Laserfiche WebLink
August 23, 2410 <br />Mike Gaffron o�� <br />City of Orono /VQ <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 options the city is exploring regarding resolution of the lakeshore issue. <br />We understand the complexity 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 "technically 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 physically 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 defined <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 owned this property and who included <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 clear and <br />