Re: common boundary - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� Engineering, Co. that utilized a different legal description for this common boundary line. Unfortunately, the legal description used by Mr. Parker in that survey of the 4209 Property for Mr. and 1VIrs. Titler, is defective and did not use the correct description to this common boundaxy line. Mr. Parker's unwillingness, in his own certification statements on that survey drawing,points out the fact that the legal description used for the common boundary was highly"suspect". In fact, the 1983 District Court Action to register the land of the adjoining 4205 Property was brought to correct any conflicts regarding this line and accurately establish this new common boundary line. The predecessor in title to the 4209 Property was a party to that District Court action and the final order and Decree of Registration issued in connection with that Torrens proceeding regarding this common boundary line is binding upon that 4209 Property and all successor owners to that tract of land which includes Mr. and Mrs. � Titler. It is unclear to me why Mr. Parker did not conduct a minimal level of due diligence regarding the correct legal description to discover that this issue was in fact fully resolved some 24 years ago,prior to completing and certifying his survey. I hope this clears up any questions that the City may have regaxding the correct description and location of the common boundary line between the 2 adjoining parcels. The Survey work completed by Midwest Land Surveyors and Civil Engineers, Inc. and approved building plans approved by the City in connection with Highmark Builders' development of 4205 Property clearly demonstrates that the required 10 foot building set backs are being maintained and there should be no reason to question this issue further. Thank you for the opportunity to clear this issue up and I appreciate your support of Highmark Builders' development work. Very Truly Yo ��/ Eric T. lson Jim Moras, Highmark Builders, Inc.