Board of Aldermen 10-09-2018 Page 3
Ms. Toupin My name is Patti Toupin from 123 Conant Road. Good evening. | am here with my
husband Dan, we reside at 123 Conant Road. We have lived there for 27 years. We love Nashua and
love our home. My husband and | have shared our personal story during prior committee meetings on
this topic. However for the benefit of the full Aldermen body, please allow me to share once more.
Why we did not join the petition for discontinuance, why we oppose it and our position based on
everything we have learned during this process. First, we frankly never felt the need to officially go
through this process. The portion of Conant Road moved in 2003 and has been like this for over 15
years now. We knew because of all the different utilities that exist on the properties, we would always
have a relationship with the City and didn’t feel that incurring a significant cost of surveying the land to
make it official would change anything. We now know differently.
Some pertinent background information; 27 years ago before the Maplewood and Katie Lane
Developments, the house that existed before we rundown and unoccupied during which time we
maintained the area from our driveway to the telephone pole, which then was a combination of land and
road by pruning the bushes and overgrowth, maintaining the land and plowing snow off the street to
allow safe delivery of the mail and our safe exit and entrance from and to our driveway.
In 2003 15 years ago Conant Road was move as part of the Maplewood Development which gave the
properties along Conant Road added frontage. The reason why we strongly oppose this
discontinuance is where the property line separating our property and 121 Conant Road has been
drawn. Based on the proposed plan, 121 Conant Road’s footprint, as they use it today would expand
and the footprint that we have cared for, as if it was our own, would shrink.
The property disputed is the land to the right of ours, next to our driveway approximately 24 feet by 65
feet. Both 123 and 121 Conant Road observed the telephone pole and sign as boundaries. We have
been maintaining the land as outlined in the pictures for over 15 uninterrupted years by mowing,
seeding, fertilizing, watering, plowing and the last 3 years maintaining a garden on it. There has never
been a time that we didn’t treat this land as our own.
During the same period, approximately 15 years, our neighbors observed the same property
separation, stopping the care of their land referencing both the telephone pole and sign as boundaries.
There was an overlap very early on, however though | don’t recall the exact conversation, | do
unequivocally remember the outcome where the telephone pole and sign would be recognized as
boundaries. This conversation occurred when the Gilbertsons were renting and never came up again
anytime after that.
We feel very strongly that the proposed property line, moving it only arm’s length from our driveway and
primary use to our home does not keep us whole. The personal living space that we’ve always had
would be diminished and | know that is not the City’s intent. We understand that this is the last stop
before final approval. We have learned a lot during this process. During the last meeting Alderman
O’Brien was more than generous allowing both sides ample discussion time. My husband and | felt that
the Committee absolutely understood the position, but the question ultimately asked of us of the
Committee was is there legal standing to support your position?
Based on what we have learned recently, we believe there is. My husband and | were always under
assumption that the land belonged to the City and because it belonged to the City you could not claim
adverse possession. What was confirmed today in an e-mail from Attorney Steve Bolton was generally
speaking and this quotation generally speaking the City does not own the property upon which the
streets, roads and sidewalks go over. Generally the City has an easement over the property and the
property is owned by the abutting land owners on each side to the center line, subject to the City’s
easement interest.
This is information that we just gathered through this process. So knowing that, we believe we have a
very strong case for adverse possession, dating back to 1991 when we bought our home, which takes
us way beyond the 20 years to establish the required statutory period. The time period for adverse
