HomeMy WebLinkAboutLA21-000017 (480 Big Island) Ex L Applicant Updated Request
Dear Ms. Curtis,
I am writing to submit additional information and clarity based on
further discovery of the existing permits and submitted feedback
and concerns from property owners directly impacted by my
application.
As stated on the first page of my background and context that I
submitted with my application. I am hopeful that an amicable and
a neighborly solution can be found and still allows me access to
my property.
I have gained additional historical context on the rarely requested
dock permits on this part of the island (I believe two in the last
38+ years).
My request and application follow’s similar precedent to the other
interior property lot holders who have also requested access to
their property and which has been approved.
I would like to add some clarifying points and also pose a
potential scenario for the council to consider that balances some
of the concerns of the most affected parties.
As I reviewed feedback submitted by Ms. Farnes and Mr. Bruntjen
at 230 Big Island with an existing permit, one of the unusual
aspect is the following language within the permit. It states;
“Should there be any other another request from an inland property owner
to use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties this permit is
automatically revoked.”
While I do not the know the intent of that language when crafted
so long ago, the language seems extremely strong and harsh for
any permitted dock holder.
Given the harshness of this language, it would seem reasonable
to find a solution does not create a win-lose scenario.
Existing Dock Permit Dated June 1983
One potential resolution for the council to consider would be to
create a new permit where both #480 and #230 are named in the
permit, the old permit is retired and we share a dock, each permit
holder having a side.
This solution is designed so owners at 230 Big Island are not
materially impacted, they still retain their permitted dock rights to
access their property and allows me access to my property. While
this is not the perfect solution it does balance the needs of each
party and would work to limit the impact on the existing construct
that exists today.
As a show of good faith, should this scenario be feasible, I would
consider purchasing a dock at my expense if one is not currently
available from Ms. Farnes and Mr. Bruntjen.
I believe this outcome would be similar in spirt to how the lot
owners at #130 and #220 share an access point.
Right-of-Way Construction Traffic Concern: As a point of clarity, I
am not proposing that this site and right-of-way be used as an
access point for construction vehicles. The right-of-way I am
requesting would used as a walking path from the dock up the
main road everyone currently uses. This path will have no impact
on the trees and topography on that right-of-way.
Any future construction would use the primary access point on the
other side of the island that all other property owners use getting
on an off this part of the island.
In summary, I hope this clarity’s a few points and provides a
scenario for all interested parties to consider.
Regards,
Joe Thull
M:612 812 1280
Joe.Thull@gmail.com