10-23-2000 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• “Nor pose a fire hazard” - In the past few years a gravel car park has been built (without permit) by one of the non-resident dock owners. This car park is immediately next to the only fire hydrant in the \icinity of the boat docks. Frequently, cars are parked for 24 hours or more directly in front of the tire hydrant. There are also frequently 4 cars in the car park preventing any easy access to the fire hydrant. This poses a significant increase in fire risk to the neighborhood. VVe also believe that the large boats with correspondingly large gas tanks that are left unattended pose an increased risk of fire to the neighborhood. The boats have been broken into. It’s certainly not unreasonable to assume that vandals could set fire to one of the boats, which could pose a serious fire risk to the whole neighborhood. • “Nor pose other danger to the neiehboring properties ” - The non-resident boats have been broken into a number of times. A recent article also indicated that boat crime on the lake is on the increase. The large, extremely valuable, untended non-resident boats are an obvious target for thieves and vandals. Their presence is an in\itation to burglars and vandals to enter our neighborhood, where they are not likely to stop at the non-resident boats. The presence of the non-resident dock owners makes it very difficult to practice Neighborhood Watch since neighbors never know which cars belong in the neighborhood or who is supposed to be in the non-resident dock area. ■ “Proposed level of use" - The level of use has changed substantially since 1985. In 1985, the docks were used for normal recreational boating and the boats were much smaller than they are today. None of the slips were used for rental propert>' as two of the slips were used in 1999. There was no electricity, water, lights, flagpoles, car parks or other amenities in 1985. The level of use is quite different than in 1985. ■ “Use of the property will be in keeping with the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the citv^" - We’ve all been told that no other situation like this exists in Orono and that no docks are allowed without a structure. We’ve also been told that these properties are all non-conforming. We don ’t understand how in 1985 these docks w'ould have met the criteria stated above but they certainly would not seem to meet these criteria today. ■ “Nor will it depreciate surrounding propert\~ values’’ - We believe strongly that the current situation does depreciate our properU* values. There is no other place in Orono w'here a condominium boat marina is allowed to exist and that’s because it goes against the intent and objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan of the City. The city mandates that only lots with structures are entitled to docks because this is the proper use of land to maximize property* values and proper lakefront usage. While in 1985 an argument could have been made for these non-resident docks not harming property values because the boats were much smaller and used for normal recreation, this is no longer the case. Ha\ing a condominium boat marina with large boats, break-ins, substantial car parking, rental slips, noise, lights, etc., in the middle of a quiet residential neighborhood most certainly adversely affects property- value. Given the city*’s rationale in the 1985 resolution, we believe that if the city applied those guidelines to today’s situation, the conditional use permits would not be granted for the size boats, infrastructure, and current use of the non-resident slips. Resident Docks without Conditional Use Permits • The two docks owned by residents without conditional use permits are Olson and Casey. • Neither Olson and Casey were ovN-ners in 1985 when the conditional use permits were granted and neighbors agreed to provide access for the fins car that was allowed to park for the three non-resident owners entitled to park one car.