Laserfiche WebLink
#0-3090 <br /> Marcli 16,2005 � <br /> Page 3 <br /> Orono's concurrent jurisdiction over pei7iiaiient docks is prinlarily via the City's floodplain <br /> regulations, which provide no signifcailt standards pertinent to the approval of permanent docks. <br /> Both peniianent and seasonal docks fall under the zoning categoiy of accessory shuctures, so with <br /> the exception of the RS District, one caimot liave a permanent or seasonal dock without a priilcipal <br /> residence structure. <br /> There are no specific Building Code construction standards for docks. The City will require that a <br /> building peiniit be issued to docunlent the existence and construction of the pennanent dock. <br /> The applicant has not provided a survey for the property. However, based on the plat map sketch <br /> provided, the dock is pro�osed to Ue located where it clearly meets all setUack requirements, and a <br /> survey of the property would not provide any infornlation relevant to this dock proposal. There are a <br /> few older buildings on the property,wluch the assessor has valued at a total of$1,000. The property <br /> apparently is used primarily for recreational purposes. If and when the property owner pro�oses any <br /> new stnich�res on the land, tlie City would require that a Certificate of Survey be provided. <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Staff recoirunends approval of the conditional use peimit for consh-uction of the proposed pennanent <br /> dock subject to the followiiig conditions: <br /> 1. The dock shall be allowed as long as it contiiiues to be pennitted by the LMCD and <br /> DNR and is iii confoi7nity with the rules and regulations of those agencies. <br /> 2. Future replacenient or alteration of the dock will require a new conditional use pemiit <br /> from the City of Orono. <br />