Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO CITY COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997 <br />(#5 - #2279/#2280 Marc and Tracy Whitehead - Continued) <br />Jabbour polled CouncU on whether the widening of the road should be paid for by <br />Whitehe^. Winston asked that the entire burden not be carried by Whhdiead. Goetten <br />said she did not feel it should be p^d entirely by Whitehead but at a shared cost when the <br />sewer is installed. <br />Kelley said he would prefer that the southeast comer be plotted as an outlot easement <br />and not be dedicated to the City. Easements can then be granted for access. The road <br />upgrade would then be the responsibility of the resicents when th^ decide it should <br />occur and the cost shared by them. Ga&on said he wo 'Id always recommend first taking <br />right-of-way but to create outlets on private roads wouid be consistent with Orono's <br />normal practice in rural areas. Whitehead would be responsible for all drainage costs. <br />Flint agreed with Kelley regarding the designation of the roadway in the southeast comer <br />as an outlot. It was noted that the distinction differing this area from Casco Point is its <br />rural environment. <br />Jabbour indicated that to amend the resolution would require additional time. Whitehead <br />asked if acceptable language could be included and the resolution passed. Moorse <br />thought that was possible for drainage and screening but questioned the curve. If it is an <br />outlot then it is up to the residents to make the improvement. Moorse said he was <br />concerned with this. Kelley said the applicant was willing to donate the land, and it* the <br />homeowners feel the road curve is dangerous, they could make the decirion to correct it <br />and pay the cost. Jabbour said this differed from the direction ^ven by the Planning <br />Commission. Kelley indicated it would be difficult to require the applicant to pay the <br />cost of design. <br />Jabbour asked why the City owns 2/3rds of the cul-de-sac and then leaves the cost of its <br />development to private owners. He believes cost is a separate issue but agrees with <br />Kelley otherwise. <br />Kell^ questioned who would be responrible for the reconstruction if the City owns it. <br />Jabbour said the decision is being turned into a policy. He suggested assessing the <br />homeowners. Kelley said there was the other option of talditg the southeast comer, <br />reconstmeting the road, and then assessing the cost back to the homeowners. <br />Barrett was asked for his opinion regarding fee ownership. Barrett said City ownerslup <br />would render it difficult to avoid paying for the improvements. If that was the goal, it <br />would be better not to have fee ownership but an easement. This, however, conflicts <br />with the Comprehensive Plan. He suggested the City consider where they want to be in <br />20 years regarding public and private roads. Jabbour and Barrett both agreed there was <br />more flexibility in the rural areas.