Laserfiche WebLink
s’r'p 2 :) ?nnn <br />Qll t Ur UnOi'.IO <br />September 23,2000 <br />Orono City Council <br />2750 Kelley Parkway <br />Orono, MN 55356 <br />To: Members of the Orono City Council <br />Ladies and Gentlemen: <br />In light of the article which appeared in the September 20,2000, edition of the Sun- <br />Sailor Newspaper, we feel compelled to clarify the record with regard to the issue of access <br />to the proposed VanEeckout development. Following several preliminary conversations, we <br />asked Mr. VanEeckout to draw up a proposal and make us an offer for the easement he <br />sought. We suggested that said proposal clearly specify the scope of the easement he was <br />seeking and that it be in legally recordable form. <br />Eventually, Mr. VanEeckout submitted a proposal to us. However, the amount of <br />compensation offered, the vague description of the proposed easement, and the inclusion of <br />other unrelated issues in the proposal indicated to us that we were nowhere near to reaching <br />an agreement. We informed Mr. VanEeckout of this fact in a letter which clearly specified <br />the criteria to be met in any future proposal. (Copies of Mr. VanEeckout’s proposal and our <br />responsir'C letter are available upon request.) However, rather than making a realistic offer to <br />obtain an easement through our property, Mr. Van Eeckout chose to switch course and pursue <br />an access through Apple Glen Road in Long Lake. In fact, following receipt of our letter, <br />Mr. VanEeckout has initiated no further discussions with us regarding an easement to his <br />proposed development off of Brown Road, <br />Mr. VanEeckout’s characterization of us as “uncooperative ” is disingenuous and just <br />plain false. As we indicated in our responsive letter, we are more than willing to consider a <br />reasonable proposal for an casement to his proposed development. In fact, we openly <br />acknowledge that we are willing to grant such an easement for reasonable compensation in <br />light of the value of Mr. VanEeckout’s proposed development. However, thus far, Mr. <br />VanEeckout has demonstrated a willingness to proceed only on his terms, at his price, and his <br />schedule. Now that you have a slightly more balanced picture of the situation regarding the <br />issue of access to Mr. VanEeckout’s proposed development, 1 think you are in a position to <br />conclude for yourselves who is being “uncooperative”. <br />Should you have further questions or desire a copy of the documents exchanged <br />please feel free to contact us at 473-8396. <br />Sincerely, <br />John and Mary Dunn u <br />c