Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,March 9, 2009 <br /> 7:00 dclock p.m. <br /> (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Conti�iued) <br /> Gaffron indicated the other three properties do have docks on the city-owned ]ots in front of their lots that <br /> are taken down in the fall and are put back in in the sprin�. The City distin�uishes this property from the <br /> other three in that there was a variance application for the house located on this property. The survey that <br /> was completed was incorrect because it showed the]ot running all the way down to the lake and the City <br /> required a new survey. The resolution approved for that variance application contains an annotation <br /> stating that the City does not consider this ]ot to be riparian. <br /> Gaffron stated the City has not taken any formal action to notify the other properties that a dock is not <br /> allowed. The City had considered startin�a title registration process but elected not to do the required <br /> title research due to the costs involved. The City's position during the construction and marketing of <br /> Mr. Eiss's property has been that it is not entitled to a dock, so it was not an unl:nown at the time of <br /> purchase. Gaffron stated the issue is whether the City should notify the other properties that a dock is not <br /> allowed or attempt to arrive at a solution where the four properties could have a dock. <br /> Murphy stated when he purchased his property approximately 20 years ago, it turned out that the <br /> nonconformin�barn was constructed considerably prior to the residence and that it was grandfathered in. <br /> Murphy stated as long as no substantial changes are made to the footprint of the barn,they are allowed to <br /> retain the barn. Murphy asked if the docks would be a similar situation. <br /> Gaffron stated docks are considered accessory structures and that this is an area of the lake where, if the <br /> dock is left in year-round, it would need to be constructed considerably different. Gaffron stated a legal <br /> nonconformity would not apply in this situation since the docks are taken down in the fall. <br /> Mattick noted some of the other lots are continuous lots abutting the lake and that they are allowed a dock <br /> as long as there is a primary residence. Mattick stated on the lots where there is a dock, it does not <br /> necessarily mean that the City has approved them and that the City has taken a position in the past that <br /> docks are not to be placed on the city-owned properties. <br /> Eiss stated the lots with the docks are worth more but yet he is being assessed for a lakeshore lot. <br /> Mattick stated riparian lots are worth more but that the city's position has been that in order for a lot to <br /> have a dock, it requires a principa] structure. <br /> Murphy stated the City's position is generally one of not trying to create trouble for its residents and that <br /> if Mr. Eiss were to press the issue,the City would then need to inform the other three lots that they would <br /> not be allowed a dock. Murphy sugaested that perhaps the City discuss this issue further and look at its <br /> options for dealing with this situation. <br /> McMillan stated other cities have created outlots and allows its residents to have a dock on the outlot, but <br /> that the LMCD has found over the years that there were a number of problems created in the <br /> neighborhoods by people wantinQ to utilize the docl:s. Orono has attempted to avoid that issue by not <br /> creatinj the out]ots. <br /> Murphy stated there is a situation on County Road l9 where there are four or five docks with very <br /> minimal land and no houses. <br /> PAGE 4 of 8 <br />