MAcciard said...

I may be mistaken but I don't think this hearing was on a Contempt petition for the original Eviction Order, I don't believe a Contempt Motion has been filed. I believe this was a previously scheduled hearing that arose from the preliminary issuance of the Eviction Order.

In other words, the Osborn's wish to have the Court effectively overrule the town's decision to withhold the OC.

Anonymous said...

Hmmm... so if the town prevails in these hearings, the Osborns will STILL not be forced to vacate?

At what point is the town within its rights to bring in the Sheriff and FORCE them out... bodily if need be?

Anonymous said...

It doesn't sound like the town tried very hard to win. Maybe they want to lose and then they can say they tried but lost and Maggie gets to stay.

I do not think the town will force them out, only select people are forced but obviously not Maggie.

Anonymous said...

To Anon December 11, 2010 11:06 AM

Are you less confused now, or are you a selectman trying to cover up your tracks while still trying to protect the Osborns?

Give it up Selectmen. The Osborns are TOAST. Start enforcing all the laws equally in Atkinson, before you become TOAST ALONG WITH THE OSBORNS.

Anonymous said...

Oh... now I get it.

The Selectmen secretly want the Osborns to get everything they want. They're all really really good friends with the Osborns.

And they've told Sumner Kalman to tank the case in court last week and he happily complied. He doesn't care about his ethical standards or his won-lost record so long as the Osborns win and the Selectmen are happy.

Have they also gotten Murphy on board to relent on the fire safety issues?

Do they also have the PB and ZBA in-the-tank for the Osborns? How about the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Ambassador from Estonia?

The Selectmen initiated eviction proceedings... right? They've withheld the Occupancy Permit... right? Are they holding firm on fire safety requirements (backing up the FD)? So they hardly seem to be in-the-tank.

The one item I do find odd is the discrepancy between the size home approved by the ZBA and what was built. I would like to hear an explanation as to how that occurred and seems to have been accepted.

Anonymous said...

Get on the Selectmen's meeting agenda and ask the hard questions. See for yourself how they handle you. Odds are that once you tell them what you want to talk about on TV, they will never schedule you.

Good luck

Anonymous said...

Sumner missed several opportunities in court last week. Maybe if they are really on the up and up as you say, they will seriously consider going out to bid on legal next time.

Anonymous said...

MAcciard could be right about what he said about a contempt motion being filed or not. What gets me is that Kalman had the right to ask in open court if the Osborns are living in the Valcort home and if not where they are now living in the proceedings. In my eyes he has failed the town by not doing as much. A new bumbling attorney or police prosecutor would have asked the question even if they were to be reprimanded. The Osborns do claim to be homeless after all!!!!!!!! Could there been a deal struck in the court chambers on this question or between the lawyers and or the selectmen? Christian or not no one likes to see anyone put out of their home[s] at this cold time of year holidays or not but then justice is JUSTICE.

Anonymous said...

Pleeez, the judge knows Osborne tactics, he will see thru the makeup excuses. Homeless, well then why do you still drive around in luxury vehicles, most homelss live in a tent on the river, with no transportation, food, or clothing. The fire inspector is the only one that stood to his ground and the law. Osbornes have had many months while homeless to appease the town requirements and they chose not to. Dont tell me that you couldn't find another house to rent for at least 60 days to get your C/O for the town requirements,so that you could have been legally in your home by Christmas.Oh yeah even if you do the sprinkler system, and tear down the boathouse, you still have to deal with oversized not permitted home? You think that we are just going to lie down and forget that? Anyone in Town who was mandated to rip down something that the town did not approve should leave it up. Selectmen you are going to have a revolution of Atkinson Town Taxpayers making you accountable. The Tax payors are going to have to pay for all the class action suits against all of you. Keep ignoring facts so we can push you out the door. I as a taxpayer will gladly pay for that. Osborns do what your supposed to do and shut up and live in your home. No one will bother you if you go by the rules.

Anonymous said...

Here is the basic problem that lands the town in Court time after time...

Selective enforcement of town polices/rules/ laws.

Example, Mr. Mason was taken to court, is being fined daily until he tears down the portion of his garage that exceeds his building permit.

osborns built a home that is 80% larger than permitted and they are being allowed to continue living in it even though the court ordered them to vacate.

Anonymous said...

The Mason case is a lot older than the Osborn case. Give it time. I know everyone likes instant gratification, but this is the court system and government we're talking about here.

Anonymous said...

The moderator posted this article because he KNOW'S the Osbournes have good cause to still be in the house. He's prepping us that the town may well LOOOOOOOSSSSEEEE the case. Reread his post and you will see for it is obvious that they were told they did NOT have to sprinkle. As for the oversized house, it's also obvious that this is not an issue with the town. There have been no legal proceedings in this regard and in fact the town has accepted it's footprint. Sometimes we just have to accept these things for what they are. I for one am ready to let them live in peace and try to
look past this squable. Its for the good of the town.... can't you see past your anger for once and do whats right?

Anonymous said...

To Maggie December 13, 2010 8:25 PM

Nice try Maggie but TOAST IS TOAST and you are TOAST. The Fire Chief NEVER told you, that you didn't have to sprinkle.

You and Daniel are TOAST and you know you are TOAST. Now the only issue is if the town tried to back you and become TOAST themselves.

