10-22-2007 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• C, MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 22, 2007 7:00 o'clock p.m. (Public Comments, Continued) Bremer inquired whether the City would have al �owed anyone to travel on that piece of city -owned property with a vehicle prior to the gravel being placed on there. Mattick stated legally speaking, either everyone'in the public would get to use that piece of property or no one would get to use it and that the City has no records showing that that area has been opened to public use and thoroughfare, which would mean1that Mr. Garlock does not have a right to drive on that area. Bremer inquired whether there is any signage t: Moorse indicated the Council has indicated sig his knowledge there is no signage at this locatii Rahn commented that this now becomes a hard City would prefer to see it remain sod. Murphy asked what purpose the City could put has been erected at this site or other similar sites. ;e should be erected at city -owned lake accesses but to indicating the land is city -owned property. issue with the placement of the gravel and that the property to. Moorse stated.he is unsure at this point and that'd t was probably originally platted because it was contemplated that a road may be constructed in that area or land required for drainage at some point. Murphy stated the larger issue is if the City alloYvs citizens to do what Mr. Garlock did throughout the City, they would have a terrible mess and that unfortunately the gravel should be removed. Moorse noted people have requested that they bef allowed to use city -owned land for driveway access in the past and that the City has not allowed that. II i McMillan stated this would set a precedent for t Garlock inquired whether the City is interested Gaffron stated this is a dedicated public ri; the City elects to vacate the land, it would City if it were allowed in this specific instance. selling the property. way and that the City does not have the right to sell. If back to the two adjoining property owners. i White commented it is unfortunate that Mr. Garlock incurred the expense of putting the gravel in and would also incur the expense of removing the gravel, but that the City cannot allow residents to place gravel or other items on city -owned property. Garlock stated the road does benefit three other Bremer stated unfortunately the Council canni that she would be willing to give Mr. Garlock besides himself. w the gravel to remain on the city -owned land but additional time to remove it. • Moorse inquired whether any erosion control would be necessary if the gravel is removed now. II AGE 3