08-23-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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