My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-16-1992 Planning Packet
Orono
>
Planning Commission
>
1992
>
11-16-1992 Planning Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/19/2023 11:10:52 AM
Creation date
1/19/2023 10:58:20 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
266
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
r.-' <br />■ <br />• %- <br />'p sr<'f <br />April 13, 1981 <br />Mr. Walter R. Benson <br />City Administrator <br />City of Orono <br />Post Office Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323 <br />Dear Dick: <br />I am enclosing for your attention Certificate of Title <br />No. 50555, dated May 21, 1974 certifying the ownership of the <br />1385 Fox Street property in Diann and myself as joint tenants. <br />As you know, this certificate is needed to record the (sewer) <br />easement which Diann and I granted the City last fall. As you <br />j/jQ are troubled by the outcome of the sewer proceedings <br />as it affects us and this transmittal has been held up by that <br />as well as the fact that communication with the City's legal <br />counsel has been impossible in our view. We have been addressed <br />by letter (with copies to you and the City Council) on a mix or <br />things which we do not understand, and what we do understand we <br />don't like. <br />On the part of their communications we don't understand, let <br />me say that the easement we granted included the wording "under <br />and over the premises". If two documents are required for <br />recording in this regard, one for the under and the other for the <br />over, then at this point it is our feeling that your counsel can <br />draft the second docxoment in identical fotti to the instrument we <br />gave to accomplish this recording need. We did not execute your <br />^fefndard city form" because we felt you and your contracting agents <br />were responsible for exercising a reasonable degree of care while <br />on our property for any purpose and this was stated in our grant, <br />as well as the requirement for screen replanting of the facility upon <br />project completion. We felt it would be obvious that if we did <br />not care to execute one "standard city format", we would not execute <br />a second for recording or any other purpose. <br />In regard to their communications we do not like, let me say <br />that we are both damn angry at insinuations of lack of cooperation <br />in the totality of this project. It is true to say we are not <br />happv with it at this time, but you know that we were supportive in <br />all the early canvassing and public hearings on the matter. We have
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.