My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2009-07-20_INSPECTION - M1977094
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Inspection
>
Minerals
>
M1977094
>
2009-07-20_INSPECTION - M1977094
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:48:54 PM
Creation date
7/28/2009 2:05:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
M1977094
IBM Index Class Name
INSPECTION
Doc Date
7/20/2009
Doc Name
Complaint
From
Schilken & Kautt, PC
To
DRMS
Email Name
MAC
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
73
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
i i <br />Mr. George Westhoff <br />April 18, 1985 <br />page 2 <br />to discuss other ideas or means to accomplish the same result. <br />One way or another, though, something must be done to provide <br />a proper remedy to the present problems. <br />By now you may well be asking yourself why should you do <br />these two things. The Longacres' answer is that what they have <br />requested should create no real burden or hardship, and further, <br />that recognizing their requests is completely consistent with <br />the-- origDia.1-contract -of..--sale -and the deed when the property <br />was sold by you to them. Not to honor the requests perpetuates <br />a situation that is inconsistent with the express and implied <br />provisions of the purchase and sale. <br />Should Longacres'be forced to resort to a fencing out of <br />; . <br />the easement and to install boundary fence between your <br />respective lands, the expense to build it will be borne by <br />both of you. As you know, such a fence was never anticipated <br />at the time of the sale of the land and should not be built <br />unless there is no other way. Furthermore, the dividing and <br />fencing of the Nkft from the SIN-1 would, at this time, have a <br />substantial impact upon your own interests. That is because <br />Walter's satisfied that your earth stripping operation as <br />Morgan Sand and Gravel has encroached upon eight or so acres <br />of the Longacres' deeded land in the NtNk of Section 34, where <br />your operations have removed sand and gravel from their land. <br />And, there is now a large quantity of material stockpiled on <br />Longacre land north of the boundary between the N-INk and the <br />SW4 of Section_ 34. <br />As previously indicated, Walter Longacre would prefer to <br />work together with you" and doesn't care to be a burden or <br />a "thorn in your side". Therefore, he proposes that if the <br />requests earlier made in this letter are granted and the <br />problems corrected, he will forbear from fencing his land on <br />the survey boundaries, which would, of course, fence the stock- <br />pile of sand on his land. He will refrain from filing a legal <br />action to recover the fair value of the material taken from <br />his land by, the trespassing quarrying operations. He would <br />tee } k? ;3 -s in :wh. ? . tg r t stock <br />3 <br />..;: <br />04 m <br />.r <br />'. y` r?a,l, frQia?,.;'the N-INk of Section ° .1 01 <br />0 As, <br />w, ..
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.