HomeMy WebLinkAboutFarnes CombinedFrom:Nancy Farnes
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:I am ONE hour late
Date:Monday, March 15, 2021 1:18:07 PM
Attachments:NLF 1 MelanieConsiderationToAmendYourDraftedLetterMarch15.docx
NLF 2 HighlightCommentsOnThullLastLetterExhibitLforPacket.docx
NLF 3 LetterForPackageComments.docx
NF1Easment by Robb.pdf
Melanie,
I can drive over or fax the attachments starting now.
Please call and advise!
I am so, so sorry; this took on a life of its own. I have been deligently working steady on this all weekend.
Hope my exhaustion and brain overload doesn't reflect in this.
And appreciate your flexibility in this very serious matter to defend best as I could in a week.
Nancy
March 14, 2021
To: Melanie Curtis, Planner
Re: #LA‐21‐000017 Thull
Your drafted March 15 letter to Chair and Planning Commission Members
Melanie,
In reviewing above I note the below for consideration due to llth hour changes with research,
discovery etc. this last week.
Background last paragraph:
Two dock permits have been issued in the past 35 years. Resolution 2038 (exhibit F) was
granted to 230 August 1986 with an existing dock use and structure. Resolution 4465
attributed to 220 and 130 May 2000 (Exhibit F).
Page 2 third paragraph, fifth sentence …informal agreement with City since early 1940’s. Tenth
sentence …Permit 2038 has remained in effect since 1986. See Nancy Farnes revised comments
submitted March 15 in exhibit 1.
Discussion:
Second paragraph ...formal revoke. I did not receive a formal 30 day notice of revocation. An
application twenty years ago for a dock permit at 230 set precedent; no discussions or notice to
revoke was entertained or enforced. Permit 2038 was undisturbed; new application withdrawn
to submit new application council approved/recommended for 220 at 130; it was not revoked.
Does this merit a revocation or discussion of “intent” when 2038 was properly secured for 220
Big Island dock permit after 35 years and already met LMCD, city codes etc. requirements?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Tabled until further research if it is feasible for applicant to propose sharing one dock, or add a
second dock, apply for a second permit if so or reasonable to revoke 220 Big Island until done.
2038 Permit went thru proper procedures in 1986 to secure permit to 220 Big Island. The
permit issued 35 years ago is one dock for 220; one boat w/one dock meets LMCD guidelines.
Comments indicate 33‐34’ lakeshore does not facilitate applicant for two boats with one dock
OR two docks in LMCD ordinances. A withdrawal or denial is reasonable based on preliminary
efforts and work submitted by others that applicant didn’t do or include in application. It may
be served better for all that an application/request to amend the code will protect and conform
all prior work invested by city, planners and applicants on the two dock permits issued. It is a
hardship on all to revisit the same issues resolved; it also complicates a dock permit application.
Exhibit L March 14 Comments in Highlight for Curtis
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;
I withdrew reactionary material to M. Curtis. The complexity, legalities and
narrative in application did not have clarity for me to accurately respond.
“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.”
1983 Dock Permit was issued to a unique 220 property with structures. A dock
was used since 1940 for 220. Prior to purchasing 220 the owner went thru proper
process with surveys, etc. to include legal use of existing dock for 220 in 1986.
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.
I request adequate time with M Curtis to research relevant, accurate intent
and documents for her recommendation to committee and council.
Given the harshness of this language, it would seem reasonable to find a
solution does not create a win-lose scenario.
Applicant is only person in 35 years stating permit is “harsh language”.
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.
Please see my replaced narrative, LMCD, lake shore feet, drain fields,
trench etc. and also the relative material submitted by Jud.
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.
230, 210, 260, land and lakeshore right of way are negatively impacted…
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.
Not remotely similar, 220 had structures and access points not accurate.
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. Who
is everyone, where is assumed “path”? This path will have no impact on the
trees and topography on that right-of-way.
The “path” on right of way is a drain field, mature trees, drainage trench…
One application in 35 years set precedent to this identical request in early
2000. After much turmoil and discussions with city and private owners it
was resolved a new application would be approved at 1
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. Any future construction would use the primary access
getting on and off this part if island.
Applicant states #4 is a primary access point; it is riprapped private
property owned by 460. Right of way was a 10’ alley; not a 30’ road.
In summary, I hope this clarity’s a few points and provides a scenario for all
interested parties to consider.
Applicant’s summary opens up a Pandora’s Box for a dock permit. Some
are matters between neighbors, Variances, easements, permits etc. Many
of the issues have precedence by lengthy proper procedures.
