#6549-vacating ROW-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

� �°�o CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ��'� �.`'~� N o. 6 � �� kESH�4 6. In a letter to the City dated September 9, 2015 the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) has expressed opposition to the proposed vacation, citing a 1944 Minnesota Supreme Court decision that also appears in the Orono Comprehensive Plan. MnDNR suggests that there are potential unknown future public uses of the right-of-way, and also cites Minnesota Statute 412.851 which requires MnDNR to review the proposal to evaluate (1) the proposed vacation and the public benefits to do so; (2) the presen# and potential use of the land for access to public waters; and (3) how the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources. MnDNR opposition does not preclude the City from approving the vacation but is advisory. 7. The City Council finds that this particular right-of-way has no apparent present or future benefit to the public because of the topography of the site. The City, the County and the State are not likely to spend tax dollars maintaining this shoreline. 8. The City Council finds that: a) The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. The property owner's legal access to the property will not be affected by the vacation of Lake Street and no adjacent or nearby properties will have their access limited by it. b) The City has not and does not intend to develop, improve, or use the dedicated right-of-way as a road or for utilities or access purposes. c) The unimproved dedicated right-of-way as it exists serves no public purpose. Due to topographical constraints, this area of shoreline is not conducive to pedestrian or vehicular movement, therefore existing and future public access to the lake will not be reduced or impacted by this vacation. Page 3 of 4