Laserfiche WebLink
A <br />foil £Sg jp. <br />OeceoberiSlOafiilGMSliil <br />Michael P. Gaffrori <br />Assistant Planning and Zoning Adninistrator <br />City of Orono <br />P.O. Box 66 <br />Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-0066 <br />DEC 2 3 <br />Dear Mr Gaffron; <br />As you know the City of Orono forwarded to me in early <br />sunraer various billings relating to the City’s out of pocket ex­ <br />penses incurred in considering a subdivision of our property located <br />at 1385 Fox Street in Orono. It is my recollection that the billings <br />approximated $500.00/100. Feel free to check the accuracy of th^s amount. <br />As I indicated to you by phone yesterday, and as I have <br />indicated by phone to Ron ftorse some months ago, I respectfully decline <br />to reimburse the City by check for these expenses. <br />You are aware that we granted the City an easement for a <br />“Lift Station” at the apex of the triangular piece of our main lot <br />parcel. The easement specifically required that existing boundary <br />markers be maintained by the City during and after the Lift Station <br />construction period. A Judicial Marker, placed originally pursuant <br />to a 1945 survey was lost in the Lift Station construction period, and <br />was never replaced even though we requested the City to act on several <br />occasions . The loss of this Judicial Marker on our triangular piece, <br />and the renroval of a Judicial flarker (apparently by Hennepin County <br />road crews) on the rectangular lakeshore piece of ou>" total property <br />has made it impossible for us to defend or prove the 1945 survey on <br />either piece of our ground. In preparing for our plat it was necessary <br />for us to undertake and accept an entirely new survey of the property, <br />with changes in all dimensions, rather than simply verify dimensions <br />established carefully and with judicial proceedings in 1945. Additionally <br />it has been necessary for us to initiate a Judicial proceeding to re­ <br />move the remaining Judicial Markers set pursuant to the 1945 survey. <br />For purposes of simplicity, it is my position that the City's <br />failure to adhere to the provisions of the easement agreement have cost <br />me about what the City says my subdivision application has cost it. <br />I have not received all of the billings relating to the additional survey <br />and legal expense on this matter, but I have received enough to know that <br />I ann)ffering ^u a bargain. <br />Andrew J. Goetten