Laserfiche WebLink
HINUTBS OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD AUGUST 19, 1985. PAGE 6 <br />1950 ROVBGNO continued <br />Mabusth felt that the intent of amending the ordinance was to <br />clarify it, cleanup language dealing with "front yards", and <br />setting limits on the reasonable functions of fences. <br />Mabusth stated that the issue before the Planning Commission <br />as whether the amended ordinance dealt specifically with <br />lots that abut lakeshore and reared major thoroughfares or <br />streets or did it deal with any kind of lakeshore yard that is <br />intercepted by a major thoroughfare. <br />Per Commission member Taylor's request. Zoning <br />Administrator Mabusth gave examples of Orono properties that <br />fit closely to her interpretation of the ordinance: lots <br />along Sbadywood, the corner lot on Oxford Rd. McDonald <br />mentioned the Pillsbury property is a good example. <br />Zoning Administrator Mabusth contends that the problems is <br />not dealing with the non-encroachment of yard requirements, <br />but lakeshore setback requirements. <br />Chairman Callahan noted that the Planning Commission has <br />before them (this evening) another proposed amendment to the <br />fence ordinance for them to consider. Callahan inquired <br />whether this hearing would be a waste of time if they were to <br />approve the amendment. <br />City Administrator Bernhardson stated that the proposed <br />amendment dealt only with fences 3-1/2 feet above the ground. <br />Mr. Rovegno stated that he has expressed to staff that he <br />would be willing adminir,tratively to relocate the fence, but <br />as it stands the ordinance clearly permits the fence.mm <br />; ■ ■ <br />Art Tourangeau, 2060 Spates Ave., stated that he felt the <br />fejnce would create a hazard during the winter with snow <br />build-up against the fence and the narrowness of the road <br />when one wants to turn on Spates Ave. <br />Lyle and Norma Godfrey, 2060 North Shore Drive, were present <br />for this matter. Norma Godfrey felt that the fence <br />depreciates the value of their property, two sections of the <br />fence have already been removed because of graffiti, the <br />fence is dangerous, it is distracting to motorist,and blocks <br />the view of the lake. Ms. Godfrey stated that she also <br />believes this fence nas been planned for some time and cited <br />dates of filings and notices proving so. Ms. Godfrey also <br />noted that taxpayers' monies have been spent on the court <br />proceedings involved with Mr. Rovegno's threatened <br />litigation with the County over the used right-of-way of <br />County Rd. 15 and the out of court settlement granting <br />Rovegno the right to erect a fence within the easement for <br />road mainte.'iiance, and would like to see the fence removed. <br />Chairman Callahan stated that the comments from the public <br />are well taken, but the Planning Commission ' s purpose at this <br />point, is to decide whether Mr. Rovegno had the right to erect <br />the fence without a permit as the ordinance stands today.