LETTERS & DOCUMENTS
NOTE: cut /pasted in date order, most recent actions appear first.
Channel 5 News visited on 08/30/22: WATCH VIDEO HERE!
Note: City Manager Greg Buckley is allowing INFRINGEMENT of the public's rights by allowing the entire 60 foot wide public access to be blocked, encroached upon - forcing the public onto private property or through thick woods and polluted ground full of debris.
Further - "The City Manger said he encourages beach goers to use other access points to prevent trespassing." This is a new, artificial threat in our view, as the city has long acknowledged this is public!
He is essentially threatening the Public with ENTRAPMENT of the very infringements he is allowing! WHY?? Why the benefit of one Chicago party over the entire public of Wisconsin?
All harassments reported have been documented. Including new homeonwer at 203 Park Road. For example: October 2012: two incidents of intimidation: early October, a couple wanted to use the path, but encountered the neighbor directly across the street from Beach Road - "Karen hollered" at them "you can't go up there -that's private property". That neighbor is incorrect and it is vital for the public to stand against this form of harassment. The 2nd incident...an elderly lady went to use the path, slipped on an ashy mess someone vandalized our path with. A police report was filed, the mess cleaned up and a new sign installed as the old one "disappeared".
09/22/12 Adopt-A-Beach event! Our group cleaned over 25 pounds of trash from our adopted stretch of beach to Molash Creek. THANKS EVERYONE! 09/02/12 HTR article ran the article:
http://www.htrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012309020201&nclick_check=1
Some report the article was very incomplete and slanted, but we didn't
think it was too bad, especially if you consider it from an essay standpoint:
it started out with our side of the story, that the fence is a proverbial
Berlin Wall - blocking the public's access...and it ended with Buckley
saying "the council COULD revise the current privilege agreement and mandate the
new owners, for example, remove the fence many Friends members believe
objectionable." YES, we find the fence objectionable. Will the city revise the Privilege Agreement...especially because they claim the fence is allowed by it - ?? Will the appeals of MANY be heard? Many have been adversely affected for the benefit of one.
08/27/12 Monday
Our clear path is again obstructed! Fence rails were replaced, installed with
screws this time and what seems defiant - a new pile of wood has been added. Fortunately, channel 26 news picked
up our story: http://www.nbc26.com/news/167640765.html?page=1#respond
Mr. Buckley didn't have any solid answers and said, "the
city allowed the homeowner to put up the fence years ago through a right of way
privilege agreement." This was an UNTRUE statement: There never was an
agreement until drafted December 2011 only to help Mr. Ring sell his property.
Also, the agreement says nothing about a fence, although Buckley defends so (see his below email).
08/25/12 6:10pm Saturday
A Two Rivers Police patrol vehicle, black, is parked in front of Beach Road. They may have responded to a call from 203 Park Road, moving truck and vehicles present.
08/25/12 9:00am Saturday
Charlie Matthews of the Herald-Times Reporter kindly came out to interview Friends of Beach Road and learn about our story. What a lovely morning it was - we met and walked over to Beach Road, about 20 of us. There was a pleasant exchange of questions, answers and thoughts. There was a heartfelt moment counting the value of community working together to share and watch over one another. That's what this really is all about. Back to the Minakers over coffee and donuts more thoughts were exchanged as Charlie Matthews meticulously gathered facts and information. THANKS TO ALL WHO CAME!! Charlie indicated he had more interviews to conduct so it will probably take several days before the story is prepared and published in the Herald Times Reporter.
BELOW COMMUNICATIONS CENTER NO THE FENCE. NOTE HOW THE CITY IS DEFENDING THE UNAPPROVED FENCE, THAT BLOCKS PUBLIC ACCESS!
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Jan Ettrich <janettrich@msn.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Buckley,
Thank you for your email and the explanation. If your office feels this explanation is accurate and this fence is included in the Privilege Agreement, than that is even more of a reason to revise this agreement and to address the majority of the residents concerns regarding this public access.
Considering that this fence or at least part of it remains as one of the last contentious issues to finally arrive at a peaceful solution, why can't we put a provision like that in the Privilege Agreement?
