Laserfiche WebLink
* • 05/17/00 WED 12:07 FAI <br />:iTT OF ORONO 6122494616 <br />0013 <br />04/13/00 11:50 O :15/21 NO:2A0 <br />r a nonbulldabla lot (no primary atmeture).* The planning <br />commiaalon denied reepondente* propoeal and che eicy council paeeed <br />a reaolutlon citing the £ollowlng reaeona for denial: <br />the bo6te maintained at that dock. <br />(B) An adjacent neighbor [Tillotaonl already has a dock <br />[tJie l'560’ dock] located on Tract P. <br />(O) The property is not wide enough to provide adequate <br />parking. • * * <br />CD) Approval of the uee of an acceaeory atxjicture 6U<:h ae <br />a dock without a principal structure would cstabliah a <br />negative precedent in dealing with a aimilar regueets for <br />l^a of similar size. <br />( <br />*r <br />Reependenta leter eent a memo to the city council, outlining <br />the coiieeme the city council erpreeaed and suggesting a dif'-rent <br />s <br />proposal that -they thought would satisfy those concerns. <br />Respondents proposed conveying some property to Tillotson to <br />provide him legal access to the lake, ai>d building a single common <br />dock to be shared by Tillotson. Peterson, and Stodola. <br />At a dity douncil meeting, the council denied the ahared dock <br />proposal. At a later meeting, the council adopted a resolution <br />denying the shared dock proposal. The resolution indicated that: <br />Council refused to accept the interpretation <br />of the accessory use/structure ordinance as <br />proposed by applicants based on the following <br />findings! <br />(A) The City has never credited a preliminary <br />structure on an adjacent property to allow <br />accessory uses or structures on lots that did <br />not sustain principal residences. <br />i \ <br />(B) The credit of the principal residence for <br />uccessozry uBc/structurc. serving an adjacent <br />property will establish a negative precedent <br />3^ <br />I