Laserfiche WebLink
From: KKESTERS @mail.state.wi.us <br /> To: "EMX -standing(052)" <standing @co.dane.wi.us> <br /> Subject: RE: (Fwd) Re: petition 7110 <br /> Date sent: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:08:44 -0600 <br /> why couldn't he start putting some on the other side of the road <br /> where <br /> it is certainly safe? It would also give him a better price range, as <br /> i assume that side of the road is lower priced. <br /> If he does not want to however, 2 seems to cover it the best for <br /> me! <br /> kevin. <br /> From: standing <br /> To: DOTKXK; KKESTERS <br /> Subject: RE: (Fwd) Re: petition 7110 <br /> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 2:02PM <br /> > Brian- looks good to me! Would Ken be able to live with a <br /> > condition <br /> >that says flat out that things should wait until the ordinary high <br /> >water mark is established? it seems that the cost of that is less <br /> >than having a home you can't sell because you can't do anything with <br /> >it! <br /> When I talked to Ken about this, he wasn't thrilled. He claims he <br /> plans on putting new mobile homes in along the shore within the next <br /> two months or so. Ken says he would rather live with the <br /> nonconforming restrictions than have to wait until a new highwater <br /> mark is set. He argues that mobile homes are unlikely to be expanded, <br /> anyway. <br /> Ron Grasshoff of the DNR tells me they hope to establish a new <br /> ordinary highwater mark for Fish Lake as soon as the ice is out <br /> (March/April?). <br /> As I see it,the ZNR has three choices: <br /> 1.) Do nothing. This would mean any mobile homes placed within 75 <br /> feet of the new ordinary highwater mark(once established)would <br /> become nonconforming structures. Expansions of, or additions to, such <br /> structures would be limited to 50% of their assessed value, and they <br /> could not be reconstructed if more than 50%destroyed. If the water <br /> level of Fish Lake rose substantially,there is a slight risk that <br /> such structures could become flood hazards in the future. <br /> 2.) Allow structures to be placed using the current highwater mark, <br /> but deed restrict them so that owners would be alerted that they may <br /> have to move them in the future if they became flood hazards. This <br /> would be more restrictive than the County Floodplain Ordinance, which <br /> allows certain nonconforming structures to remain in a floodplain. <br />