Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals,
We are filing an administrative appeal (SZO section 16(H)(4)(a)(i)) regarding a decision made by former CEO Patti McKenna (Exhibit 1) where she permitted two non-conforming docks: a T-shaped dock & a boat dock (Exhibit 2 and 2A) by granting grandfather status to these structures. These docks, located at 292 Wadleigh Pond Rd., belong to John and Linda Houy. We are requesting that the decision to grant grandfather status be overturned based on the facts outlined below.
We are also requesting a waiver of the thirty-day time requirement for the appeal, for good cause. Despite our request, the Town did not provide us, an interested party, with the notice of its decision until months after it had been made, making an appeal within the thirty-day time frame impossible (Exhibit 3 and 3A). Secondly, there should be no statute of limitations to an appeal when the decision being appealed relied on misinformation.
Initially, the only option was to address this situation outside the town, by requesting a hearing in Superior court regarding the former CEO’s lack of enforcement action (not requiring the docks to be removed). However, a hearing was denied because the court upheld Lyman’s SZO which states that appeals cannot be made for enforcement related matters. We also attempted to have this situation addressed in district court, under a nuisance claim, but encountered the same issue with the inability to appeal enforcement related matters. Since that time, there have been many significant changes in Town government and therefore we are now filing this administrative appeal regarding the above-mentioned decision.
There are two main reasons we are requesting this issue be addressed by the board. Firstly, the Houys are affecting our personal enjoyment of our property by harassing us and making a nuisance of themselves from the T-shaped dock (Exhibits 4 and Exhibit Videos 5 and 5A (see USB stick)), which they illegally moved over the property boundary.
Secondly, the decision to grant grandfather status to the two docks was based on dishonest information provided by the Houys. Initially, they claimed that two docks were present on their shoreline when they purchased the property; 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.
BOAT DOCK
The evidence that shows the boat dock was not present when the Houys purchased the property in 2010 is as follows:
(1) The Town’s own investigation by former CEO Richard Lambert concluded the boat dock had been discontinued for ~ six years prior to the Houy purchase in 2010 (Exhibit 6). The SZO states that a structure that has been discontinued for more than one year cannot be resumed (Section 12(D)(2).
Mr. Houy (a former selectman) repeatedly misled two former CEOs (McKenna & Lambert) regarding the presence of the docks and even went so far as to reference an outdated MLS listing from 2004 (Exhibits 7 and 8).
2) The most recent MLS listing (2008) for 292 Wadleigh Pond Road, from which the Houys purchased their property, indicated one dock and, most importantly, showed shoreline pictures of only one dock- T-shaped (Exhibit 9, 9A, and 9B).
3) Despite the above information, DEP “involvement”, and Town politicsat the time, the Houys were given the opportunity to present picture evidence that the docks existed prior to the enactment of the Shoreland zoning laws in 1993. This was allowed because DEP claimed that there was limited information on the docks in the Town file; the above information clearly indicated otherwise. Furthermore, a historic picture of the Houy shoreline from 1991 which was in the Town file showed the absence of any docks (see point #4 below).
The Houy picture “evidence” came in the form of an email sent from a friend who dated the picture between 1991-1992 (Exhibit 10). We requested to see the evidence from the Town given the Houy’s history of misinformation. Interestingly, the picture that was sent to us appeared to be altered (Exhibit 10). Our suspicion was confirmed when we obtained the original unaltered picture as part of our discovery request for our Superior court claim (Exhibit 11). The picture had been altered to hide our shoreland, 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 (Exhibit 11) 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 (Exhibit 12). Based on his logic alone, we can therefore conclude that the Houy docks did not exist prior to 1993 either.
Furthermore, the submitted picture did not even show the existence of two docks, but instead, one T-shaped dock and a swim float (exhibit 11A) located at the easterly side of the property. A boat dock was not present.
4) As mentioned above, the only historic picture for 292 Wadleigh Pond Road that was pre-1993 was found in the Town file, dated Sept’91 (Exhibit 13) 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.
T-Shaped Dock
The T-shaped dock, which is a non-conforming structure due to its location, was present when the Houys purchased their property. The dock was moved during their ownership sometime between 2016-2018, as indicated by Google satellite images (Exhibit 14). The final location of the dock was even more non-conforming because they pushed it over the property boundary (Exhibit 14A). 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 (Exhibit 15).
Given all the evidence, we are asking that our appeal be granted.
We hope that the Board can appreciate our desire to peacefully enjoy our property and its role in helping to maintain the integrity of permitting/grandfathering in the Town. Allowing residents to provide misinformation for their gain encourages other residents to behave similarly.
Thank you for your time and help in this matter.
Paul and Amy Ala
Houy’s harassing us: from their T-shaped dock– Exhibit 5 and 5A
Linda Houy harassing us from their T-shaped dock. Apparently, leaves falling from trees constitute “filling in “our property:
