Why did the Town, with the blessing of DEP Assistant Shoreland Zoning Coordinator Jeffrey Kalinich, grant grandfather status to two non-conforming docks, even though there was ampule evidence that showed that the docks were illegally installed by John and Linda Houy. Why did the Town and Mr. Kalinich so willingly accept the misinformation provided by the Houys?
The Town’s decision had a significant impact on us because the Houys are affecting our personal enjoyment of our property by harassing us and making a nuisance of themselves from their T-shaped dock, which they illegally moved over the property boundary.
The Town based its decisions on dishonest information provided by the Houys. Initially, Mr. Houy claimed that two docks were present on their shoreline when they purchased the property in 2010; this is not true. Later, they claimed that both docks were present before the SZO was adopted in 1993; this is also not true. Allowing the docks to remain effects the integrity of permitting/grandfathering in the Town.
The Town must rigorously protect the integrity of its permitting process. If false information was deliberately given to the CEO, then the Town should reverse its decision, regardless of the amount of time that has elapsed. Furthermore, given that the Town must be able to rely on information supplied by it’s residents, fines should be considered in order to discourage others from also providing false information.
(1) T-Shaped Dock –Moving a dock from its grandfathered location
The T-shaped dock, which is a non-conforming structure due to its location, was present when the Houys purchased their property. The dock, however, was moved during their ownership sometime between 2016-2018, as indicated by Google satellite images. The final location of the dock was even more non-conforming because they pushed it over the property boundary. Per former CEO Brenda Charland, moving a non-conforming structure in any manner would cause it to lose its grandfathered status and it would need to be removed entirely. YET IT STILL REMAINS!! Why?
A letter from CEO Brenda Charland to Lynda Houy states that if a non-conforming structure is moved without permission, then the structure would lose its grandfather status. The structure would then need to be removed.
Houy’s harassing us: from their T-shaped dock
Linda Houy harassing us from their T-shaped dock. Apparently, leaves falling from trees constitute “filling in “our property:
(2) Boat Dock – Unpermitted second dock:
Mr. Houy mislead the CEO several times when he stated that a second dock (“boat dock”) was present on his shoreline when he purchased the property. The information presented below clearly shows that the Houys placed a second unpermitted “boat dock” on their shoreline after they purchased the property.
Below is an email from interim CEO Richard Lambert to CEO Patti McKenna, in which he states the results of his investigation. He concluded that only one T-shaped dock was present when the Houys purchased their property.
Shortly after Mr. Lambert informed Patti McKenna of his findings, CEO Patti McKenna told us that the Town was going to order the Houys to remove the boat-dock, based on the evidence we provided. However, that decision suddenly changed when DEP Assistant Shoreland Zoning Coordinator Jeffrey Kalinich became involved. Why did Mr. Kalinich develop such a keen interest in this seemingly small-town problem? Within only a few days of being notified by the Houy’s attorney, Mr. Kalinich was “on the scene” appearing to pressure the CEO, issuing us violations, and rendering favorable decisions for the Houys. He clearly had his own agenda (for more questionable decisions made my Jeff Kalinich). The Town’s decision to not enforce the removal of the dock appeared to be based on false statements from the Houys and DEP meddling. The Town should reverse its decision.
Evidence to support our claim:
Despite Mr. Houy’s insistence, he did NOT purchase his property with two docks present, there was only one. He repeatedly cites a 2004 MLS listing that mentioned two docks and a raft in the remarks section; however, he purchased his property in 2010. Therefore the most relevant MLS listing is from 2008, which only mentioned one dock because the other dock and raft had been removed before the property was sold to the previous owner in 2004.
Although two docks and a raft were listed in the 2004 MLS, one of the docks and the raft were removed from the property prior to Mr. Palermo purchasing the property in 2004, as confirmed by CEO Richard Lambert. This MLS is not relevant, yet Mr. Houy continues to state that it supports his claim- ITS DOES NOT!!!
The only relevant MSL is from 2008, since the Houys bought in 2010 (Note: It only mentions 1 dock).
Also included in the 2008 MLS listing was the following picture of the Easterly side of the shoreline. Note no dock or raft were present. Therefore only one dock (T-shaped) was present on 292 Wadleigh Pond Rd when the Houys purchased the property.
Mr. Houy also likes to reference the following expired 2008 Purchase and Sale Agreement, which contains an error (regarding the docks) and that is the reason he uses this agreement instead of the one he signed when he actually purchased the property in 2010.
Houys purchased on 4/16/2010 from Mr. Palermo/Wadleigh Pond Estates.
During this investigation, Mr. Houy has repeatedly made false claims to CEO Patti McKenna starting with the irrelevant 2004 MLS. He purchased the property in 2010. Why did he submit an old/irrelevant MLS??
Mr. Houy also gave CEO Richard Lambert false information. Mr. Houy once again stated that two docks were present and never discontinued. Based on this false information, Mr. Lambert sent the following letter to Mr. Houy. However, when Mr. Lambert completed is investigation, he concluded that only one was present when Mr. Houy purchased the property (as stated in his letter to CEO Patti McKenna three weeks later.
Incredibly, despite the fact that the Houys were untruthful to both CEOs, Mr. Kalinich gave the Houys an opportunity to keep their boat dock if they could provide evidence that two docks were present prior to the enactment of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance in 1993:
Lyman CEO Patti McKenna email: Jeffrey Kalinich’s (DEP Assistant Shoreland Zoning Coordinator) suggestion regarding evidence.
Why would Mr. Kalinich provide such an opportunity given that the boat dock had been discontinued for at least 6 years prior to our neighbor purchasing the property, and that granting grandfather status to this dock would clearly violate the Town ordinance since the one year grace period was long over???
When the Town finally responded to our enquiries, we were told that they had granted grandfather status based on a historic picture that showed two docks on their shoreline. It turns out a “friend” gave them a picture and simply stated that it was from “about 1991-1992”. When we requested to see the picture evidence, the Town sent us a picture that was cropped. Nevertheless, the picture did not even show the existence of two docks, but instead, one T-shaped dock and a swim float located at the easterly side of the property. A boat dock was not present.
Furthermore when we finally obtained the uncropped picture, we noticed the presence of a gazebo located on our property (located directly behind the water skier). It would appear that the picture was intentionally cropped to hide our shoreline, more specifically a gazebo was cropped out since its presence would date the picture more accurately. The fact that a gazebo on our shoreline was visible in the uncropped picture dates the picture after 1993 since per DEP Assistant Shoreland Zoning Coordinator, Jeffrey Kalinich, our gazebo did not exist prior to Lyman’s SZO which was adopted in 1993. Based on his logic alone, we can conclude that this picture was taken after 1993 and can not be used as evidence to grandfather anything!
But even more disturbing was the fact that we were given a cropped picture.
Who made the decision to send us tampered picture evidence?
Finally, the only historic picture for 292 Wadleigh Pond Road that was pre-1993 was found in the Town file, dated Sept 1991 which showed no docks present. Furthermore, the house and waterfront in the 1991 picture was completely different than the one in the picture the Houys presented as evidence, supposedly from 1991-1992. The picture the Houys presented was clearly not pre-1993 and therefore should not have been used in the decision to grant grandfather status to the docks.
