re dock rights - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

�� August Z3,2010 ,� �� U�� . �/�.y �6,'�n O,� �•.:� Mike Gaffron ��O City of Orono �0 Dear Mike: We just have a few thoughts in follow up to our phone conversation we had fast week regarding the various options the city is exploring regarding resolution of the fakeshare issue. We understand the compfexity and we very much appreciate the efforts being made to take this lakeshore out of limbo—which would also result in taking the investments we have made in our property out of perrrtanent limbo. At(we are seeking is the formalization of what has been in practice for a long time and what makes sense for the homeawners,the city,and the defined neighborhoad. As I mentioned,when we purchased our home in 1999,the disclosure statement stated the la#ceshore was"technically deeded." You replied that the other houses in the defined neighborhoad coufd state the same. However,we do fee!there has been and is a distinction as this home has had a dock for many years(85 or more?}and the reason that has been allowed is due to the distinction of this property(and the two other properties in questionJ being physicalfy on the 1ake. We realize the actual shore is owned by the city—but the three homes in question are physically/visually on the fake which is what has at{owed the city to aiVow us to have docks. The city has stated to us on more than one occasion that no one living physically/visually off the lake would ever be allowed to instaf4 a dock—due to security and liabilfty issues—not being able to monitor its use or protect it. So there is and has been a physical and practical distinction—it is the legal distinction that we are requesting to resotve. This distinction is furthered by the fact that the city/county has been able to tax this property(and the two other properties in question)based upon the practical use of the takeshore and this is not the case for the other properties in the defined neighborhood that are not physically/�isually on the shore. We are sincereiy hoping this distincYion can be further applied tio allow for some permanent and lega{ deeded access—not just aecess to the lake like the hames above—but permanent and legal access to have and utifize a dock. The intent of the kind gentleman who owned this property and who included the defined neighborhood in his wishes was envisioned before the time of boats requiring a dock to access the lake for boating and there were afso very few hames in the defined neighborhoad. With that thought in mind,we would Ilke to comment on the options you mentioned. The sale of the lakeshore ta the three homeowners that can feasibly have a dock is the least desirak�le as the homeowners have already paid for that�alue(in varying degrees increasing by time), based on the long history of docks and the assurrtption that docks would conYinue ta be alfowed. If the city no fonger wants to own the shore—that is fine—but the sale of It at any substantial price would seem redundant and excessive. The cfty paid nothing for this shore—if a sale is deemed the best option for the cfty we woufd respectfully propose that it be done for a nominal fee. The fourth homeowner(3445)is in a different situation as you explained—since there is not room for a doek...�rut that was made clear and