Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COLTNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,March 9,2009 <br /> 7:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) <br /> Gaffron indicated the other three properties do have docks on the city-owned lots in front of their lots that <br /> are taken down in the fall and are put back in in the spring. The City distinguishes this property from the <br /> � other three in that there was a variance application for the house located on this property. The s�rvey that <br /> was completed was incorrect because it showed the lot running all the way down to the lake and the City <br /> required a new survey. The resolution approved for that variance application contains an annotation <br /> stating that the City does not consider this lot to be riparian. <br /> Gaffron stated the City has not talcen any formal action to notify the other properties that a dock is not <br /> allowed. The City had considered starting a title registration process but elected not to do the required <br /> title research due to the costs involved. The City's position during the construction and marketing of <br /> Mr. Eiss's property has been that it is not entitled to a dock, so it was not an unknown at the time of � <br /> purchase. Gaffron staxed the issue is whether the City should notify the other properties that a dock is not <br /> allowed or attempt to arrive at a solution where the four properties could have a dock. <br /> Murphy stated when he purchased his property approximately 20 years ago, it turned out that the <br /> nonconforming barn was constructed considerably prior to the residence and that it was grandfathered in. <br /> Murphy stated as long as no substantial changes are made to the footprint of the barn,they are allowed to <br /> reta.in the barn. Murphy asked if the docks would be a similar situation. <br /> Gaffron stated docks are considered accessory structures and that this is an area of the lake where,if the <br /> dock is left in year-round, it would need to be constructed considerably different. Gaffron stated a legal <br /> nonconformity would not apply in this situation since the docks are taken down in the fall. <br /> Mattick noted some of the other lots are continuous lots abutting the lake and that they are allowed a dock <br /> . as long as there is a primary residence. Mattick stated on the lots where there is a dock, it does not <br /> necessarily mean that the City has approved them and that the City has taken a position in the past that <br /> docks are not to be placed on the city-owned properties. <br /> Eiss stated the lots with the docks are worth more but yet he is being assessed for a]akeshore lot. <br /> Mattick stated riparian lots are worth more but that the city's position has been that in order for a lot to <br /> � have a dock, it requires a principal structure. <br /> fMurphy stated the City's position is generally one of not trying to create trouble for its residents and that <br /> � if Mr. Eiss were to press the issue,the City would then need to inform the other three lots that they would <br /> ; not be allowed a dock. Murphy suggested that perhaps the City discuss this issue further and look at its � <br /> ` options for dealing with this situation. f <br /> s" i <br /> � McMillan stated other cities have created outlots and allows its residents to have a dock on the outlot, but � <br /> � that the LMCD has found over the years that there were a number of problems created in the k <br /> � neighborhoods by people wanting to utilize the docks. Orono has attempted to avoid that issue by not w <br /> � creating the outlots. � <br /> � Murphy stated there is a situation on County Road 19 where there are four or five docks with very <br /> �' minimal land and no houses. � <br /> � a <br /> !s` � <br /> F <br /> ) <br /> � <br /> � PAGE 4 of 8 <br /> , <br />