Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, February 10, 2020 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 10 of 15 <br /> <br />Walsh stated he was correct, then clarified that the language was fine and it can be done twice a year. The <br />part he wanted to get rid of is where someone could get a temporary dockage permit for somebody to sit <br />there for 21 days. <br /> <br />Seals stated they have a place on the lake. When they have family over, they bring over a pontoon and <br />park it for the weekend. They are not around to inspect it, but 21 days is a little much. <br /> <br />Walsh said most of the time people are coming and going, and there are not a lot of times that people are <br />docking for a couple days straight. <br /> <br />Johnson stated he would not be in favor of having overnight parking other than registered boat owners. In <br />reviewing other cities' language, he did not see provisions for other people to use that space. There are <br />two types of properties here: Two that already have a dock and two that have no dock rights. The City is <br />grouping them together, but they are completely different. His recommendation would be to not muddy it <br />with any rights of overnight parking other than the registered owner on the application. <br /> <br />Walsh commented that language was getting a little too tough and the City Council could really stick it to <br />somebody, and he does not want to get in that position. He would like to have a little flexibility. <br /> <br />Printup stated the issue was discussed as far as overnight and friends and family and who comes and <br />visits and how it should be done. It was decided to get away from having too stringent of language in the <br />enforceability. If he is on a boat and wants to visit Crosby and gets too tired and can't drive later, is that <br />going to be the greatest choice, to say they can't dock here, they’ve got to go to. He felt it was a safety <br />aspect. Printup asked how it would be enforced on the weekend. <br /> <br />Crosby said leaving the 48 hours in the language is reasonable but he would get rid of the 21 days. <br /> <br />Printup said he understands Johnson's point as far as safety and not having strangers around. However, if <br />the police notice something going on around the weekend, it would be documented. The City Council has <br />teeth and can say, "Guess what, folks, you just lost your dock." They are not going to want to lose their <br />dock. His big issue was, he had no interest in selling the land. The Council settled on the idea of maybe <br />allowing some docks. The City does not want to be in the dock business. If it's not already in there, he <br />would like to see a termination clause. <br /> <br />Walsh stated that language was in there. <br /> <br />Johnson said it's a little softer in that people have the right to become compliant. <br /> <br />Crosby agreed with Printup’s point, that there are going to be times when you have a friend over, possibly <br />drinking. You don't want to send somebody out intoxicated just because of your dock license. <br /> <br />Walsh stated there are appeals in the document such as appealing per the City Code. <br /> <br />Crosby said the 21-day language should be removed but the 48 hours is reasonable. <br /> <br />Printup noted there's language regarding on November 1 the dock has to be removed for City-owned <br />parcels both in the water and on land. He asked what would happen on November 2 if the dock is still