From the Eagle Tribune;
Man who sued Atkinson officials arrested Thursday
By Eric Parry
eparry@eagletribune.com
ATKINSON, N.H. — An Atkinson man who sued town officials for First Amendment violations and recently told the selectmen another resident was destroying public roads was arrested Thursday afternoon on a charge of reckless conduct.
But police yesterday would offer few details about the arrest or any events leading up to it.
Leon Artus of Maple Avenue, no age given, has been charged with misdemeanor reckless conduct for a motor vehicle-related incident, Detective Sgt. Phil Farrar said.
Farrar declined to elaborate on what led to the reckless conduct charge.
Police Chief Philip Consentino said a resident had filed a complaint against Artus, but he declined to name the resident.
Artus did not respond to a request for comment yesterday.
He and two other residents filed a lawsuit in federal court in February against several town officials, including Consentino, alleging First Amendment violations.
The lawsuit alleged Consentino prevented them from placing warrant articles on the 2009 Town Meeting ballot.
Earlier this week, a judge dismissed the lawsuit.
At a selectmen's meeting two weeks ago, Artus told the board a Big Island Pond homeowner had damaged Valcat Lane when she built a driveway.
Artus claimed the road Maggie and Daniel Osborn had damaged was a public road and residents in the area couldn't access their properties as a result of their actions.
Maggie Osborn said earlier this week that her family has been harassed by other residents and her home was recently vandalized.
Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
79 comments:
I hope they water boarded him. Maybe they should send him out for permanent extradition.
Based on the article, and on comments posted on this blog, neither of which are necessarily reliable, I wonder if this was a legal arrest.
RSA 594:10 provides that a police officer may only arrest a person on a misdemeanor charge without a warrant only if the alleged crime occurred in his presence, unless the alleged crime entails domestic violence or stalking or "He has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor or violation, and, if not immediately arrested, such person will not be apprehended, will destroy or conceal evidence of the offense, or will cause further personal injury or damage to property."
If the officer has grounds to arrest somebody without a warrant, RSA 594:14 allows him to issue a summons instead of arresting the person.
If the officer does not have grounds to make an arrest without a warrant, RSA 592-A:7 allows him to file a complaint with the district court.
The district court has 3 options:
-- Do nothing
-- Issue an arrest warrant per RSA 592-A:8
-- Issue a summons to the defendant to appear before the court per RSA 592-A:14
Well spoken Maggie. How long did it take you to write that comment and did you have Dan's help?
Thank you Curt for your input. Once again you've put forth a meaningful observation. It's refreshing as compared to the last comment.
Keep up the good work.
The resident who filed the false claim is Daniel Osborn who is being sued by another neighbor. The person who backed up Daniel in his false claim is his wife. Both have been known to file false claims in the past. If someone passes by their new home they call the police first & ask questions later. Daniel & Margaret have excavated land on a neighbors property. People trying to help that neighbor have been harassed by the Osborns...not the other way around. The Osborns have access to their property through Valcat Lane...this is the road they used to build their new home on 8 Valcat Lane in Atkinson (drive by and see it). Now they want a private driveway and to get out of putting in a sprinkler system in their new home like they agreed to on Building Permit #4. They have knowingly excavated illegally claiming a false ROW, and have graded the land down to avoid sprinkler system. When will the town stop them. Hopefully the town will prevent paving the construction. The Osborns do not have a valid permit for the placement of asphalt on Davis's property. The permit only applied to the portion the town owns on Chase Island. The town should look carefully at the false accusations filed by Daniel Osborn.
If false accusations were filed, then indeed they should be prosecuted. However, when a complaint is filed the police do not have the time to investigate every aspect of it in order to act. If that were required the death rate from domestic violence cases alone would be staggering. They work from the information they have at the moment.
And before I get a deluge of replies saying this is much different than domestic violence: YES, I KNOW THAT. It is an example, and an example only.
Again, as has been so often said in the past, we wish Mr. Springer would confine his attentions to his own town. We also know how to search the state web site for the appropriate RSA's. No help is requested or required.
Book 4622 Page 97
David Osborn to David and Margaret Osborn, Lot 16
Beginning at the NW corner at a 40' ROW running more or less parallel to the shore; thence S 60 deg 57 ' W 112 feet by lot 15 to the shore of Island Pond; thence SE 62.8 feet by the shore of the pond to a 40' ROW that runs from the first ROW to the pond; thence S 73 deg 9 ' East 102 feet to the first mentioned ROW; thence NW by said first ROW following the curve thereof 149.58 feet to the point of beginning.
Book 2407 Page 741
FH & RE Webber to Hemlock Heights Improvement Association
Parcels 122, 123, 134, and 125 on Tax Map 22.
Said parcels being shown as one ROW between lots 4 and 5 and another ROW between lots 16 and 17.
Also all rights, title and interest the grantors have in roads and ways in the subdivision known as Hemlock Heights.
Thank you for you input Curt.
So, immediately after the lawsuit is dismissed, we have the possibility of an illegal arrest on the person that was suing the town? Amazing, it's sounds more like the actions of the KGB, but this is what we live with everyday in Atkinson. We've got to stand by and support Leon if he was wronged here.
Thank you for you input Curt.
So, immediately after the lawsuit is dismissed, we have the possibility of an illegal arrest on the person that was suing the town? Amazing, it's sounds more like the actions of the KGB, but this is what we live with everyday in Atkinson. We've got to stand by and support Leon if he was wronged here.
To Curt Springer October 18, 2009 12:28 AM
Thank you Curt for your input. You are right in everything you said, but the property you describe is the last house the Osborn's built and left a legal mess.
The new house they are building can be found in book 4709 Page 1468
Might also look at Book 3185 Page 1180 to see what OsBorn's intentionally left out to create deception.
Keep up the good work. The good people of Atkinson appreciate you. Don't pay any attention to the ugly part of Atkinson; every town has them.
Curt: the deed you quoted from is the deed to their old house on Hemlock Shore Drive. When they built that house they changed the topography of land belonging to HHIA without permission. That information does not pertain to what they are doing now. Their deed refers to the Proposed Road - this is now known as Valcat Lane. Where it says "together with a right of way from the Town Road to each of said Lots" refers to Chase Island, Hemlock Heights Road, to West Road. Back when the area was planed those roads were ROW not town roads. The Osborns know this.
You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honor.
--Aristotle
Now the Atkinson Reporter 2 is for Atkinson events which impact Atkinson residents. Curt, you are not a resident of Atkinson and anything that happens in Atkinson has no bearing on you. So tell us why it is that you post here. Just curious.
County Attorney Jim Reams is all over Candia's Fire Chief right now due to allegations made in an anonymous letter and phone call. Pretty trivial stuff. When do you think the Rockingham County Attorney's Office will have a moment to spare to investigate the circle-jerk Consentino and his officers are running over at the Atkinson Police Department. Artus should sue for false arrest.
to anon@October 18, 2009 10:09 AM and anon@October 18, 2009 10:12 AM
Thanks for the info. I stumbled across those deeds when trying to find some deed that actually had the plan# for the Webber plan. And now you bring it to my attention that there was a plan from the 1920s.
If the plans were actually recorded, you could probably find them by visiting the registry of deeds, as they have an index of plans by town that is not available online.
I think I need to stop here. It appears that there is enough stuff on record that some competent deed researcher, amateur or professional, could do the research and say reasonably conclusively (subject of course to court decisions) who has what rights where. But I don't have the time. I enjoy looking up deeds and plans and puzzling things out. I learned to how to do it by necessity to find the boundaries of the family land in Sandown and Danville 30 years ago, which my family had neglected during most of the 20th century.
To anon@October 18, 2009 1:38 PM:
Atkinson and Danville are similar in most respects. We live under the same RSAs. We are in the same school district. We have the same form of town government, selectmen and SB2 town meeting, although we have 5 selectmen and you have 3.
