History

WE SEEK UNOBSTRUCTED, COMFORTABLE ACCESS TO LAKE MICHIGAN VIA BEACH RD.  The City of Two Rivers remains quiet - but we will press on. 

QUICK FACTS:

●Beach Road is platted public access per WI State Statute 236.16 which reads:

(3) Lake and stream shore plats.  (a) All subdivisions abutting on a navigable lake or stream shall provide public access at least 60 feet wide providing access to the low watermark so that there will be public access, which is connected to existing public roads, at not more than one-half mile intervals as measured along the lake or stream shore except where greater intervals and wider access is agreed upon by the department of natural resources and the department, and excluding shore areas where public parks or open-space streets or roads on either side of a stream are provided. (b) No public access established under this chapter may be vacated except by circuit court action as provided in s. 236.43.

Following is a brief history to the best of our knowledge to help understand WHY Beach Road has been "held hostage" by 203 Park Road.  One can only speculate why the city manager has gone to great lengths to allow this to happen for the benefit of one resident over the public's interests:

●Residents who bought into “Shorewood Subdivision” did so knowing Beach Road was access to the Lake, that one could “carry their canoe” down.  We have an ORIGINAL, rolled, pre-digital, handwritten map as evidence - dated 1942.
●When the subdivision was being developed, Beach Road as with most street ends and accesses, often they are shared for infrastructure use.  Storm drain pipes might have been laid "some day" down Beach road towards the lake - but that never happened nor will ever happen as it is against current DNR regulations.  Beach Road was just a bulldozed sandy road to the beach.  Trees were removed from lots to be sold, including 203 Park Road.
●When Park Road was being graded /constructed - excess dirt /fill was pushed up Beach Road and it eventually became more leveled out and looking more like a road.
●The problem started with one of the original residents adjacent to Beach Road, Dr. John Stone, built his home in 1978 at 203 Park Road.  He decided to use Beach Road to access to his house (see original permit letter below)  It was asphalted but he was clearly told that just because the city allowed this, he couldn't come back to the city at any time and claim Beach Road as his own.  Signed by Marvin Now, the building inspector - not a lawyer, the letter was very clear on intent, but poorly worded.  The word "easement" as you can read doesn't make the letter an easement, it refers to Beach Road itself as an easement defined such as in legal dictionary online:
Easements frequently arise among owners of adjoining parcels of land. Common examples of easements include the right of a property owner who has no street front to use a particular segment of a neighbor's land to gain access to the road, as well as the right of a Municipal corporation to run a sewer line across a strip of an owner's land, which is frequently called a right of way.
●This confused situation with no legal clarification led Dr. Stone to add some fencing, sheds etc. to the property - slowly concealing Beach Road as public access to Lake Michigan.  The city never charged an compensation or tax to pay for his "private use".  Dr. Stone enjoyed monopolistic use of Beach Road for 17 years.
●In 1995 203 Park Road was sold to Mark Ring.  Mr. Ring also enjoyed monopolistic use of Beach Road for 17 years until a recent sale.  Mr. Ring continued to allow public access to be concealed, adding a few more things that deterred the public.
●5 New residents on the non-beach side and around the corner were also told by their realtors that “there’s public access to Lake Michigan”.  They didn't realize the property was so covered up, it “looks like someone’s driveway”, nor the level of discomfort using it (read more below).

●When 203 Park Road went up for sale, we brought this issue to the attention of the City Manager in November 2011…it was 9 months and we were back to square one after the chaos:

--First thing Mr. Buckley did was to get the new Privilege Agreements drafted and passed.  This     was an integral part of where things took a wrong turn.
--Neighbors agreed with idea to sell a strip to Mr. Ring and use proceeds for a trail, he agreed.
--City Manager began saying the city could NOT sell the land as per city attorney but the city    attorney’s paper did not say that and checking with the state that was untrue under Statute 66.
 --Mr. Buckley circulated the “petition” that didn’t meet state requirements, to vacate half the road  or basically give it for free to Mr. Ring.  Under that Statute, we collected signatures of Objection. 
--In research we discover Beach Road was a very special platted public access and that it could

be sold IF taken to Circuit Court (see statute above).

