Laserfiche WebLink
% <br />Mayor Wm. Brad Van Nest <br />d. <br />e. <br />July 8, 1980 <br />Page 9 <br />A survey dated 9-3-74--a week before I took <br />title to 3145 North Shore Drive--shows Fred <br />Rogers moved the easements from 3145 North <br />Shore Drive to 1410 Bohns Point Road. He <br />could not have done this if he did not <br />control both properties. <br />Paragraphs 24(b) and (e) state that building <br />a house on 1410 Bohns Point Road won’t create <br />overcrowding or materially increased density <br />or materially increased traffic. The facts <br />are that (1) there is already too much noise <br />and traffic in the area resulting from three <br />easements running on either side of 3145 <br />North Shore Drive, (2) there would be at <br />least five boats on the two adjacent lots <br />plus canoes and miscellaneous small craft, <br />(3) any of the three easement holders, in­ <br />cluding the one given by Duane Hoff before <br />he moved, can and do invite other families <br />to use the beach and docks, and (4) the City <br />of Orono has absolutely no way to enforce <br />covenants which purport to limit (illegally) <br />the use of these three easements. <br />Paragraph 28D(1) states the easements are <br />"invalid” (as stated by Mr. Rhode|s counsel <br />to counter Mr. Malkerson’s objection to <br />granting a variance to a lot with easements) <br />since this would make the lot a subdivided <br />one. Having been "subdivided" the lot would <br />no longer be a legal building lot. Mr. <br />Malkerson's acceptance of Mr. Swenson's <br />characterization of the easements as "invalid" <br />rescued him from facing up to the subdivision <br />and out lot problems. That Mr. Malkerson <br />would state that these easements (and pre­ <br />sumably all lake easements) are illegal <br />subdivisions and the easements themselves <br />invalid** is a gross bending of fact since, <br />as the courts have verified, the easements <br />are valid. There is nothing in the Orono <br />Code, Mr. Malkerson’s comments notwithstand­ <br />ing, to even suggest that the easements are <br />invalid. <br />Jl