I try to comment only where I think another POV would be helpful. Your own TimD is a valued contributor to SpeakoutDanville, where he posts on the same basis that I post here.
"Artus should sue for false arrest."
If indeed it was a false arrest. What information do you have other than hearsay and personal opinion that dictate the arrest was unwarranted? A few facts regarding the situation would be a good place to start.
Did the police witness the incident? NO
Did they arrest Mr Artus within a couple of hours of the complainnt being made? YES
Did they do any investigation as to whether or not the allegations were true? They didn't have time.
Conclusion;
Probably illegal arrest, but only time will tell.
Since there is some mention in these discussions of videos and complaints to police, you might find this court decision of interest. See especially page 8 where it was held that a police officer watching a video tape did not have probable cause to make an arrest for something he did not see directly. Also it makes distinctions between people who simply supply information to law enforcement, and people who instigate false arrests.
Curt please continue to post here. Some of us appreciate an outside opinion cause clearly there's little objective thinking on display in Atkinson. What a circus.
So, nobody here saw anything, knows anything specific regarding the details, Artus is not talking (and, that, is very unlike him) and the police are not talking.
And the conclusion is, "Probably illegal arrest".
Leon was the first to scream 1st Amendment violations, and we heard about it for months. Then he's arrested, pretty serious in my book, and the airwaves go quiet. If he thought it was a false arrest, why has he gone suddenly mum?????
Maybe, just maybe, with just a slight hint of probability, there might have been cause?
Leon was aked to be there and it looks like a set up to me.
Maybe I just know more than you.
Surprise.
Then why is he not talking? If he was set up wouldn't he be screaming it from the rooftops? He's never been shy before.
I know Det. Farrar asked him to meet him there but Farrar left before Leon Showed.
I know maggie has accused him and Carol Davis kid of trying to run her and hubby over with their cars before. And that is what she compained about now.
I know that Daniel ran over and was whacking Leons car with his umbrella.
I know that within hours of Maggie filing the complaint Det. Farrar arrested him. Det. Farrar saw nothing personally, and there are no witnesses other than Maggie and Daniel.
Aside from that I dont know anything about it.
plus he was supposed to meet farrar, the bos, the zba and the chief over there and when he got there, everyone was gone but the osborns.
it looks like they set him up. how could that many people leave in such a short time when they asked him to be there?
i also hear that farrar didnt read him his rights.
it's too fishy
so you know nothing other than hearsay and innuendo's ? typical
blog facts....
Nobody said they were facts. he said he heard, Jackass!
If all of October 19, 2009 5:10 PM
and October 19, 2009 5:49 PM is true, why is he not talking? If he was set up wouldn't he had told the ET that? Wouldn't we be hearing it here, blow by blow, the injustice he suffered just he had suffered at the Deliberative Session. And then the great commentary regarding his snub by the BOS when he first tried to bring the current matter up. That was good for a weeks worth of vile towards the BOS.
If all of what October 19, 2009 5:10 PM and October 19, 2009 5:49 PM is true, he has broken his typical pattern on this, and that I find extremely strange. There is something fishy alright and as much as this blog would love to hear it, I find a plot by all those mentioned a little far fetched and extreme considering it was Artus, Brownfield and Lewis who had THEIR suit DISMISSED.
If he is the victim, again, why is he not saying so? I agree with October 19, 2009 5:54 PM. All I see is wishful thinking.
If he was set up, those responsible should be hung out to dry and it doesn't seem like it would be a difficult thing to prove if all that is claimed here is true. But until I hear some hard facts, I'll reserve judgment.
So please, "Maybe I just know more than you." why do you know so much but the ET does not?
"Nobody said they were facts. he said he heard, Jackass!
October 19, 2009 6:22 PM"
Exactly, they heard. People are making their comments as if they are facts, when really sound like hearsay.