The privilege agreement was drafted for the drive way, shed and kennel only and for Mr. Ring only so he can sell his home. Even the Council President was under that assumption. Based on the statement below, the privilege holder could monopolize this privilege even well beyond the original scope and intent of the original agreement.
I recall our phone conversation several weeks ago and you agreed that this might be a good compromise (to have at least a passable opening in that fence). I still appeal to you as City Manager and to the City Council to work in the interest of the broader public.
Thank you again and with best regards,
Jan Ettrich
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 12:50:28 -0500
From: grebuc@two-rivers.org
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting 8/21/2012 - Follow Up "Beach Road Discussion"
To: janettrich@msn.com
CC: lbrocher@two-rivers.org; dvanginkel@two-rivers.org; jmb@schoberlaw.com
Mr. Ettrich--
The ROW Privilege Agreement also provides, under Section 1 (a) that "The area may be used in a manner consistent with uses permitted in required street side yards in the City's R-1 Residential Zoning District." That language, combined with the statutory provision that ROW privilege agreements can allow the placement of "obstructions" within public rights of way, would allow placement and maintaining of the fence that you reference in your e-mail.While the privilege agreement could have specifically excluded specific obstructions (like the fence) within the right-of-way segment in question, this office is of the belief that the fence is permissable under the terms of the current privilege agreement.Best Regards,Greg Buckley
-----Original Me ssage-----
From:Jan Ettrich
Sent:Saturday, August 25, 2012 12:22 AM
To: friendsofbeachroad@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Fence
From:
Sent:
To: friendsofbeachroad@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Fence
Dear Lee,
What is your solution to the problem? We (friends of Beach road) have been trying very hard to get a solution to this situation but have not been heard. At the last city council meeting it was decided by the city council members not to respond to the general publics concerns. The fence was blocking public access on a public access road. This is not lawful and the city council decided not to do anything about it. We as friends of beach road gave the council members 4 solutions but none of them were considered for discussion and it was decided not to put this on your agenda. Why? After the last council meeting we contacted law enforcement about this obstruction on a public access road and were given permission by the Two Rivers police department to remove part of the obstruction (2 horizontal fence beams) to create a clear passage as long as no damage was done to the fence. We have taken pictures which clearly shows no damage has been done to the fence posts and have created a clear path for public access. In the mean time we also contacted the new owners to try to discuss some type of long term solution, they clearly stated that we could go around the fence onto their property. They were not interested in discussing any other options. Going onto private property to access the beach is unacceptable for the general public. This access is not for one private party to control, this is public access and the council should be serving in the best interest of the general public, not private parties. We are deeply disappointed in the city councils failure to even discuss or address our concerns and thier failure to put it on a future agenda.
We would like to come up with a long term solution that benefits everyone but this cannot be done unless everyone is willing to work together, discuss, listen and develop a plan that most everyone would be satisfied with.
I am deeply sorry that it has come to this.
Sincerely,
Christine Ettrich
What is your solution to the problem? We (friends of Beach road) have been trying very hard to get a solution to this situation but have not been heard. At the last city council meeting it was decided by the city council members not to respond to the general publics concerns. The fence was blocking public access on a public access road. This is not lawful and the city council decided not to do anything about it. We as friends of beach road gave the council members 4 solutions but none of them were considered for discussion and it was decided not to put this on your agenda. Why? After the last council meeting we contacted law enforcement about this obstruction on a public access road and were given permission by the Two Rivers police department to remove part of the obstruction (2 horizontal fence beams) to create a clear passage as long as no damage was done to the fence. We have taken pictures which clearly shows no damage has been done to the fence posts and have created a clear path for public access. In the mean time we also contacted the new owners to try to discuss some type of long term solution, they clearly stated that we could go around the fence onto their property. They were not interested in discussing any other options. Going onto private property to access the beach is unacceptable for the general public. This access is not for one private party to control, this is public access and the council should be serving in the best interest of the general public, not private parties. We are deeply disappointed in the city councils failure to even discuss or address our concerns and thier failure to put it on a future agenda.