●Thankfully, the Council voted against abandonment.  We wrote Mr. Ring and tried to meet with him to see if we could negotiate that we might have a neighborhood trail and share the road peacefully.

●Negotiations failed, Mr. Ring proceeded with signage, cameras etc. to intimidate people from

using the existing road as a trail…all the while refusing to cooperate with a trail in the wooded area.

●In talking with most of the neighbors, we identified three primary opponents to a trail on the beach side: two are moving and the third is building a home elsewhere.

●There are beach side residents in our support: most are glad the property wasn’t given away, one commented, “I wish he’d just take fence down!” and another, “they could put a billboard up saying, “here’s a trail” and no one would come.”

●We appealed in further letters to the professionals; Mr. Ring, realtor, city attorney, city manager, to get this corrected PRIOR to a sale.  No responses!

●The property sold – the problem is inherited by the new homeowner - NOT a full time resident.

●The Privilege agreement needs to be revisited to address public concern.  The City Attorney submitted his opinions as to issues we raised, the Council should have access to that but we have been denied access to that public record's request.

●We continued to seek UNOBSTRUCTED, COMFORTABLE use of Beach Road.  Either to use the trail at the end of the blacktop, thereby keeping it “quiet”. OR a new trail cut into the wooded area.  We were more than willing to help with work and costs.  

●FOR MOST CURRENT ACTIVITY, PLEASE SEE LETTERS AND DOCUMENTS TAB.

NEWS ARTICLES: note 1st time about stopping "give away" 

Date:  April 2, 2012

To    : City of Two Rivers Council Members (Russ read this before the Council)

Re    : Beach Road, proposed vacation

● The Beach Road problem was solved by reasonable agreement during the First Planning Commission meeting of December 12^{th .}    Mark Ring seemed more than willing to purchase the land and it was discussed that proceeds could be used for a neighborhood trail.  Everyone seemed satisfied.  We met afterwards in the hall: I, my son, Bill Mosuch, Gibb St. Pierre, Mark Ring and his realtor - we all talked, shook hands and left on a positive note – problem was solved.

● Then came a stream of unreasonable communications: application for abandonment, the petition idea - lacking proper signatures.  Suddenly - the right of way can’t be sold but must be given away, and the portion of property to be sold grew. And – don’t even think about a trail!  This was NOT the reasonable agreement we last met on.

● The unreasonable turn - drove us to collect signatures of Objection and to do our research.  The Attorney General’s office affirmed the petition lacked proper signatures.  He suggested we also seek advice of the DOT regarding ROW sales.  The DOT said, they can’t imagine a reason why ROW couldn’t be sold – they sell ROWs all the time.  Googling we discover that public access to lakes are very special – in Wisconsin they fall under Statute 236.16, as fully adopted by our Municipal code 12-1-5.  On the DNR’s website we found – statute 236 and documents talking about this exact situation - public accesses lost through improper abandonment.  This issue has come under the light of statute 236.  NOW WE KNOW that council action is not the proper mechanism to vacate – Circuit Court is the only legal method.

● Before you hesitate to consider Circuit Court – know that it holds the answer to our problem. 

A court date can immediately be set, and we have until that date to get back to the original reasonable agreement we had at the first Planning Commission meeting.  A friendly resolution means there should be no objections and the matter should be swiftly resolved – a done deal.

● Circuit Court resolution allows the problem to be solved legally, promoting peace, because the outcome will not be based upon opinion, or favoritism.  Instead, it would be legally accomplished.

● In closing – I ask you to recognize statute 236.16 and understand that the proper mechanism and solution lies in Circuit Court.

Russ & Michelle Minaker                                                                      

Date:  March 29, 2012

To    : City of Two Rivers Council Members (hand delivered)

Re    : Beach Road, proposed vacation, April 2^nd agenda

Dear City Council Member – your careful consideration of the information presented herein will be appreciated.   Some CRITICAL points bear on your responsibility as a City Council member and also as stewards of Wisconsin.