So, stop with the hearsay, how bout some FACTS, Jackass!
And maybe his lawyer told him to be quiet as there is more to this than what should be told.
"And maybe his lawyer told him to be quiet as there is more to this than what should be told."
He sure was not quiet last Spring, and they thought they had a slam dunk. So, maybe not a slam dunk this time around. So maybe you're right, his lawyer told him to clam up to keep from further incriminating himself.
I think the only facts we have is that, we have no facts. We got a lot of "I heard"'s, but wish as they made, "I heard" does not constitute fact.
The silence speaks volumes.
Anybody could get information at the district court (Plaistow? Salem?)
-- Did the court issue an arrest warrant?
-- Date of arraignment
-- Date of trial (usually set at arraignment)
-- Motions filed by either side
checked with District Court. Arraignment Dec. 7th. no trial date yet, no motions yet, no arrest warrant issued at all. He was arrested without warrant by Det. Farrar, probably at the request of Phil. We have heard officers tell us for years that they can't make an arrest without permission from Phil, so why would anything be different now?
Conservation had a workshop meeting tonight. After our meeting ended, I left and ran into the crowd which was on smoke break outside town hall during the intermission of the Osborn part of tonight's selectmens meeting.
I met Carol Davis for the first time, and asked her the obvious question which had been bothering me since Leon first raised all this furor.
Why didn't you just post your land "No Trespassing"?
She said that they had. Multiple times. And they had taken pictures of the signs. As soon as the signs were put up, somebody (wonder who) took the signs down.
I asked why she didn't call the police about the trespassing and the removal of landowner "No Trespassing" signs.
She said that they had, and the police said "There is nothing we can do."
FYI, this is not merely a civil matter. This is criminal trespass, and felony criminal trespass to boot. Take note, Curt. (Actually Curt is Chair of the Danville Forestry Committee and already knew this.)
RSA 227-J:8-a Trespass; Criminal Penalty. –
I. No person shall recklessly cut, fell, destroy, injure, or carry away any tree, timber, log, wood, pole, underwood, or bark which is on the land of another person, or aid in such actions without the permission of that person or the person's agent.
II. A person who violates the provisions of paragraph I shall be guilty of a class B felony if the loss is greater than $1,000, or a misdemeanor for any other loss.
The Town of Atkinson Conservation Commission also manages the town forests by town vote. Our consulting forester is Charlie Moreno, who is one of the best in the state. We just updated our forestry plan for the Sawyer town forest, so I am very familiar with yields. I can tell you that no fewer than 18 big trees were dropped on Carol Davis's land, without her permission, by the Osborns or their contractors. I can tell you that the tab for those trees is a lot more than 1K.
Now I am one of the few who posts on this blog who has never had a beef with Phil Consentino. But the question I have to ask myself is, Phil, if somebody commits a class B felony in Atkinson and there is nothing you can do about it, just what do we pay you for?
We can't know for certain exactly what happened until more information comes out, but one can imagine that once they had any excuse to hang Leon they would. In a conflict between a family that has continuously flouted local zoning regulations and EPA laws and someone that has worked for the good of the town and its citizens, I'll side with Leon until I know otherwise.
18 large trees cut, tresspassing signs removed, environmental laws laughed at, zoning regulations willfully ignored, a right of way carved into, rendering it useless ( and making others' land innaccessible)...
And the person who took the time to notify the town about it is the one arrested?
You can't make this stuff up folks. And our selectmen and chief of police have done nothing?
The selectmen issued a cease and desist order. How is that doing nothing?
A C&D "order" does NOTHING but put someone on notice that they have been told.
I disagree. I watched that meeting and according to Maggie, their construction stopped when they recieved the order costing them $1500 a day. So if they've been shutdown for a week, do the math. Construction stopped and the Osborn's are getting hit financially. How is that "nothing"? $1500 a day would catch my attention pretty quick, but maybe you can dig through your couch cushions and find that. I do know one thing, I'm glad I don't live over there. What a mess...
Tim, I am sorry to tell you that you have crossed the line. Public questioning of the PD or its Chief is "Sedition" in this town and always taken personally. Your life has changed "Forever" . Adjust to it.
6:22 "he said he heard,"
What a moronic statement, and your name is ?? Jackass... well said
moron. I agree, it's a slam drunk!
It's only costing them $1,500.day if they keep the workers there, and the excavator and equipment on rental there. Their choice totally.
It's also costing them time. As far as not paying to keep the equipment there, they could do that at the expense of losing their contractor. But the bigger point is that the C&D order has had an impact. To say it is doing nothing is inaccurate.
Does NOTHING !
Okay. I see we have an ostrich here. Never let the facts get in the way of your opinion. Wow. Just wow...
Hypochondria is not fact. NOTHING is NOTHING
Who has hypochondria? Did the C&D order get the Osborn's to stop construction? Yes or no. Did the C&D order get the Osborn's to hire a lawyer? Yes or no. Did the BOS give the Osborn's the temporary occupancy permit that Maggie requested? Yes or no. Looks like a whole lot of something to this observer.
I'd like to thank the selectman and town officials for their testicular fortitude last night.
Maggie, you have reached rock bottom by using your kids in an effort to get people to feel sorry for you. WAAAHHHH!!!! It's getting cold outside and we can't stay in our summer home any longer.... WAAAHHHH!!!!
Shame on you. Everyone knows that once you get into that house, they'll never get you out. As they said last night, you're the one that got yourself into this mess.
It was something to hear thE Osborn attorney attack the BOS and tell the chairman to keep his Board under control!!! And then the BOS chair say, YOU ATTACK ONE OF US...YOU ATTACK ALL OF US!!!
The BOS "RAN THE OSBORNS OVER" LAST NIGHT. Yes they did. And on video too! My question: Will the Chief arrest the BOS or will they get special treatment?
I'm betting a lawsuit's headed our way. Too many stories don't add up. I'm guessing everyone screwed up in a giant clusterf--- of mistakes and now its a finger pointing event.
To anon October 20, 2009 10:44 AM
Too bad our Selectmen aren't as bold with the other bad actors in town govt. Its awful easy to pick on a resident. It also seems like having kids in our town is a liability. Expressing concerns over your own childen, I mean how rude is that! Shame on her!! Selfish selfish selfish.
The above message was brought to you by the National Association of Bootlickers of the Arrogant Wealthy. Thank you.
The above message was brought to you by the Atkinson Losers In Everything National Society.
ALIENS
C&D did NOTHING! Excavator back at work TODAY! Selectmen waffling, need to talk to counsel about what to do.
GUYS, You issued an order, if you aren't going to enforce it, then just publicly admit that your ordinances and laws mean nothing, you have no authority, and anyone can do anything they want.
Hey Tim, we are hearing that you must have a vendetta against the Chief or you wouldn't have made your comment on here.
Somebody told me Tim cut's town conservation land for a fee? Is this true? If it is true would this be considered a conflict?
jmho f.o.
Given the propensity for lawsuits in this town, I think the BOS is prudent to get legal advice on this issue. I'd rather see them do their homework than fly by the seat of their pants.
To October 20, 2009 2:07 PM
I certainly hope you called someone to report this. At least if nothing is done, you have a record of reporting it.
It appears to be to late for prudence.
Hang on to your wallets everyone.
Leon, when are they doing the town wide reval?
Yeah I heard somebody say they were
gonna start their machines up there today or something like that. What did you hear somebody say about something?
Don't forget my hearin aint what it used to be.. Huh
Tim comes on and raises a perfectly good point, all while being professional and factual.
Still, there are hacks and their cronies here that attack him anyway.
Just goes to show; all it takes to become an "enemy" of the Atkinson Mafia is a voice and a brain. The suck-ups do just fine though...
