Laserfiche WebLink
-igrowsw <br /> PC <br /> Larkin Exhibit K <br /> Hoffman Larkin Hoffman <br /> #17-3947 <br /> T TOR NE YS <br /> 8300 Norman Center Drive <br /> Suite 1000 <br /> Minneapolis,Minnesota 55437-1060 <br /> GENERAL: 952-835-3800 <br /> FAX 952-896-3333 <br /> WF a: wwwlarkinhoffman.com <br /> October 12, 2017 <br /> Planning Commission Via Email to <br /> City of Orono jloftus@ci.orono.mn.us <br /> PO Box 66 <br /> Crystal Bay, MN 55323 <br /> Re: Dunkley—Hueler Driveway Dispute; Our File 438,235-01 <br /> Dear Planning Commission Members: <br /> We represent Greg and Kelli Hueler, who are the owners of 2715 Pence Lane(the"Hueler <br /> Property"). William and Susan Dunkley reside on the property located two doors to the west, <br /> having an address of 2709 Walters Port Lane(the"First Dunkley Property"). This letter is <br /> written in connection with certain applications that the Dunkleys have made to the City of Orono <br /> for variances, lot division and site plan approval to expand the use of their property(the <br /> "Applications"). The Huelers object to approval of the Applications because the expansion of <br /> the use of the existing driveway clearly violates the terms of the existing driveway easement <br /> agreements and interferes with the Huelers' easement rights in the driveway the Dunkleys now <br /> propose to serve the First Dunkley Property. <br /> Background <br /> We understand that the Dunkleys recently acquired the property between the Hueler Property <br /> and the First Dunkley Property, which has an address of 2710 Pence Lane (the"Second Dunkley <br /> Property"). The Dunkleys desire to make modifications to the driveway on the Second Dunkley <br /> Property, which driveway also serves the Hueler Property, and the Dunkleys desire to expand the <br /> use of that driveway to also serve and benefit the First Dunkley Property. The Dunkleys have no <br /> legal right to do so. The Huelers oppose and object to the driveway modifications and the <br /> proposed expanded use of the driveway to also serve and benefit the First Dunkley Property. <br /> This letter includes a description of the applicable easement agreements and a summary of the <br /> parties' legal rights. In short,the Dunkleys do not have the legal right to expand the use of the <br /> driveway or to unilaterally modify the driveway. The legal analysis primarily consists of the <br /> following three points: <br /> 1. Wrongful Expanded Use of Lot 8 Driveway <br /> The nearest public right-of-way to the three properties at issue is Kelly Avenue. The <br /> northwesterly part of the driveway currently serving the Hueler Property and the Second <br /> Dunkley Property is through Lot 8 of Auditor's Subdivision No. 344("Lot 8"), which <br />