We would like to come up with a long term solution that benefits everyone but this cannot be done unless everyone is willing to work together, discuss, listen and develop a plan that most everyone would be satisfied with.
I am deeply sorry that it has come to this.
Sincerely,
Christine Ettrich
Date: Fri,
24 Aug 2012
22:43:50 -0500
Subject: Fence
From: lbrocher@two-rivers.org
To: friendsofbeachroad@gmail.com
Subject: Fence
From: lbrocher@two-rivers.org
To: friendsofbeachroad@gmail.com
Friends of Beach Road
I was very disappointed to learn of someone dismantling a
portion of fence owned by the residents of 203 Park Road
In error, I assumed reasonable people would come to a
reasonable solution. As a Leader of our community, I am embarrassed. This
is not how we should welcome people to our beautiful city.
A solution between neighbors certainly would be beneficial
versus a solution at the hand of government. The dismantling of the fence
in my opinion has crossed the line.
Again, I cannot demonstrate how embarrassed and
disappointed I am.
Lee Brocher
President, Two Rivers City
posted 08/20/12AFTER council clearly cited they were taking no action, a member of our group contacted the police department and explained the situation in great detail. The Lieutenant agreed the barriers to access could be removed as long as we don't damage the fence. Two rails were gently removed, the woodpile was also moved. See pictures on first page.
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:38:27 -0500
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting 8/21/2012 - Follow Up "Beach Road Discussion"
From: lbrocher@two-rivers.org
To: jan ettrich
CC: grebuc@two-rivers.org; dvanginkel@two-rivers.org; jmb@schoberlaw.com
Jan,
Subject: Re: City Council Meeting 8/21/2012 - Follow Up "Beach Road Discussion"
From: lbrocher@two-rivers.org
To: jan ettrich
CC: grebuc@two-rivers.org; dvanginkel@two-rivers.org; jmb@schoberlaw.com
Jan,
The council chose not to pursue a path on the area known as
beach road.
At this time I have no intention of proceeding with other
options presented by the Friends of Beach Road.
It is my opinion that the city contains ample public access
to the shore of Lake Michigan, of which the city spends plenty of resource's
for all to enjoy.
Lee (Brocher, Council President)
RESULT: The way Beach Road appeared on the agenda, the vote whether to place Beach Road on a future agenda came at the end of council meeting. The council voted to TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION.
NOTE: WE WERE BEING ASKED TO PRESENT IDEAS TO THE COUNCIL BY COUNCIL MEMBERS, SO WE PUT TOGETHER A 12 PAGE PROPOSAL COMPLETE WITH PICTURES AND POTENTIAL PLAN SKETCHES. ASK IF YOU WANT TO SEE IT!! We'll hope to post some later.
Date: August
20, 2012
To : City of Two Me mbers (Russ read
this before the Council)
Re : Beach Road
●I’m here to deliver a proposal
Friends of Beach Road developed this weekend.
We met onsite and took pictures to give a better understanding of the
layout and hopefully answer some questions.
Our proposal is very simple and straightforward.
●This issue appears on the agenda
tonight to see IF you want to put it on the NEXT agenda
- specifically about a new path on the wooded left side of Beach
Road
●We HAVE an existing path and we
plan to use it. There are a few details
the city should attend to for its own liability exposures and to protect the
public’s interests, such as revising the Privilege Agreement. The City Attorney gave his opinion on the issues
we raised and those opinions will be good for your reference.
●Our message remains steady and
simple: Beach Road Lake
Michigan . It is not a
undeveloped alley for one resident to monopolize. It is a gem and should be treated that way
with great care.
●Hope you’ve visited our web page,
hope you’ll take the time to go out to Beach
Road
 Aug 16 (1 day ago) | | |||
Hi Lee - thanks for getting back to Russ. I, Michelle write on behalf of the group to see if we could clear up a few confusions prior to the council meeting that it might be a more productive. I copied Bonnie because she kindly asked many of the questions posed here. We can back up everything we say, much is written law. We have the feeling that the whole council hasn't been privy to every communication, so please ask for copies of anything! Also, please visit our web page that's had over 1000 visits: http://friendsofbeachroad.
