Why are the neighbors’ unpermitted docks important to us and the Town?
(1) Boat Dock
The Houys made false statements and misled the Town, during an investigation to determine if their second dock (which we call the “boat-dock”) had grandfathered status. During the investigation, 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 was not enforce because of DEP meddling. For some reason Mr. Kalinich from DEP ignored the presented evidence and appeared to pressure the CEO to render a decision favorable to the Houys. Whatever the situation, it was ultimately the CEO’s decision. We are requesting that the Town reverse the decision and order the boat-dock to be removed. Evidence to support this request is presented below.
(2) T-Shaped Dock:
As stated in Lyman’s shoreland zoning ordinances, grandfathered, non-conforming structures can not be moved. The Houys moved their “T-shaped dock” over the property boundary and are now creating a nuisance. The CEO’s decision to not enforce the removal of the dock was based on false statements from the Houys and DEP meddling. We are requesting that the Town reevaluate the evidence. Evidence to support this request is presented below.
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 the CEO’s 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 providing false information.
(1) The 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, she told us that the Town was going to order the Houys to remove their illegal boat dock. Unfortunately, that did not happen due to the meddling of Jeff Kalinich from DEP, who for some reason was much more interested in issuing us violations and apparently pressuring CEO Patti McKenna (as evidenced by Patti’s letter to Mr. Kalinich), then ruling on the obvious evidence we provided. Instead he was more interested in pushing his own agenda, which clearly benefited the Houys (for more questionable decisions made my Jeff Kalinich)
Evidence to support our claims:
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, DEP/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 DEP 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 the neighbor’s 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. First, the picture shows only one dock on the westerly side of the shoreline (the T-shaped dock), the other structure is not a dock but a swim float (i.e. it is not attached to the shore):
We later obtained the uncropped picture, which showed the presence of a gazebo located on our property (located directly behind the water skier). The previous owner of our property had not built the gazebo until 1995. Therefore this picture could not have been taken prior to 1993 and thus it 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?
What a scandle!!! They tried to hide the fact that they knowingly presented a picture that could not support their claim.
Below is an interesting picture we found in the Houy’s Town file, which was dated 9-22-1991. If we were to believe that the above picture was dated accurately, we would also have to believe that the original house was razed, a new house was built, shoreline was landscaped, and two docks were built, all within less than 1 year.
(2) Moving a dock from its grandfathered location – The T-Shaped Dock
Our neighbors falsely claimed that they never moved a non-conforming grandfathered “T-shaped dock” beyond the property boundary, i.e. into our shoreline. A comparison of satellite images taken in 2016 and 2018, clearly shows that our neighbor’s T-shaped dock was moved westerly, over the property line. The dock should be removed, given that their shoreline is less than 400 feet in length.
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 constantly harassing us:
Linda Houy harassing us from their T-shaped dock. Apparently, leaves falling from trees constitute “filling in “our property:
John Houy fishing across our shoreline:
