Laserfiche WebLink
From:Daniel MacAoda <br />To:Melanie Curtis <br />Subject:1200 Wildhurst Trail encroachment <br />Date:Friday, August 15, 2025 3:29:09 PM <br />I understand there ia a Planning Commission meeting being held Monday <br />evening at 6PM to address the long overdue issue regarding the encroachment on <br />the property of Brian and Sandy Rasmussen. <br />I will be traveling out of state on business and unable to attending the meeting in <br />person but felt it important to weigh in on what I think is a pretty cut and dried <br />issue. <br />As I understand it, the wall is on the Rasmussen property by more than 10'; exceeds <br />code restrictions in terms of height and apparently is closer to the lake than current <br />lakefront setback requirements of 75'. <br />IF all or part of that is correct then there can be no forgiveness when going about a <br />project of this scope without a permit or having a survey done is not an excuse. <br />Needless to say, lakeside property values are highly dependent on lakefront footage <br />so any perceived reduction in lakefront as the wall would imply has the potential to <br />cause financial damage to the Rasmussen's. <br />As it is, the Rasmussens have already incurred financial costs as among other things <br />they paid for the survey which properly identified and delineated the property line <br />between the 2 houses and defined the actual scale of the encroachment. <br />Applying for and getting a permit long after the wall was built and the <br />encroachment was brought to attention, does not establish any cover or mitigation <br />of the faults. I might suggest that <br />The Planning Commission really has no choice in this matter - you either uphold <br />long standing requirements regarding permits and set backs or abrogate your <br />collective responsibility and open up the floodgates to anyone inclined to break <br />rules whether intentional or not. <br />Always very much a shame to see neighbors at odds like this, but the offending <br />party must be required to remedy the situation - at their cost - to get the wall <br />removed or scaled back to meet all legal requirements or setbacks currently in <br />place. <br />Respectfully, <br />Daniel J. McHugh