My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
court case-2008/2009
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
H
>
Hanlon Avenue
>
500 Hanlon Avenue - 02-117-23-31-0051
>
Misc
>
court case-2008/2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 4:08:38 PM
Creation date
1/19/2017 11:10:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
500
Street Name
Hanlon
Street Type
Avenue
Address
500 Hanlon Ave
Document Type
Misc
PIN
0211723310051
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
' MURRAY & BENNETT, P.A. <br /> Attorneys at Law <br /> 700 Twelve Oaks Center Drive, Suite 166 Telephone: (952)249-9707 <br /> Wayzata, MN 55391 Facsimile: (952)249-9708 <br /> April 23, 2008 <br /> I 4��V <br /> i,yie Uman ;;�;Y L�j ���C�� <br /> Orono Building Official <br /> City of Orono �"�` `'���'���,��� - <br /> t ,�_ <br /> P.O. Box 66 "�����•�����`�� <br /> Crystal Bay, MN 55323 <br /> Dear Lyle: <br /> I have your latest letter - the sixth - concerning the cover over our front deck. <br /> First, you have not notified us numerous times about your current concern: <br /> (a) Your August 2l, 2007 letter seemed to raise only a structural coverage issue. <br /> Your November 7, 2007, letter acknowledged that structural coverage was not an <br /> issue. <br /> (b) Your November 7, 2007, letter states that our front deck violates front and side <br /> setback regulations. Your December 7, 2007, ]etter acknowledges that the deck is <br /> not the issue. <br /> (c) Your December 7, 2007, letter states that the roof over the deck is in violation of <br /> some regulation. <br /> Second, I have asked you in person on at least two occasions and at least once in writing to show <br /> me or tell me or send me the regulation that has been violated. The only regulations that you <br /> have pointed to are the setback regulations and you acknowledge that the deck does not violate <br /> the setback regulations. <br /> Third, you continue to threaten legal action. I do not like being threatened. While I do not wish <br /> the City to incur any unnecessary legal expense, it is becoming obvious that the City must get a <br /> lawyer involved to identify the regulation you claim has been violated. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.