06-24-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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 Walsh noted he ran for the City Council to help sort out some of this stuff that is outdated.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