My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-26-1999 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1997-1999
>
1999
>
04-26-1999 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/6/2023 4:20:07 PM
Creation date
4/6/2023 4:14:22 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
330
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR APRIL 12,1999 <br />(U9) §2466 James Renckens, having an interest in 3020 Watertown Road - Continued <br />Flint asked how the developers could prevent him from gaining access from the road since it <br />abuts his property. <br />Renckens said they can prevent it because it’s a private road. <br />Flint asked how the City would accomplish the long-range plan if it’s a private road. <br />Renckens said the City would have to acquire the road from the Crystal Creek Development, <br />pay for the cost of installing the road across the northern part of his property and would have <br />to acquire additional land if the road were to continue to the east and pay for the cost of <br />constructing that additional road until it connects with a public road. Renckens said previous <br />applications for subdivision of this parcel had different intent for the property than he does. <br />His intended use of the property is to build a home on the northern part of the property so it is <br />secluded. <br />Kelley said he was involved in the Crystal Creek subdivision and there is no doubt that the <br />City Council and the Plaiming Commission always viewed that Crystal Creek Road and Wear <br />Lane would connect. He said another issue involved is the property to the east and north that <br />v/ill someday be developed. <br />Sansevere also questioned how the City would connect with a private road. <br />Barrett said it is a private road. When the road was developed, the City took a public <br />easement so that if the developers refuse access, the City can open the road for the public. <br />Flint asked if the City could assure Mr. Renckens access to the back of his property through <br />Crystal Creek. <br />Barrett said that by declaring the public easement open, the City could grant access to the <br />public over that road to the northern end of the property. <br />Flint said that Crystal Creek is the logical access to the back of the property and he is not <br />convinced that Mr. Renckens should have to provide the access to the east ard north. <br />Barrett said that with this application, the City has a strong right to the outlot. <br />Flint said that there are a number of people with common interests and if they could work <br />something out, perhaps the City wouldn’t have to take the 50 ’ outlot. <br />Carlson said he does not own Lots 6 and 7. <br />Winston said that it’s true that Mr. Carlson does not own Lots 6 and 7. He said that when Mr. <br />Carlson was able to create Lots 6 and 7 and not have the septic sites on those two lots taken <br />Page 11
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.