Laserfiche WebLink
4. During the winter of 1991-92, ice fishermen end <br />snowmobilers travelled the area of the common boundary to gain <br />access to Lalce Minnetonka. <br />S. Plaintiffs informed the users that they objected to <br />having their property used for access to the lake. <br />6. Officials of the City of Orono ("City") told Plaintiffs <br />that in the area of the common boundary of their properties is <br />subject to a public road. The area that the City claims is <br />subject to a public road is referred to as the "Disputed <br />Property". <br />7. Plaintiffs informed City officials that the allegeo <br />public road is not a legal encumbrance on either the Jerome <br />Property or the Lindell Property. <br />8. Plaintiffs requested that the City abandon its claim <br />chat a public road encumbers the Disputed Property. <br />9. in 1993, Plaintiffs installed gates across Che Disputed <br />Property at a point adjacent to North Snore Drive and adjacent to <br />the shore line of Lake Minnetonka. <br />10. By letter dated November 29, 1993, a copy of which is <br />attached as Exhibit A, City demanded that Jerome and Lindell <br />remove the gates or allow City to control access over the <br />Disputed Property to Lake Minnetonka. City said it would control <br />use of the gates. City wrote that access would only be for ice <br />fishermen <br />- 2 -