03-15-2021 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Exhibit L March 14 Comments in Highlight for Curtis Dear Ms. Curtis, I am writing to submit additional information and clarity based on further discovery of the existing permits and submitted feedback and concerns from property owners directly impacted by my application. As stated on the first page of my background and context that I submitted with my application. I am hopeful that an amicable and a neighborly solution can be found and still allows me access to my property. I have gained additional historical context on the rarely requested dock permits on this part of the island (I believe two in the last 38+ years). My request and application follow's similar precedent to the other interior property lot holders who have also requested access to their property and which has been approved. I would like to add some clarifying points and also pose a potential scenario for the council to consider that balances some of the concerns of the most affected parties. As I reviewed feedback submitted by Ms. Farnes and Mr. Bruntjen at 230 Big Island with an existing permit, one of the unusual aspect is the following language within the permit. It states; I withdrew reactionary material to M. Curtis. The complexity, legalities and narrative in application did not have clarity for me to accurately respond. "Should there be any other another request from an inland property owner to use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties this permit is automatically revoked." 1983 Dock Permit was issued to a unique 220 property with structures. A dock was used since 1940 for 220. Prior to purchasing 220 the owner went thru proper process with surveys, etc. to include legal use of existing dock for 220 in 1986. While I do not the know the intent of that language when crafted so long ago, the language seems extremely strong and harsh for any permitted dock holder.