Laserfiche WebLink
I request adequate time with M Curtis to research relevant, accurate intent <br /> and documents for her recommendation to committee and council. <br /> Given the harshness of this language, it would seem reasonable to find a <br /> solution does not create a win-lose scenario. <br /> Applicant is only person in 35 years stating permit is "harsh language". <br /> Existing Dock Permit Dated June 1983 <br /> One potential resolution for the council to consider would be to create a <br /> new permit where both #480 and #230 are named in the permit, the old <br /> permit is retired and we share a dock, each permit holder having a side. <br /> Please see my replaced narrative, LMCD, lake shore feet, drain fields, <br /> trench etc. and also the relative material submitted by Jud. <br /> This solution is designed so owners at 230 Big Island are not materially <br /> impacted, they still retain their permitted dock rights to access their <br /> property and allows me access to my property. While this is not the perfect <br /> solution it does balance the needs of each party and would work to limit the <br /> impact on the existing construct that exists today. <br /> 230, 210, 260, land and lakeshore right of way are negatively impacted... <br /> As a show of good faith, should this scenario be feasible, I would consider <br /> purchasing a dock at my expense if one is not currently available from Ms. <br /> Farnes and Mr. Bruntjen. <br /> I believe this outcome would be similar in spirt to how the lot owners at <br /> #130 and #220 share an access point. <br /> Not remotely similar, 220 had structures and access points not accurate. <br /> Right-of-Way Construction Traffic Concern: As a point of clarity, I am not <br /> proposing that this site and right-of-way be used as an access point for <br /> construction vehicles. The right-of-way I am requesting would used as a <br /> walking path from the dock up the main road everyone currently uses. Who <br />