¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
  1. FairfieldEstatesMailBoxes
  2. Topics

Important Comment from Mark Boggie

 

Those of you who haven't joined groups.io have been out of the loop for some emails and this is an important one from Mark so I'm sending it to everyone.? (It would certainly simplify my life if everyone joined groups.io.)? I think it's extremely important to have the history of FERMID recorded and given to every new homeowner so they will understand how we got to the present situation. I will be happy to meet with Jim and Mark and record as much detail as they remember. To answer Mark's question, I don't know about the easements on those two properties.

On 3/11/2021 8:59 AM, Mark Boggie wrote:
?
? A bit of history (as far back as I can go) regarding the pavement of Fairfield. ?I may not have all the facts and Jim Ruby will need to fill in where I am mistaken or missing information.

As the FERMID began considering the project the first step was to obtain property easements from all property owners. ?In my recollection the owners of the properties marked Jones¡¯ and 8081 Fairfield Circle did not agree and did not provide easement agreements to the FERMID. Ken, does the FERMID now possess the easement to the two properties indicated? ?The FERMID tax assessment is a different issue. ?The tax assessment was levied on all properties whether the owners supplied an easement agreement or not. I am fuzzy here on how that all occurred.

In addition, Fairfield major (not including any side streets or ¡°driveways on private property¡±) was the first step in the pavement process...Venado was paved later so the extension of Fairfield north of Venado was not planned (nor ANY of the side streets). As mentioned, Venado was paved some time later and extensions down the side roads were done to preserve the intersections, where possible.

Again, these may not be completely accurate facts as I am writing from memory from almost 10 years ago.

Mark P. Boggie

1 - 1 of 1