This matter should NOT be before the council – FIVE CRITICAL REASONS

● Mr. Blahnik’s signature seems to have been obtained under false pretense by the city manager.  Speaking with Mr. Blahnik who is 91 years old, it seems Mr. Buckley took the petition to his home and lied to Mr. Blahnik, telling him Mr. Ring couldn’t sell the property without the vacation and that Mr.Ring was unaware of the situation when he bought the home. Misleading a resident should be deemed an act of Malfeasance of Office, punishable under Wisconsin Statute 64.09(7-8).

● Proper signatures were NOT obtained as set forth in State Statute 60.1003(2) which the city attorney neglected a very important word: “and”.  It reads: The common council of any city..may discontinue all or part of a public way upon the written petition of the owners of all the frontage of the lots and lands abutting upon the public way sought to be discontinued AND of the owners of more than 1/3 of the frontage of the lots and lands abutting on that portion of the remainder of the public way which lies within 2,650 feet of the ends of the portion to be discontinued.  In simpler terms, 1/3 of neighbors within a half mile of Beach Road should have signed the petition that was only signed by Mr. Ring and Mr. Blahnik.  It would be ridiculous to believe that any public street could be abandoned upon the signature of only the two abutting, selfish neighbors.

● Proper public notice was NOT given if you consider only those in the 200’ radius have been notified of meetings: not all owners within a half mile of Beach Road.  Also, the city attorney’s critical memo was missing from first mailing. (see 1A)

● Proper mechanism for vacating is by Circuit Court, as per Statute 236.16)(3)(b) and per the DNR (see2A)  An affirmative vote to vacate Beach Road is highly challengeable and has been discussed with the Attorney General’s office.

Objections have been filed with the City per Wisconsin Statute 66.1003(4)(c)

● Your constituents are objecting the vacation and requesting clear access.  Please represent!

Beach Road is a 60’ WIDE PLATTED PUBLIC ACCESS TO NAVIGABLE LAKE MICHIGAN

   Beach Road is NOT simply a “undeveloped street” as Mr. Buckley callously refers to it.

● Beach Road was developed FOR THE SHOREWOOD SUBDIVISION on Park Road as a public access (see 2B, copy of original 1942 plat map) and note:

 ● State Statute 236.16(3) reads: All subdivisions abutting on navigable lake or stream shall provide public access at least 60 feet wide providing access to the low watermark (beach) so that there will be public access which is connected to existing public roads at not more than one-half mile intervals as measured along the lake or stream shore except where greater intervals and wider access is agreed upon by the Department of Natural Resources…

● The DNR wholeheartedly supports statute 236.16(3) as applicable and cited they “would aggressively oppose the action” of abandoning Beach Road. (see 2A)

● Regardless, abandoning 30 feet should NOT go forth as 60 feet of public access is prescribed.

● City Municipal Code Section 12-1-4 affirms requirements and procedures according to Chapter 236, Wis. Stats. and further 12-1-5(c) affirms: Wherever a subdivision abuts a public use area such as a park, lake, stream or any similar type of public recreational area…shall provide an access thoroughfare at least 60 feet wide connecting such public area with a public street so that there shall be adequate public access to the public use area…

● Beach Road IS a road to the beach – likely THE ONLY in all of Two Rivers abutting Lake Michigan.

Public Trust Doctrine – grounded in the Wisconsin Constitution (see 4A)

● The DNR cites (referring to WI Constitution Article IX, section 1) “Wisconsin lakes and rivers are public resources, owned in common by all Wisconsin citizens under the state's Public Trust Doctrine. Based on the state constitution, this doctrine has been further defined by case law and statute. It declares that all navigable waters are "common highways and forever free", and held in trust by the Department of Natural Resources.”

● Public Trust Doctrine translates to the municipal level exactly the same, but the trust rests on you.

● Please read the article in Wisconsin Counties, titled “Water Access as a Community Resource” (see 4B) 

The article not only describes the precise condition of Beach Road encroachments, but states, “Once pubic access is gone, it’s gone forever.”

● Abandoning any part of Beach Road goes against the grain of; Public Trust Doctrine, Two Rivers’  Master Plans as well as costly studies supporting public access to our greatest asset, Lake Michigan.

