12-20-1976 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

n / ■i thomas williams agency, inc.NC.-? ri^' J i ■ I ‘ .*..>■ ij PI HSiWAl /VM) Bl'SINFSS INSUfiANC.T. PR(X'.R/VMM1NG 2fi<)NOKIHCh!SrnVkl AVtNUEaWAYZATA.MINNtSorAr)f>:i‘)l af’HONI 47 < December 13, 1976 Orono Planning Comnission Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 ^'?r=n!'n f=!r~- b-. ik Attn: Diane Dunlap Re: Public Hearing, December 20, 1976 Victoria Crain Company Property . . C *.< : • Dear Diane: As explained to you on the telephone yesterday and also to Mr. Hank Muhich a few days ago, we are very much interested in the hearing involving Regis tered Land Survey 924 and 158, Section 6* Township 117, Range 23 as indicated above. We will be out of to%m on the date of the hearing and ask that you pleaee express our concern to the Commission. Our property is known as Tract D, Registered Land Survey 748, North Arm Bay, Lake Minnetonka. In my discussion with Mr. Muhich, he was kind enough to give a brief outline of the subdivision application and the need for the hearing. As I understand, the new owner of the Boeye Property has requested that there be six lots to be sold for development purposes. The lot contain ing the Boeye Homestead will only be retained with one acre of land which, we understand, is against the new Village Ordinance. I don't feel that an exception should be made in this case since there is adequate land available to comply with the new ordinance. There was another point that 1 feel should be strongly questioned and that is that a variance be allowed or given whereby five or six lots can have one common access to the lakeshore. As you will recall, there was an assurance by the Planning Commission to me in June when the Andersons' and Whites' filed for, and were given, a variance to have a common dock next to our property. It was my understanding that the Commission approved this variance based on the premise that there would be absolutely no dredging, channeling or any other disturbance of that end of North Arm. Further, I would like to add that even the building of a dock or walkway over the marshland in effect defeats the purpose of the intent of non-disturbance of marshland. I think that we so often forget the original reasoning or intent of much of our leg islation, and in this particular case, I believe the two acre minimum require ment for non-disturbance of marshland and 100 feet frontage per lot should be strictly adhered to. 1 hope this letter will receive your consideration and review and will help you in making your decision in this matter. Thank you. Respectfully yours. i; • • ' .. T. R. Williams, Jr. o jhts iiiwriiai fire CDc<r5Utilty C3 nidiiiH’ ci <>p<f c.3 »f •1 A * \ f i f 1 < i