Laserfiche WebLink
f)Approx 34.5 lakeshore footage at right of way in front of 230 does not conform <br /> to applicant proposal for 2 boats sharing 1 dock or two docks and two boats. <br /> Attached is LMCD ordinance, 210's video/diagram submitted and mine. <br /> Summary: Applicant's proposal for his 10 yr. 9K purchase transfers 130K wealth to <br /> him and tanks 35 yr.45K purchase at 230(intent of permit) down to 20K. <br /> I respectfully ask if his proposal to "revoke" 2038 may be harsh. It has no <br /> precedent, due diligence or communicating to affected neighbors etc. <br /> 2)460 statement that it is a right of way with an access point used by all with lakeshore. <br /> a) See attached bona fide survey on the subject property. <br /> b) The right of way was conversion of a 10' ally between 450&460 with no lakeshore. <br /> c) The strip (lot 2 and 3) is privately owned;was riprapped years ago in neighborhood project. <br /> Summary for applicant and planner for consideration in recommendation to deny/approve: <br /> Given a week for me to locate old relevant files and with planners help,this should be tabled if needed, <br /> denied and or applicant may withdraw application submitted with no diligence or data to validate it. <br /> From my perspective and observation the City has exhausted and gone above and beyond to facilitate <br /> application for a dock. Per 78-567 (1) .permit application (did not) demonstrate a reasonable alternative <br /> and (does) unreasonably affect me at 230, other properties abutting right of way(six). I request planner <br /> to review Ilth hour work I submit along with others last week to deny a recommendation. It negatively <br /> impacts drainage and vegetation; includes mature trees for a permit,survey and proposal damage the <br /> established trench. <br /> Perhaps applicant may choose to review all the work and LMCD provided by neighbors to assess if his <br /> application is feasible And pursue to revoke 230 from a 35 year old permit assigned to 230 in unique <br /> situation since 1942 on grounds it is "harsh" language, etc. doing the neighborly thing to withdraw it. <br /> It may be wise for applicants to perform their own due diligence prior to official application submission. <br /> Hennepin site is friendly user BUT clearly states "as is", not a survey or to be used as such <br /> 2038 Resolution is intended for 230 Big Island. Besides Hale family division in 1983 Orono was working <br /> to established ordinance 246 to increase lot size from 2 acres to 5 acres with 10.31 code attached. <br /> Nancy Farnes <br /> 230,460 and 38 Big Island <br />