The HD vid shows Fred's feathers ruffled by a good westerly breeze.
The email volley with Town Investigator Richard Downs continues (see yesterday's post for earlier emails). Mr Downs responded to my last email from yesterday as follows:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Inv Downs <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Mr. Adams, If you have received no visitors after the issuance of the Notice of Violation thence the Notice of Violation would be considered remedied, however a compliance inspection must be performed by me to confirm the discontinuance of the violation use as described therein and observed on August 5, 2013. Thereafter and pending the above inspection the violation would be closed and satisfied as remediated. Should you choose to continue the use of the property in the same manner as observed on August 5, 2013 you may be subject to another violation on the premise.Please advise if you would like to set up a compliance inspection to remediate the notice of violation issued with regard to the above subject.Thank you.Sincerely,Rich DownsTown InvestigatorTown of Riverhead
I then replied:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:22 AM, Paul Adams <email@example.com> wrote:
Mr Downs - thanks for your follow-up email. As I previously stated, in order to either remediate or appeal I need to know exactly in what respect(s) you observed, on aug 5 2013, that my property was, or might be, in a "use violation" of the Town Code.
You indicate that if I have not received visitors at my residence after the issuance of the NoV on or around dec 18 2013, you would consider the "violation" remedied. However, it simply cannot be the case that receiving visitors at one's residence, or residential property, is a Code violation. If that were the case then every single residence in the Town of Riverhead, other than perhaps those of extreme hermits, would be in violation.You also imply that if I were to resume receiving visitors, a new "violation" would be issued. Again it cannot be the case that merely receiving visitors is prohibited under the Town code.I suspect that what you really mean is that, while maintenance of a backyard hummingbird sanctuary is in itself not a violation, nor is receiving visitors, receiving visitors to a backyard bird sanctuary is, or at least might be, under some circumstances, a code violation. It's an interesting, though bizarre, legal theory that needs to be tested in court, and which of course would have national implications.I think we need to clarify these issues before I can remediate, or appeal, and/or set up a compliance inspection.Thanks - Paul Adams
To which Investigator Downs responded later this morning (with:
Mr. Adams, I am the Town Investigator for the Town of Riverhead, it is my duty to interpret the codes of the town including the zoning ordinances and enforce such laws accordingly. With regard to your situation on August 5, 2013 it was determined by me that a "land use" was established, I have spoken to you in person and over the phone with regard to this, however I will reiterate again and perhaps it will provide you with a better understanding of the actual zoning infraction observed.