Regards,
Joe Thull
M:612 812 1280
Joe.Thull@gmail.com
March 15, 2021
To: Malanie Curtis, City of Orono Planner
From: Nancy Farnes
Re: #LA‐21‐000017 Joe Thull, 480 Big Island, Dock Permit
This serves as my requested response to assist in above‐named matter with attachments for reference.
The application and updated letter as exhibit L still dismisses City Codes, LMCD ordinances, and
precedent set on an identical application. It was a tumultuous hardship on neighbors affected. And it
was resolved by withdrawal of application for a new application granting dock permit #4456 by council.
Doesn’t the City have a duty to protect property rights of Thull and property owners affected as well as
the city codes, right of ways and LMCD ordinances?
Isn’t the intent of planners, Planning Commission and Council to review applications and not to create
issues down the road or hardships? The application was submitted without relevant research. A harsh
burden fell on me and neighbors a week ago to provide it for planner on informed recommendation.
Attached validates a handful of wrong narratives in Thull application. He includes what should be several
change requests on existing precedence, city codes and LMCD ordinance packaged in his dock permit.
Considering a new code for easements and many sales I hope common sense may prevail to withdraw it.
1)230 Big Island was purchased at 45K with an existing dock and structures since 1942.
a) Precedence was set 2038 conforming w/existing lakeshore, traffic and quite enjoyment.
b) Precedence was set 2000 by 4456 resolution where application for dock at 230 withdrawn.
c) Precedence acknowledge by last buyer of 220 inside 4.5 acres at 100K. He asked us and
inquired for dock at 230. I believe he dropped idea after his due diligence.
d) Right of way between 210 and 230:
1) It is a drain field with established trench for water runoff in spring and storms
2) 78‐567 (1) violation; see attached notice from City Orono dated October 22, 2003
3) Right of ways became small walking trails about 3 feet wide. Some are established
behind private properties. Per code78‐567 (5)…No permit shall be required for any
person whose property abuts a platted public right of way or a platted park to control
weeds or brush, seed, sow mow or otherwise maintain the right of way or park ….record
lots …divided by platted, unopened public right of way may incorporate and use such
right of way as PART OF THEIR YARD without a permit….
e) The city does not maintain right of ways, survey or provide signage.
Perhaps administration inquiries should be directed to abutting property owner
who preserve land, “incorporate and use such right of ways as part of their
YARD without a permit” lacking sufficient knowledge to advise.
f) Approx 34.5 lakeshore footage at right of way in front of 230 does not conform
to applicant proposal for 2 boats sharing 1 dock or two docks and two boats.
Attached is LMCD ordinance, 210’s video/diagram submitted and mine.
Summary: Applicant’s proposal for his 10 yr. 9K purchase transfers 130K wealth to
‘ him and tanks 35 yr. 45K purchase at 230 (intent of permit) down to 20K.
I respectfully ask if his proposal to “revoke” 2038 may be harsh. It has no
precedent, due diligence or communicating to affected neighbors etc.
2) 460 statement that it is a right of way with an access point used by all with lakeshore.
a) See attached bona fide survey on the subject property.
b) The right of way was conversion of a 10’ ally between 450 & 460 with no lakeshore.
c) The strip (lot 2 and 3) is privately owned; was riprapped years ago in neighborhood project.
Summary for applicant and planner for consideration in recommendation to deny/approve:
Given a week for me to locate old relevant files and with planners help, this should be tabled if needed,
denied and or applicant may withdraw application submitted with no diligence or data to validate it.
From my perspective and observation the City has exhausted and gone above and beyond to facilitate
application for a dock. Per 78‐567 (1) .permit application (did not) demonstrate a reasonable alternative
and (does) unreasonably affect me at 230, other properties abutting right of way (six). I request planner
to review llth hour work I submit along with others last week to deny a recommendation. It negatively
impacts drainage and vegetation; includes mature trees for a permit, survey and proposal damage the
established trench.
Perhaps applicant may choose to review all the work and LMCD provided by neighbors to assess if his
application is feasible And pursue to revoke 230 from a 35 year old permit assigned to 230 in unique
situation since 1942 on grounds it is “harsh” language, etc. doing the neighborly thing to withdraw it.
It may be wise for applicants to perform their own due diligence prior to official application submission.
Hennepin site is friendly user BUT clearly states “as is”, not a survey or to be used as such…..
2038 Resolution is intended for 230 Big Island. Besides Hale family division in 1983 Orono was working
to established ordinance 246 to increase lot size from 2 acres to 5 acres with 10.31 code attached.
Nancy Farnes
230, 460 and 38 Big Island