pf_03536 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

A draftsman that was to have provided functional views defining impacts of this variance on both lots as well as delineating potential construction alternatives will definitely not be available to me in the remaining time frame before next Tuesday. And, it is now possible that certain other documentable impacts to John's interests may also not be as refined as intended. I am concerned over these facts! In any case, I will try to have some semblance of a presentation ready by Monday (2-2-04) for your review. I am leaving the Twin Cities Area shortly after noon tomorrow, and hope to contact you in person prior to that time to briefly discuss this issue and what either I or another representative may present to the Commission as well as to offer you a 'heads-up' on our thoughts and reasoning. I will be otherwise unreachable until sometime late Sunday. It is also my intent to contact Kara Rose to politely discuss this matter in the time that remains before the hearing. Several things should be noted: 1. That John has not approached this matter as some 'malcontent' or in less than a neighborly manner (He is not desirous of damaging relationships with this neighbor by starting some' cat-fight' -- see reasons below); 2. That my wife and I had introduced ourselves to Kara's husband while each party raked leaves in early November. Expressly I discussed working jointly with him to remove a tree in his rear yard which appeared to be near the property line, though on his side of the fence dividing the two properties. This tree is encroaching upon both the fence and upon overhead utility lines. I brought it to his attention that this tree threatened power supply to about 5 neighboring homes and had been designated by Ecel Energy to be a 'home-owner's problem' relative to its removal. My offer was to use my tools and our joint labors to alleviate the very high cost of removal to one or both neighbors, and to remove the danger of power outage should an ice-storm occur; 3. That during that discussion, Mr. Rose indicated the 'possibility' of adding to his home and the 'potential' of needing a variance. We discussed several alternatives, but he indicated that they had not yet determined that they would actually alter their home. I offered my counsel as a former builder and gave him my (our) name and phone number. It was indicated that I could not (at that specific time) speak for John --and noted that John was not home for a period of some months yet-- but that John would be willing to 'work with' the Rose's. Their application for variance is dated shortly there-after, and its timing made me feel that an attempt was being made to 'blindside' John 2