Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, October 22, 2007 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />___________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />PAGE 3 <br /> <br />(Public Comments, Continued) <br /> <br />Bremer inquired whether the City would have allowed anyone to travel on that piece of city-owned <br />property with a vehicle prior to the gravel being placed on there. <br /> <br />Mattick stated legally speaking, either everyone in the public would get to use that piece of property or <br />no one would get to use it and that the City has no records showing that that area has been opened to <br />public use and thoroughfare, which would mean that Mr. Garlock does not have a right to drive on that <br />area. <br /> <br />Bremer inquired whether there is any signage that has been erected at this site or other similar sites. <br /> <br />Moorse indicated the Council has indicated signage should be erected at city-owned lake accesses but to <br />his knowledge there is no signage at this location indicating the land is city-owned property. <br /> <br />Rahn commented that this now becomes a hardcover issue with the placement of the gravel and that the <br />City would prefer to see it remain sod. <br /> <br />Murphy asked what purpose the City could put that property to. <br /> <br />Moorse stated he is unsure at this point and that it was probably originally platted because it was <br />contemplated that a road may be constructed in that area or land required for drainage at some point. <br /> <br />Murphy stated the larger issue is if the City allows citizens to do what Mr. Garlock did throughout the <br />City, they would have a terrible mess and that unfortunately the gravel should be removed. <br /> <br />Moorse noted people have requested that they be allowed to use city-owned land for driveway access in <br />the past and that the City has not allowed that. <br /> <br />McMillan stated this would set a precedent for the City if it were allowed in this specific instance. <br /> <br />Garlock inquired whether the City is interested in selling the property. <br /> <br />Gaffron stated this is a dedicated public right-of-way and that the City does not have the right to sell. If <br />the City elects to vacate the land, it would revert back to the two adjoining property owners. <br /> <br />White commented it is unfortunate that Mr. Garlock incurred the expense of putting the gravel in and <br />would also incur the expense of removing the gravel, but that the City cannot allow residents to place <br />gravel or other items on city-owned property. <br /> <br />Garlock stated the road does benefit three other neighbors besides himself. <br /> <br />Bremer stated unfortunately the Council cannot allow the gravel to remain on the city-owned land but <br />that she would be willing to give Mr. Garlock some additional time to remove it. <br /> <br />Moorse inquired whether any erosion control would be necessary if the gravel is removed now. <br /> <br /> <br />Item #02 - CC Agenda - 11/13/07 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 10/22/07 [3 of 10]