My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-09-2018 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2018
>
07-09-2018 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2019 12:33:14 PM
Creation date
5/24/2019 12:26:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
124
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 CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, June 25, 2018 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />14. LA18-55 PAUL VOGSTROM OB/O WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS <br />PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN — Continued <br />Haberman property but that did not seem to deter them. It has always been my understanding that any <br />new build had to conform to City Code. <br />I do remember a few years back when one of my clients requested eight additional feet so they would not <br />have to look at an illegal fireplace on the neighbor's property. They were told in no uncertain terms that <br />the answer was no and Orono will never grant a variance to build anything in the 0-75. Dunkleys' <br />property is already too close to the lake and so is the addition. So this must mean that now anyone can <br />get a variance to do whatever they want in Orono? Dunkleys' property is directly in my sightline and I <br />certainly do not want another structure when their home is already too large for this neighborhood." <br />Bill and Sandra J. Keegan, 2707 Walters Port Lane: "Dear Melanie Curtis. We are in favor of most of <br />the pond/wetland improvements that were proposed at the neighborhood meeting this past June 13t'. <br />There wasn't very much discussion on the Lot 2 split other than right now access would be on Walters <br />Port Lane with hopefully switching that to Pence in the future. <br />Our concerns have to do with drainage into our property. Since the rebuilt 10 years ago of the Dunkley <br />property, we have had washout from their driveway into our property on the south side and also down our <br />driveway. Our concern is that extending Walters Port Lane to access proposed Lot 2 would cause further <br />runoff down Walters Port Lane as it is a hill and there will be increased hardcover. <br />On the proposal there is a berm where there are presently pavers on the road. The landscaper indicated <br />this might help divert the water away from our property but pavers would need to be removed. Sue <br />Dunkley indicated she did not want to remove any pavers. We are also getting runoff behind our garage <br />and don't think the berm would solve this issue. We would like to see this remedied as soon as possible. <br />This project has changed the character of the neighborhood. It is much closer to us than we thought it <br />would be and does surround our home. We understand that this is the Dunkleys dream so we have tried <br />to be good neighbors. Unfortunately we are unable to come to the Council meeting tonight. Any <br />questions, please call. Thanks for your time." <br />Janice Berg: "Melanie, as someone who has served on the Planning Commission for many years, I find <br />the above -referenced application very troubling. The request for variances and exceptions regarding <br />building site, average lakeshore setback, creation of back lots and driveway access require the City to <br />make many exceptions to City Code. <br />I see no hardship as the owner created this situation when they combined the two lots into one to <br />build a large addition on their existing home. <br />2. Tearing down a home, City looks to make the new lot conforming to Code. <br />Three homes on a private driveway has been discouraged. <br />4. Creation of back lots has always been done not to create nonconforming properties. <br />Page 5 of 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.