SUMMARY:
1) Fencing should all come down, no permits, no agreements. Blocks the public.
2) Beach Road, the full 60', even blacktop is public, NOT private. NEED MARKERS!
3) The Privilege agreement needs to be revised for all interested parties.
1) Your email below says, "The Fence will remain". How so? We need to get this point straight. The privilege agreement says nothing about fencing. There are no permits for the fencing. The fence BLOCKS public access as Christine Ettrich repeatedly expressed in her emails to you. It is poor city policy to allow one resident to have an unapproved fence on public land while we labor over the Candle Cottage's sign being two feet off.
2) We HAD a path, using the road or blacktop if you will with a trail to the beach, but the fence blocks public access - especially after Mr. Ring began putting up No Trespassing signs and cameras, forcing users onto his lawn or to climb over the fence. That was terrible. Even worse - the city manager entertained Mr. Ring's notion that the driveway was HIS private driveway, he asked Mr. Buckley how they could STOP THE PUBLIC from using his "private" driveway. Did you see the email? We obtained it in a public records request. Mr. Buckley also refused to document the referenced night calls with Mr. Ring. Because their "private" notion is contrary to your confirmation that whole 60' is for the public to use - this must be cleared up. We know it's NOT private, but does the new homeowner? LOT MARKERS ARE STILL NEEDED!! Mr. Ring had a survey done, but the city should have insisted on markers. Please view pictures on our web page to visualize what we are saying. It is poor city policy to charge people for blacktop and expect them to share it with the public while another tries to fence off and claim blacktop on public land as their private driveway.
Again, we HAD a path but it is not clear nor comfortable with the fencing. If we are to start talking about a path on the other half of Beach Road, to the left of the property - we are willing to do that. We will meet this weekend and hope to bring a proposal before the council for consideration. If you've taken a walk up Beach Road, you will note that side is quite woody and will require tree removal and probably some retaining wall sections because of the gulleys. IF the new owner wants to continue monopolizing the blacktop side if you will, they should PAY COMPENSATION and the proceeds can be used for the path. Remember - when it was first agreed to sell Mr. Ring the 30' - proceeds were to be used to create a path!! The ball was dropped at the 02/13/12 Planning Commission where they said, "formal trail to the beach and any improvements for said access MUST be addressed separately."
3) Lastly - regardless if the blacktop is used for the path with fencing removed, or if a new path is created, the Privilege Agreement MUST be revisited and revised. Please read our July 9th letter (attached) where we outlined why a Revised Privilege Agreement would be good for everyone, the city's liabilities and the homeowner's liabilities as well as the public's interests. The Privilege Agreement was ONLY drafted for Mr. Ring as you acknowledged to Russ. Remember - for Mr. Ring's comfort level while he was looking to BUY the 30' strip, the agreement was supposedly to help him in the interim. Because the strip was NOT sold to him, it should have been revisited. The agreement is POORLY worded, as we labor over the exclusivity issue. The agreement should address compensation. Thousands of dollars could have been charged over the years Mr. Ring monopolized the road. People resent this. It is poor city policy to allow one to go free while others pay.
Glancing over an email from a state official that says and I quote, "it seems that local government is derelict in its duties..." we appeal to the Council while we sincerely regret it has come to this level of confusion. The city manager and city attorney could have resolved all of this BEFORE Mr. Ring's home sold. Now, let's hope we can work together to resolve the problem ONCE AND FOR ALL! That would be a very good accomplishment. THANK YOU ever so much for your time and considerations.
Sincerely,
Michelle Minaker
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:20 PM, Lee Brocher <lbrocher@two-rivers.org> wrote:
Russ,
The fence will remain, again as I stated in the past, anyone can walk within the boundaries of the platted beach road. The issue of a path or no path will be discussed by the council at the next regular meeting in August.
On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Friends of Beach Road Two Rivers, WI<friendsofbeachroad@gmail.com> wrote:Thank you Mr. Brocher for clarifying that the public can use the full 60' of platted 236.
