Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRe: common boundary �f 2Ch4 N`sh�2 ar' � KOEPKE LAW GROUP, P.A. ATTORNEYS&COUNSELORS February 29, 2008 ������� �J �'� �p`�r.9 Evelyn Turner � ��o��, City Planner �/�y. City of Orono . ���t�p�0 P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 �i:: �uiiuing Sc;tbac;x i1uestion-4�i�5 ivorth �nore�rive Property Owner: LMG Partners, LLC Development: Highmark Builders, Inc. Dear Ms. Turner: I am following up on our earlier conversations and communications regarding the questions that have surfaced in connection with the location of the common boundary line between the property located at 4205 North Shore Drive, owned by LMG Partners, LLC and being developed by Highmark Builders, Inc., (the"4205 Property") and the ' adjoining property to the west, located at 4209 North Shore Drive, owned by William and Mary Titler(the"4209 Property"). � ` '� The City of Orono has approved building plans and issued building permits for Highmark Builders, Inc. to complete construction of new home, garage and other improvements on the 4205 Property. The adjoining 4209 Property owners have raised some questions as whether a 10 foot side lot line setback is being maintained on the improvements approved by the City and being constructed on the 4205 Property by Highmaxk Builders Inc. In our last discussion, you had some questions as to the correct description of this corr,r��ori buur��lary line, i�et��een t'r�esz 2 adjoining parcels. I have reviewed the titie history and legal descriptions involved with respect to this common boundary line and have determined that the any apparent issues or conflicts regarding the description of this common b�undary line were fully and finally resolved in the 1983 Hennepin County District Court Action (Case No. 19004) to register the title to the 4205 Property now owned by LMG Partners, LLC. The common boundary line between the 2 adjoining parcels was litigated and judicially resolved in that case. The case determined that the accurate and correct description of that common boundary line is the description th�.t was used and incorporated in the survey and development plans prepared by Midwest La.,�d Su_rveyors and Engineers, Inc, on behalf of Highmark Builders and submitted to the.C�ity of Orono in connection with its current development. ` It has been brought to my attention that Mr. and Mrs. Titler had previously submitted a survey to the City of Orono, completed by James H. Parker, of Advanced Surveying & 3161 Fernbrook Lane North I Plymouth,Minnesota 55447 I Phone 763 235 2040 I Fax 763 201 1212 I www.koepkelawrgroup.com � 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.