My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
06-14-1993 Council Minutes2
Orono
>
City Council
>
Minutes
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
06-14-1993 Council Minutes2
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/29/2023 2:36:46 PM
Creation date
12/29/2023 2:31:47 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
445
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF A REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MEETING <br />HELD MAY 24, 1993 <br />1993 MARINA LICENSES - CONT. <br />Resolution #938, referenced in every license issued since that <br />adoption, coupled with the existing code sections which state that <br />if the operation of the marina is to be a detriment to the lake or <br />the environment or neighbors, the Iicense should not be issued, <br />leads to a conclusion that no license should be granted for the 30 <br />to 50 boat addition. Resolution #938 states that Increasing the <br />boat density does create an environmental problem. He felt that to <br />be a conflict in issuing a license for the extra slips. He <br />recommends that based on this analysis a license be issued for the <br />77 slips, and not recognize the additional boat storage on land. <br />He noted the B-2 zoning section of the code discusses dock lengths, <br />but does not address boat density. His concern Is that in light of <br />past practice of recognizing past boat density, if boat density is <br />not addressed with these Iicense appiications, the City may not <br />maintain continuity and may give up some authority it may want to <br />maintain. <br />Mayor Cal Iahan asked if the three appIications in question directly <br />related to the number of boats. <br />Gaffron replied all of them are historically related to boat <br />density, and the form and fee schedule used for the application are <br />tied to boat density prohibiting an increase in density. <br />Mayor Callahan felt the Issue was properly brought to the attention <br />of the City and the staff’s analysis of the history Is correct. He <br />felt the thrust of the regulation suggested In Resolution #938 is <br />related to length of docks, not boat density. The Lake Use <br />Committee came to the belief that the City ought to regulate the <br />marinas as a business and as such confine efforts to ensure they <br />do not engage in activities which might be considered nuisances, <br />and regulate them in actual use of the land simi lar to the way <br />other land owners are regulated. Consideration was given to whether <br />the B-2 section of the code should be revised, and that is "^der <br />consideration at the PIanning Commission level. The two iss.*i Mat <br />the Committee was concerned about was that the land use be in <br />accordance with the general views of the City and the marinas do <br />not act in such a way as to be a nulsanca or obtrusive in the <br />neighborhood. One major issue to consider is adequate parking. <br />Specifically, the Lake Use Committee did not want to regulate the <br />number of boats at the marina, and more specifically did not want <br />to regulate dry stacking. The Committee generally believed that the <br />marinas should be allowed to run as a business in any way deemed <br />useful. He felt that marinas. Kept within those parameters, v.ere <br />desireable w>».hln the City and serve a useful purpose in getting <br />the public on the lake.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.