Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO TRUTH-IN-TAXATION/CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, December 10, 2018 <br />6:30 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br />Page 16 of 19 <br /> <br />Walsh stated nothing can stop someone from requesting a variance and that the conforming lot was a <br />start. Walsh stated there have been a number of occasions where people have come in with conforming <br />lakeshore lots in a development, but the City has had to preempt the issue by setting the sightlines up <br />front and requiring that certain homes be built first. <br /> <br />Kelly Hueler stated when they were at the Council meeting, they heard that the lot had to be conforming. <br />Hueler noted there is no existing home on the property and that the applicants have more than sufficient <br />room for a building pad. Hueler asked where the Dunkley addition is. <br /> <br />Curtis pointed out the location of the addition. <br /> <br />Hueler stated that is where the lakeshore curves, and that the next house that is being proposed is along <br />straight lakeshore. Hueler stated the Dunkleys already received three variances so that issue has no <br />bearing on this. Those are existing homes with practical difficulties that can be easily understood and <br />other citizens in Orono have received the same consideration for. This is an empty lot and it is not a point <br />or a peninsula where they are building. The lot has a perfectly sufficient building pad and it met all the <br />requirements. <br /> <br />Hueler stated she does not understand how the applicants can come back in and ask for exactly what they <br />want when the first answer was no. To them and everyone else around the lake that is not a process that <br />makes sense and there apparently is no reason why someone cannot walk in here and request a patio that <br />was originally denied and say we have every right to that. <br /> <br />Walsh stated everyone has the right to ask for a variance based on practical difficulty and the Council <br />finds whether there is or is not reasonable accommodation. <br /> <br />Hueler asked where the practical difficulty is. <br /> <br />Dankey stated the lot is an unusual shape and the building pad is already 120 to 130 feet back from the <br />lake. Dankey stated if you keep moving it back, that area becomes very narrow, which is a practical <br />difficulty. <br /> <br />Kelly Hueler commented the applicants created the practical difficulty. <br /> <br />Greg Hueler stated he is not an attorney, but his understanding is that in Minnesota you cannot create <br />your own practical difficulty. <br /> <br />Dankey stated she does not understand why there is now a new sightline. <br /> <br />Curtis stated the first sightline was shown incorrectly. <br /> <br />Walsh stated everyone can state their opinion but that he wants to avoid any arguments. <br /> <br />Greg Hueler asked what happened with the sightline. <br /> <br />Curtis stated nothing really happened with the sightline, and that what the Council was reviewing when <br />the new surveyor came on board was a plat. The surveyor was cleaning up the information that was not <br />as clear from the previous surveyor. The previous surveyor had the incorrect sightline on their survey,