|
Hi All,
I'm sure you're getting really tired of getting emails from me, but I would like to get as many responses as possible regarding the proposed location of the mailboxes. Of the 17 homeowners on the email lists, so far 12 have responded with a thumbs up and none with a thumbs down.? If you haven't responded, please do so by midnight tonight.
Thanks,
Ken
|
I was just wandering why the mailboxes couldn't be placed at the beginning of the street by the entrance, where there are no homes and traffic would be to a minimum ?
Hi All,
I'm sure you're getting really tired of getting emails from me, but I
would like to get as many responses as possible regarding the proposed
location of the mailboxes. Of the 17 homeowners on the email lists, so
far 12 have responded with a thumbs up and none with a thumbs down.? If
you haven't responded, please do so by midnight tonight.
Thanks,
Ken
|
Thank you Karen for your question.
I assume that you are referring to near
the intersection of Fairfield and 3 Canyons.? That is potential
site #1 referred to in previous emails. The Road District
attorney, Nathan Williams, looked at the easement documents for
both that site and #3 and concluded that legally we have a much
better case for installing the mailboxes on the easement of site
#3 than #1.? This is because the easement for site #1 is just the
usual broad easement for "ingress/egress and utilities" and is not
a specific agreement between the Road District and the property
owner, the Palominas School District.? In contrast, the easement
agreement for site #3 is specifically between the Road District
and the previous landowner and gives the Road District much more
latitude as what we can do in the easement.
Personally I see other advantages to
site #3 over #1 such as it's much more spacious than what we would
have at site #1.?
Ken
On 3/10/2021 6:46 PM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I was just wandering why the mailboxes couldn't be
placed at the beginning of the street by the entrance, where
there are no homes and traffic would be to a minimum ?
Hi
All,
I'm sure you're getting really tired of getting emails from
me, but I
would like to get as many responses as possible regarding
the proposed
location of the mailboxes. Of the 17 homeowners on the email
lists, so
far 12 have responded with a thumbs up and none with a
thumbs down.? If
you haven't responded, please do so by midnight tonight.
Thanks,
Ken
|
Hi Neighbors:
I understand the legal aspect of it, however my concern is that a flow of traffic at site#3 would bring significant traffic to my property.? My area of Fairfield road suffers signification since The Fairfield ?Road organization did not extend the paved road to my area ; which suffers when in Monsoon.?
?I can see my area of Fairfield road, becoming a turnaround spot if the mailboxes are put ?at site 3. I already get trespassers whom take the liberties of using my property as a throughway.?
?I suggest we look at a neutral location that affects no-ones property. ? With this being said I'm not saying no ?but not saying yes at this time.?
Any feedback would be welcomed.
Thanks, Karen
Thank you Karen for your question.
I assume that you are referring to near
the intersection of Fairfield and 3 Canyons.? That is potential
site #1 referred to in previous emails. The Road District
attorney, Nathan Williams, looked at the easement documents for
both that site and #3 and concluded that legally we have a much
better case for installing the mailboxes on the easement of site
#3 than #1.? This is because the easement for site #1 is just the
usual broad easement for "ingress/egress and utilities" and is not
a specific agreement between the Road District and the property
owner, the Palominas School District.? In contrast, the easement
agreement for site #3 is specifically between the Road District
and the previous landowner and gives the Road District much more
latitude as what we can do in the easement.
Personally I see other advantages to
site #3 over #1 such as it's much more spacious than what we would
have at site #1.?
Ken
On 3/10/2021 6:46 PM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
I was just wandering why the mailboxes couldn't be
placed at the beginning of the street by the entrance, where
there are no homes and traffic would be to a minimum ?
Hi
All,
I'm sure you're getting really tired of getting emails from
me, but I
would like to get as many responses as possible regarding
the proposed
location of the mailboxes. Of the 17 homeowners on the email
lists, so
far 12 have responded with a thumbs up and none with a
thumbs down.? If
you haven't responded, please do so by midnight tonight.
Thanks,
Ken
|
I meant significantly not signification auto correct (bummer)?
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:58 PM Karen McKnight via <imecorp= [email protected]> wrote: Hi Neighbors:
I understand the legal aspect of it, however my concern is that a flow of traffic at site#3 would bring significant traffic to my property.? My area of Fairfield road suffers signification since The Fairfield ?Road organization did not extend the paved road to my area ; which suffers when in Monsoon.?
?I can see my area of Fairfield road, becoming a turnaround spot if the mailboxes are put ?at site 3. I already get trespassers whom take the liberties of using my property as a throughway.?
?I suggest we look at a neutral location that affects no-ones property. ? With this being said I'm not saying no ?but not saying yes at this time.?
Any feedback would be welcomed.
Thanks, Karen
Thank you Karen for your question.
