Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,June 10,2019 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> The City could perhaps say if there are no utilities under it,no pipes or wires or utilities of any kind,the <br /> City does not entertain these requests. Printup commented this issue seems like it comes up annually and <br /> is not something that is going to go away. Printup stated the question is how the City protects public <br /> property. <br /> Walsh pointed out all the different lake access points are unique and should be reviewed on an individual <br /> basis. The purpose for this one was a public road,which is not going to happen. The City has attempted <br /> to create a little more flexibility by having the Code Review Committee look at some of this,which <br /> means more people will come forward, and some of those requests will cause problems and some will be <br /> innocuous. Most of the time the City has said no but they also have said yes in certain situations. Walsh <br /> noted he ran for the City Council to help sort out some of this stuff that is outdated. <br /> Seals noted Staffs recommendation was not to approve and that land located on the lake has a value. <br /> Seals questioned how giving away something of value for free is in the best interests of the overall <br /> community,which is a sticking point. There is a value to it because lake frontage is important. The <br /> Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion about it and that it is more complicated than simply <br /> cleaning it up. The City does use it,but on the other hand the terrain is steep. <br /> Crosby stated that is a valid point and that giving up the land for nothing does not make sense. An <br /> ordinary citizen would not do it. <br /> Walsh noted you cannot sell a vacation. <br /> Mattick stated he assumes the land was dedicated as part of a plat,and if so,the City does not own it. <br /> What the City basically has is an all-encompassing easement. The law says when you dedicate <br /> something, it will be treated as an easement even though it looks like a separate lot. However,the City <br /> does not own the land and they cannot put it on the market. What the resident gets when it is vacated is <br /> the land, which goes back to him. <br /> Crosby asked who the legal owner is. <br /> Mattick stated the County would probably say the City owns it but the City does not have title to it. <br /> When the City vacates something, it goes back to the land that dedicated it. If the county follows their <br /> normal custom and practice,they will probably split the right-of-way in half. The county usually tries to <br /> keep straight lines, but it may become a little more jagged near the road. <br /> Seals stated she understands the reasoning from the property owner's perspective, but that she does not <br /> believe the City has sat down and said,this is what we own,this is the direction we want to go. Seals <br /> indicated she would likely abstain tonight because the City has not done a thorough look at all of the <br /> access points. <br /> Walsh noted it would be difficult to come up with a specific policy because the access points are all <br /> different. <br /> Seals stated a good discussion about them would be helpful. <br /> Crosby asked whether they should discuss it at a work session. <br /> Page 9 of 20 <br />