11-25-2019 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, November 12, 2019 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Klema asked whether the smaller lot could be resized so Mr. Bonnett could take acreage from that to make his other lot bigger, in theory, he could subdivide that lot. Walsh stated these are 2 -acre minimums so there would only be two lots there no matter what. Mr. Klema wasn't sure whether the small lot could be made smaller because it is already less than 2 acres. Walsh stated you cannot subdivide something unless it meets the zoning requirement. Mr. Klema asked how you would be able to have an accessory dwelling unit, if it was possible. Printup stated he had no idea. Ms. Angie Hopping, 95 Smith Avenue, believes the vacation of the property is not to the benefit of everyone in the neighborhood and City of Orono. If a cul-de-sac is needed, it should be at the north end of Smith and allow the City property to be the direct access to the Luce Line. She referenced an email T.J. sent which stated he gives access through his property to his discretion and everybody has access with the exception of one person. She asked how in the future they would know they still have access through the property and said T.J. should not have the discretion to cut people off if there is a permanent access. She asked, if the cul-de-sac goes in where it is now and there is a permanent easement, does that go from the Smith Avenue cul-de-sac all the way through to the Luce Line. Walsh stated it would. Ms. Hopping asked who would patrol that to make sure everyone still had access if there are Private Property signs set up, how would you get access. Walsh stated there could not be Private Property signs up if it was an easement. Ms. Hopping said the current access is not very inviting because of the Private Property signs. Mr. Bonnett says he gives access, but it's to his discretion, which she does not believe is fair. She also does not believe it would be fair to give that much property in return for the small amount of the cul-de-sac. Mr. T.J. Bonnett, 40/45 Smith Avenue, felt if there were a hammerhead at the end, people would continue using driveways and a cul-de-sac is more desirable. Regarding the path, his intention would be to rip up the end of Smith, beautify it, make it better, get rid of hard space, put some green space in, and landscape it. He would eventually like to build a garage somewhere, but it's probably five years from now so he can't really say what the plan is. Early on they talked about could it be three lots, what developments are going to go on there, is it going to be a bunch of condos, an office building. That is not his intention, and he feels he has communicated that. The neighbor that is not allowed to access the path destroyed his property, there was a lawsuit, the judge sided with Mr. Bonnett, and he thinks any reasonable person would not allow that person to cross the property. That's the only exception for people using the path. Mr. Robert Miller, 60 Smith Avenue, stated he is the excluded neighbor, which he is fine with. The plan as proposed does not meet the requirements put forward by the Planning Commission as well as City Staff. He is not opposed to a cul-de-sac; he feels it should be at the end of the street. He is not entirely opposed to vacating some property to the Bonnetts to allow for the cul-de-sac. Mr. Bonnett is giving up some land so he should get something out of it. He thinks it would be more appropriate to take land Page 9 of 17