My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Encroachment Agreement- June 2007
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
C
>
Crystal Bay Road
>
3405 Crystal Bay Road - 17-117-23-44-0022
>
Land Use
>
Encroachment Agreement- June 2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 3:44:25 PM
Creation date
5/22/2017 8:58:09 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
3405
Street Name
Crystal Bay
Street Type
Road
Address
3405 Crystal Bay Road
Document Type
Land Use
PIN
1711723440022
Supplemental fields
ProcessedPID
Updated
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
and the va.rious scenarios for leasing suggested that the lessees would expect to enjoy some <br /> exclusivity of use which the City could not guarantee, or wouJ.d l�ikely result in ongoing <br /> nnanagement issues for the City. The three remaining options (sell, do nothing, or require dock <br /> removal}each had plusses and minuses: <br /> Sa1e of the City lots to the opposite owners would give them ovvz�ership of the lakeshore, but the <br /> initial iransa.ction is necessarily quite involved due to the need for a subdivision/re-plat to <br /> guaxantee the public's use of the traveled roadway (see the swrvey attached, which indicates the <br /> traveled roadway is partly witivn dedicated right-of-way and partly witliin the 4 lakeshore <br /> pazcels). An appraisal to establish land value would be needed. Also, the City would have ta <br /> transfer the lots via c{uit-clai.m.deed, as that is how the City acquired them, and therefore alI the <br /> potential off-site"ba�g and baating rights"becorne the problem of the new owners. <br /> Doin ng�otk�',_� does not resolve the issue for property owners who are having diffictalty selling <br /> their properties without a definite conclusion to this issue,but requires no further City action. <br /> Requ.irin�dock removal patentially reduces the value of these four homes without providing a <br /> clear benefit to the public, given the nature and relative difffculiy of public use of these pazcels <br /> even if docks were removed(Iack of parking,proximity to traveled road, etc.) <br /> Staff recommended that if the saJ.e option was pursued, it would be appropriate to vacate portions <br /> of the unused 66-foot right-of-way and dedicate portions of the City lots for future roadway, as <br /> the existing traveled road is not fully within its dedicated corridor. The following process would � <br /> be necessary: <br /> 1. Prepare initial subdivision/vaca�ion sketch <br /> 2. Formuiate necessary easements/covenants to retain <br /> 3. Discuss cancept wi�th opposite owners <br /> 4. Establish value and price(appraisal} <br /> 5. If buy-in from opposite owners,hold a public heari.ng <br /> 6. Proceed.witli subdi�vision/vacataon/dedication via stancEard City approval processes <br /> The above is a summary of the information provided to the Council £or the September 12, 2011 ' <br /> Work Session at which the Council directed staff to take no further action on this issue. <br /> Page 2 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.