11-19-2018 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Hueler November 15, 2018 The Honorable Mayor Dennis Walsh and Planning Commission Members City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55423 Re: Opposition to Proposed Variances for William and Susan Dunkley for Property at 2709 Walters Port Lane (and new lot that is in the process of being subdivided) Dear Mayor Walsh and Planning Commission Members: This letter is in opposition to the above matter. As you know, we reside immediately adjacent to the Dunkley property and have testified on a number of occasions regarding our concerns about the development proposed by the Dunkleys. We did not oppose the conforming subdivision of the Dunkley's property into a"conforming lot". This lot has dimensions that allow a beautiful home to be built within the City Code and set back requirements. Our understanding, as set forth in William Griffith's letter from July to the City Council is "that a lawful variance requires a showing of unique circumstances not created by the landowner. See Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6(2) (holding that"practical difficulties"requires the landowner to show"the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property[.]"); see also Continental Prop. Grp. V. City of Wayzata, No. A15-1550, 2016 WL 1551693, at#1 (rejecting developer's uniqueness argument where other properties were subject to the same zoning ordinances). See Also Mohler, 645 N.W.2d at 632 (holding variance was not justified where there was no "unique condition under the statute."); cf. Minn Stat. § 394.22, subd. 10 (requiring, in context of county variance, that there be "exceptional circumstances" for a variance to issue). As you are well aware, the Dunkleys have made a number of decisions, including the positioning of the proposed lots, the combination of existing parcels, and construction of a massive addition to their home, all of which preclude the proposed subdivision and house pad. Consequently, they have failed to demonstrate unique circumstances which justify the grant of a variance." The Dunkleys own the property. It has not legally been subdivided yet. They are requesting variances for a lot they plan to sell in the future. The new potential owner is now making the request for variances. Everyone, including the new potential owner, were informed that the subdivision needed to have no variances, and were granted this subdivision by the City Council based on this understanding. They are now asking for a variance to build outside the boundaries