Laserfiche WebLink
While I do not the know the intent of that language when crafted <br /> so long ago, the language seems extremely strong and harsh for <br /> any permitted dock holder. <br /> Given the harshness of this language, it would seem reasonable <br /> to find a solution does not create a win-lose scenario. <br /> Existing Dock Permit Dated June 1983 <br /> € (�`�' <br /> 4932148 BCAN NE'L®k <br /> City of OR1ONO."-g!ta.i <br /> as x[xx:,x.mae•, xt.1171:11:117.:T;%7>s[x«.. .[..e"-fi- <br /> le <br /> s <br /> 1 .a![o•one- <br /> }a[ root.,fdaa sola[ ualse <br /> xs Elatxl.[. xeex r.st..ean[a s[.nf.[a.re[..,.:;;p::;'1:x [re <br /> One potential resolution for the council to consider would be to <br /> create a new permit where both #480 and #230 are named in the <br /> permit, the old permit is retired and we share a dock, each permit <br /> holder having a side. <br /> This solution is designed so owners at 230 Big Island are not <br /> materially impacted, they still retain their permitted dock rights to <br /> access their property and allows me access to my property. While <br /> this is not the perfect solution it does balance the needs of each <br /> party and would work to limit the impact on the existing construct <br /> that exists today. <br />