12-10-1990 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 10, 1990 ZONING FILE #1521- LOMBARDOZI CONTINUED to compensation for the asphalt and construction of the road." Callahan asked whether Mr. Wear may have a stronger legal position if the road is made public, or if it remains private and public access is granted. Barrett replied, "The Council can regulate a private road, just as it can regulate other conduct within the City, by telling people if they build a private road, they have to allow others to pass to access property otherwise landlocked. That is the first issue. The other question is, if the Council makes a road public, would the City owe the constructor of the private road anything for turning the road public? In other words, would that constitute a taking? I cannot answer that this evening." Peterson asked Mabusth whether there are any alternate ways to access this property. Mabusth replied, "As the Planning Commission stated in their review of this subdivision, it would not be consistent with the intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan to have access achieved any other way. During the review of Mr. Wear's earlier subdivision, the Council made a planning decision to take this approach. Mr. Wear, as developer, was required to grant a future extension to the north. Private covenants were developed • to charge future users, Once again, it should be noted for the public record that the City has no business or right to question the charge for this use. The City is responsible for insuring that maintenance covenants are developed to assure maintenance of private roads. The intent was always there for access to come from the Wear subdivision. It would defeat the purpose to now create another permanent curb cut." Goetten asked whether the issue of access should actually be left to the property owners to resolve. Mabusth stated that the ideal situation is when property owners can work together to solve the access issue. She said, "The City really has no mechanism for dealing with multiple landowners when it comes to developing roads. We are very lucky that we have not encountered this problem prior to this. Wizen Mr. Wear stated that the City had approved the covenants for his subdivision, that was incorrect. Mr. Wear was provided with a boiler plate form to complete and file. The City did not approve a $20,000 unit charge. That is not part of our authority." Bernhardson stated that the private property owners could work together, but have not been able to do so. He said, "That is the reason the City has become involved. To the extent that there is a legal question as to whether or not compensation may be due, it may be appropriate to table this matter for this 9 - 8 -