Moultonborough boathouse case heading to Supreme Court

[Lakegirl24]

Hey Guys!

I am the neighbor that this has affected the most. The ONCE boathouse is only 4 feet off of my Dad’s land. The Corrs seem to have the notion we turned them in ( which I honestly would have if I knew this is what was going to be built )... There has been so much MISINFORMATION here and so much corruption, I don’t know where to begin.

Let’s start with the fact that the boathouse was standing just fine until the Corrs took out the braces and left the doors wide open that the previous owner had put in place as a way to stabilize it. Then they just waited for it to fall. It did fall, but not from snow load in March 2015 as Mr. Corr has claimed ( I have pictures dated and time stamped from my iPad I just don’t know how to include them here as this is my first post). It actually fell the first weekend of July 2014 due to a wind storm . The date that it fell is important because it was past Moultonborough‘s statute of limitations as when to rebuild that’s why Mr. Corr LIED and change the date and reason for the fall to a WHOLE year later .

The dry boathouse that was there was a non-conforming structure ( it’s only 4 ft off of our lot line). To make it be conforming you would have to have it 20 feet from our land and set back 50 feet from the water which would put him in the middle of the house that is currently there. The abutters needed to be notified… My dad only agreed to replacing EXACTLY what was there… Same size, same height ( simply a shed for boat storage )

Meanwhile, I asked Mr. Corr multiple times if he could show me the plan or even screenshot it, as my dad had been sick and was in the hospital at the time. He refused said he would ONLY show the plan in person. So instead of calling me, he stopped by my dads house ( knowing my dad was hospitalized ) and showed it to my brother who had a stroke 23 years ago. My family owned a lumber company so we are not strange to building plans or the process. He showed my brother what was not a boathouse, but also NOT what is standing there today. It was roughly 16 feet high according to my brother. Next, we went to the variance meeting (As it was the ONLY meeting we had been notified about). I only got to see the plan an hour before the meeting due to Mr. Corr refusing to show me ... and the plan did not even need to be at the variance meeting 🤔( not sure how that can be? ). I wrote a letter to the zoning board shortly after the minutes of the meeting draft… Stating that Mr. Ken Bickford said in the motions of the meeting that the verbiage needed to be changed about the Corrs boathouse. He stated that the boathouse remain a dry boathouse and that it was NOT to be a DWELLING . The other members agreed to it. However, it was never corrected in the minutes of the meeting. We did not fight the variance to set it 10 feet back,as we thought it was going to be a small structure, as it had been before. However, we were not happy it was going to be made into a small living space… A living space 4 feet off of our land causes privacy issues. We couldn’t even have a campfire without them hearing every word spoken.

In the article Mr. Corr said that his neighbor couldn’t see the channel, and now he can. That’s another falsehood. In fact he has taken 1/3 of our view away. I used to be able to go upstairs and see the kiddos swimming a few houses over, now all I see is a roofline. Sitting at our kitchen table I could see the channel, now all I see is a 29 foot high structure. This should NEVER have happened. We were told at the variance meeting that there would be a 4 foot crawlspace under the structure for storage. It was not meant to be a living space, although Mr. Corr told me himself that not only was it going to be livable, it was going to have a kitchen, running water, electricity and plumbing whether I like it or not! It was going to be a fully functioning living space 4 feet off of our lot line. He was planning on living there while he was rebuilding the other house...Now he will have 2 dwellings on one property....REALLY? I have visions of it becoming a rental property or a guest house. This lot simply isn’t big enough to accommodate what he wants to have on this property.

I was also told by DES that the abutters would be notified by mail about any meetings coming up, but no notifications came. WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED. Imagine my surprise when we came up in March to check on the cottage, and we found THIS monstrosity 4 feet off of our lot line . I don’t know exactly WHO dropped the ball here , but I DO know THAT building should NEVER have been approved and no permit should have ever been granted to begin with. Mr. Corr obtained permits through falsehoods… Flat out lies… And makes accusations that simply aren’t true. I said my peace. I wish I could show you pictures but I’m not sure how to insert them.

[WinnisquamZ]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Hey Guys!



