Ken, read your email and because I didn¡¯t fully comprehend the conversation, I would like a little time to digest this and seek my own council on this matter. ? I as acting President of FRMID prefer not to make decisions by myself.? I like your idea of shotgunning all the sites, but I would like to wait on the surveyor to provide clarity before we engage our attorney. Nathan¡¯s fees are not cheep and also not included in the budget.? I also believe we can get what we want without him. I sincerely appreciate your hard work and understand your deadline on this matter! It would also help if we had something from the Postal Service in reference to guidelines for cluster mailboxes, do we really need 16 ft or would ?8 ft ?suffice? It might be easier to sell 8 rather than 16!?
Jim
Jim,
The email exchange with the President of the
Vista Del Oro
was both informative and I think predictable. The documents he
sent shows that they
did transfer the 40¡¯ easement along the west side of their
property to the Road
District. Apparently, there is no longer an easement there. To get
the finally
answer to that may require both a lawyer and surveyor, but in any
case, the HOA
doesn¡¯t appear interested in giving up any more land. ?
I took another look at copy of the Quit-Claim
Deed I have for
property the road is on adjacent to the school district land. It¡¯s
dated 1998
so it¡¯s probably been superseded by a document I don¡¯t have a copy
of. But I
suspect the situation is the same as with Vista Del Oro. That is,
what was a 40¡¯
easement along the west side of the school district property is
now the land
owned by the Road District.
I request that Nathan be authorized to send the
letter ASAP to
the property owner of site #3. We won¡¯t start installation of the
mailboxes at
site #3 until we receive a reply from the school district and have
the surveyor
define the property line. But let¡¯s not waste time waiting for
reply from the
school district before sending the letter.
Thanks,
Ken
