IRON RIVER—No matter what Iron County’s civil counsel may be saying, Blaise Andreski wants it known that he has no plans for an 80-acre parcel of land located south of Chicaugon Lake and Pentoga Park.

He responded to statements made by the county’s civil counsel, Steven J. Tinti, following the March 25 County Board meeting, which took action on Andreski’s request for a general use easement across county-owned land to the parcel.

The parcel, located in Section 13 of T42N-R34W, is owned by the Blaise Andreski Family Trust and located south of County Road 424, separated by about 350 feet of county-owned property. Chicagon Lake and county-run Pentoga Park is located north of 424.

Andreski had asked for a general use easement from 424 across the county-owned land to the north edge of the 80-acre parcel. During last week’s meeting, the County Board voted 3-2 to grant him a renewable license that would allow him to build an access road to his land.

“For the foreseeable future,” Andreski said late last week, “I have no use, besides forestry use, for this property.” The parcel, he explained, has been enrolled with the DNR under the Commercial Forest Act for many years.

That means the privately owned land is open to the general public for hunting, trapping and fishing, and the family trust pays reduced property taxes. Andreski said he has no other plans for the land “in the next 10 years.”

A landowner can remove land from the Commercial Forest Act, Andreski said, but it is a process that takes a year or more to complete. This parcel, he said, is still Commercial Forest, and no request has been filed with the DNR to remove it from the program.

“I have no plans to improve upon it. I just want to guarantee an access now before something drastically changes out there.” He noted that there are many more “No trespassing” signs in the area than before.

The adjacent parcel of land, east of his, was granted a 33-foot-wide general use easement by the county in May 2006.

Part of that parcel, Andreski noted, runs along County Road 424, so the property owner has always had legal access to his land. Andreski, however, has no legal access to his property, which is separated from 424 by the county-owned parcel.

In September 2006, Andreski asked the county for an easement to travel down an existing one-track road to the property. In December, the county approved a “forestry purposes only” easement, allowing him to use the road for logging only.

In February 2007, Andreski asked for a “general use easement,” like his neighbor had received. “I want something to secure my access in the future,” he said. “I want to know that 20 years from now or when I’m dead, there’s a way to get into this piece.”

The county’s Parks and Recreation Commission approved the general use easement later that month, but, after a written opinion from Tinti, the County Board tabled the matter in March 2007. No more action was taken on the request until now.

At last week’s meeting, Andreski made a brief presentation to the County Board and offered to answer any questions. Then Tinti presented a written opinion on the request and read parts of it to the board.

Andreski was not able to see Tinti’s opinion until after the meeting, and he took issue with a paragraph Tinti did not read aloud.

That paragraph said that while the Andreski Trust says it is not planning any land use changes, “It has become clear, based on governmental sources and information from adjoining landowners, that real estate development is imminent. This information was not shared with the county of Iron. This is likely why the ‘forestry purposes only’ easement was not ultimately acceptable” to Andreski.”

Tinti did not say why he came to that conclusion. Andreski says he is wrong.

Tinti’s opinion said the easement would “have significant financial and practical impact on valuable real estate forming a portion of Pentoga Park.” For that reason, he wrote, it would be illegal for the county to grant an easement “without receiving appropriate market value consideration.”

To that, Andreski noted that the easement for the neighboring property gives the county (grantor) the right to move the easement route to another location at the expense of the grantee (the person seeking the easement). That language, he said, would be fine with him.