LA21-000017 (480 Big Island) Ex F All Public Comment

Home Browse Search

Exhibit L March '14 Comments in Highlight for Curtis Dear Ms. Curtis, I am writing to submit additional information and clarity based on further discovery of the existing permits and submitted feedback and concerns from property owners directly impacted by my application. As stated on the first page of my background and context that I submitted with my application. I am hopeful that an amicable and a neighborly solution can be found and still allows me access to my property. I have gained additional historical content on the rarely requested dock permits on this part of the island My request and application follow's similar precedent to the other interior property lot holders who have also requested access to their property and which has been approved. 1 would like to add some clarifying points and also pose a potential scenario for the council to consider that balances some of the concerns of the most affected parties. As 1 reviewed feedback submitted by Ms. Farnes and Mr. Bru ntjen at 230 Big Island with an existing permit, one of the unusual aspect is the following language within the permit. It states; I withdrew reactionary material to M. Curtis. The complexity, legalities and narrative in application did not have clarity for me to accurately respond. "Shou/d there be any other another request from an in/and property owner to use this site for the insfa//a tion of a docK to their properties this permit is automatics//y revoked." '1983 �ocK Parm it was issuetl to a uniqu® 220 props rty with structures. A docK was used since 1940 for 220. Prior to purchasing 220 the owner went th ru proper process with surveys, etc. to include legal use of existing dock for 220 in '1986. While I do not the know the intent of that language when crafted so long ago, the language seems extremely strong and harsh for any permitted dock holder.