Laserfiche WebLink
,. MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CTTY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,March 9,2009 <br /> 7:00 o'ciock p.m. <br /> (PUBLIC COMMENTS, Continued) <br /> Gaffron indicated the other three pmperties do have docks on the city-owned lots in front of their lots that <br /> are tak.en down in the fall and are put back in in the spring. The City distinguishes 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 incort'ect because it showad the iot running all the way down to the lalce and the City <br /> required a new survey. The resolution approved for that vatiance application contains an annotation <br /> stating that the City does not consider this iot to be riparian. <br /> Gaf&on stated the City has not taken any formal action to notify the other praperties that a dock is not <br /> allowed. The City had considered starting 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 ma.rketing of <br /> Mr.Eiss's property has been that it is not entitled to a dock,so it was not an unknown at the time of <br /> purchase. Gaf&on stated the issue is whether the City should notify the other pmperties thai a ciock is not <br /> allowed or attempt to arrive at a soleztion where the four properties could have a dock. <br /> Murphy stated when he purchased his property approximately 20 years ago,it turned aut that the <br /> nonconforming barn was constructed considerab3y 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 /> reta.in the barn. Murphy askcd if the docks would be a similar situation. <br /> Gaffron stated docks are considered accessory structures and that this is an area of the lalce where,if the <br /> dock is left in year-round,it would need to be constructed considerably diffezent. Gaffron stated a lega] <br /> nonconforrzaity would not a{�ply in this situation since the docks are taken down in the fai1. <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 Cify i�as talcen a position in f.he past that <br /> docks are not to be placed on the city-owned properties. � <br /> Eiss stated the Iots with the docks are worth znore but yet he is being assessed for a lakeshore lot. <br /> Mattick stated riparian lots ara worth more but that the city's position has been that in order for a lot to � <br /> have a dock,it requires a principal structure. <br /> Murphy stated the City's position is generally one of not trying to create trouble for its residents and that <br /> if NIr.Eiss were to press the issue,the City wouSd then need to i.nform the other three lots that they would <br /> not be allowed a dock. Murphy suggested that perhaps the City discuss this issue further and look at its <br /> options for dealing with this situation. , <br /> McMillan stated other ci�ies hava createti outlots and allows its residents to have a dock on the outlot,but <br /> that the LMCD has found over the yeazs that there were a number of problems created in the <br /> neighborhoods by people wanting to utilize the docks. Orono has atternpted to avoid that issue by not <br /> creating the outlots. � <br /> Murphy stated there is a situa#ion on CounTy Roa.d 19 where there are four or five docks with very <br /> minimal land and no houses. <br /> . PAGE 4 of 8 <br />