03-22-1993 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TO:Ron Moorse, City Manager FROM:John R. Gerhardson, Public Works Director DATE:February 2, 1993 SUBJECT: Lasher Landing Lake Access Recently there have been discussion and meetings regarding th j lake access between 2605 and 2655 North Shore Drive more commonly known as Lasher Landing. The reason for the discussion is because there have been complaints from the residences adjacem to the access about the type of use, that being access to the lake for uses other than ice fishing. Other uses include occasional snowmobiles, worker ’s vehicles for tree removal, shoreland maintenance, etc. It appears that this access currently receives very little use. Its main use is for putting icehouses on the lake. The number of icehouses is very small. This access provides an additional ac'jess to the bay which is helpful if ice conditions change preventing the other accesses from being used from certain parts of die bay. Staff agrees wldi the adjacent residents that the access is not needed for and should not be used by snowmobilers. It may be that the access is currently used by pedestrians and skiers but staff is not aware of how much the access is for this pur^se. Of great concern by the neighbors is the types of activity, that being drinking, partying, trespassing, littering, late hours, exposure, property damage, and animals running at large. The neighbors are also concerned that the access is an isolated strip that can enable a vehicle to be parked unseen. In addition, the adjacent neighbors ’ attorneys beiieve that the access does not belong to the public but in fact the adjacent properties nm to the center of the access. There is a fair amount of information in the file regarding this access and it is the opinion of the City Attorney that the City does have rights to the access. However, City staff and the adjacent residences feel that it would be costly for the City and them to pu^e legal ownership at this time and would like to work out a reasonable solution to the situation. Our conunents to them have been that the City could regulate the type and time of use of the access as we have with others in the City, that being installation of a gate, and signage. They would like to have a gate, no signage and entrance by permit only with a vacation of the access at a specified time in the very near future. We have indicated to the neighbors that any and all proposed regulations would have to be approved by the Orono Council. Sute statute requires that if a City is considering vacating an existing public access to a lake a public hearing must be held to receive public comments. Past experience indicates that m^y organizations with an interest in lake access will attend such a public hearing to argue against giving up an existing public access. i