Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Dear Ms. Curtis, <br /> <br />I am writing to submit additional information and clarity based on <br />further discovery of the existing permits and submitted feedback <br />and concerns from property owners directly impacted by my <br />application. <br /> <br />As stated on the first page of my background and context that I <br />submitted with my application. I am hopeful that an amicable and <br />a neighborly solution can be found and still allows me access to <br />my property. <br /> <br />I have gained additional historical context on the rarely requested <br />dock permits on this part of the island (I believe two in the last <br />38+ years). <br /> <br />My request and application follow’s similar precedent to the other <br />interior property lot holders who have also requested access to <br />their property and which has been approved. <br /> <br />I would like to add some clarifying points and also pose a <br />potential scenario for the council to consider that balances some <br />of the concerns of the most affected parties. <br /> <br />As I reviewed feedback submitted by Ms. Farnes and Mr. Bruntjen <br />at 230 Big Island with an existing permit, one of the unusual <br />aspect is the following language within the permit. It states; <br /> <br />“Should there be any other another request from an inland property owner <br />to use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties this permit is <br />automatically revoked.” <br />