EXAMPLE 1 OF SPECIAL TREATMENT Selectman McCallum, who very recently can be quoted as saying to an Ashby resident in an open Selectman's meeting, "The judges decision states we need to follow all state and local bylaws." We hope that Mr. McCallum also believes that this pertains to himself as well, not just people that he and his cronies choose to selectively prosecute. A review of the Assessors website has revealed the following: Selectman McCallum owns a property located at 151 Erickson Road. The property is in a residential/agricultural district, the minimum required residential lot size is 2 acres and the minimum frontage is 200 ft. Based on these facts the lot would qualify as meeting the minimum standards for a potential house lot. However, the property is listed on the assessor's page as a residential property. Following is where the problem arises: Ashby zoning By-Laws include a regulation described as a 2 year non-use or abandonment by-law. This by-law was adopted and accepted by 2/3's of Ashby voters with the strict intent to be enforced along with the by-laws. Mr. McCallum has knowingly or unknowingly surrendered his grandfather protection of a residence by not using and/or abandoning the house located on the lot. The land is potentially a conforming lot but because the structure on the lot is less than 100 feet from the center of the roadway, and in violation of the current setback requirements of Ashby Zoning By-Laws, the structure is no longer considered a legal residence, and this should be reflected on the assessors page as simply land. Additionally the structure is open to the weather, unsafe and a potential hazard to children, and should be torn down or boarded up. So ask yourself, why this special treatment, and would you be treated the same by the building inspector or assessor? I think not!
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
EXAMPLE 1 OF SPECIAL TREATMENT
Selectman McCallum, who very recently can be quoted as saying to an Ashby residentin an open Selectman's meeting, "The judges decision states we need to follow all state andlocal bylaws." We hope that Mr. McCallum also believes that this pertains to himself as well,not just people that he and his cronies choose to selectively prosecute. A review of theAssessors website has revealed the following:
Selectman McCallum owns a property located at 151 Erickson Road. The property isin a residential/agricultural district, the minimum required residential lot size is 2 acres and theminimum frontage is 200 ft. Based on these facts the lot would qualify as meeting theminimum standards for a potential house lot. However, the property is listed on theassessor's page as a residential property. Following is where the problem arises: Ashbyzoning By-Laws include a regulation described as a 2 year non-use or abandonment by-law.This by-law was adopted and accepted by 2/3's of Ashby voters with the strict intent to beenforced along with the by-laws. Mr. McCallum has knowingly or unknowingly surrenderedhis grandfather protection of a residence by not using and/or abandoning the house locatedon the lot. The land is potentially a conforming lot but because the structure on the lot is lessthan 100 feet from the center of the roadway, and in violation of the current setbackrequirements of Ashby Zoning By-Laws, the structure is no longer considered a legalresidence, and this should be reflected on the assessors page as simply land. Additionallythe structure is open to the weather, unsafe and a potential hazard to children, and should betorn down or boarded up. So ask yourself, why this special treatment, and would you betreated the same by the building inspector or assessor? I think not!
Parcel ID: 012/008.0-0013-0000,0 as of 3/5/15 Page 1 of 1
EXAMPLE 2 OF SPECIAL TREATMENT #2
Building Inspector and Assessor
Selectman Janel Flinkstrom, who votes in lockstep in almost zombie like fashion, withSelectman McCaSlum, also enjoys "special" treatment from the Building Inspector andassessor. She is listed as owner of a plot of land on 950 Richardson Road. This lotcontaining % acre of land is located in a residential/agricultural district. As stated in example1, the minimum lot size is 2 acres. The lot size is clearly non conforming as a house lot. The2015 Assessor's card shows this lot with a very small structure on it, and also states that thestructure is valued at $15,000 and the land at 40K.Heres the issue:
A physical inspection of the property reveals that the structure has been torn down.This clearly triggers the abandonment and non use bylaw and dissolves any grandfatherprotection it may have had from 1978.
The curious thing here is the assessors card, which is noted as updated recently asJanuary 2015 by Regional Resource Group (president is the Tax Collectors husband), stillshowing the building and still establishes a value for the building which is now non existent.
Is this another example of selective enforcement by the Building Inspector and specialaccommodation by the Assessor in order to help Selectman Flinkstrom keep the residentialdesignation at his location?
Both of these properties have wetlands areas noted on the Assessor map and thisshould trigger our very strict Conservation Board to seize the opportunity to protect thewetlands of Ashby.
Don't hold your breath waiting for those documented hypocrites.
