Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ORONO Cm' COUNCIL <br />MEETING HELD ON MARCH 27, 1995 <br />(#11 - 1304 Elmwood Avenue - Continued) <br />CaUahan clarified that the reason for the hesitation in vacating the lakeside right-of-way is <br />the fear of cutting the Nelson’s property oflf with no legal access. Barrett said Nelson has <br />a prescriptive (private) easement through the continuous use over the last 25 years but <br />not title to that property. There would be a cloud on the title without court approval. <br />Callahan asked Barrett if the vacation could be completed without incurring liability and <br />damaging Mr. Nelson’s property Barrett said the cloud in the title is already m place <br />with the mistaken vacation of the alley. If the inability to use the lakeside right-of-way as <br />an access to the Nelson property is found to be a matter of fact, and no ftmher damage to <br />title is found, there could be access by getting the alley back, condemning it or <br />representing Mr. Nelson regarding the prescriptive easement. <br />Mr Johnson voiced his fhastration with the length of time it has taken to come to any <br />decision over the vacation of the right-of-way. He reiterated how the easement and <br />vacation are two separate issues. Johnson feels that Nelson is entitled to the use of the <br />road but not entitled to both accesses through the alley and through the lakeside. He said <br />there has been an impact on the sale of properties in the area because of the right-of-way <br />issue. <br />Mr Nelson read a prepared statement of his objection to the vacation of Forest <br />Boulevard", as the lakeside right-of-way was once caUed. His opinion is that he would <br />be landlocked if the vacation is permitted. Orono had vacated all of this lakeside road <br />except that portion in front of the properties owned by Johnson and Nelson. If the City <br />vacated that part located in front of the Johnson property. Nelson feels he would be left <br />on his own to solve his access problem. <br />Johnson was asked by Callahan if he was vrilling to give the easement to Nelson, which <br />he responded he would. Barrett said that the location of the prescriptive easement may <br />not be the ideal way to get from the house to the road and asked Johnson if he would be <br />willing to grant an easement to an alternate route. Johnson said he was not wfilling to do <br />this. <br />Callahan agreed that the City needs to provide access for the Nelson’s. Barrett <br />concurred; though, he believes Nelson would have legal access through prescription. It <br />was discussed that if Johnson gave prescriptive easement to Nelson and the action was <br />uncontested in court, the cost would be about $2,000. The Council would then take <br />action on the lakeside right-of-way vacation. Nelson was agreeable to this solution as <br />were the members of the Council.