My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Re: dock installation
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
N
>
North Shore Drive
>
2545 North Shore Drive - 09-117-23-41-0003
>
Correspondence
>
Re: dock installation
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2023 5:51:02 PM
Creation date
10/11/2017 11:28:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Address Old
House Number
2545
Street Name
North Shore
Street Type
Drive
Address
2545 North Shore Dr
Document Type
Correspondence
PIN
0911723410003
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.
/
22
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
� . <br /> a nonbuildable lot (no primary structure) . " The planning <br /> commission denied respondents ' proposal and the city council passe�. <br /> a resolution citing the following reasons for denial : <br /> (A) The lack of the principal structure means that there <br /> is no individual responsible for protecting the dock nor <br /> the boats maintained at that dock. <br /> (B) A19607 dock] locatedronTTra�tSFn] already has a dock <br /> [the <br /> (C) The property is not wide enough to provide adequate <br /> parking. * * * <br /> (D) Approval of the use of an accessory structure such as <br /> a dock, without a p-rincipal structure wouid zstablish a <br /> negative precedent in dealing with a similar requests for <br /> lots of similar size . <br /> Respondents later sent a memo to the city council, outlining <br /> the concerns the city council expressed and suggesting a different <br /> proposal that they thought would satisfy those concerns . <br /> Respondents proposed conveying some property to Tillotson to <br /> provide him legal access to the lake, and building a single common <br /> dock to be shared by Tillotson, Peterson, and Stodola . <br /> At a city council meeting, the council denied the shared dock <br /> proposal . At a later meeting, the council adopted a resolutivn <br /> denying the shared dock proposal . The resolution indicated that : <br /> Council refused to accept the interpretation <br /> of the acceasorycantssbaseduon the f llowing <br /> proposed by pp <br /> findings : <br /> (A) The City has never credited a preliminary <br /> structure on an adjacent property to allow <br /> accessory uses or structures on lots that did <br /> not sustain principal residences . <br /> (B) The credit of the principal residence fdr� <br /> ' � ` an accessory use/structure• serving an adjacent <br /> proper.ty will establish a negative precedent <br /> � -3- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.