Laserfiche WebLink
City of ORONO <br />RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br />m <br />2576 <br />C) The property is not wide enough to provide adequate parking <br />that would meet the required setback of 75' from the channel area <br />nor the required 30 feet setback from the street lot line. The <br />County Highway Department also does not allow parking along this <br />section of the County road. <br />D) Approval of the use of an accessory structure such as a dock, <br />without a principal structure would establish a negative <br />precedent in dealing with a similar request for lots of similar <br />size. <br />20. At the January 91 1989 meeting of the Orono Council, the <br />applicants submitted a written response/proposal dated December 19, <br />1988 that they felt addressed the concerns of the City: <br />A) To propose a lot line rearrangement with the neighbor's <br />property to the north so that neighbor's dock, now located on <br />• applicants' property, would be located within his redefined <br />residential property lines. <br />B) Applicants propose removal of illegal dock on Tract F, RLS <br />#1216 and enlarging neighbor's dock. Applicants would ask City <br />to credit residence structure on neighbor's property for shared <br />dock use. <br />C) The applicants would use the existing drive on neighbor's <br />property to the north for access to shared dock. They plan no <br />additional hardcover improvements within substandard building pad <br />of Tracts F & G and will park all vehicles on neighbor's property <br />with residence. <br />D) Security of dock is no longer an issue since dock is now <br />located on a lot with a principal residence. <br />E) The question of negative precedence setting is no longer an <br />issue since the accessory structure, now a shared dock, is <br />located on a lot with the principal residence requiring no <br />variance approval, merely a joint use dock license. <br />21. Council refused to accept the interpretation of the <br />accessory use/structure ordinance as proposed by applicants based on <br />the following findings: <br />• A) The City has never credited a preliminary structure on an <br />adjacent property to allow accessory uses or structures on lots <br />that did not sustain principal residences. <br />Page 6 of 9 <br />