I am the neighbor that this has affected the most. The ONCE boathouse is only 4 feet off of my Dad’s land. The Corrs seem to have the notion we turned them in ( which I honestly would have if I knew this is what was going to be built )... There has been so much MISINFORMATION here and so much corruption, I don’t know where to begin.



Let’s start with the fact that the boathouse was standing just fine until the Corrs tookout the braces and left the doors wide open that the previous owner had put in place as a way to stabilize it. Then they just waited for it to fall. It did fall, but not from snow load in March 2015 as Mr. Corr has claimed ( I have pictures dated and time stamped from my iPad I just don’t know how to include them here as this is my first post). It actually fell the first weekend of July 2014 due to a wind storm . The date that it fell is important because it was past Moultonborough‘s statute of limitations as when to rebuild that’s why Mr. Corr LIED and change the date and reason for the fall to a WHOLE year later .



The dry boathouse that was there was a non-conforming structure ( it’s only 4 ft off of our lot line). To make it be conforming you would have to have it 20 feet from our land and set back 50 feet from the water which would put him in the middle of the house that is currently there. The abutters needed to be notified… My dad only agreed to replacing EXACTLY what was there… Same size, same height ( simply a shed for boat storage )



Meanwhile, I asked Mr. Corr multiple times if he could show me the plan or even screenshot it, as my dad had been sick and was in the hospital at the time. He refused said he would ONLY show the plan in person. So instead of calling me, he stopped by my dads house ( knowing my dad was hospitalized ) and showed it to my brother who had a stroke 23 years ago. My family owned a lumber company so we are not strange to building plans or the process. He showed my brother what was not a boathouse, but also NOT what is standing there today. It was roughly 16 feet high according to my brother. Next, we went to the variance meeting (As it was the ONLY meeting we had been notified about). I only got to see the plan an hour before the meeting due to Mr. Corr refusing to show me ... and the plan did not even need to be at the variance meeting ( not sure how that can be? ). I wrote a letter to the zoning board shortly after the minutes of the meeting draft… Stating that Mr. Ken Bickford said in the motions of the meeting that the verbiage needed to be changed about the Corrs boathouse. He stated that the boathouse remain a dry boathouse and that it was NOT to be a DWELLING . The other members agreed to it. However, it was never corrected in the minutes of the meeting. We did not fight the variance to set it 10 feet back,as we thought it was going to be a small structure, as it had been before. However, we were not happy it was going to be made into a small living space… A living space 4 feet off of our land causes privacy issues. We couldn’t even have a campfire without them hearing every word spoken.



In the article Mr. Corr said that his neighbor couldn’t see the channel, and now he can. That’s another falsehood. In fact he has taken 1/3 of our view away. I used to be able to go upstairs and see the kiddos swimming a few houses over, now all I see is a roofline. Sitting at our kitchen table I could see the channel, now all I see is a 29 foot high structure. This should NEVER have happened. We were told at the variance meeting that there would be a 4 foot crawlspace under the structure for storage. It was not meant to be a living space, although Mr. Corr told me himself that not only was it going to be livable, it was going to have a kitchen, running water, electricity and plumbing whether I like it or not! It was going to be a fully functioning living space 4 feet off of our lot line. He was planning on living there while he was rebuilding the other house...Now he will have 2 dwellings on one property....REALLY? I have visions of it becoming a rental property or a guest house. This lot simply isn’t big enough to accommodate what he wants to have on this property.



I was also told by DES that the abutters would be notified by mail about any meetings coming up, but no notifications came. WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED. Imagine my surprise when we came up in March to check on the cottage, and we found THIS monstrosity 4 feet off of our lot line . I don’t know exactly WHO dropped the ball here , but I DO know THAT building should NEVER have been approved and no permit should have ever been granted to begin with. Mr. Corr obtained permits through falsehoods… Flat out lies… And makes accusations that simply aren’t true. I said my peace. I wish I could show you pictures but I’m not sure how to insert them.

Well said



Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[iw8surf]

Who on the lake as crowded and populated as Winni can possibly have a campfire that no one else hears anything? I can hear my neighbors 8 houses away every time he asks his wife if she wants a hot dog or a hamburger off the grill.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by iw8surf

Who on the lake as crowded and populated as Winni can possibly have a campfire that no one else hears anything? I can hear my neighbors 8 houses away every time he asks his wife if she wants a hot dog or a hamburger off the grill.

