My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-14-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1950-2024
>
1990-1996 Microfilm
>
1991
>
01-14-1991 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2024 10:39:28 AM
Creation date
5/13/2024 10:35:58 AM
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.
/
405
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
t <br />h- <br />I: <br />l‘ <br />iP- <br />)•r?- <br />h-'V <br />{ <br />t-c ; <br />;p: <br />s-v <br />I%px-bym- <br />r. <br />i- ■'- . V <br />f'y <br />ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 10, 1990 <br />ZONING PILE #1521-LOMBARDOZI CONTINUED <br />There is e covenant on a piece of property, which you people <br />approved. If you want to live by that, that's fine. If you <br />don't, the smoke is going to fly. The City is not touching that <br />piece of property without paying for it. You will have to move <br />me off of it bodily." <br />Goett.»n stated that she has been concerned about the <br />private/public road issue for some time. She said, "When this <br />matter was last discussed, I was not in favor of passir : a <br />resolution chat would convert the private road to public. <br />However, the resolution was approved. My concern is whether it <br />would be possible to separate the road issue fr.im this <br />subdivision. The issue of private/public roads has not been <br />discussed by the Council.” <br />Barrett replied, "It is true that the ordinance has been <br />adopted. However, that does not preclude the Council from <br />further consideration of the public/private road issue. As I <br />understand it, you are concerned about the Council making a <br />decision in this case, when there has been no formal policy <br />established for public/private roads. I can say that from a <br />legal standpoint, the Council has the right to make the road <br />public. I cannot tell you whether or not it is good policy to do <br />this." <br />Goetten asked if Council would be setting a precedent. <br />Barrett replied, "I do not believe that a rejative precedent <br />would be set. Council would be approving the public road in <br />order to facilitate the development of property within the City. <br />That should not compel the Council to make other private roads <br />public.” <br />Mr. Wear said, ”I would just like to clarify one thing. I <br />would not be as strongly opposed to this proposal as I am right <br />now, if we had our lota sold. Why should we let someone cross <br />our property to be in competition with us? Think about that for <br />a minute. If we had our subdivision completed, the lots were all <br />sold, what the devil do I care what is out there. In the <br />meantime, we are going to fight. There are other ways to access <br />the property, such as off of Old Crystal Bay Road. We've paid <br />for all the utilities, telephone, electric, gas, the road, the <br />whole works. Now you are telling me that any man can come in, <br />buy that piece of property, and use what we have paid for to <br />access it. No way. I’m going to fight you tooth and nail on <br />this.” <br />Callahan asked if the City would owe Mr. Wear anything if in <br />fmet the City does proceed to make the road public. <br />Barrett said, "The question is whetner Mr. Wear is entitled <br />- 7 -
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.