Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> ��v <br /> August 23,2010 ,9�C ���j� <br /> , c,� ��, �� O <br /> O,c ` `�:� <br /> Mike Gaffron �R <br /> City of Orono O�O <br /> Dear Mike: <br /> We just have a few thoughts in follow up to our phone conversation we had last week regarding the <br /> various aptions the city is exploring regarding resolution of the lakeshore issue. <br /> We understand the comp{exity and we very much appreciate the efforts being made to take this <br /> lakeshore out of limbo—which would also result in taking the investments we have made in our <br /> property out of permanent limbo. All we are seeking is the formalization of what has been in practice <br /> for a long time and what makes sense for the homeowners,the city,and the defined neighborhood. <br /> As I mentioned,when we purchased our home in 1999,the disclosure statement stated the lakeshore <br /> was"technicaily deeded." You replied that the other houses in the defined neighborhood could state <br /> the same. However,we do feel there has been and is a distinction as this home has had a dock for many <br /> years(85 or more?)and the reason that has been allowed is due to the distinction of this property(and <br /> the two other properties in question}being physicatly on the lake. We realize the actual shore is owned <br /> by the city—but the three homes in question are physically/visually on the lake which is what has <br /> allowed the city to allow us to have docks. <br /> The city has stated to us on more than one occasion that no one living physically/visually off the lake <br /> would ever be allowed to install a dock—due to security and liability issues—not being able to monitor <br /> its use or protect it. So there is and has been a physical and practical distinction—it is the legal <br /> distinction that we are requesting to resolve. This distinction is furthered by the fact that the <br /> city/county has been able to tax this property(and the two other properties in question)based upon the <br /> practical use of the lakeshore and this is not the case for the other properties in the de�ned <br /> neighborhood that are not physically/visually on the shore. <br /> We are sincerely hoping this distinction can be further applied to allow for some permanent and legal <br /> deeded access—not just access to the lake like the homes above—but permanent and legal access to <br /> have and utilize a dock. The intent of the kind gentleman who awned this property and who incfuded <br /> the defined neighborhood in his wishes was envisioned before the time of boats requiring a dock to <br /> access the lake for boating and there were also very few homes in the defined neighborhood. <br /> With that thought in mind,we would like to comment on the options you mentioned. The sale of the <br /> lakeshore to the three homeowners that can feasibly have a dock is the least desirable as the <br /> homeowners have already paid for that value{in varying degrees increasing by time),based on the long <br /> history of docks and the assumption that docks would continue to be allowed. If the city no longer <br /> wants to own the shore—that is fine—but the sale of it at any substantial price would seem redundant <br /> and excessive. The city paid nothing for this shore—if a sale is deemed the best option for the city we <br /> would respectfully propose that it be done for a nominal fee. The fourth homeowner(3445)is in a <br /> different situation as you explained—since there is not room for a dock...but that was made c{ear and <br />