Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 8, 2012 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 5 of 21 <br /> <br />(5. #12-3562 ARTHUR J. NELSON ESTATE, 400 WILLOW DRIVE SOUTH, Continued) <br /> <br />Rahn asked if the road will meet City standards. <br /> <br />Mattick indicated the road will be built to city standards. <br /> <br />Bremer asked what the applicants’ objection is to doing it the way the City has done it in the past. <br /> <br />Mattick stated his understanding is that they do not see the need to dedicate it to the City, and if it is <br />dedicated to the City, then they should assume responsibility for maintaining it as a public road. <br /> <br />Printup asked if this would raise any issues in the future with any of Orono’s other roads. <br /> <br />Mattick indicated it is a change from the way Orono has typically handled private roads. In terms of how <br />it is done in the future, the Council does not necessarily have to do it this way and the City is not bound <br />by this process forever. <br /> <br />Rahn asked if that would have any bearing on how the City’s streets are calculated. <br /> <br />Mattick stated it would reduce the number of city miles but noted the County is not currently counting <br />those private roads anyway. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated he is only aware of one instance in the past 20 to 25 years where the City exercised its <br />right to take back a private road, and that dealt with a situation where it was anticipated that one of the <br />property owners would use the private road for access and then later used a different property on the other <br />side of their property for access. <br /> <br />Bremer noted in this case the homeowners association will alleviate that situation. <br /> <br />Mattick stated if there are connectivity issues, he would encourage the City Council to make that road <br />public, but if there is little to no likelihood of a future development, the road could be made private. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated back in the early 1980s there were a number of homeowner associations that asked the <br />City to take back their private roads and the City refused in virtually every case. It has been a number of <br />years since the City has been asked to take over a private road. Gaffron stated in this specific case, it is <br />very unlikely the City will need to take it over for future connectivity. <br /> <br />Rahn commented the City will not want to do this in every instance but that in this situation it does make <br />sense. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if there is a specific requirement for how many residents should live on the road before it <br />is considered a roadway. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated with three or more residences on a road, it becomes a private road situation. Otherwise it <br />would be considered a shared driveway. <br /> <br />Mattick stated in his opinion there does not seem to be a disadvantage to making this road a private road <br />and that the road will be constructed to city standards. Mattick noted the City still retains the ability to <br />assume control of the road if the homeowners association requests it. <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 10/22/2012 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 10/08/2012 [Page 5 of 21]