Laserfiche WebLink
. k $ • <br />I <br />y' <br />FiJ.. <br />L;r <br />r <br />Access for the non-residents to park cars has always been granted by previous owners of <br />these properties and Olson and Casey. <br />While no permanent easements have been put in place, we think the access issue is probably <br />governed by the fact that it’s been done for 15 years wiAout protest from anyone. Also, the <br />land behind the docks is clearly a right a way to access the docks and was always set up that <br />way. <br />Specifically as relates to Olson and Casey’s docks, they are separate tracts on the plot map <br />but were purchased by both Casey and Olson in a single purchase agreement and transaction <br />when they purchased their homes. The docks and homes have always been tied together, <br />and as neighbors we would like to ensure that they continue to stay together. If these two <br />docks are allowed to be sold off to non-residents, it will only increase the problems and <br />potential problems we already face. <br />Conclusions <br />We feel strongly that since 1985 there has been a substantial expansion of use of non- <br />conforming properties (specifically the non-resident boat docks). <br />• The non-resident I* it owners have gone substantially beyond what was approved and <br />intended inl985. <br />We would ask that the city carefully review this situation to determine if there is any way to <br />bring it within the current zoning code and Comprehensive Plan. Since the non-resident <br />docl^ are the only non-conforming dock properties in all Orono, at some point in the future <br />we feel these non-resident docks will need to be eliminated. Given the continued expanded <br />use, the current problems and the significant potential for much greater problems in the <br />near future, we feel it is important to address the issue now. <br />At a minimum, we would ask that the city eliminate all of the expanded use since the <br />Conditional Use Permit was granted and bring these properties back to where they were <br />when the permits w’ere granted. Specifically that would involve the following: <br />— Only 1 car of parking p>er boat slip for the three boat slips whose Conditional Use Permits <br />allow 1 car of parking. <br />- No overnight parking. <br />- Removal of anti-crime light. <br />- Removal of flag pole. <br />- Removal of gravel car park. <br />- Elimination of parking that blocks the fire hydrant. <br />No partying on boats tied un to the docks. <br />No overnight accommodations on the boats tied up to the docks. <br />- Removal of electricity to docks and running water. <br />Given the narrowmess of the channel and the shallow depth of the area in question, we’d ^so <br />like to see boat size for the non-resident slips restricted to the boat sizes that were in use in <br />1985, or the 33-34 foot limit stated in the January' Planning Commission meeting by one of <br />the non-resident dock ownqrs.