Also thank you for verifying with the city attorney that the road is for public use. Also that compensation can be charged.Question - could we get markers to clarify the lot line? If the blacktop is going to be the path, can something be done about the fence as we don't want to be walking in someone's yard. Unless of course the city is going to charge compensation for privileges and use the funds to put a path from Park Road straight to the beach. Thank you. --Russ
City Council Meeting, 8-6-2012 ANSWERS RECEIVED THAT NIGHT IN BOLD:
Re: Beach Road (Public Access/ Privilege Agreement)
Dear Members of the City Council,
Thank you for your time. There has been ongoing confusion regarding the public Beach Road in general and the privilege agreement granted to the owner of 203 Park Road. We’re seeking clarity for the public (maintaining public use/ access) and the privilege holder alike (rights/ obligations). We have been contacting the city for answers for several months now, but haven’t received any tangible response yet (except for a very generic letter concerning the validity of the privilege agreement). I respectfully ask to put the topic of Beach Road on the agenda for the next city council meeting including the opportunity for public input/ public hearing.
Discussion points:
1) What is the legal status of Beach Road? Is it a public access according to WI Statue 236.16 (3)? The official maps note that this subdivision was platted in accordance with WI Statue 236. The only reason that Beach Road was originally platted as such is due to WI Statue 236.16 (3) (see addendum). COUNCIL PRESIDENT BROCHER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE FULL 60' WIDE ROAD IS FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE ANYWHERE ON IT.
2) Does the privilege agreement grant the privilege holder exclusive rights to use the drive way (which is located on public land) and can the city effectively ban the public from using a public space by virtue of a privilege agreement? The statues regulating Privilege Agreements state that the privilege holder is vulnerable for legal actions against him, if the rights of third parties (in this case the public) are violated due to the privilege agreement. THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY THE WORD "SOLEY" AND CONFIRMED THAT DOESN'T MEAN EXCLUSIVITY...THE ROAD IS FOR THE PUBLIC.
3) Why is the city not compensated for granting this privilege agreement? The statues certainly allow this and it would help to generate additional funds. THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY AND CONFIRMED THAT YES THE CITY CAN CHARGE COMPENSATION TO THE PRIVILEGE HOLDER.
4) What is the possibility of a continuous neighborhood path (Park Rd. to Beach) on the north 30 feet of Beach Road (in a spirit of corporation and peace for not having to use the drive way)? Or if the funds are not available can the city give permission to a volunteer group to create the path on this public land without city funding but under city direction? This would also address the issue of emergency access to the beach (there was a medical emergency at the Beach several weeks ago and it appears the response personnel faced quite a few obstacles reaching the person and didn’t know about Beach Road as another way to the beach). COUNCIL PRESIDENT WILL MAKE EFFORTS TO GET ANSWERS ON THIS POINT. HE WANTS TO GET THIS ENTIRE MATTER RESOLVED.
5) In case no additional path can be established and the public is legally allowed to use the drive way to reach the existing path to the beach, I ask that an opening in the fence is created for clear passage (see attached sketch). Currently one has to climb over the fence (not desirable) or go around the fence (which would not be acceptable; trespassing on the private property of 203 Park Road).
Again I’m looking for clarity on the issues above. And I know that this topic is gaining momentum with the public here in Two Rivers as well. Please add this topic to the agenda for the next City Council meeting including the opportunity for a public hearing/ public input as mention above.
Respectfully,
Jan and Christine Ettrich
214 Park Road
Russ & Michelle Minaker: August 6, 2012
Russ Read to City Council members:
- Regarding Beach Road, first I want to thank the council for voting in favor of keeping Beach Road as a public access by not allowing it to be given away.
- I'd like to ask you to place the issue of Beach Road on the next agenda, of August 20th, because the issue is back to square one. We've addressed Mr. Ring, his Realtor, the city manager and city attorney with no responses - now 203 Park Road sold and the problem remains.
- It seems Mr. Ring was under the wrong impression, that the road was for his private use only - he emailed Mr. Buckley to see "what the city can do to stop public use of his private driveway." Did Mr. Buckley give him that impression? When Mr. Ring appeared before you the Council, he said as I quote from the newspaper, "It's not my intent nor has it ever been my intent to restrict access." When you voted that night, I believe everyone understood Beach Road was a public access. Matter of fact, Mr. Pflieger, who you are thanking tonight, volunteered to "head up a trail committee." Everyone understood it was public.
