03-14-2022 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

*We have also noted that the 90’ ROW access point, with easier access, ﬂat terrain and already developed for others, has not been applied for or surveyed. Why is this access point not being considered as well as others closer to the Thull site? On inspection 3/9/22 that 90’ access spot footnoted on page one (ROW) HAS NOT BEEN SURVEYED! Why Not? As earlier addressed, we were told ALL ROW’s were surveyed. Plenty of room there. While we are not interested in pitting neighbors against neighbors, has this access point been thoroughly vetted? Why not? Access is not easy to the 440-450 BI site being considered. The City of Orono will need to remove several beautiful cedar trees directly on the shoreline where this dock is proposed to go. That is really sad, and ultimately a great deal of further development will be required by The City. We, the Reimanns, were blindsided by letter dated 1/6/22 to move our dock for boating season 2022. Our access at this ROW has been in position for more than 100 years. This decision is precedent-setting. Has the City of Orono a plan to give access to the 14 other unimproved properties (according to Jeremy Barnhart) on the island? What is the plan here for the future? In conclusion: The City of Orono cannot be negligent on any of these points of record— *1) sanitation for this dock is not in check. The applicant has no sanitation. Sanitation requirements outlined in the city code for the lessee’s property must be followed. There is NOTHING in place. *2) ﬁre safety for applicant and island residents is not in check. *3) City of Orono has no plan for future docks for further island development. *4) people who knowingly buy property on the island with no access should not be asking for the city to build them a dock, maintain a dock and put it in in the spring and remove it in the fall. There are costs associated with all of this. We know. We have bought our dock and pay for it’s annual “in” and “out”. It all adds up. *5) we do not believe all the ROW access points have been thoroughly considered. (90’) We are asking that more work be done to have a plan. We are asking for a deferred decision based on needing that plan. The request should be turned down at this time. We also ask for more *transparency moving forward. Again, we were not involved in the process of the “ interested parties to develop an agreeable solution” because we were told the ROW our property has used since early 1900’s was not being considered. Being blindsided from miscommunication is NOT ok. Sincerely, Alice and John Reimann, 440 Big Island * Top of the page. This transparency is a continuing issue for the City of Orono. Reference recent Star/Tribune article regarding Orono City Council and Long Lake Dayton property parkland gifted to the City. A resident was quoted as referring to Council action as “sneaky” .