I assume that you are referring to near
the intersection of Fairfield and 3 Canyons.? That is potential
site #1 referred to in previous emails. The Road District
attorney, Nathan Williams, looked at the easement documents for
both that site and #3 and concluded that legally we have a much
better case for installing the mailboxes on the easement of site
#3 than #1.? This is because the easement for site #1 is just the
usual broad easement for "ingress/egress and utilities" and is not
a specific agreement between the Road District and the property
owner, the Palominas School District.? In contrast, the easement
agreement for site #3 is specifically between the Road District
and the previous landowner and gives the Road District much more
latitude as what we can do in the easement.
Personally I see other advantages to
site #3 over #1 such as it's much more spacious than what we would
have at site #1.?
Ken
On 3/10/2021 6:46 PM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
I was just wandering why the mailboxes couldn't be
placed at the beginning of the street by the entrance, where
there are no homes and traffic would be to a minimum ?
Hi
All,
I'm sure you're getting really tired of getting emails from
me, but I
would like to get as many responses as possible regarding
the proposed
location of the mailboxes. Of the 17 homeowners on the email
lists, so
far 12 have responded with a thumbs up and none with a
thumbs down.? If
you haven't responded, please do so by midnight tonight.
Thanks,
Ken
|
惭补’补尘,
I ?guess I don’t understand why traffic would increase down the dirt road to your house. It’s approximately a 1/4 mile from where the proposed mail boxes would go to your house. And the site is before the turn onto Paseo Venado. Additionally there is space on the opposite side of the road from the mail box to turn around. I would imagine the only ones drive down towards your house are lost as it is a dead end. Given all the options I do not really see how any others are better and more neutral than site #3.?
Matthew Paddock
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 10, 2021, at 22:00, Karen McKnight <imecorp@...> wrote:
? I meant significantly not signification auto correct (bummer)? On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 10:58 PM Karen McKnight via <imecorp= [email protected]> wrote: Hi Neighbors:
I understand the legal aspect of it, however my concern is that a flow of traffic at site#3 would bring significant traffic to my property.? My area of Fairfield road suffers signification since The Fairfield ?Road organization did not extend the paved road to my area ; which suffers when in Monsoon.?
?I can see my area of Fairfield road, becoming a turnaround spot if the mailboxes are put ?at site 3. I already get trespassers whom take the liberties of using my property as a throughway.?
?I suggest we look at a neutral location that affects no-ones property. ? With this being said I'm not saying no ?but not saying yes at this time.?
Any feedback would be welcomed.
Thanks, Karen
Thank you Karen for your question.
I assume that you are referring to near
the intersection of Fairfield and 3 Canyons.? That is potential
site #1 referred to in previous emails. The Road District
attorney, Nathan Williams, looked at the easement documents for
both that site and #3 and concluded that legally we have a much
better case for installing the mailboxes on the easement of site
#3 than #1.? This is because the easement for site #1 is just the
usual broad easement for "ingress/egress and utilities" and is not
a specific agreement between the Road District and the property
owner, the Palominas School District.? In contrast, the easement
agreement for site #3 is specifically between the Road District
and the previous landowner and gives the Road District much more
latitude as what we can do in the easement.
Personally I see other advantages to
site #3 over #1 such as it's much more spacious than what we would
have at site #1.?
Ken
On 3/10/2021 6:46 PM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
I was just wandering why the mailboxes couldn't be
placed at the beginning of the street by the entrance, where
there are no homes and traffic would be to a minimum ?
Hi
All,
I'm sure you're getting really tired of getting emails from
me, but I
would like to get as many responses as possible regarding
the proposed
location of the mailboxes. Of the 17 homeowners on the email
lists, so
far 12 have responded with a thumbs up and none with a
thumbs down.? If
you haven't responded, please do so by midnight tonight.
Thanks,
Ken
|
I concur with Mr. Paddock and want to also point out it would be on the paved portion and there is another property between you and the proposed site.? 
|
Thank you for the layout and explanation .? I then have no issues with option #3.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:15 AM Philip Apodaca < PSAAPO@...> wrote: I concur with Mr. Paddock and want to also point out it would be on the paved portion and there is another property between you and the proposed site.?
|
Karen’s statement, “The Fairfield ?Road
organization
did not extend the paved road to my area…” brings up a question
I’ve thought
about. What are the roads that the Fairfield Estates Road
Maintenance and Improvement
District (FERMID) are responsible for? I assume they are defined
in the governance
document, and I suspect that they are the roads the original
developer planned
and those are shown on the county parcel map (attached). Karen’s
driveway is on
the easement of the Odean and Sandoval property shown on the map
in Philip’s
email.
You may have noticed something odd about the
way I outlined
Fairfield Estates (FE) on the attached map. Karen’s property is
8081 FC and the
parcel immediately to the north looks like it should be in FE. I
left it out
because it has an address on Circle S Drive. Philip’s photo
shows it is separated
from Karen’s property and the rest of FE by a dry wash, and they
don’t use our
roads. I checked their tax document, and it turns out the
property is in FE,
however it’s not taxed by FERMID, which is fair.
Ken
Just saw Karen last email. Thank you, Karen.
