HomeMy WebLinkAbout2961-360
Co&1A A
vv-e \0 .
~~t
Jeanie Orr
Page 1 of 1
"2A (p I
From: Leroy Nordby [Ieroynordby@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 200910:04 AM
To: #Long-Range Planning
Subject: Proposed Shoreline Setbacks.
After paying waterfront rate taxes on my approximately 1/2 acre lot on Griffith's Point on Marrowstone
island for the last 40 years or so, and leaving it in it's natural state this is the reward I get for not building
on it, VERY restrictive legislation that will more than QUINTUPPLE the required setback from the high
water mark, if I should ever want to build on it. I think your proposed legislation will force people to go
ahead and develop their property to get grandfathered in whether they planned to develop it or not. I
think setback should be reasonable depending on the size of the property. My property is on average 280
feet deep, this means if I were to build a house on my property I would have to build it on the rear 120
feet of the property: Essentially the house would basically be on Griffiths Point Road, with a trail
through the woods for waterfront access. I think for smaller lots a law stating that setback should be no
more than 1/4 of the mean depth of the lot (in this case 65 feet) with a minimum setback of 50 feet in the
case of lots smaller than this. This is an increase from the present 30 feet. Why did you choose 160 feet
as the setback number? If you really want to get restrictive why not 180,200,225, etc? Is there some
magic number in 160 feet? These laws will make some very small lots worthless (i.e. unbuildable). I
think the people (the landowners and taxpayers) should have some say in the process. Why not put it to
a vote of the people?? Also I understand that if a home burns down that is presently near the waterfront,
then you cannot rebuild if the present location does not conform to the new guidlines, etc. I think that is
unfair and unjust. The government is suppose to serve the best interests of the people and the
environment, it falls short of this in many instances. I
2/2/2009