My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Submittal
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
A
>
Arbor Street
>
1355 Arbor Street - 10-117-23-31-0052
>
Land Use
>
89-1445, CUP
>
Submittal
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2025 1:06:49 PM
Creation date
9/5/2025 1:03:44 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
66
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
To: Mayor Grahek & Orono Council Members <br />City Administrator Bernhardson <br />From: Jeanne A. Mabusth, Building & Zoning Administrator. <br />Date: December 7, 198Q <br />Subject: #1445 Gregory Peterscn, 1355 Arbor Street - <br />Reconsideration of Variance Approvals <br />List of Exhibits <br />Exhibit A - Inspection notice <br />Exhibit B - Staff Letter <br />Exhibit C - Peterson Letter <br />Exhibit D - Peterson Sketch of. Requested Fencing <br />Exhibit E - Staff Sketch Denoting Al+roved Fence Heights/ <br />Setbacks <br />Review of Current Request - <br />In the original variance application, both staff and Council <br />understood the requested 5'+ fencing was to be placed arounc the <br />pool. Mr. Peterson advises that this was never his intention and <br />clearly he was discussing fencing around the boundaries of his <br />property. Please note fencing around the boundaries of the <br />property do not as of this date require lot coverage <br />considerations. The current ordinance section discusses only <br />pool areas that are fenced on properties less than 1.99 acres. <br />In reality, Mr. Peterson seeks a height variance for a t.ri vacy <br />fence to be placed around the boundaries of his property. Review <br />the staff sketch (Exhibit E). Portions of the pool fence that <br />exceed 3�' in height located within. the 50' rear yard setback <br />area would have required a height variance approval. The height <br />variance for that section of the fence was not addressed in the <br />original review, but merely limited the height of the fence <br />around the pool to a 5'+ privacy fence <br />The privacy fence constructed tc the rear of Mr. Peterson's <br />home has been placed totally within the right-of-way of Briar <br />Street. The Public Works Director has denied alplicant's request <br />to maintain the fence in its current. location. Mr. Peterson <br />seeks an appeal of staff's decision. Please review Exhibit C, <br />the hardships and findings cited by the Petersons for retaining <br />fence in present location. John Gerhardson will be available for <br />additional comments at your meeting. <br />The second phase of the applicacion involves Mr. Peterson's <br />request to install 5'+ of privacy fencing along the north and <br />south boundaries of his property (refer to Exhibit D). Please <br />then review the staff sketch Exhibit E and note the areas of the <br />property where only a 3�' height fence structure is allowed. <br />Note the height setback variance will re required in the west <br />rear yard only as applicant doe.; not propose a privacy fence <br />within the 50' setback area of the east from yard. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.