My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1440-1442 Shoreline Dr - HISTORY
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
S
>
Shoreline Drive
>
1440 Shoreline Drive - 11-117-23-22-0004
>
1440-1442 Shoreline Dr - HISTORY
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 3:28:15 PM
Creation date
3/14/2022 11:43:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
1440
Street Name
Shoreline
Street Type
Drive
Address
1440 Shoreline Drive
PIN
1111723220004
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
141
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Marina CUPs <br /> July 10, 1997 <br /> Page 3 <br /> The issue of'grandfathering'is presenting a problem. Staff has requested that the City's prosecuting <br /> attorney determine how best to gain compliance of the two marinas who refuse to apply for CUP's. The <br /> prosecuting attorney has indicated to me verbally that in their opinion this matter should not be <br /> prosecuted criminally, for the following general reasons: <br /> 1. We would be citing the marinas for operating each of the conditional uses without the <br /> required CUP.The City prevailing in a criminal citation does not necessarily compel action,but merely <br /> results in a fine up to$700 and/or 90 days in jail. It is likely that either marina would plead not guilty <br /> and request a jury trial, which is their right. <br /> 2. In a criminal proceeding,the City bears the burden of proof The City would have to <br /> prove that the marinas are operating without the required CUPs. In the prosecuting attorney's opinion, <br /> it is likely that the marinas would argue they are grandfathered. If just one juror agrees that they should <br /> not be subject to the CUP requirement, the City would lose. <br /> 3. Apparently,in the prosecuting attorney's opinion,converting an existing use that is not <br /> identified in the old code,to a conditional use requiring specific approvals,is the same as converting <br /> a previously permitted use to a non-permitted use. This then becomes the typical case of'continuing <br /> a non-conforming use',which is difficult to eliminate unless there has been a one-year lapse in the use <br /> as well as an intent to let the use lapse. <br /> I am therefore asking that Mr. Barrett review this situation and assist me in determining a course of <br /> civil action to gain compliance(or,determine that the code is unenforceable and define strategies for <br /> changing it). The City's primary goal with marinas is to minimize their impact on the surrounding <br /> residential neighborhoods. A secondary goal that has perhaps become significantly less clearly defined <br /> over the last 20 years is to reduce the overall impact the marinas have on the lake environment. Our <br /> specific goals in gaining compliance with the CUP requirement include the following: <br /> a. Compliance merely for compliance's sake; i.e. the code requires it, one other marina <br /> which was required to comply did so, and all should be treated equally. <br /> b. Establishing a documented plan by which each of the marinas in question has defined <br /> how it will meet parking needs for the various uses, and which the City can use as <br /> a tool to ensure that parking doesn't become a problem. <br /> c. Establishing a landscaping/screening plan for each of the marinas in question,which <br /> can include maintenance of existing landscaping/screening and/or the addition over <br /> time of additional landscaping/screening. <br /> mpg <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.