#1666 public comment - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Alex & Dianne Jentilucci P.O. Box 27 1295 Briar Street Crystal Bay, MN 55323 -� L�= t�.� July 25, 1991 To: Ms, Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator fJUL 6 Members of Orono City Council A 10 � - Subject: Michael Hilbelink Application #1666 Variance Renewal for 2180 Prospect Avenue Dear Ms. Mabusth and Orono City Council: This letter is to document the concerns we have regarding certain provisions of the above mentioned variance renewal application. We wish to thank you very much for removing this matter from the consent agenda of the Council meeting of July 22, 1991, and for hearing our concerns regarding this matter. The Council and staff have done a great job resolving drainage problems along our southern property line. We wish to insure that work is not lost due to "technicalities". A. The original variance #1502 was approved by Council resolution #2839 and contained specific wording that was not carried forward to the new resolution. The specific wording appeared in resolution #2839, condition #6, page 3 of 5, as follows: Applicant shall maintain erosion control on his property throughout construction to prevent any restriction of drainage system along northern border of property. The existing drainage swale within the northern boundaries of the property shall not be moved further north so as to further encroach into the immediately adjacent property to the north. This wording should be included in the new resolution in order to maintain the intent of condition V. imposed upon the original variance approval #2839. B. It appears that the position of the existing drainage swale referenced in "A" above is not indicated in any document in the City's possession. The words in "A" above are not meaningful without a documented location of the swale. Perhaps this has already been done, and we are not aware of it. If so, we would appreciate receiving a copy of such documentation or survey for our records. C. We have recently become aware that Mr. Hilbelink is not the owner of the property, nor is he empowered to sign legal documents on behalf of the owner. We have concerns regarding the legality of recorded documents because they show Mr. Hilbelink as owner of the property. His letter to the Council indicates, however, that he is not the owner. The easements granted pursuant to resolution #2839 are of particular concern to us. We wonder how a party can grant easements on a property that he does not own at the time of execution of the document. Perhaps the City Attorney could shed some light on this question. D. When a valid easement is obtained, we wish to receive a copy of it for our records. We also would like to reiterate that the easement along the northern border of the property should be 15' as required in condition #5, of resolution #2839. Resp ctfully submitted, /A"