Laserfiche WebLink
I request adequate time with M Curtis to research relevant, accurate intent <br />and documents for her recommendation to committee and council. <br />Given the harshness of this language, it would seem reasonable to find a <br />solution does not create awin-lose scenario. <br />Applicant is only person in 35 years stating permit is "harsh language'. <br />Existing Dock Permit Dated June 1983 <br />One potential resolution for the council to consider would be to create a <br />new permit where both #480 and #230 are named in the permit, the old <br />permit is retired and we share a dock, each permit holder having a side. <br />Please see my replaced narrative, LMC�, lake shore feet, drain fields, <br />trench etc. and also the relative material submitted by Jud_ <br />This solution is designed so owners at 230 Big Island are not materially <br />impacted, they still retain their permitted dock rights to access their <br />property and allows me access to my property. While this is not the perfect <br />solution it does balance the needs of each party and would work to limit the <br />impact on the existing construct that exists today. <br />230, 2'I O, 260, land and lakeshore right of way are negatively impacted... <br />As a show of good faith, should this scenario be feasible, I would consider <br />purchasing a dock at my expense if one is not currently available from Ms. <br />Farnes and Mr. Bru ntjen. <br />I believe this outcome would be similar in spirt to how the lot owners at <br />#130 and #220 share an access point. <br />Not remotely similar, 220 had structures and access points not accurate. <br />Right -of -Way Construction Traffic Concern: As a point of clarity, 1 am not <br />proposing that this site and right-of-way be used as an access point for <br />construction vehicles. The right-of-way I am requesting would used as a <br />walking path from the dock up the main road everyone currently uses. Who <br />