HomeMy WebLinkAboutFarnes email w attachFrom:Nancy Farnes
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Requested Letter and supporting docs in response to 480 Thull Application for a dock
Date:Monday, March 8, 2021 2:38:23 PM
Attachments:BigIslandLetterToPlanningMarch 7.docx
460ownsPropertyApplicants#4MistatedIsAnAccessPoint.pdf
SecondApplication20YearsAgoDesiring220LocationResolvedToLots38..denied220.pdf
Current code private party abutted to right-of-way maintains, controls no permit etc...pdf
230 Permit 1986 2of2.pdf
Hi Melanie,
Attached please find the letter and supporting documents requested by Monday.
Please call for any clarification or further information if necessary. I have several banker boxes of relevant
records. In this short time frame the attached should be enough to satisfy the many problems created by
the application proposal.
Thank you,
Nancy Farnes
Fred Bruntjen
March 7, 2021
Melanie Curtis
City of Orono, Planner
2750 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 55356
Re: Requested letter on Joseph Thull Application for private dock on his vacant lot 480
To Whom It May Concern,
The application has many misleading and/or inaccurate statements, photos he may not be aware of.
Resolution #2038 issued to 220 August 1986
Our seller divided her parcel for three owners. 220 had a dock for years; she went thru proper
procedure to secure it before the sale of 220 with existing structures to us 35 years ago.
At that time the comprehensive plan included possible Big Island acquisition for park with many lots.
It was/is valued in our 220 purchase. We have maintained and pay taxes accordingly since 1986. The
intent of owner/seller Hales was to divide her properly in 1983 for three owners to have lake access
with a dock consistent with use of land for over 40 years prior to permit and our purchase of 220.
Resolution #4456 (denied 220 location request for private Dock April 2000)
130 is similar to 480 applicant who knowingly purchased vacant, landlocked lots valued accordingly. The
lots were purchased knowingly abutting lakeshore property in front of them. Twenty years ago 130 got a
dock permit at a 200 by 90 foot lakeshore right‐of‐way between lots 38 and 39. It was consistent with
use of the neighboring property, history and large enough to accommodate many docks for inside lots.
220 and permit does not accommodate traffic, extra docks, barges etc. It is 38’ and a drain field.
Photos, dialogue of Access Points in 2021 for his 9K assessed vacant lot bought years ago
Relevant clarification follows for decisions by owners affected, counsel and planning committee.
1) Survey attached is to acknowledge 460 owns and blocks access to the lake. It is Torrens
property I own as lot 3 of 460. The 10’alley is between 450 and 460 providing no lake entrance.
Applicant wrongly states it is “primary access road for barges & Excel etc, or terran/geography”
for a “Potential permitted dock via right‐of‐way” indicated by his #4 possible access site.
2) Applicant wrongly says on page “Current Permitted Dock Holders” interior lots are owned by
lakeshore owners and “my lot is one of three without current access”.
‐2‐
3) Applicant submitted “Arial View of Proposed Dock Permit Location & Adjacent Properties”
He only and wrongly highlighted our neighbors on photo; excludes our 220 property with a 35
year old permit for a private dock in front of our cabin structures secured in 1986.
Our seller preserved consistent use of the existing dock, property she enjoyed 75 years not
disrupting neighbors in her division. This was the only dock permit for the 220 unique property
preserving years of and for future intended use.
Updated Comprehensive Plan, codes etc. that affect private owned side of Big Island.
The City with Three Parks bought substantial lakeshore and property to restore a Park for public
use about 20 years ago. Future intent/plans to purchase property on private side is now moot.
Roads, alleys and the accurate access points for emergency vehicles were modified to right‐of‐
ways. They are not maintained by the city, marked or identified by signs. Section 78‐567 states
the right of ways cannot be altered and property that abuts to public right‐of‐way or park
controls the weeds, brush, sod, mowing etc. and incorporate the right‐of‐way as part of their
yard without a permit…
Summary
We always supported applications/variances for 35 years; including an owner who needed our lakeshore
lot pulled out on separate address after improving their property without a permit to comply w/codes.
The application proposal negatively impacts property, neighbors, the drain field and intended use of 220
permit. The applicant proposes to travel .1 mile thru private property that abuts to right‐of‐ways not
marked and maintained by the private owners in harmony with codes, neighbors and existing use.
It was reported the applicant infers 220 does use a dock by his photo and desires its permit or “share”.
Last year we lined up a crew to clear out overgrowth of trees, bushes etc. but was delayed due to Covid.
A hired crew two years ago did not have the equipment or time to finish job. It is rescheduled for
summer 2021 at a cost of 10K (more than applicants valued lot) depending on Covid status.
Values increased ten and twenty fold but applicant’s lot remains at 9K value. He knowingly and wrongly
proposes to land lock 220, tank its value and intended use for his gain/profit after the fact. It land locks
our group of 3 inside lots abutting to 220 adding four (one w/structures for 75 years) without lake/dock.
I oppose this application, respectfully ask our 35 yr permit on 220 w/35’ lakeshore remain undisturbed.
A vacant 9K MV vacant lot purchased years ago on other side application to seize/profit at 220 expense,
our neighbors and loss of use/access to the 35 year permit factored in our purchase is overreaching.
Many houses have sold with docks and lakeshore attached on the market. Today one is active for 700K
that applicant may submit an offer to. Or perhaps buy an easement from a neighbor for his investment.