My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-21-1984 Planning Minutes
Orono
>
Agendas, Minutes & Packets
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
05-21-1984 Planning Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/13/2023 2:38:40 PM
Creation date
12/7/2022 1:30:15 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
NINUTBS OF THB PIAMMIHG COMNISSIOll MEBTIN6 OP MAY 21* 1984 PAGE 11 <br />«832 HARRIET E I : I <br />#833 HARRY BROCKOPP <br />993 MILDHORST TRAIL <br />VARIAHCE <br />PUBLIC HEARIMG <br />10:10 - 10:20 P.N. <br />Art Burton stated that he would rather keep the fence. <br />Burton stated that the City ordinances allow him to <br />have a 6' high fence on a major thorofare. <br />Chairperson Goetten stated that the location of the <br />fence does conform to all standards of the pertinent <br />ordinances. Goetten felt that the height of the fence <br />conforms to all standards of the pertinent ordinances. <br />Goetten did not feel that there had been illegal <br />filling or signs of a deliberate intent to violate the <br />ordinances of the City. <br />Kelley moved, Goetten seconded, to recommend to <br />Council that the location of the fence conforms <br />standards of the pertinent ordinances; that the height <br />of the fence conforms to all standards of the pertinent <br />ordinances; and that there has not been illegal <br />filling or signs of a deliberate intent to violate the <br />ordinances of the City; and that staff did interpret <br />the code properly. Motion, Ayes (4) , Nays (2). Sime <br />and Adams voted nay. <br />Adams felt that the fence does conform to the standards <br />of the ordinances as written but that the fence does <br />not conform to the intent of the ordinances. Adams <br />stated that the intent of the ordinance would be that <br />the fence can be 6* above grade prior to 12-1^81 <br />(existing grade date). Adams stated that he would go <br />with the grade of the ground next to the road. <br />Callahan noted that the questions asked are very <br />narrow. <br />Chairperson Goetten stated that she feels that the <br />ordinances were followed. <br />Simc stated that neither the letter of the ordinance <br />was followed nor the intent was followed. Sime stated <br />that the key is the grade and in his opinion the grade <br />should be existing grade before any construction took <br />place. Sime felt it was an error on staff s part <br />allowing the berming and the fence since the <br />combination of both would not be permitted by staff as <br />stated on page 2, last paragraph of the staff report. <br />Harry Brockopp was present. Assistant Zoning <br />Administrator Gaffron noted the certificate of <br />mailing and the affidavit of publication. Gaffron <br />stated that staff needs additional information in <br />notid that he <br />doesn't meet the dry ouiidabie. <br />Sime moved, Kelley seconded, to table Brockopp*s <br />variance application until applicant submits an <br />aiirvev. Motion. Ayes (6)» Nays__(()J_.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.