03-23-2009 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2009 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ PAGE 4 of 8 (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) Gaffron indicated the other three properties do have docks on the city-owned lots in front of their lots that are taken down in the fall and are put back in in the spring. The City distinguishes this property from the other three in that there was a variance application for the house located on this property. The survey that was completed was incorrect because it showed the lot running all the way down to the lake and the City required a new survey. The resolution approved for that variance application contains an annotation stating that the City does not consider this lot to be riparian. Gaffron stated the City has not taken any formal action to notify the other properties that a dock is not allowed. The City had considered starting a title registration process but elected not to do the required title research due to the costs involved. The City’s position during the construction and marketing of Mr. Eiss’s property has been that it is not entitled to a dock, so it was not an unknown at the time of purchase. Gaffron stated the issue is whether the City should notify the other properties that a dock is not allowed or attempt to arrive at a solution where the four properties could have a dock. Murphy stated when he purchased his property approximately 20 years ago, it turned out that the nonconforming barn was constructed considerably prior to the residence and that it was grandfathered in. Murphy stated as long as no substantial changes are made to the footprint of the barn, they are allowed to retain the barn. Murphy asked if the docks would be a similar situation. Gaffron stated docks are considered accessory structures and that this is an area of the lake where, if the dock is left in year-round, it would need to be constructed considerably different. Gaffron stated a legal nonconformity would not apply in this situation since the docks are taken down in the fall. Mattick noted some of the other lots are continuous lots abutting the lake and that they are allowed a dock as long as there is a primary residence. Mattick stated on the lots where there is a dock, it does not necessarily mean that the City has approved them and that the City has taken a position in the past that docks are not to be placed on the city-owned properties. Eiss stated the lots with the docks are worth more but yet he is being assessed for a lakeshore lot. Mattick stated riparian lots are worth more but that the city’s position has been that in order for a lot to have a dock, it requires a principal structure. Murphy stated the City’s position is generally one of not trying to create trouble for its residents and that if Mr. Eiss were to press the issue, the City would then need to inform the other three lots that they would not be allowed a dock. Murphy suggested that perhaps the City discuss this issue further and look at its options for dealing with this situation. McMillan stated other cities have created outlots and allows its residents to have a dock on the outlot, but that the LMCD has found over the years that there were a number of problems created in the neighborhoods by people wanting to utilize the docks. Orono has attempted to avoid that issue by not creating the outlots. Murphy stated there is a situation on County Road 19 where there are four or five docks with very minimal land and no houses. Item #02 - CC Agenda - 03/23/09 Approval of Counil Minutes 03/09/09 [Page 4 of 8]