Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,May 10,2021 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> 14. LA21-000017—JOSEPH& SARA THULL,480 BIG ISLAND,PERMIT FOR DOCK ON <br /> CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY(BAY PLACE)—UPDATE—Continued <br /> Mr.Loughlin said the way 220 Big Island delineates a 10 foot path to that dock and from the path going <br /> out is a single dock. <br /> Walsh asked if that is a recent easement. <br /> Mr. Loughlin stated it is part of the 4456 Resolution.There is a map that goes with it and the City has <br /> delineated a road specifically for that dock that is 10 feet wide on the 90-foot right-of-way. <br /> Walsh said that is on Mr. Loughlin's property. <br /> Mr. Loughlin replied no, Scheftel's easement is on his property.The 220 Big Island address of Doherty's <br /> is in 90-foot right-of-way. In looking at the map,there is a 10 foot road identified through the lot and is <br /> the egress access for a single dock. <br /> Walsh said this is the first he has heard about it and asked if it is a recent easement that the Scheftel's <br /> have through his property. <br /> Mr. Loughlin said it is from 1971. <br /> Walsh noted they just enacted something that one could not do in Orono previously, and that was get an <br /> easement from an inland piece of property. It was illegal to do and the City just changed it for Big Island; <br /> he was clarifying whether it was something Mr. Loughlin took advantage of last year or if it was older <br /> than that. <br /> Curtis clarified the resolution that granted the other dock permit is tied to 130 and 220 which are the <br /> linear, interior lots shown on screen. <br /> Walsh asked if that is a permanent easement. <br /> Curtis stated it is not an easement, it is a resolution granting a permit for a dock. They can share one dock <br /> or if they disagree they could each have their own dock at that location. <br /> Walsh asked if that is a permanent resolution? <br /> Curtis replied it is until the City revokes it. It does not have exactly the condition that Resolution 2038 <br /> has where it is automatically revoked,but it does say the City has a right to revisit on an annual basis. <br /> Walsh said they could do the same thing as Bay Place and get rid of that agreement and do a new <br /> agreement with the Doherty agreement. They can put a new agreement that there can be one dock with <br /> one person on each side,either through a lottery or through a first-come-first-serve.He stated they have <br /> one in front of the Council today and they can probably solve that one today. It does not sound like the <br /> Page 15 of 34 <br />