I agree with 4:18. I've already posted once about how vicious this blog has become and I am surprised the moderator allows comments such as these to stay on. If he/she would delete them, perhaps others wouldn't be so embolden to continue their personal attacks, which add nothing to the discussion here.
I think Daniel left the BOS meeting early to prepare the gondola ride for his princess's ride home to the island. Nobody believes they could possibly be living in their new home without and occupancy permit, right?
God Bless you Daniel. You are such a good man.
It is kind of funny.. everyone was foaming at the mouth about the court case and how the proof is obvious and you will see when the courts decide. Well they have and you all were wrong as obvious by your one sided tunnel vision. Now are you going to say that Phil cut a deal with the judge? If so I seriously think you people should move on with your lives...life is to short to spend it on slandering the town as a full time job.
So does this mean the BOS is on our side since they stuck the Osbornes hard up the backside? I
new Bill and Bill were gonna bring change but this was not the case I thought we would see it in. Good work BOS for jammin them hard. I'm glad I'm on the side of truth and justice for all.
The October 29, 2009 4:05pm comment was removed because it amounted to little more than a baseless ad hominum attack upon a Resident.
This is a place for speech and debate about issues affecting the town. Not for ad hominum personal attacks.
I suggest you also remove October 17 @ 10:55 p.m. It's sad what this has become.
Yikes, I said I wasn't going to look into deeds any more, didn't I. But I can't help myself.
I searched for "Carol Davis" and found Plan 24311.
So what is going on here, Osborn built a driveway/roadway across Valcat and down the ROW across Davis's land to King's Grove Road? Is it that the ROW shown on the plan across Davis's land is a paper road and nobody alive ever recalls a physical road or driveway there?
Why do Osborns see the need to use this ROW if they can access their land from Valcat?
Davis bought from Catalano who bought from Valente. It looks like Valente bought a big hunk of land from Webber and then subdivided it. It would be interesting to figure out the deed from Webber to Valente, but who has the time or interest.
Ok, Here is what I don't quite get about this whole thing...
Let's assume for a moment that Maggie does have a deeded right of way across land owned by Carol Davis, just for the sake of argument.
That gives her a right to pass over the property, a right to use Mrs. Davis property to access her own.
It DOES NOT give her a right to cut trees, grade, gravel, landscape, and tar a driveway across that right of way. It is a right of use, not ownership, as far as I can tell from the little bit of research I have had time to do.
Can someone more knowledgable than I comment please?
Curt, I researched all of these deeds at the time of the original Malborn ZBA hearings, and discussed them with Pat Goodridge, who had researched them to prepare a warrant article to accept the Hemlock Heights roads as town roads.
The original 1924 Pedler plan is RCRD 0766 (you may need to look it up by town and name to find it...766 is a different plan).
What is shown on the Pedler plan is what we now know as Valcat Lane. The access labeled "Roadway" on 0766 is now Carol Davis' driveway. Everone uses it to get to their cottages, and it is at this point probably a ROW by prescription.
Plan 24311 clearly shows a different ROW created by one of Carol's ancestors in title. My theory is that the new ROW was created after the house was built because the then-owner wanted to move the traffic further away from their house and kids playing outside. But nobody ever had the money to build it. If you research the deeds of the abutters, there is reference to a 15' ROW where the 20' ROW on Carol's land is.
What is clear is that although there is a ROW shown on Carol's land on the left side of plan 24311, there are no deeds from Carol or any of her ancestors in title to the Osborns or anyone else granting them the right to use the ROW.
I actually think that what
Maggie has done there might have been the best possible outcome for Valcat Lane if it was done right and the original ROW (Carol's driveway) was discontinued. But if you embark on an ambitious roadbuilding project with no engineering plans, no buy-in from the affected neighbors or the town, and no permission from the owner of the land, you are heading for bankrupcy.
That is actually a real concern...that the Osborns will run out of money and leave this mess for the town to deal with. None of this has been designed, approved, or bonded.
Tree replacement costs for mature trees...
