04-27-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT C To: Mayor Grabek Orono Council Members City Administrator Bernhardson From: Jeanne r. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator Date: April 23, 1987 Subject: Discussion of standards, necessary findings and other issues surrounding the use of track/ramps constructed at the lakeshore resulting in the storage of boats within the lakeshore protected area. A. _ISSUE OF EXISTING STRUCTURES In an abbreviated tour of shoreline properties observing the various ramp/track structures, staff was able to photograph a variety of these structures for Council's consideration. We observed hand cranked or motor driven ramps made of either wood or metal. In the three shoreline areas inspected by staff., approximately 40% of the homeowners had these structures. We could find no single common physical feature of the shoreline that would suggest the need to store boats out of the water. The Casco Cove area has a mucky, unstable lake bottom inhabited by musk rats. A few lakeshore properties had old track systems that conveyed boats L.. )reline boat houses (North Shore Drive), and, yet, others appea ed c.n the shoreline of gentle sloped sandy beach areas (North Shor(. Drive, Casco Point and Forest Lake). There were track systems that conveyed boats up steep lakesh )re banks where owners obviously sought to protect expensive boats as *heir shoreline was not visible from their residences. One Council Member referred to these existing structures as non- conforming structures to be considered under a conditional use permit. Staff has advised the City Attoney of the vari_--ty and abundance of these structures on our shoreline. We agreed that Council indeed wants to control the use and spread of these structures. A track that stores a boat provides hardcover and structure within the lakeshore protected area where none is allowed. The Attorney advises against the use of the conditional use permit because such permits suggest that these structures are permitted and difficult to deny when so many exist prior to the adoption of the City's policy. The conditional use permit does not provide flexibility in establishing controls for each unique situation. The Attorney concurred with the variance approval because of the need to provide hardships and with a variance the City can establish the necessary controls unique to each property. The variance procedure places the burden on the applicant, Council need not grant the variance if hardships are not relevant to request. If an existing track/ramp requires major repairs, upgrading or replacement, the owner would have to file for a variance. Such structures would now be subject to the same standards established for new installations.