Oops--I did not mean to thank-you, I hit the wrong button.

If you're going to pick at Lakegirl's excellent post, at least go after something significant. Otherwise you just seem kind of churlish that as the facts come in, they don't mesh with your Texas is better post.

[bigpatsfan]

Dear Lakegirl24, you may want to check with the Planning Board or whomever ran the variance meeting as they may have an audio recording of the meeting in question.

There could also be a video recording of the meeting. You can check the Town's website and see if there is a link to it.

Make sure that your side is heard by the State.. .timing of the collapse, no notification...etc. You know that your neighbor is doing everything they can to present their side hence the newspaper story.

[TheTimeTraveler]

If all the facts come out as has been presented here, then I suspect the new structure will be ordered to be torn down.....

An abutter should not have to tolerate any of this nonsense!

The Corr's should have requested a variance to start with; I would guess they never pursued a variance because their chances to obtain one would have been just about impossible.

[Mr. V]

Lakegirl24:

Have you talked to a lawyer about this, and if so, would you mind sharing their professional opinion?

If you haven't talked to a lawyer: why not?

[Lakegirl24]

Mr V.
Great question. I should have a long time ago. My Dad was taking in good faith that Mr. Corr would abide by his word. My Dad is 88 and is old school “ Your word is your bond” mentality. Now it seems too late since it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. When we left there was only a foundation and when we came back in March to check on the cottage THAT’S what we found. At that point I did call the state multiple times and was assured that it was either coming ALL the way down or lowered to 17 feet.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Mr V.
Great question. I should have a long time ago. My Dad was taking in good faith that Mr. Corr would abide by his word. My Dad is 88 and is old school “ Your word is your bond” mentality. Now it seems too late since it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. When we left there was only a foundation and when we came back in March to check on the cottage THAT’S what we found. At that point I did call the state multiple times and was assured that it was either coming ALL the way down or lowered to 17 feet.

IMO because the Corr's didn't file for a variance from the DES for the now non-conforming, non-conforming dry boathouse, they will be forced to modify it to meet the height requirement. Therefore hiring a lawyer would have just been a waste of your money.

Good luck and thanks for giving us your perspective about the boathouse.

[Lakegirl24]

Rusty,

Thank you for your opinion. I hope you are right. He seems to just do what he wants. Apparently rules don’t apply to him. If he does prevail it will set a precedence for all other non conforming structures that are lakeside. These could pop up all over the lake.... My family has been there since 1966 without ever a problem with neighbors UNTIL NOW. So Sad.

[Woodsy]

Lakegirl...

Thank you for "the other side" of the story!

Woodsy

[Lakegirl24]

Woodsy,

You’re Welcome... There’s always 2 sides.😉

[Lakegirl24]

Maxum,

He lied in order to get the VERY first permit. It was past Moultonborough’s Statute of Limitations. It fell July of 2014 due to his neglect, and said it fell in March of 2015 in order to secure the permit. However, at that time we were still taking Mr. Corr at his word that he was just going to rebuild what was previously there....What was agreed upon, so I didn’t pursue legal action. THAT was the time that I should have. Silly me....Trusting someone with their word. 🙄

[swnoel]

I find it interesting that Corr didn't want his new "boat" house on the water... pretty much proves to me his intention was not for a boat house.

[Rusty]

This section of Moultonboro's zoning ordinance states that a building permit can not be issued until the DES gives its final approval:

"(3) No building permit shall be issued by the Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector until such time as all permits, as contemplated by the SWQPA RSA 483-B:5, are issued by the Department of Environmental Services. Should the Department of Environmental Services fail to render a decision in the time frame provided under SWQPA RSA 483-B:5-a.V. and, as a result, a permit is issued by the Department of Environmental Services, the Code Enforcement Officer shall not issue a building permit unless the Code Enforcement Officer determines that the application made to the Department of Environmental Services meets the requirements of the SWQPA."

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Maxum,

He lied in order to get the VERY first permit. It was past Moultonborough’s Statute of Limitations. It fell July of 2014 due to his neglect, and said it fell in March of 2015 in order to secure the permit. However, at that time we were still taking Mr. Corr at his word that he was just going to rebuild what was previously there....What was agreed upon, so I didn’t pursue legal action. THAT was the time that I should have. Silly me....Trusting someone with their word. 🙄

That is truly unfortunate however the timing of the original building's demise is sort of moot.