PARCEL 10:012/014.0-0039-0000.0 MAP:014.0 BLOCK;0039Residential Property Record Card
Style: BN Tot Rooms: 2 Main Fn Area: 504 Attic:Story Height: 1.75 Bedrooms: 1 Up Fn Area: 372 Bsmt Area: 0Roof: G Full Baths: 1 Add Fn Area: Fn Bsmt Area:Ext Wall: FB Half Baths: Unfin Area: Bsmt Grade:Masonry Trim: Ext Bath Fix: 0 Tot Fin Area: 876Foundation: ST Bath Qual: O RCNLD: 15668
KitchQual: O EffYr Built: 1960 MktAdj:Heat Type: NO Ext Kitch: Year Buiit: 1950 Sound Value:Fuel Type: N Grade: F Cost Bldg: 15,700Fireplace: 0 Bsmt Gar Cap: Condition: F AttStrVall:Central AC: Bsmt Gar SF: Pet Complete: 100 AttStrVal2:
Att Gar SF: %Good P/F/E/R: ///27
Porch TypeP
SKETCH
*
2C
Porch Ar$a Porch Grade Factor36
-pi!.,,I 4 S 28S SqJHt
12
FU'JS/FM
:
8
f^np
6 6
36SqJFt
LAND INFORMATIONWRHn pnnF- 1 NRun PI A^^- n THMP- DA
Seg Type Code Method Sq-Ft Acres1 P 101 A 10890 0.250
Influ-Y/N Value Class40,335 N
DETACHED STRUCTURE INFORMATIONStr Unit Msr-1 Msr-2 E-YR-BIt Grade Cond %Good P/F/E/R Cost ClassSE S 10 12.00 1995 A A ///91 1,100 1
Parcel ID: 012/014.0-0039-0000.0 as of 3/5/15 Page 1 of 1
EXAMPLE #3 OF SPECIAL TREATMENT
Mr. Joseph Casey, a former Finance Committee member and Ashby Selectman, alsoenjoys a very large discount on his house valuation.
His home, located in the Historical District, at 699 Main Street, includes over 4,000 sq.ft. of living space, yet his valuation is only $30,000. Similar size houses in Ashby are valuedat approximately $285,000, which displays a very large discrepancy between the propertiestax bills paid by each homeowner. It is inexplicable, especially considering Assessor HaraldScheid, stresses his mission is to achieve the goal of everyone paying their fair share ofproperty taxes. Perhaps, Mr. Scheid can explain this seemingly unfair assessment, butknowing that he also receives a tax credit, then rnaybe not?
How many of you are paying ever increasing property taxes with no end in sight? Areyou willing to accept the fact that the same people who continue to raise your taxes aregetting a break on theirs?
If you feel like me, that we need a closer accounting and absolute transparency,PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THE RECALL and VOTE SELECTMAN MCCALLUM OUT!
Selectman McCallum obviously ignores these problems and is also quoted as saying,"The taxes in Ashby in his opinion are not high enough."
PARCEL 10:012/009.0-0030-0000.0 MAP:009.0 BLOCK:0030Residential Property Record Card
LOT:0000.0 PARCEL ADDRESS:699 MAIN STREET FY:2015
PARCEL INFORMATION
Owner:CASEY, JOSEPH W & O'FRIEL, MARY S
Address:699 MAIN STASHBY MA 01431
Use-Code: 101Tax Class: TTot Fin Area: 4236Tot Land Area: 8.00
Sale Price: 265,360 Book: 37559 Road Type: T Inspect Date: 02/09/2007Sale Date: 01/02/03 Page: 074 Rd Condition: G Meas Date: 02/09/2007Sale Type: P Cert/Doc: Traffic: L Entrance: CSale Valid: G Water: IW Collect Id: HMSGrantor: RADFORD, DELBERT L Sewer: SP Inspect Reas: A
Exempt-B/L% / Resid-B/L% 100/100 Comm-B/L/Xo lndust-B/L% / Open Sp-B/L% /
LAND INFORMATIONNBHD CODE: 1 NBHD CLASS: 0 ZONE: RSeg Type Code Method Sq-Ft Acres Influ-Y/N Value Class1 P 101 S 80000 1,837 50,400 N2 R 101 A 268330 6.160 19,712 N
DETACHED STRUCTURE INFORMATIONStr Unit Msr-1 Msr-2 E-YR-BIt Grade Cond %Good P/F/E/R Cost ClassSE F 20 27.00 1874 A A ///40 2,200 1
VALUATION INFORMATIONCurrent Total:
Prior Total;100,700101,600
Bidg:Bldg:
30,60030,600
Land:Land:
70,10071,000
MktLnd:MktLnd:
70,10071,000
SKETCH PHOTO
699 MAIN STREET
Parcel ID: 012/009.0-0030-0000.0 as of 3/5/15 Page 1 of 1
PARCEL YEAR TOTAL VALUE TOTAL CHANGE BLDG VALUES BLDG CHANGE LAND VALUE
2015
2014
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
$100,700
$101,600
$153,800
$178,700
$231,400
$447,800
$467,500
$327,000
$274,100
$260,800
-13.93%
-22.77%
-48.33%
4.21%
42.92%
19.30%
5.10%
45.05%
$30,600
$30,600
$51,600
$59,100
$98,300
$314,700
$344,400
$232,200
$199,400
$190,100
-12.69%
-39.68%
-68.76%
-8.62%
48.32%
16.45%
4.89%
52.82%
$70,100
$71,000
$102,200
$119,600
$133,100
$133,100
$123,100
$94,800
$74,700
$70,700
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
• TOTAL • BUILDING LAND
This data represents the property at 699 Main street
I would like to take a moment to thank Mr Casey for his service onFinance Committee from 2008 and also his service as a Selectman