05-24-2021 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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