06-16-1997 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 16, 1997 g - Continued) (#t6 - #2245 Barbara Theisen and Clayton Freebnr�, , A brother to Tom Theisen asked if any of the special conditions involved in this application have been reviewed. Lindquist said he has not reviewed similar issues in the past. McMillan indicated that the stormwater drainage issue is of vital concern. McMillan suggested the issue be taken up with the County. Gaffron said the application could be tabled to allow the applicants to speak with the County first and then come back before the Planning Commission. Lindquist moved, Smith seconded, to table Application 42245. Vote: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ( #7) #2246 - DONALD 3. CURRIER, JR., 60 CYGNET PLACE - VARIANCE /C:ONDYfIONAL USE pERMIT - PUBLIC HEARING: 7:58 -5:24 Y.M. The Affidavit of Publication and Certificate of Mailing were noted. The Applicant was represented by his wife, Peg Currier. Van Zomeren reviewed the proposed variances. A setback variance is required to locate the antenna closer than 70' to the property line. The antenna is proposed at a height of 70' • which exceeds the 65' maximum height allowance. A conditional permit is required because the proposed antenna does not meet the requirements for an accessory antenna. The antenna is proposed to be located 55.26' to the side yard. The side yard requirement of a distance which is the same height of the antenna is due to failure of the structure and where it would fall if it does fail. Van Zomeren said the applicant has indicated that the determined location was made due to the trees on the property. Currier indicated his neighbor supported the antenna location. Van Zomeren said she spoke with the City's consultant. Information on the construction drawing, information citing legal cases and handouts on local regulation regarding reasonable accommodation of amateur radio operators is included. The survey does not note the trees on the property but Van Zomeren said staffhas viewed the property. Van Zomeren informed the Commission that the antenna cannot be denied based on aesthetics. Peg Currier informed the Commission that the antenna is on a nesting support structure that is retractable resulting in a 3 5' height when not in use. Lindquist received confirmation from Gaffron that another application had been denied due to its location closer to the property line than what was required. Height had not been an issue. Lindquist questioned whether the retractability of the antenna makes a difference. Gaffron said it would depend on whether the antenna was extended if it failed. 9