- People were using the blacktop with a trail running onto the beach, but were soon confronted with a barrage of No Trespassing signs and surveillance cameras.
- The Privilege Agreement given to Mr. Ring was poorly written. I do not believe you the Council ever intended to stop people from using this public access. So I ask the Council to put this on the next agenda, to revisit the Privilege Agreement and address the public's concerns so we can resolve this permanently. Thank you.
on below fax NOR any previous communications!! 2nd requested
Friends of Beach Road
Date: 07/30/12 ***** FAX *****
Date: 07/30/12 ***** FAX *****
To: City of Two Rivers
City Manager, Greg Buckley
Fax #920-793-5563
Re: Beach Road Two Rivers
and 203 Park Road
Mr. Buckley
– please consider this a PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST for the City Attorney’s opinion
as to the issues posed (referring to his letter we received today, dated 07/27/12
Sincerely,
Secretary,
Friends of Beach Road
Friends of
Date: 07/26/12 *****FAX*****
To: John Bruce Acting City
Schober, Schober & Mitchell , S.C.
Fax: 262-786-1073 (New
Berlin
Re: Beach Road Two Rivers
and 203 Park Road
Dear Mr.
Bruce – we addressed you in our 07/09/12 letter on this situation and have not
received a response from you. Please
consider this our request for your formal “read” on the situation.
Secondly,
we also request a response to our 07/17/12 letter. Is it your intention to correct the Register
of Deed record?
Thank you
in advance for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Secretary,
Friends of Beach Road
Friends of
Date: July
17th, 2012
Mr. Jack
Bruce
Two Rivers City
c/o
Schober, Schober & Mitchell
2835 South
Moorland
Re: Beach Road Two Rivers
Encroaching home: 203 Park Road Two Rivers
Owner: Mark Road
Dear Mr.
Bruce – it has come to our attention that the Register of Deeds office has on
file two issue documents pertaining to this property that is for sale. Because Mr. Jones indicated that you drafted
the documents that were filed on record (see email), we bring them to your
attention:
1) “petition” from Leon Blahnik and
Mark Ring for the city to vacate a portion of the adjacent Beach Road
2) The two privilege Agreements with
Mark Ring pertaining to the driveway and garden shed. We feel these mislead any potential new
homeowner and bank to believe there is no problem with the property when there
really is. Our group has expressed to
you, Mr. Ring and his Realtor that we feel the agreements were drafted under
the incorrect statute, without public hearing pertaining to the public’s
interests, and they do not even address the fences /mailbox. We are asking for revisions, and City Manager
Greg Buckley has indicated this is doable.
In the meantime, we feel something should be red-flagged to protect
everyone’s interests. If a sale goes
through under existing impression given by these documents and a new homeowner
discovers otherwise – that could pose legal exposure to the city, your office,
the realtor and Mr. Ring. We feel the
agreements should be withdrawn from the record or clarified that they are being
“revised”.
Our group
seeks a peaceful resolution to this problem which we believe will satisfy
everyone’s interests, but your cooperation will be needed. Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
cc: members,
Council President Brocher
Russ & Michelle Minaker: July 16, 2012
Guy William, Superintendent
Two Rivers , WI 54241
Re: emergency access to beach
Dear Superintendent William, attached please find a map for
your review.
We have written before with our concern for emergency access
to beach and this weekend it was very fortunate a situation did not end in a
fatality. There was an unconscious man
found on the beach about 400’ north of the Ice Age Trail off Park
Road . It
was a difficult situation for emergency personnel to not only FIND the correct
trail, and to pass over dunes to reach the victim…but potential transport was
also a big concern. The ONLY way to access
this strip of beach would ideally be Beach Road ,
because normally storm drain runoff prevents access by 22nd and
Neshotah.
Now is the time to address this issue as the City of Two
Rivers is addressing other concerns brought up by Friends of Beach Road over
encroachments on Beach Road
by the adjacent homeowner.
