Farnes email w attach - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 7, 2021 Melanie Curtis City of Orono, Planner 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Requested letter on Joseph Thull Application for private dock on his vacant lot 480 To Whom It May Concern, The application has many misleading and/or inaccurate statements, photos he may not be aware of. Resolution #2038 issued to 220 August 1986 Our seller divided her parcel for three owners. 220 had a dock for years; she went thru proper procedure to secure it before the sale of 220 with existing structures to us 35 years ago. At that time the comprehensive plan included possible Big Island acquisition for park with many lots. It was/is valued in our 220 purchase. We have maintained and pay taxes accordingly since 1986. The intent of owner/seller Hales was to divide her properly in 1983 for three owners to have lake access with a dock consistent with use of land for over 40 years prior to permit and our purchase of 220. Resolution #4456 (denied 220 location request for private Dock April 2000) 130 is similar to 480 applicant who knowingly purchased vacant, landlocked lots valued accordingly. The lots were purchased knowingly abutting lakeshore property in front of them. Twenty years ago 130 got a dock permit at a 200 by 90 foot lakeshore right‐of‐way between lots 38 and 39. It was consistent with use of the neighboring property, history and large enough to accommodate many docks for inside lots. 220 and permit does not accommodate traffic, extra docks, barges etc. It is 38’ and a drain field. Photos, dialogue of Access Points in 2021 for his 9K assessed vacant lot bought years ago Relevant clarification follows for decisions by owners affected, counsel and planning committee. 1) Survey attached is to acknowledge 460 owns and blocks access to the lake. It is Torrens property I own as lot 3 of 460. The 10’alley is between 450 and 460 providing no lake entrance. Applicant wrongly states it is “primary access road for barges & Excel etc, or terran/geography” for a “Potential permitted dock via right‐of‐way” indicated by his #4 possible access site. 2) Applicant wrongly says on page “Current Permitted Dock Holders” interior lots are owned by lakeshore owners and “my lot is one of three without current access”.