Many recent questionable decisions made by DEP Assistant Shoreland Coordinator, Jeffrey Kalinich, to allow and not enforce violations, raises many red flags.
Why did DEP allow the use of a historic picture as evidence to grandfather a boat dock for the neighbor that had been discontinued for six years by a previous owner?
Furthermore there is only one dock on the Houy shoreline. The other structure is a swim float. This picture does not support their claim that two docks were ever present at the same time. In addition, the Houys misrepresented the status of the docks when they told both CEO’s (McKenna/Lambert) that the two docks were present when they purchased in 2010.
Why did Mr. Kalinich not accept the same picture as evidence to grant our gazebo grandfather status, since it is clearly visible in the picture (located behind the water skier)?
Why did Mr. Kalinich not consider granting our shed grandfather status based on this picture evidence used in court?
The left historic picture was an exhibit presented by the Houys as discovery in Small Claims Court to attempt to prove that their T-shaped dock was present before Lyman adopted SZO. Our current shed, in the right picture, is in the same location as the historic shed.
Why is Mr. Kalinich trying to help the neighbors legalize violations by considering issuing a Permit by rule for excavation and concrete fill within 50 feet of Wadleigh Pond?
Why is the neighbor sending Confidential emails to DEP/Mr. Kalinich? Why did John Houy not indicate why he sent the first email? As an aside, the attachments in the second email were apparently white squares?? Coincidently, both these emails were sent just prior to the notice of violation being issued to us on 9/20/23 (1 week before our small claims court date). John Houy wanted this as our gazebo was causing him “legal and financial issues” as he describes in the email below.
We would like to know what is in the confidential Gmail. Especially since this email was sent just before we received a notice of violation from the Town, and just one week before our Small Claims Court date with the Houys.
Why should M. Kalinich care about John Houy’s financial status? This email does not look good!
Why is Mr. Kalinich putting pressure on the Town to invalidate our 4 year old permits?
The Town is now looking at the “fine print” of our building permit application to try and find an excuse to revoke our permits.
Why is DEP/Mr. Kalinich so interested in our small structures that have minimal impact on the environment, given the Houys’ excavation and placement of a new concrete foundation less than 50 feet from the shoreline?
Why is Mr. Kalinich so concerned about our structures and pressuring the CEO to the point where she had to validate her 20 year career?
I think most residents believe that Ms. McKenna was knowledgeable and helpful in navigating the Town ordinances. Unfortunately, she continued to be pressured, not by Town Selectmen, but this time by DEP.
Why is Mr. Kalinich so concerned about our structures when the Town selectmen are not?
Why is DEP not considering our 4-year old permits, as they did for our neighbors in 2010?
Portland Portland Press Herald article:
In 2011, DEP stated that they would not take opposition with the Town, because a permit was issued to the neighbors for their expansion.
In our case, DEP is going out of its way to try to invalidate our permits. WHY?
Why did Mr. Kalinich submit a biased letter days before our ZBA meeting?
One would expect that DEP would be impartial and professional, and present all relevant information to help Zoning Board Members make informed decisions. Many statements in this letter are incorrect and he has omitted crucial information.
