Laserfiche WebLink
i "I <br />fl LINDQUIST & VENNUM pl.l.p <br />I <br />r <br />n <br />n <br />n <br />r <br />n <br />1 <br />r <br />I <br />i <br />L <br />L <br />c <br />Clifford M. Greene. Esq. <br />January 26.1999 <br />Page 4 <br />have to ask an individual who is blocking the road to unblock it.."If an individual is <br />allowed to control this, he is in effect being permitted to take a governmental function <br />into his own hands. It seems to me that any such request should be directed to the <br />governmental authority which in this case is the Village of Orono. i therefore <br />respectfully request you to inform Mr. Waaener that he cannot block this road .. " <br />As you know, the City of Orono responded to these three letters from Mr. Pillsbury. <br />They responded by writing to him stating that the Woodhill Avenue was a public street <br />and by the police chief informing Mr. Wagener that the trucks had to be removed. <br />Contrary to the position now taken in its response to the Request for Admissions, the <br />City did not inform Mr. Pillsbury that Woodhill was a public street up to Mr. Wagoner's <br />driveway, but a private road on Mr. Pillsbury’s property east of Mr. Wagoner's driveway. <br />There was no suggestion from the police department that removal of the trucks fell <br />outside of its jurisdiction. <br />I think that these facts call for the City to re-evaluate its denial of request for admission <br />No. 8. The City’s explanation for its denial states that: <br />“the unpaved gravel road was not intended to be dedicated <br />as a public road, and the unpaved road was treated by <br />Woodhill Country Club as part of its private property." <br />This response is incorrect as to Mr. Pillsbury's intent, irrelevant as to Woodhill’s intent, <br />and vague in its references to "unpaved gravel road." I believe that the statements of <br />Mr. Pillsbury not only in his 1998 affidavit but in his 1979 correspondence with Woodhill <br />and the City of Orono clearly establish his intention with respect to the status of <br />Woodhill Avenue as a public road The City’s response suggests that it was the intent <br />of Woodhill rather than the intent of Mr. Pillsbury which is determinative of common law <br />dedication of the road over Mr. Pilisbury's property. Since Mr. Pillsbury was the <br />underlying fee owner, it was his intent to dedicate the road that is the relevant evidence <br />on this issue. Finally, the reference in the City’s response to "unpaved gravel road" is <br />confusing. Mr. Pillsbury owned the property from 1946 through 1988. For most of that <br />time, the entire road from Orono Orchard Road to the Woodhill line had only gravel <br />paving. It appears that at some point a coating was placed on the road past the <br />Fox/WagenerA/Vood driveway and past the 1887 platted right-of-way. See Request for <br />Admission Exhibits 15 and 16 (attached). In particular Exhibit 16 shows “existing <br />bituminous" extending beyond the 1887 right-of-way. After Mr. Pillsbury sold his <br />i)oc« i