Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,March 15,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> so he is familiar with properties that have riparian rights where they actually have lakeshore and a lot and <br /> are allowed to put it up. He noted the circumstances of these permits are quite unique, pretty much in <br /> Orono, Mound, and surrounding municipalities there are common areas and permits that can be lotteried <br /> and assigned. However,when there is a landlocked property without any access to the lake,he can see why <br /> this is a very sought-after commodity and why it is a point of discussion. He thinks when they see in the <br /> City of Orono —particularly within the auspices of the LMCD — one cannot really even have a dock on <br /> property that is owned even if they have riparian rights,unless there is a structure there. Libby said this is <br /> a different situation because they have landlocked properties that do not have access. If in fact MCWD has <br /> delineated this area and has conservation and wetland attributes, he wonders if it could have been an <br /> oversight by the City over these many years that people are talking about. He feels it would be prudent <br /> before a decision is made by this body to find out whether or not this type of a survey has actually been <br /> done by the MCWD because it could actually be appropriate from a conservation standpoint. <br /> Curtis does not believe the area identified on the map indicates a wetland. She believes it indicates what <br /> the commenter has written here,that it is noted as a MCWD conservation area but not a wetland. <br /> Libby said it is a conservation area but does not need to be a wetland to be a conservation area. <br /> Curtis noted they do not have any specific protective requirements over that and if there are other regulatory <br /> bodies that have input on this application, they will not purport to assume what they will decide. She <br /> clarified they have to talk about the City issues. If this issue moves forward,she thinks the Applicant would <br /> need to inquire with the Watershed District and the LMCD what regulations and rules they need to follow. <br /> The location they are talking about has had a dock so that is what the Applicant is asking for as well. <br /> Libby said that answered his question. The idea was that they do not want to overlook anything, many <br /> circumstances when talking about variances or applications they have other authority that they have to wait <br /> on. If this is something that had perhaps been overlooked,the initiative that the property owner took to put <br /> this together and bring it to the Commissioners attention was of great value. <br /> Ressler asked to clarify that the existing permit in place and others alike all share something in common <br /> which is they are either lakeshore property themselves or common ownership in lakeshore property. <br /> Curtis asked Ressler to restate the question. <br /> Ressler asked if the existing dock permits have been issued. <br /> Curtis replied they are for inland lots. <br /> Ressler said for all of those that have been issued. <br /> Curtis clarified they are for inland lots and they have two permits. <br /> Ressler restated a different way: regarding both inland lot dock permits,do they both share these two things <br /> in common. They are either owners of lakeshore property as well or have a common ownership. <br /> Curtis replied no. Any of the other inland owners that they have not identified in addition to the Applicants <br /> and the two adjacent are the only ones that are not connected to a lakeshore lot, in ownership or actual <br /> lakeshore. <br /> Page 11 of 34 <br />