We hope this map helps demonstrate our concern and we hope
you will be in contact with Two Rivers emergency personnel to discuss this
matter.
Thank you in advance.
Sincerely,
Russ Minaker
Attachment
cc: TR Police Chief Joseph Collins
TR Fire Chief
(ONLY reply to date - from Two Rivers Council President, Lee Brocher. NOTE: lack of attention to details posed in previous letters.)
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:51:57 -0500
Subject: Actions by Council regarding Beach Road
From: lbrocher@two-rivers.org
To: janettrich@msn.com; friendsofbeachroad@gmail.com
CC: grebuc@two-rivers.org; jmb@schoberlaw.com; joscol@two-rivers.org; dvanginkel@two-rivers.org
All,
Subject: Actions by Council regarding Beach Road
From: lbrocher@two-rivers.org
To: janettrich@msn.com; friendsofbeachroad@gmail.com
CC: grebuc@two-rivers.org; jmb@schoberlaw.com; joscol@two-rivers.org; dvanginkel@two-rivers.org
All,
Regarding Beach Road, the most recent action by council as requested by the property owner at 203 Park Road, was to ask the City to abandon and convey a portion of the undeveloped Beach Road to this property. The Council upon a almost unanimous vote, did not approve this request.
Previous to the action above, the Council Granted a Right of Way Privilege agreement for the owner of 203 Park Road, allowing encroachments that are contained within the boundaries of the Right Away Privilege Agreement.
I have asked City Staff to confirm that all encroachments within the boundaries of the Right Away Privilege agreement are allowable under the Agreement and yes, all are allowable.
At this time, I do not find it necessary to place the Item of the current Right of Way privilege agreement on a City Council Agenda. Myself or 2 Council members can request Items placed on meeting agendas, although at this time, I have not had any Council member requests to revisit the Issue.
Certainly, if anyone questions the legality of the actions by the council, they are free to seek their own legal opinion.
Thank You,
Lee Brocher
Friends of Beach Road
Date: July
09, 2012
To : Mark
Ring, 203 Park Road
Realtor, Kevin Neelis
Two Rivers City
and Two Rivers City
Re : Beach Road
Dear Sirs –
referring to our last letter dated June 26th, twelve days have
passed in which we asked Mr. Ring to make the right decision to rectify the
problem. There have been no replies or
efforts on his part to cooperate or express his motivations. We are now addressing all four of you
gentlemen because we feel you all bear responsibility in this matter. We are simply exercising our rights to use
this public access and asking for clarity.
We believe Beach Road
Please take
the time to read our attached narrative /perspective.
We want to
offer a creative solution that can satisfy everyone’s interests:
1) It will prevent the future homeowner from inheriting a contentious problem.
1) It will prevent the future homeowner from inheriting a contentious problem.
2) It will provide a true level of comfort
to ease the sale, which is beneficial to Mr. Ring &
Realtor.
Realtor.
3) It will help prevent legal exposure to
the City and Realtor (for reasons below).
4) It will satisfy the public’s interests to enjoy comfortable usage ofBeach Road
those in the neighborhood.
4) It will satisfy the public’s interests to enjoy comfortable usage of
those in the neighborhood.
5) It will provide an opportunity for
permanent resolution to KEEP PEACE.
The solution lies in the
problem: the privilege agreements
In our last
letter, we expressed our feeling that the Privilege Agreements need to be
revisited. Past permits and agreements
have been more or less open-ended, putting the city in a precarious position.
That is why we have the uncomfortable situation today. We believe with city cooperation, the most
time efficient solution is for the City Attorney to draft a Revised
Privilege Agreement that would address the problems and public concern as
follows:
1) The agreements may be challengeable. In speaking with the Attorney General’s office, we feel that the city may not have sufficient ownership to grant such privileges under statute 66.0425 alone. This is a public access, not a city alley - without the lens of clarity found under statute 236.16(93)a, “sufficient ownership” is questionable. The city can correct this by clarifying Beach Road as not just a Right of Way (ROW ), but public access under 236.16(3)a
and thereby subject to public scrutiny.
