Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,August 9,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 14. LA21-000029—ROBERT ERICKSON,365 WESTLAKE ROAD., STREET VACATION— <br /> RESOLUTION NO.7211—Continued <br /> proponent of vacating usable accesses and had a couple questions. What role does the DNR play in <br /> vacations. <br /> Barnhart noted the City is required to give them 60 days to provide a comment and then they provide a <br /> recommendation which is included in the packet. He has not seen one where the DNR supports a <br /> vacation. <br /> Johnson stated regarding the statement that one should know what the whole plan is,that is a good <br /> question and they can ask Mr.Erickson what the plan is.Another comment was that no one uses it and <br /> therefore no one will ever use it—he cannot agree with that. <br /> Rob Howells, 1423 Park Drive,asked to speak on the vacation on Forest Lake and wants the City to be <br /> aware that after they vacated it,there was a boat fire of a 25-foot Chris-Craft that went up in flames and it <br /> took at least 15 minutes for anyone to get there. He noted the guy had to jump off the boat and fortunately <br /> there was another boater that picked him up out of the cold water(in the spring). For a Sherriff to get <br /> there from Spring Park Bay, it will take at least 15 minutes;Forest Lake has no emergency access at all. <br /> He has spoken with Barnhart and there are a couple identified but there is not any access to Forest Lake <br /> Bay. He noted Johnson said to sell it for$30,000 and if Mr.Erickson wants to sell it for$100,000,what <br /> will they do going forward,have a bidding war?The next person will say$150,000...but he asked <br /> Attorney Mattick what is the cost of the lawsuit when no one can come down to help someone that has <br /> had an accident. <br /> Attorney Mattick is not aware of a City being sued for lack of public access. <br /> Mr.Howells is saying they will be because now there is no public access to Forest Lake Bay. <br /> Attorney Mattick replied to be candid,how are people accessing through that wetland right now?Part of <br /> the analysis would be whether they are really giving up an access point for a boat there.He understands <br /> that debate and clarified what the Statute says about vacating properties is that they find that there is no <br /> interest of the public in that property and they can fairly look at how it has historically been used,any <br /> future plans, or any existing needs they may have. Would the Sherriff's department be able to use the <br /> existing access point—Attorney Mattick does not know that this is apples-to-apples—he does not know <br /> the answer to that. <br /> Mr. Howells said in regards to Stubbs Bay there are other accesses. He is saying to the Council that going <br /> forward,this needs to be researched because nobody could get down there to help. He noted this poor <br /> man was sitting in the boat with burns all over his body and was in the hospital for 10 days. <br /> Johnson thinks he is bringing up a good point: before vacating they must look at some of the long-term <br /> consequences, although he does not think the example in Forest is a good one because before the decision <br /> was made to vacate that one,he went there as it was a cliff and the fire department would not be able to <br /> get down there. However,when they are looking at others they want to be conscious of how they might <br /> be used,he agrees,and thinks Mr. Howells is bringing up a good point. <br /> Page 8 of 13 <br />