From: Allen Manuel
Sent: Thu Aug 23 11:35:09 2018
To: Gerald Fisher
Cc: gdanforth@canby.com; 'Hamilton, Esther M.'
Subject: FW: Redwood Five, LLC Partition - Project #5496
Importance: Normal
Attachments: image003.jpg; image002.jpg; image005.jpg; Mr. Fisher, Please review the county surveyor’s comments after reviewing yoru response to my request that the City sign a Property Boundary Recognition Agreement. They seem pretty adamant about their request. Thanks, Allen Manuel, Principal Broker Licensed in Oregon BHG Realty Partners Cell: 503-784-4950 Fax: 503-266-1579 Office: 503-266-7333 From: Ken Griffin [mailto:ken@griffinsurvey.com] Sent: 08/23/2018 9:22 AM To: Allen Manuel Subject: Fwd: Redwood Five, LLC Partition - Project #5496 See below from the County surveyor. Ken Griffin Griffin Land Surveying Inc. (503)201-3116
From: Martinson, Terry <terrymar@co.clackamas.or.us>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 9:03 AM
To: Ken Griffin
Cc: Griffin, Charles; Gonzales, Renee; Thoreson, Tara
Subject: RE: Redwood Five, LLC Partition - Project #5496
Ken, regarding the fence along the southeast boundary of the plat, that falls into subject property. The note from the city indicates they consider the fence to be the subject property fence, since note below says it is on adjoiner’s property (to the city, subject property is the adjoiner) so the city does not make any claim to the fence. But the question is not who claims the fence. The question is what is the ownership status of the 6.9’ to the 3.9’ strip where the fence is off line? We need something from the city that states that they accept the surveyed and monumented southeasterly boundary as the common boundary between city and subject property. A Property Recognition Agreement where city accepts plat boundary would work to accomplish this objective. It would not need to state anything about replacement of the fence and only that they accept the plat boundary as common boundary between the 2 properties. Once common boundary is accepted, they can make and agreement to replace fence or not. If fence is not moved, a new statutory period would begin.
We need acknowledgement from the city to resolve this issue or new owner of P2 could be immediately embroiled into a boundary dispute on area between fence and plat boundary monuments. Thank you, Terry
From: Ken Griffin [mailto:ken@griffinsurvey.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2018 8:17 AM
To: Martinson, Terry <terrymar@co.clackamas.or.us>
Cc: Allen Manuel <amanuel@canby.com>
Subject: Redwood Five, LLC Partition - Project #5496
Hi Terry,
Allen Manuel has received the following reply from the City regarding the fence issue for the property lying to the East of this project. Will this response satisfy or what next?
Ken Griffin PLS
Griffin Land Surveying Inc
(503) 201-3116
| 10:40 AM (21 hours ago)
|
|
| |
|
Ken: Please read below the information from the City of Molalla about confirming the property line. What shall I do now?
Allen Manuel, Principal Broker
Licensed in Oregon
BHG Realty Partners
Cell: 503-784-4950
Fax: 503-266-1579
Office: 503-266-7333
From: Gerald Fisher [mailto:gfisher@cityofmolalla.com]
Sent: 08/21/2018 10:01 AM
Cc: Dan Huff; Aldo Rodriguez; Dan Zinder
Subject: RE: Boundary Agreement
Hi Mr. Manuel,
We have reviewed the material you’ve submitted and see no need to execute a document releasing the City’s interest in property. If your surveyors information is correct and the fence is on the property adjoining the Ivor Davies Park property then the fence belongs to that property owner. If the survey is in error and the fence is on City property then the fence belongs to the City. We can all assume that the licensed surveyors information is correct, has been reviewed and approved by the County Surveyor’s Office, and proceed forward based in that information. Thanks.
Regards,
Gerald Fisher, P.E. | Public Works Director
City of Molalla
117 N Molalla Ave. | PO Box 248 |Molalla, OR 97038
Office: 503.829.6855 | Direct: 503.759.0218