My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-13-2020 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
Historical
>
2020-2024
>
2020
>
01-13-2020 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2020 2:03:55 PM
Creation date
1/29/2020 2:03:53 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,January 13,2020 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> ownership of the property and off the public land in the winter. The agreement gives them the right to <br /> have a dock on the water but is not for anything in the winter. <br /> Seals and Crosby agreed with Walsh's comment. <br /> Crosby asked if the time frame could be tied in with the ownership of each individual's property. <br /> Barnhart stated there is a nontransferable clause included and so if someone new would buy the property, <br /> they would get a new license. <br /> Walsh said,as long as it was in compliance,he would like to give a new owner the first option to have <br /> that,not have it at the discretion of the Council,because if someone is selling the property, it is being sold <br /> based on the fact they have a dock. <br /> Seals and Crosby agreed with Walsh's statement. <br /> Walsh indicated he doesn't want someone to buy the property and then not have a dock. <br /> Johnson equated the situation with selling a lot in Orono that requires Variances,stating it is very difficult <br /> to sell a vacant lot in Orono that requires Variances because the City won't tell you what you can do <br /> without a plan. <br /> Walsh, Seals,and Crosby agreed with Johnson's statement. <br /> Johnson suggested the agreement would be in perpetuity assuming there is compliance. He referenced the <br /> meeting where it was discussed that this would be a joint dock, a singular dock,for all four homeowners. <br /> He noted there is language about extra boats and possible licenses if someone comes for 48 hours,for <br /> example. He stated he envisions four designated slips to each of the properties,a registered boat per <br /> property owner,and the City is approving a dock plan. <br /> Walsh said that idea was dealt with at the work session and the Council decided to do it individually. <br /> Crosby indicated he would prefer to do it individually. <br /> Walsh stated,from a direction standpoint,that's how the Council decided to handle it. Based on the <br /> document in front of the City Council,"perpetuity"is just a word and dates would need to be picked such <br /> as ten years at a time, and the owner would have the right to renew and/or a new homeowner would have <br /> the same right as long as they were in compliance. The agreement could be cancelled if the homeowner is <br /> out of compliance;but if the homeowner gets back in compliance,they should have the ability to get it <br /> again. <br /> Barnhart noted the document indicates a Dock Administrator can do the inspection and give the <br /> homeowner a chance to cure noncompliance issues. Looking at Mound and Big Lake and others,the <br /> issue is people rent the spaces out,which is why there was language about visitors included. <br /> Walsh said that language was specific and done well. He also felt the storage issue was addressed. The <br /> term of three years is too short, it should be longer,and the owner should have the automatic right to <br /> renew. <br /> Page 3 of 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.