Laserfiche WebLink
Ir . <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR APRIL 12,1999 <br />(#9) U2466 James Renckens, having an interest in 3020 Watertown Road- Continued <br />Flir.* '.rked how the developers could prevent him from gaming access from the road since it <br />abuts his property. <br />Renckens said tney 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 dLTerent intent for the properT/ than he does. <br />His intended use of the property is to build a horae on the northern part of the property so it is <br />secluded. <br />KeUey said he was involved in the Crystal Creek subdivision and there is no doubt thatthe <br />City Council and the Planning 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 />will 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 refrise 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 and north. <br />Barrett said that with this applicaUon, the City has a strong right to the outlet. <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