Indeed there was a window of opportunity to challenge this but that was missed.

For your sake, being that you are neighbors, hopefully this doesn't end up in a long term contentious relationship. That really stinks considering you want to be at the lake to enjoy it - drama free.

Hard to read the tea leaves on this as to how the court will rule. It all hinges on the court's interpretation of the issued permits. A split decision within DES where the wetlands board overruled DES's objection not once but twice may hold some swing in the court's mind.

[LakesLady]

Dear Lakegirl24: I concur, Mr. Corr's rebuilt "boathouse" infringes on my view of the lake channel as well. When we bought our home just north of yours on the lakeside of Deer Haven Rd. in January 1992, we had wonderful views of the frozen lake.

Having grown up in a lakeside home in the Finger Lakes area of New York (that my family still owns), I was very aware of the lake shore property issues. As a consequence, when we were considering our current property, I asked about the zoning requirements and rules and was assured that they are quite firm. While some property's configurations are grandfathered, based on when they were constructed, the current setbacks and height allowances for new structures are reviewed and enforced.

That assurance has not been true since the rebuilt "boathouse" has been constructed. Whenever I look out of my second floor kitchen window, facing south across the rear side of Lakegirl24's property, what used to be an open view of the lake channel across land is obstructed by the new "boathouse" except for a smidgeon of lake over the roofline.

This lack of view to our south has two important effects that could impinge on other property owners. Unregulated construction of new structures can affect property values of neighboring properties as well as the esthetic values experienced by the people who live nearby.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by LakesLady

Dear Lakegirl24: I concur, Mr. Corr's rebuilt "boathouse" infringes on my view of the lake channel as well. When we bought our home just north of yours on the lakeside of Deer Haven Rd. in January 1992, we had wonderful views of the frozen lake...

I think it was stated that when the boathouse is finished, "repairs" to the main cottage would follow. It's not unusual for such lakeside repairs to start with a bulldozer. Whatever follows could obstruct your view completely, and still be completely within codes.

[TheTimeTraveler]

Originally Posted by Descant

I think it was stated that when the boathouse is finished, "repairs" to the main cottage would follow. It's not unusual for such lakeside repairs to start with a bulldozer. Whatever follows could obstruct your view completely, and still be completely within codes.

That is true, however a new build won't be 5 feet from the lot line, and may be restricted to the current envelope of the existing dwelling (depending on zoning requirements).

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Rusty,

Thank you for your opinion. I hope you are right. He seems to just do what he wants. Apparently rules don’t apply to him. If he does prevail it will set a precedence for all other non conforming structures that are lakeside. These could pop up all over the lake.... My family has been there since 1966 without ever a problem with neighbors UNTIL NOW. So Sad.

Well yes and no.

Far as the existing building as it stands - he did adhere to the process of securing permits. It's not as if he is rebuilding this under the radar.

IF indeed his intention is to turn that into living space that is an entirely different matter however the courts cannot rule on that unless modifications have been done to the structure that indicate it's use has been changed along with supporting evidence this is actively happening. He has no argument to change it's use, as permitted it is a dry "boat house" and nothing more. It's purely aesthetic appearance is irrelevant to it's actual use. Under the circumstances if it's use comes up in the course of litigation the court should, I would think, include in it's ruling that whatever is build cannot be used as living quarters.

I think that the amended PBN submitted after the ZBA decision was not very well vetted, but the approval right or wrong was granted and thus really is the focus of this court case. What does that approval mean and did the applicant violate it?

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Mr V. Great question. I should have a long time ago. My Dad was taking in good faith that Mr. Corr would abide by his word. My Dad is 88 and is old school “ Your word is your bond” mentality. Now it seems too late since it is in the hands of the Supreme Court. When we left there was only a foundation and when we came back in March to check on the cottage THAT’S what we found. At that point I did call the state multiple times and was assured that it was either coming ALL the way down or lowered to 17 feet.

"Oversized" was my objection to this "replacement boathouse" at Millstone Point. A large segment of two neighbors' lake view was cut off.



I take it Mr. Corr is not a native Granite-Stater?

