My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12-10-2018 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2018
>
12-10-2018 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/16/2019 8:43:30 AM
Creation date
1/16/2019 8:43:27 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO TRUTH-IN-TAXATION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,December 10,2018 <br /> 6:30 o'clock p.m. <br /> most lakeward points. Gronberg stated that has been his understanding of how the sightline is determined <br /> during all the years he has worked in Orono. <br /> Gronberg stated one of the things they looked at in the Dayton application was the way the houses were <br /> facing. <br /> Curtis noted that was for a variance. <br /> Gronberg stated that was a component of the variance that was granted. The setback line was ganted 80 <br /> feet from the lake on that variance. On this property,there is a mostly straight shoreline with the house <br /> facing south to the east of the Dunkleys. The house that got torn down was facing southwest and the <br /> Dunkley's house is facing almost west. Gronberg indicated they have a similar situation to the Dayton <br /> application as to which way the houses are facing. <br /> Walsh noted the shoreline goes across and then changes,which is why those houses are in a row. <br /> Gronberg commented it is a great ordinance for a straight shoreline,but when the shoreline cuts way back <br /> in, it creates a practical difficulty. The house to the east is 80 to 90 feet from the shoreline,Dunkley's <br /> deck is 25 feet,and the middle of the new lot it around 138 feet to the setback. On the corners that <br /> average setback line is around 120 to 125 feet,which creates quite a discrepancy. <br /> Eric Vogstrom,2710 Pence Lane, noted in 2002,the neighbor to the north of Dunkleys applied for a <br /> variance for the end of their garage located off of Walters Port. That area requires a 35-foot setback and <br /> the Keegans requested a variance for 10 feet. The Dunkleys did not object to that and the variance was <br /> approved. The resolution noted that due to the shape of the lakeshore,there was a hardship pertaining to <br /> the property. In addition,when the Dunkleys received their approval,Orono stated the configuration of <br /> the property and the adjacent property functions as a peninsula. At that same meeting Council Member <br /> Dankey asked the question if it affected anyone's view,and Melanie replied no,not really,because the <br /> orientation of that area is almost like a peninsula. <br /> As Mr. Gronberg pointed out,there are a couple of properties on 825 Old Crystal Bay Road where they <br /> were talking about the average line of sight. Those properties had a similar situation with the shoreline <br /> and the City Council did not have an issue with it at all. Vogstrom noted that was approved about a year <br /> ago. In addition,there was another property at 1700 Bohns Point Road that Kathy Alexander did where <br /> they asked for an average lakeshore setback and there was not an issue with it even though it was a <br /> similar situation. Vogstrom noted there have been many other examples where there have been practical <br /> difficulties for the average line of sight, and if there is a straight line, it makes sense,but obviously when <br /> the shoreline is curved,the ordinance does not pertain to that. <br /> Vogstrom stated when they originally came in,the Dunkleys were at that Council meeting asking for a <br /> line of sight variance and the Mayor and some others commented that that did not seem to be a problem. <br /> Greg HQeler,2715 Pence Lane, stated he knows the City Council looked at a number of plans and <br /> discussed at great length the layout of this lot and how it had to be conforming,that they were not going <br /> to entertain looking at this lot if it was not conforming. The applicant then came in with a conforming lot <br /> and they did not oppose that. Hueler asked what sense does it make for someone to come in with a <br /> conforming lot but then request a variance later. Hueler asked whether he can come in next month asking <br /> for a variance if there is no practical difficulty. <br /> Page 15 of 19 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.