Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, May 23, 2016 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />6. 16-3832 CITY OF ORONO, VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING (continued) <br />MacLachlan indicated they just recently heard about this and that they did not receive a letter saying the <br />City was looking at changing the intent of the park, which also goes against Sue Lurton's original intent <br />for the park. MacLachlan stated she would like the City to reconsider. <br />MacLachlan indicated she is not completely opposed to a dog park but that she is opposed to fencing in <br />the entire park and making it for dogs only. MacLachlan stated in the Orono community, unless there is a <br />study that shows that lots of Orono residents are going to be using it, then the City is going to be creating <br />this dog park for somebody else and not the Orono residents. MacLachlan indicated she would like to see <br />answers to that before the City goes ahead and requires people to purchase permits, which is one way the <br />City is looking to make money off the park. <br />McMillan stated it is not anyone's intent to make money off of this park and that it is to provide an <br />amenity. McMillan stated the permit fees would go towards maintaining the park. <br />Walsh commented the City's intent was well intentioned and that they are proposing to put in more <br />fencing than the City will receive in income. Walsh noted this is the first time the City has had a public <br />hearing on this but that public input is important. <br />MacLachlan stated if they knew earlier, they would have appeared at the meetings and commented on it. <br />MacLachlan noted the residents did not receive a letter. MacLachlan stated perhaps a fence is not <br />considered a building project, but when they do a project, they have to pull all the appropriate permits and <br />provide notice to all the neighbors. <br />Walsh stated there might be other people that could be affected and that it is important to attend the <br />Planning Commission meeting in June. <br />Levang noted the Lurton family approached the City and asked for a change to the park, which was a <br />strong motivation for the City to move forward on it. <br />Walsh stated the City also needs to listen to the neighbors since this is a community park and will have <br />impacts on the neighbors. Walsh stated he does not believe the City has completed an impact study but <br />that Staff could provide answers to some of the other questions. <br />McMillan recommended the residents put their concerns in an e-mail to the Council as well as the <br />Planning Commission. McMillan stated the dogs are supposed to be under control and the owner is <br />supposed to be with the dog. McMillan stated she would encourage the neighbors to e-mail their <br />concerns to the City and that this item will be on the agenda for the June 20 Planning Commission <br />meeting. <br />Meyers stated if the residents have a lot of concerns, what the Park Commission used for a reference was <br />Three Rivers and how they run their dog parks. Meyers indicated he has visited 10 to 15 different dog <br />parks to see how they operate and that the questions that are being raised are questions that have been <br />asked every time a dog park is proposed. Meyers stated the deer can easily get over a 4 -foot fence and <br />that erecting a fence is not going to eliminate the wildlife. <br />Page 14 of 23 <br />