On 3/11/2021 8:06 AM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thank you for the layout and explanation .? I then
have no issues with option #3.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:15
AM Philip Apodaca < PSAAPO@...> wrote:
I
concur with Mr. Paddock and want to also point out it would
be on the paved portion and there is another property
between you and the proposed site.?
|
This is an excellent question. I was perplexed why my end of the road was not paved.? If someone could shed some light on this it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Karen
Karen’s statement, “The Fairfield ?Road
organization
did not extend the paved road to my area…” brings up a question
I’ve thought
about. What are the roads that the Fairfield Estates Road
Maintenance and Improvement
District (FERMID) are responsible for? I assume they are defined
in the governance
document, and I suspect that they are the roads the original
developer planned
and those are shown on the county parcel map (attached). Karen’s
driveway is on
the easement of the Odean and Sandoval property shown on the map
in Philip’s
email.
You may have noticed something odd about the
way I outlined
Fairfield Estates (FE) on the attached map. Karen’s property is
8081 FC and the
parcel immediately to the north looks like it should be in FE. I
left it out
because it has an address on Circle S Drive. Philip’s photo
shows it is separated
from Karen’s property and the rest of FE by a dry wash, and they
don’t use our
roads. I checked their tax document, and it turns out the
property is in FE,
however it’s not taxed by FERMID, which is fair.
Ken
Just saw Karen last email. Thank you, Karen.
On 3/11/2021 8:06 AM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
Thank you for the layout and explanation .? I then
have no issues with option #3.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:15
AM Philip Apodaca < PSAAPO@...> wrote:
I
concur with Mr. Paddock and want to also point out it would
be on the paved portion and there is another property
between you and the proposed site.?
|
Karen, As I said, I suspect it is
because your end of the road was not planned to be a road by the
developer, and it's not shown as a road on the county parcel map.
But I really don't know.? The FERMID governance document should
shed some light on the question so it's another reason to get a
copy of that document. ?
Ken
On 3/11/2021 8:32 AM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
This is an excellent question. I was perplexed why
my end of the road was not paved.? If someone could shed some
light on this it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Karen
Karen’s statement, “The Fairfield
?Road organization did not extend the paved road to my
area…” brings up a question I’ve thought about. What
are the roads that the Fairfield Estates Road
Maintenance and Improvement District (FERMID) are
responsible for? I assume they are defined in the
governance document, and I suspect that they are the
roads the original developer planned and those are
shown on the county parcel map (attached). Karen’s
driveway is on the easement of the Odean and Sandoval
property shown on the map in Philip’s email.
You may have noticed something odd
about the way I outlined Fairfield Estates (FE) on the
attached map. Karen’s property is 8081 FC and the
parcel immediately to the north looks like it should
be in FE. I left it out because it has an address on
Circle S Drive. Philip’s photo shows it is separated
from Karen’s property and the rest of FE by a dry
wash, and they don’t use our roads. I checked their
tax document, and it turns out the property is in FE,
however it’s not taxed by FERMID, which is fair.
Ken
Just saw Karen last email. Thank
you, Karen.
On 3/11/2021 8:06 AM, Karen McKnight wrote:
Thank you for the layout and explanation
.? I then have no issues with option #3.
On Thu, Mar 11,
2021 at 8:15 AM Philip Apodaca < PSAAPO@...>
wrote:
I
concur with Mr. Paddock and want to also point out
it would be on the paved portion and there is
another property between you and the proposed
site.?
|
? ? 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.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Mar 11, 2021, at 8:32 AM, Karen McKnight <imecorp@...> wrote:
? This is an excellent question. I was perplexed why my end of the road was not paved.? If someone could shed some light on this it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks, Karen
Karen’s statement, “The Fairfield ?Road
organization
did not extend the paved road to my area…” brings up a question
I’ve thought
about. What are the roads that the Fairfield Estates Road
Maintenance and Improvement
District (FERMID) are responsible for? I assume they are defined
in the governance
document, and I suspect that they are the roads the original
developer planned
and those are shown on the county parcel map (attached). Karen’s
driveway is on
the easement of the Odean and Sandoval property shown on the map
in Philip’s
email.
You may have noticed something odd about the
way I outlined
Fairfield Estates (FE) on the attached map. Karen’s property is
8081 FC and the
parcel immediately to the north looks like it should be in FE. I
left it out
because it has an address on Circle S Drive. Philip’s photo
shows it is separated
from Karen’s property and the rest of FE by a dry wash, and they
don’t use our
roads. I checked their tax document, and it turns out the
property is in FE,
however it’s not taxed by FERMID, which is fair.
Ken
Just saw Karen last email. Thank you, Karen.
On 3/11/2021 8:06 AM, Karen McKnight
wrote:
Thank you for the layout and explanation .? I then
have no issues with option #3.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:15
AM Philip Apodaca < PSAAPO@...> wrote:
I
concur with Mr. Paddock and want to also point out it would
be on the paved portion and there is another property
between you and the proposed site.?<Screenshot_20210311-071106_onX Hunt.jpg>
|
