My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Re: code violation
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
P
>
Park Lane
>
601 Park Lane - 06-117-23-41-0048/1
>
Correspondence
>
Re: code violation
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 5:27:59 PM
Creation date
6/14/2018 2:57:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
601
Street Name
Park
Street Type
Lane
Address
601 Park La
Document Type
Correspondence
PIN
0611723410048
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.
/
43
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
� ` i <br /> r <br /> Melanie Curtis <br /> From: Kris Rudd [krisrudd@mchsi.com] <br /> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 11:20 AM <br /> To: Melanie Curtis <br /> Subject: Rudd 601 Park Lane <br /> Attachments: Survey601ParkLaneFinal.jpg; SurveyFinalHighlighted.jpg <br /> Melanie, <br /> I apologize for not getting back to you last week. Over the weekend, I had a chance to 'dig out' our remodel <br /> file/paperwork. In reviewing my files, I had MANY drafts of different surveys. Attached is the last survey we had <br /> done....which was marked in my files as'Final Survey.' I am not sure that the survey we received from you in the mail <br /> was of the final draft, as it looks a little different? I also noticed that the one I am sending was signed and dated by <br /> Gronberg. <br /> In a nutshell, even though we did not add any additional hardcover in building the addition to our home, The City of Orono <br /> wanted us to give up something because compared to current standards of acceptable hardcover, we were over that <br /> percentage. In discussions with City Officials, they seemed to be most concerned with eliminating any hardcover that was <br /> near the lake. That is why we agreed to remove the deck located less than 50 feet of the lake shore(abuttin up to our <br /> neighbors boathouse/shed). As agreed, we took that deck down. (It used to be raised with a railing). Typically, when our <br /> dock is removed for the winter, large dock sections are set on the grass to hold all the other dock sections....so it may <br /> currently appear as though there is still a deck. In the spring, there will be no appearance of a deck in that location. <br /> I believe there may have originally been a discussion about removing our shed. However, since there has always been a <br /> shed in that location sitting on a poured concrete slab, we instead agreed to remove multiple portions of our brick <br /> walkways. I have attached another copy of the final survey, on which I highlighted all the areas that were removed. In <br /> addition to removing the deck by the lake, we removed two different portions of our brick patio on the lake/west side of our <br /> house, the brick border on the lake/west side of our house, the brick underneath the steps to our front entrance, as well as <br /> the entire brick sidewalk along the south side of our house. According to my husband, all of these areas were inspected <br /> by the inspector before we were allowed to pour the footings for the addition (I think the inspector's name was Bruce?!). <br /> I hope this helps to clear up whatever confusion there may have been. Please call me if you have additional questions. <br /> Thank you! <br /> Kris Rudd <br /> 612-270-9749 <br /> � <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.