10-08-2001 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MONDAY, September 24,2001 (Mei-2708 MicbMl mmd JmbIc McCklUiid, ContinMcd) Sansevere slated in his view the Council may potentially be sening a precedent by approving the variance. McClelland staled his neighbors to the east are not ver>* neat and have a scrap metal pile in his yard along with a boat that is rather unsightly. McClelland stated the residence has gone for two years without any siding on the house. McClelland stated the fence was removed to accommodate the neighbor's son's wedding and to repair a portion of the fence that was damaged by a large tree. McClelland slated when they purchased the property they were required to sign a paper say ing they would maintain the fen ‘ and Weep it in good repair, which in his view is what he attempted to do. Mrs. McClelland stated the fence was paid for and erected by the neighbors in this area prior to them purchasing the pixiperty. McClelland stated the City apparently approved the fence at that time and they were required to sign a piece of paper say ing they would maintain the fence. Ma>or Peterson stated it is her recollection the fence was allowed due to the problem being experienced in that neighborlu>od with one of llie residents. Sansevere inquired w hether this was a full replacement or a partial repair of the existing fence. McClelland stated it is a partial replacement. Nygard inquired whether the fence is currently on city property, McClelland stated approximately two >ears ago they had their property resur\c\ed and disco\ crcd tlial the fence was originally constructed in the right-of-way. McClelland stated they arc agreeable to relocating the fence outside the right-of-way and to construct the fence witli the good side facing out. McClelland stated he did speak w ith Staff regarding that issue and was told the City docs not regulate which side the fence must face. Gaffron stated it could be argued that this is a replacement of an existing fence in a more conforming location. Gaffron stated there was a six-foot fence located in this area, with the fence being relocated to be outside the right-of-way. Gaffron stated the Code is clear that if a structure is replaced, it should be conforming. McClelland staled he removed the fence to protect it while removing a tree in the area Moorse stated it is his understanding there was no intent to permanently remove the fence, with the fence being relocated to a more conforming location. Weinberger stated the majority of the fence has been replaced. McClelland stated he did reuse a number of the posts but did replace some of the fence panels. Tom Barrett, City Attorney, stated if the Council considers a visual hardship in this they could be required to consider it in other applications. PAGE Ih