Prices on page 5 of the PDF. You can't replace even one 30' Eastern White Pine for less than $7K.
Joyce LaFrance said...
Thanks Tim.
It's also customary for the arborist to charge an additional 50% over the cost of the specimen for deliverying and planting it.
Tim,
Thanks for the info.
I could not find the plan online because of the numbering weirdness.
A few questions, if you don't mind:
-- Where does the existing driveway/ROW across Davis's land come out on Valcat, across from which lot?
-- Which lots use the driveway? 47 (Osborn, now or formerly), 48, 49, 50, others to the SW of 47?
-- Is it that some people had 2 accesses, one from the beginning of Valcat and one across Davis, and now they have just one because of the trench across Valcat? Or does anybody have no access at all because of what was done to Valcat?
-- It appears that some sort of Hemlock Heights ROW ends at Lot 50 (Hemlock Heights Improvement Assn. 22-123). Is this an actual road or just a paper street?
-- Plan 24311 shows Davis fronting on "King's Grove Road." Is this more commonly known as "Chase Island Road?"
PS:
OK I think I get it. From the APD web site:
Valcat Road (Hemlock Heights) (dead-end)
Begins at 6 Chases Island Road
(1st right off Chases Island Road)
So the only way into Valcat is through Carol Davis's driveway/ROW, then except for the dead-end behind her house it goes SW past Osborn and loops around to a dead-end on the pond. Thus everyone SW of Osborn is cut off if they cut off the road?
So springer. Rather than waste any more of your prescious brain power just get in your car turn over the key and go over there and see valcat hole for yourself.
Use your eyes.
to anon@October 21, 2009 11:17 PM
I actually did drive out there on Sunday. I got confused because mapquest incorrectly labels Chase Island Rd. as Valcat Rd. I drove down Chase Island Road as far as Chase Island, then I turned around and drove out.
Since then, based on Tim D's info and online research I have done, I am absolutely convinced that Tim is right, that Valcat is a private way, not a class 6 road. As a member of the public with no property interest, I would not feel right about driving up Carol Davis's driveway to get to Valcat Road, even if it would technically not be illegal if there were no "no trespassing" signs.
On the other hand, if a property owner on Valcat Road were to invite me to visit as his or her guest, I would defintely go. Just call me at 642-4555, and leave a message if you get the voice mail. I would prefer to meet you on Chase Island Road and follow you up the driveway and onto Valcat.
a man get's attacked with an umbrella and get's arrested only an osborn could get away with that. if i attacked someone with an umbrella in the real world i would be arrested not the osborns this is
bull.you know when the osbourns get the town and police deparnment sued and they are found guilty maybee they will finally open there eyes and see who is really to blame here? absolutely and illegal arrest! i am with leon here
ARTICLE SUBMISSION
Selectmen are going to lift the cease and desist order!
We are hearing that the selectmen plan to lift the cease and desist order against the Osborns. The reasons apparently have to do with our Town Counsel again.
So far the story is that because they have not completed the work on their house within the year prescribed by the "waiver of liability agreement" signed by the town and the Osborn's, the town is taking the position that their violation of that provision of the agreement negates the entire agreement.
How ignorant is this reasoning? The Town had the Osborn's agree to certain conditions in order to obtain their building permit. They have violated every one of those conditions and now the town's position is going to be that they can't do anything because the Osborn's violations had the effect of negating the agreement?
So why do we have building and zoning codes if the town is going to selectively enforce them? Why should anyone go through the permitting process if the town is impotent to enforce those codes?
In this situation there is a house built on the lake that has violated building codes, is being lived in without an occupancy certificate, has been built BIGGER than was permitted, has a driveway that is laid across someone else's property, and has involved unpermitted excavation, AND the town STILL does not have accurate plans that the house has been built from, nor does it have engineered plans for this new driveway construction!
But the Town isn't going to enforce ANY of these regulations! And they wonder why we think this town's government is corrupt?
yipee kiyae you freek
Post a Comment