[swnoel]

Originally Posted by ApS

"Oversized" was my objection to this "replacement boathouse" at Millstone Point. A large segment of two neighbors' lake view was cut off.



I take it Mr. Corr is not a native Granite-Stater?

LOL... an you wonder why locals despise out of staters.

[tis]

Except that they or relatives own the adjoining houses so obviously it must not block their view too much.

[TheTimeTraveler]

Originally Posted by ApS

"Oversized" was my objection to this "replacement boathouse" at Millstone Point. A large segment of two neighbors' lake view was cut off.



I take it Mr. Corr is not a native Granite-Stater?

Chances are that the boathouse pictured here was legally constructed. The Corr's so called replacement boathouse appears to be constructed as a dwelling.

[fatlazyless]

Chances are that the boathouse pictured here was legally constructed.

.... oh, as I recall .... it was so totally legal ..... the owners of this large boat house enclosure were connected politically with their local Republican state representative, and local Republican selectmen via friendship and campaign donations.

This usually helps.

[Lakegirl24]

SWNoel,

Wow! That’s a big structure. I wish I could add pics from my iPad but don’t know how to make them into JPEG etc. You are CORRECT Mr. Corr is not a native. Neither am I, but I’ve been here all my life... This will be my 50th summer. Respect for neighbors goes a long way. You don’t buy a spot in the country to build a house 4 ft off of your neighbors property. SMH

[DEJ]

Lakegirl. I understand the height issue but have a question about the 4 feet thing. Did they build it closer to you or is it still the same distance from your property line as the original boat house? The life threating thing seems a little over the top IMO and if it happened I hope there was a police report filed. Was there?

[Lakegirl24]

DEJ,

Yes the police were involved, but told me they couldn’t do much. I basically have to wait till something happens to me. The boathouse is the same distance as before.... but now it’s a house vs a shed for a boat.

[fatlazyless]

Instead of tearing it down, maybe the neighbors could donate it to the Town of Moultonborough, as long as the town removes it. The town could use it as an el cheapo, quasi-community center for playing bridge or chess over at their Kraine Meadow Park recreation area, the neighbors get a tax write-off, and you get your view back ..... win-win-win!

Does it have a big room downstairs, with a nice fireplace, that would be good for a ping-pong table ..... and the town can play ping-pong in front of the warm, cheerful fireplace, all winter long ...... yeah!

Here's a NH building mover www.admiralbuildingmovers.com from Goffstown, NH ..... maybe this Admiral could navigate this building problem out of there!

[DEJ]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

DEJ,

Yes the police were involved, but told me they couldn’t do much. I basically have to wait till something happens to me. The boathouse is the same distance as before.... but now it’s a house vs a shed for a boat.

You have mentioned several times about the 4 foot thing. Since that has not changed why keep bringing it up? It does not matter if it was a shed or a house, 4 feet is 4 feet regardless of what the structure is. I understand the height issue, but the 4 feet thing is a moot point. A shed or a house will still be 4 feet, correct?
Regarding if the police were involved, once again was a police report filed by you?
Finally, a good attorney would discourage his/her client to not post ANYTHING about this situation on social media until it has wound its way through the court. The Corrs obviously have good attorneys IMO. Not saying they are in the right here, just an observation.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by DEJ

Finally, a good attorney would discourage his/her client to not post ANYTHING about this situation on social media until it has wound its way through the court.

..... oh ....don't be such a kill joy ..... this is a great thread ..... has lots of comments and views ....and shows how a good photograph or two can be very helpful for showing what's what ....

And, the courts and the zba's are a little different from the court of public opinion ..... just look at the crematorium across from the Meredith McDonald's ... the crematorium won its' zba decision, won its' day in superior court ..... but closed up and moved to a secret, remote location, anyway .... probably due to the court of public opinion .....

..... i rest my case!

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

..... oh ....don't be such a kill joy ..... this is a great thread ..... has lots of comments and views ....and shows how a good photograph or two can be very helpful for showing what's what ....

And, the courts and the zba's are a little different from the court of public opinion ..... just look at the crematorium across from the Meredith McDonald's ... the crematorium won its' zba decision, won its' day in superior court ..... but closed up and moved to a secret, remote location, anyway .... probably due to the court of public opinion .....

