03-16-1978 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� ' ?�.��LAP, ?�SEET??�G OF iHE ORONO COUPICIL, ^�RCH 15 , 1978 Page 8 I•ir. 2lalkerson also stated that he s��oke to Joan tvALTER' S PORT Maclin, representing Mr. DeGregory, and inforr�`d (Continued) er �ahat the City required. I received the following letter from her dated March 15, 1978, which states : . Mr. Bruce Malkerson Popham, Ha1k, Schnobrich, Kaufman & Doty, Ltd. Attorneys at Law Suite 4344 IDS Tower Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Re: Pending application of P1essrs. deGregory, Crist and Ellis for Orono City-Council approval of certain repairs to the seawall � surrounding Outlot 3, Walters Port. Dear Mr. Malkerson: This office represents Mr. Robert deGregory, owner in fee simple of Lot 1 , Block 1 , Walters Port, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Mr. deGregory, together with his neighbors Mr. Crist and Mr. Ellis, has applied to the City Council of Orono for a permit to make certain repairs to the seawall which surrounds Outlot 3, Walters Port, a man-made lagoon used principally by the eight landowners in Walters Port as a docking area for boats and for access by boat to Lake Minnetonka. The pending applications, briefly stated, seek a permit for the use of riprap by each individual applicant in the repair of that portion of the aforesaid seawall which is coextensive with the lagoon frontage owned by each applicant respectively. In other words, the repairs which these three applicants propose to make will not affect the lagoon frontages of other neigf�boring owners who are not parties to the pending applications. It has come to rr�y attention that these applications have been opposed by some of the other owners of lots within Walters Port. I understand that two fundamental defects in the applications have been urged by these opponents; namely, that the applicants lack a sufficient property right to make the proposed improvements as individuals and that the proposed plans will detrimentally affect the lagoon and its use by others. This latter objection appears, insofar as it has been expressed, to relate to the engineering detail of the proposed plans. As I do not have any expertise in such matters, I do not propose here to address that objection. However, I am certain that the (Continued)