Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br /> Monday,June 20,2016 <br /> 6:30 dclock p.m. <br /> Lemke commented the City is exempting themselves and that he agrees with Mr. Schoenzeit's comments. <br /> Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. Thiesse noted this request is for a variance to allow <br /> a fence and not about the merits or needs of a dog park. <br /> Dianna Mi(ianta, 3515 Sixth Avenue North, stated she does not repeat a lot of what she said at the City <br /> Council meeting and that she will summarize some of what she said. Milianta stated the intent of the park <br /> was to be left as a wildlife park per the wishes of Susan Lurton. Milianta stated the placement of the <br /> fence will make it difficult for wildlife to travel freely through the park. Milianta noted the fence is still <br /> within 150 feet of the lake as well as being close to the residential properties. Milianta pointed out the <br /> 150-foot line. Milianta stated she would suggest moving a portion of the fence back since it would leave <br /> access to the lake open for the wildlife. <br /> Milianta stated the other item she would like to discuss is the practical difficulties document. Item No. 3 <br /> states the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Milianta stated if you <br /> take that very literally,the fence is intended to blend into the environment, but it should not be taken out <br /> of context. Milianta noted the fence will hold dogs in and the dogs will alter the essential character of the <br /> locality. Milianta stated the fence and the dogs together will really change the character of the locality <br /> around the lake and around that corner. <br /> Milianta stated the fence and the dogs will impact the value of their property. Milianta noted they have a <br /> very nice horse barn and that there will be problems with the noise and having the dogs that close. <br /> Milianta stated moving the fence down will still give a lot of space for the dogs and provide enough space <br /> between the dogs and the horses. <br /> Laurel MacLachlan, 3565 Sixth Avenue North, stated the original intent of the park was to keep it passive <br /> so all the animals would be able to live there without any obstruction. MacLachlan stated she is in <br /> agreement that the fence should be moved further back. MacLachlan stated in her view most dog parks <br /> are in that 1 to 7 acre range and not 30 or 35 acres. MacLachlan stated if the dog park encompasses a lot <br /> of acreage, it will impede on some of the wildlife, and when the dog park is that big and the dogs are off <br /> leash, it will be difficult to pick up after them. MacLachlan stated she would like to see the dog park <br /> restricted further. <br /> MacLachlan stated she also is not sure that a 4-foot fence is not jumpable by a number of larger dogs, and <br /> if a dog does jump that fence, it is a risk to the other animals that may or may not be there. <br /> MacLachlan noted she did write some comments down and submitted those about how the change to the <br /> park came about and about the lack of public notice. <br /> Thiesse asked what the height of the fence is. <br /> Barnhart indicated it is 47 inches. <br /> Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. <br /> Thiesse asked specifically what the Planning Commission is being asked to address tonight. <br /> ___ _. __ _ _._ <br /> Page __ _ _ _ <br /> 18 <br />