Mr. Buckley and City Attorney haven’t acknowledged these LAWs or intent

● Worse yet, referring to Mr. Buckley’s email (see 3A) – it demonstrates his intent to GIVE AWAY this valuable pubic access as early as 2001.  We also have countless letters between the two of them, never once offering a “friendly neighborhood resolution” nor the truth. (see 4C)

Other things to consider

● “At no time in the future may you come back to the city and indicate that Beach Road should be vacated” That was documented by the City on 04/24/78 to Mr. Stone and should have been disclosed to owners thereafter.

● Initial conversations this year were to sell Mr. Ring the portion of Beach Road that he uses as his driveway, but not the full 30’ strip down to the lake.  That concept appeared in later paperwork. 

● Also appearing in later paperwork was the surprise that Beach Road supposedly could not be sold per the City Attorney’s 01/25/12 memo, but it actually said, “I do not believe that the City can sell any portion…” A non-committal statement.  The Attorney General’s office refers to the DOT as “The expert in selling Right of Ways”, if Beach Road was a standard ROW the DOT can’t imagine any standard reason it couldn't be sold: they buy and sell Right of Ways daily and would expect to process proceeds in any abandonment as state stewards. (see 5A)

● Arms length sales prove this full 30’ strip has a market value of $65,000.  That is too valuable to give away as suggested by the City Manager in his 2001 email and suggested in this abandonment

● Initial conversations also were that proceeds could be used to create a path, but there has been no promise of a clear access /path in good faith, even while proposing abandonment.

● No clear access affects real estate values for the non-beach side of Park Road, and vacating

the access would result in diminished market values – especially when realtors are selling access (5B)

● We insist Beach Road is THE ONLY emergency access for a vehicular approach to the beach

between Neshotah Road and Molash Creek.  Has the TR Fire Dept. been consulted in this?

Closing

Beach Road platting dates back to 1941 under the Town of Two Rivers, later annexed by the City of Two Rivers around 1968.  From the earliest home built through our purchase of 152 Park Road and the newest neighbor at 166 Park Road, we have all been told “you have public access to the lake”.  We do.  However, Beach Road remains invisible and is a highly contentious matter since Mr. Buckley has been employed as Two Rivers City Manager – through dozens of communications and no resolution.  We ask you to consider the above, preserve the entire 60’ of Beach Road and assist in a resolution that we the neighbors might have proper public access as prescribed in Wisconsin Public Trust Doctrine.  Fifty years from now you and I might not be here, but Beach Road should remain.

Sincerely,

Russ Minaker

FORMAL OBJECTION (there were 61 signatures!)

 To: The City of Two Rivers, Wisconsin /City Council members

Regarding:  Zoning Action, “Proposed Discontinuance and Vacation of a portion of the

                    undeveloped beach road right-of-way in the City of Two Rivers, Wisconsin           

                    and amendment of official map.”

                    “Beach Road” – abandonment of the westerly 340’ of the southerly 30’

We the undersigned hereby express our formal OBJECTION to the aforementioned proposal before the April 2^nd, 2012 Council Meeting.  The signatures of objection shall be considered absolute, regardless of any other opinions expressed, written or verbal.  Said objection is in accordance with Wisconsin Statute 66.103(4)(c).

We ask the City Council to NOT go forward with the proposed abandonment: it would not be in the public interest financially or recreationally.

We believe under Wisconsin Statute 236.16 that Beach Road is not just an undeveloped right of way – but is a PLATTED PUBLIC ACCESS TO NAVIGABLE LAKE MICHIGAN as originally intended in development of Shorewood Subdivision in Two Rivers.  Under this statute, the mechanism to vacate should be Circuit Court – not a Council action.

We therefore request this PLATTED PUBLIC ACCESS TO LAKE MICHIGAN be preserved and furthermore, we ask the City to order all encroachments removed so that there may be a clear path of access to Lake Michigan.

Signed respectfully:

NOTE:  We collected Sixty-One signatures!!  copies on file.



ORIGINAL "OPEN-ENDED" PERMIT THAT GAVE RISE TO THE SITUATION