Laserfiche WebLink
03/08/06 11:46 FAX 218 834 4753 LAKE BANK [a 003 <br /> SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER THE NOVEMBER COUNCM MEETING AND THE <br /> ZONING]PROCESS, THE PURCHASE OF OUR PROPERTY BY THE SMITH'S <br /> DID NOT OCCUR AND THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT WAS DISOLVED BY <br /> BOTH INTERESTED PARTIES. AT THIS TIME,MY WIFE AND I DO NOT <br /> AGREE TO HAVING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION(PnW290104100BA009) <br /> REZONED TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL. SINCE THE PROPERTY IN <br /> QUESTION BORDERS OUR PROPERTY ON TWO SIDES(SOUTH AND <br /> WEST)WE FEEL THAT BY HAVING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION RE- <br /> ZONED AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL WOULD NOT BE OF THE BEST <br /> INTEREST OF THE CITY OF PEQUOT LAKES TO"SPOT ZONE"THE <br /> PROPERTY AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL SINCE IT WOULD LEAVE OUR <br /> PROPERTY IN AN AWKWARD LOCATION WITH URBAN RESIDENTIAL <br /> ON TWO SIDES OF TI ANITIONAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. <br /> HOWEVER, MY WIFE AND I WOULD NOT DISAGREE WITH ZONING THE <br /> PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS URBAN RESIDENTIAL. F THE SECTION OF <br /> LAND DIRECTLY TO THE WEST OF OUR PROPERTY WAS KEPT ZONED <br /> TRANSITIONAL RFSIDENTIAL AND THE REST OF THE PROPERTY IN <br /> QUESTION TO THE SOUTH OF OUR SOUTH PROPERTY LINE WAS RE- <br /> ZONED. UPON LOOKING AT THE MAP/DIAGRAM THAT WAS SENT TO US <br /> ,WE FEEL THAT IF MR.AND MRS.SMITE ALONG WITH MMIL HEASIRICH <br /> WERE TO AGREE TO SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, THE <br /> CITY COULD REZONE THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY JN QUESTION <br /> AND IT STILL WOULD MEET THE NEW ZONING ORDINANCE PUT IN <br /> PLACE BY TBE CITY. <br /> THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION IN THIS MATTER,NOT ONLY <br /> FOR MY WIFE AND I,BUT ALSO FOR THE SMITH'S AND HEMMERICH'S. <br /> I DO FEEL THAT THIS SITUATION CAN BE RESOLVED FOR THE <br /> BETTERMENT OF ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AND WITH TAE CAREFULL <br /> PLANMNG THE CITY OF PEQUOT LADS WALL END UP WITH AVERY <br /> NICE ADDITION TO THE C0 . <br /> SINCERELY, <br /> MASTER CAPT. MARK E.FORSBERG �� <br /> USCG LIC#1113396 <br /> _LYNN B.FORSBERG <br />