We would like to see wording such as, “Any encroachments or problems
brought to city attention by the public or neighbors shall be corrected within
10 days written notice or this agreement shall be revoked immediately.”
1) The agreements may be challengeable. In speaking with the Attorney General’s office, we feel that the city may not have sufficient ownership to grant such privileges under statute 66.0425 alone. This is a public access, not a city alley - without the lens of clarity found under statute 236.16(93)a, “sufficient ownership” is questionable. The city can correct this by clarifying Beach Road as not just a Right of Way (
2) One Privilege agreement covers use of
3) Under statute 66.0425(5) third parties can seek a right of action against the holder of the
privilege if rights have been interfered with. Current privileges translate to the future owner of
4) Encroachments: there can be peace and no controversy in the future if there are no encroachments to address. All encroachments should be removed permanently and the public’s interests addressed in a revised Privilege agreement “Encroachments” defined as: ●Physical barriers – that which would inhibit one from walking directly to the beach, such
as sheds, fences, plants, pots, woodpiles etc.
●Mental barriers – that which would discourage or intimidate one from using
as “no trespassing signs” and cameras. It’s understandable if Mr. Ring or
the future owner wishes to install cameras facing
property, but to face cameras towards
recreation. The mailbox creates the perception that the road is a private driveway.
In
conclusion, we feel a proactive effort to draft a new privilege agreement that
would satisfy everyone will be beneficial to everyone involved and keep
peace. We are fully prepared to
cooperate, we are willing to compromise and we have offered a solution herein. Therefore, we respectfully request a reply of
your intentions, either in writing or by phone call to one below,
on or
before Friday July 13th or prior to a real estate closing, whichever
comes first.
Thank you in
advance for your considerations.
Sincerely,
Friends Of Beach Road
________________________________
________________________________
Friends of Beach Road
Date:
To :
Mark Ring – 203 Park Road , Two Rivers , WI
Re : Beach Road
Dear Mr
Ring, You have
indicated in past discussions that you wish to be addressed directly.
Attempts to
negotiate with you have failed, therefore be advised that an organization has
been formed, “Friends of Beach Road”. The group consists of proactive neighbors
and other concerned citizens with a common goal and dedication to preserve
Beach Road as originally platted for public use, in accordance with Wisconsin
State Statute 236.16(3)a.
The city
has given you the privilege to continue using this public road as a convenient
access to your property because a private drive has never been established. We have allowed that out of respect as
peaceful neighbors for many years, some of us for nearly 20 years, and never
has there been any incident that would give rise to concern over public use of Beach Road
The
signatures collected were in direct objection to the city’s proposal to give
half of this valuable land to you, which we feel was not handled appropriately. Objectors signed with full explanation,
knowledge and agreement that you were being asked to remove all encroachments
located on this platted public access: your fences, your shed, your mailbox,
woodpile, etc. – all things that block one’s ability to walk straight to the
beach and create the perception that Beach Road Beach Road
Before the
City Council, you said that you never tried to block anyone’s access to the
beach.
However, on
top of the encroachments, you have recently added obstacles, attempted to
landscape off the path, added surveillance cameras on public property, as well
as verbally harassed a youth for utilizing the public property, and finally
adding “no trespassing” signs. Without
clearly marked lot lines, your obstacles force users into what seems like
entrapment for trespassing. Because
there never has been a problem with public use of Beach Road
We are
giving you the opportunity to remove every encroachment mentioned above including
the newly added cameras and signage from this public property within the next
twelve days. Our intent is to have a clear access at the end of the paved
section of Beach Road
The privileges
given to you for use were given without a public hearing and under incorrect
statutes. Clearly, Public Trust Doctrine has been violated and that agreement
needs to be revisited.
Our
organization is dedicated to preserve the public use of Beach Road Beach Road
Communications
will only be accepted in writing as below.
Sincerely,
Friends Of Beach Road
Copies: Kevin Neelis, Realtor (certified /return
receipt)
Lee Brocher, TR
City President – for distribution to council me
Two Rivers Chief of
Police – Joseph Collins
No comments:
Post a Comment