My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-21-1988 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
03-21-1988 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2023 4:21:32 PM
Creation date
9/14/2023 4:11:13 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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).
View images
View plain text
HVDTBS QP ns PLBJnilBG CQMUSSIOH MBRISG HELD MUtCl H, 1911 <br />•1251 scniLn coninD <br />Nabusth noted that before a total vacation could be <br />granted, access to the Nelson property (1310 Elmwood) <br />would have to be resolved. She explained that in 1972, <br />the City vacated Oak Place. Mr. Nelson currently <br />achieves access to his property via the vacated Oak <br />Place now owned by three other property owners. If a <br />total vacation of Forest Blvd. were to be granted. Nr. <br />Nelson's property would be legally landlocked. <br />One of the four fee owners of vacated Oak Place, RichardI <br />Johnson of 1304 Elmwood, stated he had no problem with <br />granting an easement to Mr. Nelson, but was unsure of <br />the process involved. <br />Staff recoBunended tabling the application to work with <br />all the property owners toward a total vacation of <br />Forest Blvd. and to resolve the Nelson access issue. <br />Audrey Schults, acting agent for Douglas and Tricla <br />Johnson, 1399 Park Drive, stated they could not <br />construct an addition to their home until Forest Blvd. <br />is vacated. She has been working on this vacation <br />request since November 1987 and was opposed to tabling <br />the request and delaying her client further, and in <br />consideration that the other property owners were <br />already given the opportunity to join in the <br />application. <br />Mabusth stated that the request would have to be tabled <br />if other property owners wished to join in the vacation <br />request at this point, in order to review the impact on <br />the adjoining properties, and determine the need for <br />survey information, additional fees, and another legal <br />publication. <br />Tricia Johnson, 1399 Park Drive, was opposed to tabling <br />the request for a partial vacation, particularly due to <br />the fact that the other property owners do not want to <br />deal with a survey, noting again that they have been <br />working on this since November and are anxious to make <br />improvements to their home. <br />Bellows and Johnson had no problem with recosunendinq <br />approval of the proposed partial vacation. <br />Kelly Sevan, 1295 Elmwood, asked if a total vacation <br />would include the portion of Forest Blvd. at Summit <br />Avenue? <br />I <br />Mabusth stated that the Summit Avenue and Buff St. <br />portions would not be included and must remain public <br />for fire lane purposes.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.