Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, March 15, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />4. The dock shall be removed for the winter season. A winter storage location should be <br />identified and approved by staff. <br />5. Dock sections shall not exceed 6‐feet in width. <br />6. No canopy shall be erected <br /> <br />Curtis noted most of those comments are from the code section that allows the permit. Staff further <br />recommends that a comprehensive solution to the dock access question be considered. After the packet <br />was finalized last week, Staff received an updated request and narrative from the Applicant in which he <br />addresses some of the comments he received. His updated request includes an alternative to share a dock <br />with the current permit holder for 2038. The Applicant can speak to his request. <br /> <br />Kirchner said in reference to Permit 2038, he asked Curtis to note where that dock is situated on screen. <br /> <br />Curtis pointed it out and said at the subject location. <br />Ressler noted the way the City’s existing permit that is currently granted becomes revoked in the event that <br />another request is made. <br /> <br />Curtis replied upon request from another property owner it is automatically revoked. <br /> <br />Ressler asked if Staff understands why they would have such language in that approval. Is it because they <br />are trying to be sure they revisit the whole situation all over again rather than an addition of another permit. <br />He asked what it is that they typically see in those situations for such language? <br /> <br />Ressler understands he may be asking Curtis to speculate. <br /> <br />Curtis noted she cannot speculate. Curtis said they do not typically see that kind of language. The language <br />in the 2000 permit – although it mirrored some similar code-required conditions – did not include this. So, <br />a permit that was issued after resolution 2038 did not include that automatic revocation language. Curtis <br />could speculate a lot of things but she would rather not. <br /> <br />Ressler stated it is a landlocked lot so the only access right now is by right-of-way and trails? <br /> <br />Curtis replied that is correct. They are pedestrian access but there is no dock access. She thinks the <br />Applicant can better describe the situation but she thinks they have been anchoring and swimming to shore <br />as they have used the property over the years. <br /> <br />Ressler commented he knows there is a lot of interest based on the feedback the Commission has seen and <br />there are a lot of voices that want to be heard. He said in the essence of time they want those voices to be <br />heard, but at the same time the Commission requests in the public comment section that people try to limit <br />their comments to 5 minutes or less if they can. If one is in agreement with a previously stated comment, <br />he asked if they could just state that they support the previous comment instead of restating the comment <br />in different words. He noted they appreciate any consideration on that. <br /> <br />Joe and Sara Thull, 480 Big Island, showed a few slides on screen to give more context. Ressler is right <br />there has been a lot of feedback and comments regarding his application and he hopes to add a little more <br />color to that. He noted he has owned the property for over 12 years and the intention was always to build <br />a cabin out there. They have approached the City and have a permitted shed and have started construction