Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, March 15, 2021 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Libby said that answered his question. The idea was that they do not want to overlook anything, many <br />circumstances when talking about variances or applications they have other authority that they have to wait <br />on. If this is something that had perhaps been overlooked, the initiative that the property owner took to put <br />this together and bring it to the Commissioners attention was of great value. <br /> <br />Ressler asked to clarify that the existing permit in place and others alike all share something in common <br />which is they are either lakeshore property themselves or common ownership in lakeshore property. <br /> <br />Curtis asked Ressler to restate the question. <br /> <br />Ressler asked if the existing dock permits have been issued. <br /> <br />Curtis replied they are for inland lots. <br /> <br />Ressler said for all of those that have been issued. <br /> <br />Curtis clarified they are for inland lots and they have two permits. <br /> <br />Ressler restated a different way: regarding both inland lot dock permits, do they both share these two things <br />in common. They are either owners of lakeshore property as well or have a common ownership. <br /> <br />Curtis replied no. Any of the other inland owners that they have not identified in addition to the Applicants <br />and the two adjacent are the only ones that are not connected to a lakeshore lot, in ownership or actual <br />lakeshore. <br /> <br />Bollis stated the Commission has to look at what is in front of them and the code allows provision for inland <br />lots to apply for a dock as long as it does not affect the neighboring properties. The first thing this does is <br />affect the neighbor at 230 Big Island because it revokes their dock permit. He thinks any solution they <br />come up with should really consider 230 Big Island and make sure it is an equitable solution for both. He <br />does not know that they can find a comprehensive solution tonight for all of the inland lots, he thinks they <br />have to look at the permit requests the Commission has in front of them and design the permit so that it is <br />similar to what they did with the original one 2038 and have some language in there that if additional people <br />apply, then that permit gets revisited and looked at again. He knows as a permit holder it is not fun, but it <br />seems like it could be an easy solution right now and the Applicant is being neighborly about this and <br />agreeing to additional conditions on the permit to appease the neighbors. He noted there are endless <br />conditions they could put on it so the neighbors feel comfortable he will use the dock for the purpose he <br />wants to use it for. McCutcheon said he did not hear from Ms. Farnes about what she thought of the shared <br />dock solution. <br /> <br />Ms. Farnes said the information delivered to her was late on Friday and she has spent 24 hours a day trying <br />to pull something together. She said absolutely not. In the packet she delivered, it is not even feasible and <br />the space does not even allow for two boats with one dock and/or two docks. <br /> <br />Bollis stated it appears that it would require a variance from LMCD for that dock. <br /> <br />Ms. Farnes noted all the traffic, the drainage area that has been tampered with, it is full trees there on both <br />sides which she showed pictures in her packet. There will have to be surveys, trees cut down, damage to