05-22-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

f [ ‘n e f ■ Ensure that non-resident dock owners’ cars do not block access to the fire hydrant. Within the la.st 12 months there have been 2 home fires in the area where access to the fire hydrant along County Road 19 was needed. Thankfully, the hydrant was not blocked, which it frequently is by Ginther and Ault, who have built a hard cover gravel driveway (without ever obtaining a permit and in violation of both hard cover and setback ordinances) immediately next to the fire hydrant. On Monday May 15. 2000. Ginther was parked within a couple feet of the fire hydrant, blocking access to it. Orono City Police cited Ginther, and as a neighborhood we arc very thankful for this action and would ask that the City continue to ensure that our fire hydrant is not blocked. • There was some issue raised by non-resident dock owners regarding easements to the designated parking areas. We understand from meeting with City staff that they are satisfied from their research that there is not an issue with easements. It also must be pointed out that there has never been a single instance of non-resident dock owners being denied access to their designated parking . "ea. Remove Illegal Non-Resident Docks Based on the City ordinances that govern non-conforming lots we believe two of tht docks are illegal and ask that the City have them removed. Specifically they arc: ■ Ginther and Ault - Certified aerial photos from 1971 clearly show that there was only one dock on this property. Since the non-conforming ordinance went into effect in 1968, the second dock was clearly an expansion of use that was not aPowed after 1968. Additionally, Ault has told neighbors that his dock has oeen rented for a number of years, which wc also understand to be not allowable, by ordinance. • Wittman - The previous owner of this dock lot abandoned use of this dock for a number of years in the early 1990’s. Following this abandonment, the dock lot was sold to Wittman who contacted neighborhood residents (Olson and Ca.sey) to move their docks slighf*” since during the years of property abandonment his dock space had been diminished. We understand the City ordinance for non-conforming lots eliminates the right to use non- conforming property if it is abandoned for over 12 months. Additionally, Wittman has rented his dock for at least the la.st year, which we believe is also in violation of ordinance and an abandonment of u.se. His rental would be on City records since his renter testified at last year’s City Council meeting on parking. Prior To A Determination Of Whether Or Not The 1985 Conditional Use Permits Should Not Have Been Granted. At Least Return Non-Resident Dock Area To The Conditions And Use In Place When Conditional Use Permits Were Granted In 1985. Since 1985 there has been substantial and continued expansion of use from the non-resident dock owners. We request that the City return the non-resident dock area to the conditions that existed in 1985 when they we^e granted conditional use permits. Specifically: C Eliminate Electricity - The addition of electricity in 1990 has dramatically altered the use of the non-resident Hock lots. It has changed the docks from being used for nouiial daylight recreation to making the docks habitable. Accordingly, boat size has increa.sed dramatically and non-resident dock owners are frequently using boats for overnight and weekend accommodations. With the addition of high intensity lights, boiLts also now come and go at very late hours, disturbing the neighborhood. The high intensity lights disturb the peace and tranquility of the neighborhood.