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