Farnes Combined - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

March 15, 2021 To: Malanie Curtis, City of Orono Planner From: Nancy Farnes Re: #LA‐21‐000017 Joe Thull, 480 Big Island, Dock Permit This serves as my requested response to assist in above‐named matter with attachments for reference. The application and updated letter as exhibit L still dismisses City Codes, LMCD ordinances, and precedent set on an identical application. It was a tumultuous hardship on neighbors affected. And it was resolved by withdrawal of application for a new application granting dock permit #4456 by council. Doesn’t the City have a duty to protect property rights of Thull and property owners affected as well as the city codes, right of ways and LMCD ordinances? Isn’t the intent of planners, Planning Commission and Council to review applications and not to create issues down the road or hardships? The application was submitted without relevant research. A harsh burden fell on me and neighbors a week ago to provide it for planner on informed recommendation. Attached validates a handful of wrong narratives in Thull application. He includes what should be several change requests on existing precedence, city codes and LMCD ordinance packaged in his dock permit. Considering a new code for easements and many sales I hope common sense may prevail to withdraw it. 1)230 Big Island was purchased at 45K with an existing dock and structures since 1942. a) Precedence was set 2038 conforming w/existing lakeshore, traffic and quite enjoyment. b) Precedence was set 2000 by 4456 resolution where application for dock at 230 withdrawn. c) Precedence acknowledge by last buyer of 220 inside 4.5 acres at 100K. He asked us and inquired for dock at 230. I believe he dropped idea after his due diligence. d) Right of way between 210 and 230: 1) It is a drain field with established trench for water runoff in spring and storms 2) 78‐567 (1) violation; see attached notice from City Orono dated October 22, 2003 3) Right of ways became small walking trails about 3 feet wide. Some are established behind private properties. Per code78‐567 (5)…No permit shall be required for any person whose property abuts a platted public right of way or a platted park to control weeds or brush, seed, sow mow or otherwise maintain the right of way or park ….record lots …divided by platted, unopened public right of way may incorporate and use such right of way as PART OF THEIR YARD without a permit…. e) The city does not maintain right of ways, survey or provide signage. Perhaps administration inquiries should be directed to abutting property owner who preserve land, “incorporate and use such right of ways as part of their YARD without a permit” lacking sufficient knowledge to advise.