Laserfiche WebLink
R�� <br /> August Z3,2010 ,f���,i' ����� <br /> G��j�p� ��,��+j <br /> Mike Gaftron Q�Q� <br /> �ity of Orono Q � <br /> Dear Mike: <br /> We just have a feinr thoughts in follow up to our phone conversation we had last wee�regarding th� <br /> varEaus optians the clty Es explaring regarding resolutlan of the lakeshore issue. � <br /> We ur�rferstand the comptexlty and we very much appreciate the efforts being mede to take thts <br /> lakeehare out of limbo—which woutd also r�suit in tafcing the investments we have rriade!n our <br /> property aut of perrr�anerlt itmbo. Atk we are seeking is tha formalEzation of what has been in practice <br /> for a fong tirne and what r�akes sense for the homeawners,tFte cfty,and th��leftned ne9ghborhood <br /> As 1 ment�oned,when we purcha5ed a�r home in 1999,the dlsclosure statemerit stated the lakeshare � <br /> was"#echnically deeded." You r�plied that the other houses in the d�ffned neighborhoad coutd st�te <br /> the same. Mowever,u+e da feef Chere has been and is a dlstinctipn as this home has had a dack far many <br /> yaars�85 or mare?)and the reasoh that has been aflowed is due ta the dfstinctien af thfs property(end <br /> the two other praperties in question}6e{ng physlcally ort�e lake. We reatiae the actua!shore!s owned <br /> by the city—but the three homes in questton are physically/visually on the fake which is what has <br /> attowed the dty to allow us to have dodcs. � <br /> The c�ty has stated to us on more fihan one occasfon that no ane It�ing physicaliy/visually aff the lake <br /> woulc!ever be alfowed�instal4 a ciock—due to securtty and tiabiEfty lssues—rwt being abfe to manibor <br /> its use or p�ntect i#. Sa there is and has been a physfcal and pracEical dlstinetlon--it ls the legai <br /> distinctton that w�are rec�uesting to resolve. Thls distinction fs furthered by the fact#hat the <br /> city/county has been abte t4 tax th{s property,{and the two other properties tn questlon)based upon the <br /> practfcal use of the►akeshore and thfs!s ncrt the case for the otMer praperties in tF�e deff ned <br /> netghbarhood that ere not physicaily/vfsuatly on the shore. <br /> We are sincereiy f�oping this distinction can he further applied to alfrnnr for some permanant and iega{ • <br /> de�c#ed access—not just aecess to the lake Itke the hames abnve--but perrnanent and fegal access to <br /> have and utfl�xe a cfodc. "Fhe intent.af ehe kind gent�emart who owned thls property and wha tnducfed <br /> the deflned nelghborhood in his wEshes was envlslaned befare the t}me of boats requiring a dock to <br /> access the lake far boatirtg anct there were aisa very few homes En the cfefined n�ighborhood. <br /> With that thought in mind,we would lEke to comment on the options you mentfaned. Ths sale af the <br /> Ialceshor�ta the th�ee homeowners that can feasibly havs a cfock is the leas�destrable as the <br /> hameowners have already paid for that vafue(In varying degrees lncreasing by time),based on the long <br /> hisiory of docks snd the assumptlan rhet dodcs would cor�tlnue to be ailowe�. if the clCy no longer <br /> wants to own the shQre—that is flne--but the sate of it at any substanttal prica would seem redundant <br /> and excesslve. The city paid nothing for thEs shore—[f a sale ls deemed tiie best option for the city we <br /> woutd respectfully propnse that It be done fo�a nocnfnal fee, 'T'he fourth homeowner(3445)Is in s <br /> different situatian es you expfafned—stnce th�re is nnt room for a doek.,,birt th�t was mada c(�ar and <br />