My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-10-2000 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2000
>
04-10-2000 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/15/2023 8:53:42 AM
Creation date
3/15/2023 8:44:52 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
425
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />MINUTES FOR >URCH 20,2000 <br />does not create a navigational problem in the channel. Nybeck did concur that parking of boats <br />on the north side of the dock could obstruct access to other docks in the channel. The Applicant <br />has agreed that the north side of the dock extension should not be used for parking of additional <br />boats due to the navigational problems it may cause. <br />City Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit subject to, one, the Applicant <br />maintaining active licenses with the LMCD and DNR; two, the dock does not cause navigational <br />problems or obstruct access within the channel per LMCD requirements; three, future <br />replacement or alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use permit from the City of <br />Orono; and four, no parking shall be permitted on the north side of the dock. "• <br />Randgaard stated he would like to park boats on the north side of the dock extension if possible, <br />noting that in his opinion there are adequate laws governing the channel. Randgaard stated he has <br />agreed to not park boats in front of the 14 foot dock extension. <br />Berg Inquired why the Applicant is In need of a 14 foot dock extension. <br />Randgaard stated he currently does not have enough room for his boat. <br />Berg inquired whether the second dock owned by the Applicant will be removed. <br />Randgaard stated the second dock is primarily a swimming dock, noting he is unsure whether he <br />vrill be putting the dock in this year. <br />Hawn inquired whether there was a requirement that docks be limited to one per parcel of property, <br />Weinberger stated each dock requires a permit. Weinberger noted the second dock has not been <br />issued a permit and should be inspected to insure that the dock does not encroach into the <br />channel or setbacks. <br />Hawn indicated in her view the Applicant should obtain a permit for the second dock, <br />There were no public comments regarding this application. <br />Hawn Indicated to the Applicant that his neighbors did appear on a prior occasion when this <br />application was before the Planning Commission and expressed a number of concerns regarding <br />the dock extension as well as the number of parties that appear to be taking place on this property. <br />Page 2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.