..... i rest my case!

No you didn't hear what really happened, you see the owner knew a guy who had a brother that was cousins with the secretary in town who happens to be sisters with somebody on the ZBA who is married to another guy and his uncle is a state rep who's family business is located out of state but that doesn't matter because is grandmother's second husband happens to play golf with this other guy whos brother is a state senator. Now this state senator happens to have a son who is dating the daughter of the janitor at the court house, but you see he cleans the office of one of the judges on the supreme court.

Swear to God, 100% true,

Regards...

Jussie Smollett

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

SWNoel,

Wow! That’s a big structure. I wish I could add pics from my iPad but don’t know how to make them into JPEG etc. You are CORRECT Mr. Corr is not a native. Neither am I, but I’ve been here all my life... This will be my 50th summer. Respect for neighbors goes a long way. You don’t buy a spot in the country to build a house 4 ft off of your neighbors property. SMH I have actually had my life threatened by Mr. Corrs wife!!! IMAGINE????

I don't know what file extensions you have but if you have a .jpeg or .png extension here are the steps to upload them:

Select the Attachment paperclip. It opens a dialog box.
The top choice is to "Upload a File From Your Computer".
Click the Browse button and that opens a file search dialog.
Locate the picture file on your computer and click Open.
That closes the file search box and places the path of the file in the attachment dialog.
Then click Upload and wait for the upload process to complete. It will then list the attached image file.
Then click Close this Window.
Finish any text and hit the Preview Post button. The message should include the attached image. Click Submit Reply to actually send the message.

Someone posted these instructions a while back and I copied them for someone who might ask how to upload images.

[DickR]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Hey Guys!

...... He stated that the boathouse remain a dry boathouse and that it was NOT to be a DWELLING . The other members agreed to it...... However, we were not happy it was going to be made into a small living space….....
We were told at the variance meeting that there would be a 4 foot crawlspace under the structure for storage. It was not meant to be a living space, although Mr. Corr told me himself that not only was it going to be livable, it was going to have a kitchen, running water, electricity and plumbing whether I like it or not! It was going to be a fully functioning living space 4 feet off of our lot line. He was planning on living there while he was rebuilding the other house...Now he will have 2 dwellings on one property....REALLY?....

There cannot be two dwelling units on that lot, with only 100 feet of frontage, as it lacks the frontage for two units required by town bylaws. From page 12 of the reference cited by Rusty:

C. Minimum lot dimensions for each waterfront lot shall be as follows:
(1) Minimum shore frontage shall be 150 feet for the first dwelling unit to be granted access.
(2) An additional 150 feet of frontage is required for each additional dwelling unit after the first unit, where the additional unit is to be located within 250 feet from the
reference line established by RSA 483-B, as amended.
(3) An additional 50 feet of frontage shall be required for each additional dwelling
unit to be located beyond 250 feet from the reference line established by RSA 483-B,
as amended.

C(1) doesn't apply, as the original camp was grandfathered in. C(3) doesn't apply, since the second structure is within 250 feet of the reference (shore) line. But C(2) certainly does apply, even without state DES concerns about what the structure can be within 50 feet of the shore.

[Lakegirl24]

Dick,

This guy thinks rules don’t apply to him. He is planning to have 2 dwellings on one lot. Told me to my face very smug I might add.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Dick,

This guy thinks rules don’t apply to him. He is planning to have 2 dwellings on one lot. Told me to my face very smug I might add.

This is where my concern comes in.... What else is planned.... When I saw the boat house that first Spring, my thought was, what is next the camp comes down and what goes up.....

In my mind if the land owners win, the next step will be to see how much further their luck can be pushed....

It is unfortunate that I believe the issues with this landowner are likely to continue.....

[gillygirl]

Originally Posted by Lakegirl24

Dick,

This guy thinks rules don’t apply to him. He is planning to have 2 dwellings on one lot. Told me to my face very smug I might add.

Since you know his modus operandi, you might want to have a lawyer in mind when destruction/construction begins on the current house.


Sent from my iPad using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Lakegirl24]

Lakes Lady,

Well stated. I just can’t understand how this was allowed to happen. I know the building inspector for the town stepped down/retired/ resigned last Spring not sure why? There is a new one now.