Your are DONE in this town! Court decisions will prove you are done. AS you said along with selectmen: await the decision before the next suitS begin.


Couldn't happen to better people! They SMELL bad, TASTE BAD and are BAD, but a good couple that no one can stand.

Anonymous said...

Mason's case is not that much older, Mason settled with the Town and DES, he can't get out of the fines by the state, but certainly should take the chance and wait on the result of his neighbor Osbornes issue. Its a risk for him, but also a chance to prove that the Town only fingers certain people. He might be able to recoup money that he's lost in this battle by showing that Town isn't reinforcing the same with a neighbor down the street. I am sure he has talked to his lawyer. We all can't wait to hear the new excuses the Osbornes will use in this week's courtcases. Good Luck Ms Davis you deserve all the pain in suffering that you have gone thru in this ordeal.

Anonymous said...

Good luck Osborns!! Don't let the blog thugs drag you down. They're only interested in character assassination. Maybe if they weren't so openly hostile towards you they'd see what great people you are. We're all hopeful you get to sleep in your own house again soon.

MAcciard said...

To 8:25;

According to Court testimony, Mike Murphy only gave a conditional approval to not sprinkling in return for Maggie's many offers of enhanced fire protection for the house. Ie: Cistern, direct access for fire truck, etc. None of which has been done. You can't make an agreement, then back out of your responsibilities, and expect the other side to adhere to theirs.

The issue is still the same for the town, and as the Osborn's have kids in the house this SHOULD be their concern too.....

What happens if there is a fire in that house?

The nearest the town can get a truck is 230' to the garage, and if the fire is on the lake side of the house 310'.

How does the town provide fire protection for that house?

The requirement to sprinkle has nothing to do with state fire codes, it has to do with the topography of the land. There is no other practical way to provide fire protection.

BTW, Bernie Campbell's assertions that UPS and Fedex trucks have no trouble making it up there is ludicrous, they are not 60' long, and weigh 15-20 TONS! Hell even oil and propane truck have to back up the side of Carol Davis' house to deliver up there, because of the grade of the road.

Anonymous said...

Mason may be accumulating fines each day but don't expect him to pay those fines based on this report...

It will be interesting to see if he tears down his illegal addition by April 2011.

Anonymous said...

The Grant-Osborn civil hearings are this week I think; right?

If anyone is attending and can report, I'd be interested to hear about those proceedings.

Anonymous said...

Not Grant, it's Davis-Osborn.

Yesterday and today.

Anonymous said...

I don't live on the lake but have driven down Hemlock Heights before. It seems to me that if oil trucks, moving trucks and snow plows can get down that road then fire trucks can too. And if they can't, well then they should widen the road. And last time I checked, all those people live next to a lake, right? Take an axe, open up a hole in the ice and pump away. Seems like common sense to me.

And I'm not a lawyer, but a quick Google search showed me that the law requiring sprinklers was repealed anyway:

So the question is, if this weren't the Osborns, would the town really be making such an issue of this? Is this really where my tax dollars are going?

Anonymous said...

Nice try Maggie, but the court is not supporting your arguement. How does it feel to be TOAST?

Anonymous said...

Hey Maggie, since you feel that the town has wronged you, bring suit against them and see what that gets you.

You have two choices............bring suit........or turn states evidence which you were considering.

What to dooooooooooooooooo, what to dooooooooooooo to get away from all your lies.

Can hardly await your decision on what to doooooooooooooooooooooo.

Anonymous said...

If the decision favors the Osbournes will you apologize for your ignorant and continuos rants concerning this issue. This is not a slam dunk as you foolishly believe. Why every time someone posts do you accuse Maggie as being the author? Can you not accept the fact that most people disagree with your views????

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous December 15, 2010 1:45 PM:

The answer is simple. There are three or four people who hate the Osborns for their own reasons. There are many, many more people in town that actually KNOW the Osborns and know that they're really wonderful people who happen to be stuck in a really difficult situation with the town, a few neighbors and a couple of particularly nasty blog trolls. (who may in fact be the same people). So by dismissing every positive statement written about the Osborns as "Nice try Maggie", they marginalize the comments and make themselves believe that there's nobody in town that supports them, which is FAR from the truth. Most people in town don't bother reading the blog and couldn't care less what these people say. But there are plenty of us that are looking at this situation and saying enough is enough. This will be two Christmases that this family is not allowed to live in their home. Why? Because a few people want to put the Osborns "in their place". Regardless of who made the mistakes initially, the bad behavior in this blog and directed towards the Osborns (think they like having people arrested? Then you're delusional) are pathetic and deserve as much attention as anything they did wrong. If I lived in that neighborhood I'd have moved a long time ago. The fact that the Osborns are sticking it out says a lot about their character, resolve and patience.

Anonymous said...

To 12/15, 3:56

You make the Osborns out to be victims, somehow stuck in a "difficult situation with the town" as though they had no hand in their own predicament. The town (to my knowledge) has been consistent in their positions concerning their home site all along.

They had many opportunities to consult with others before they acted but elected just to act; and frankly, always acting to their own upmost advantage even if at the possible expense of others. If it turns out their actions violated the Davis' rights, the Osborns should pay whatever the court deems an appropriate price.

There is a fairly lengthy history where the Osborns have not acted in what most would describe as "good faith". Now they may be reaping what they have sown.