My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-14-1991 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
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
i'*..m <br />?;■ <br />FI <br />■rv <br />1^: <br />>■ <br />5 <br />i <br />i-■' <br />I- <br />: <br />r <br />Mi. <br />ORONO COUNCIL MEETING HELD DECEMBER 10, 1990 <br />ZONING FILE f1521-LOMBARDOZI CONTINUED <br />to compensation for the asphalt and construction of the road." <br />Callahan asked whether Mr. v^ear may have a stronger legal <br />position if the road is made public, or if it remains private and <br />public access is granted. <br />Barrett replied, "The Council can regulate a private road, <br />just as it can regulate other conduct within the City, by telling <br />people if they build a private road, they have to allow others to <br />pass to access property otherwise landlocked. That is the first <br />issue. The other question is, if the Council makes a road <br />public, woula the City owe the constructor of the private road <br />anything for turning the road public? In other words, would that <br />constitute a taking? I cannot answer that this evening." <br />Peterson asked Mabusth whether there are any alternate ways <br />access this property <br />Mabusth replied, "As the Planning Commission stated in their <br />review of this subdivision, it would not be consistent with the <br />intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan to have access achieved <br />any other way. During the review of Mr. Wear’s earlier <br />subdivision, the Council made a planning decision to take this <br />approach. Mr. Vi^ear, as developer, was required to grant a <br />future extension to the north. Private covenants were developed <br />to charge future users. Once again, it should be noted for the <br />public record that the City has no business or right to question <br />the charge for this use. The City is responsible for insuring <br />that maintenance covenants are developed to assure maintenance of <br />prival ’"oads. The intent was always there for access to come <br />from the Wear subdivision. It would defeat the purpose to now <br />create another permanent curb cut." <br />Goetten asked whether the issue of access should actually be <br />left to the property owners to resolve. <br />Mabusth stated that the ideal situation is when property <br />owners can work together to solve the access issue. She said, <br />"The City really has no mechanism for dealing with multiple <br />lando%mers when it comes to developing roads. We are very lucky <br />that we have not encountered this problem prior to this. When <br />Mr. Wear stated that the City had approved the covenants for his <br />subdivision, that was incorrect. Mr. Wear was provided with a <br />boiler plate form to complete and file. The City did not approve <br />a $20,000 unit charge. That is not part of ol authority." <br />Bernhardson stated that the private property owners could <br />work together, but have not been able to do so. Ha said, "That <br />is the reason the City has become involved. To the extent that <br />there is a legal question as to whether or not compensation may <br />be due, it may be appropriate to table this matter for this <br />- 8 - <br />' vT •, .1 <br />i; j -iiiu;- ' .JrtA
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.