Laserfiche WebLink
While I do not the know the intent of that language when crafted <br /> so long ago, the language seems extremely strong and harsh for <br /> any permitted dock holder. <br /> Given the harshness of this language, it would seem reasonable <br /> to find a solution does not create a win-lose scenario. <br /> Existing Dock Permit Dated June 1983 <br /> 1 1 <br /> f93X198 scie i,: oC <br /> City of ORONO----e- <br /> =M au.a.sc.wce ae�.=oxs vm ne_54.._ <br /> i;iia:i:nec,..t.t.e., •«,..rt..e....,.A ,e.=ef.a..tn. <br /> 2. CrAnsteA this verlases noses thls RICO.DOT se,bs suet fnr ones <br /> liseste with <br /> all <br /> r.tfe...ne:et..e.xae fcr Bevel rmor. v in the <br /> One potential resolution for the council to consider would be to <br /> create a new permit where both #480 and #230 are named in the <br /> permit, the old permit is retired and we share a dock, each permit <br /> holder having a side. <br /> This solution is designed so owners at 230 Big Island are not <br /> materially impacted, they still retain their permitted dock rights to <br /> access their property and allows me access to my property. While <br /> this is not the perfect solution it does balance the needs of each <br /> party and would work to limit the impact on the existing construct <br /> that exists today. <br />