Laserfiche WebLink
I r <br />r <br />, <br />o <br />The Council asked the neighbors and dock owners to address the parking situation, which w'e <br />did last Fall. At that time we all agreed how the one car per slip (or total of 3 authorized) <br />could be easily accomplished. As a neighborhood, we did what the city asked us to do and <br />resolved the issue to everyone ’s satisfaction. <br />At last Fall’s Council meeting, one of the Council members summed up the situation ver>- well. <br />In addressing one of the non-resident ovNTiers, he told him that these properties were veiy <br />unusual in Orono and were all non-conforming lots. Because they were non-conforming, they <br />had special restrictions that had to be adhered to. He suggested that the one car condition <br />man^ted for the boat slip was appropriate for this area and that the dock owners needed to <br />conform to the requirements of the conditional use permits. It was suggested to the dock owner <br />that there w'ere hundreds of properties in Orono that would allow the parking of multiple cars <br />and if that were critical to this dock owner they should look at purchasing a home in Orono or <br />other community that would provide for multiple car parking, but that that wouldn ’t be possible <br />with this property. <br />As neighbors, we agree wholeheartedly with that point of view. There are marinas and homes <br />on the lake that would accommodate their parking needs, but we feel that the permits governing <br />these docks were well thought out as relates to parking, and we would not support any change or <br />amendment in parking for non-resident dock owners. <br />Frankly, from our perspective, it’s ver>' frustrating that the City Council will be addressing this <br />issue for yet a third time. We can’t honestly understand why there is such a strong feeling that <br />the city needs to accommodate the non-resident dock owners. Their parking rights are clearly <br />spelled out in their conditional use permits and they have never once been denied their right to <br />park the one car they are allotted. <br />As a neighborhood, we are vigorously opposed to increasing or expanding the parking for the <br />non-resident dock owners and we would ask that the city vigorously enforce the parking <br />restrictions set forth in the conditional use permits. <br />Further, w'e see no need to once again address the parking issue that has already been addressed <br />twice by the City Council. As far as we’re concerned, the issue has been resolved per the <br />direction of the City Council. <br />If, however, the City Council wants to address tliis issue for a third time, we’d ask that it be <br />postponed until at least May when the Ogle’s return home. Without them, any discussion about <br />the dock properties cannot be very productive since their propert>' is the one that controls all the <br />others. <br />r-na—- -mm m-----1 —n fcii ^ i in-i- fi i