My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-08-1985 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
1985
>
07-08-1985 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/4/2025 10:50:28 AM
Creation date
12/4/2025 10:42:10 AM
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.
/
314
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
1080 Ferndale West <br />July 3, 1985 <br />Page 2 <br />The subject property would have required zoning variances only if <br />the dry buildable contiguous area fell below .5 acres. The dry conti- <br />guous area of the lot total .49 acres. The standards of the LR-lA <br />zoning district apply - 50 feet front/rear, 30 feet sides. Per the <br />survey on record showing the shoreline at the edge of the road right- <br />of-way, the dock would be permissible based on the following findings: <br />1. Legal description of property includes part of Lot 9, the <br />riparian tract, divided by the platted road. Typical of many of <br />our lakeshore lots along Shoreline and North Shore Dri e. <br />2. Dock is classified as an accessory structure, dock could not <br />be contructed until a house was built on the subject property. <br />In May of 1984, staff noted in the violation letter (Exhibit 10B) <br />to current owner that dock appeared to be located on road right-of- <br />way. The updated survey (Exhibit. 3) submitted with the variance <br />application confirms that shoreline is 18.5' from north lot line of <br />riparian tract. The applicant and future owner wants the riparian <br />issue resolved as an addendum to the c»rrent variance application. <br />Please review John J. Taylor's Statement of Fact included with <br />staff's memo. Once again, please note the exhibits referenced in his <br />paper are included in staff's exhibit listing. <br />Brief review Taylor's position of argument: <br />1. Property .its The owner of the underlying fee title has <br />the right to ut._ze that portior of the dedicated public right- <br />of-way not used by the City. The property is still taxed, the <br />City has ., conde;ned the land under water nor can it use that <br />portion of the property for the dedicated specific road use. <br />2. Neighbors Concerns The dock is limited by the size of the <br />lot and subject to all LMCD standards for dock construction. The <br />riparian lot would fall under the LMCD's special site provisions <br />as the lot (.- tract was created prior to 2/5/70. The owners <br />would agree to conditions such as gate with lock dev4ces, <br />signage. <br />3. Fear of Precedent Setting on the Part of the City Establish <br />review criteria - each case to be reviewed on its own merits as <br />follows: <br />a) Title History <br />b) Platting <br />c) Dedication Language <br />Staff would add: <br />d) Taxing Records <br />e) Public Safety IssuF <br />f) Feasibility of Requirement <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.