My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Project Packet
Orono
>
Property Files
>
Street Address
>
B
>
Bracketts Point Road
>
1265 Bracketts Point Road - 11-117-23-32-0010
>
Land Use
>
07-3260, VAR
>
Project Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2026 10:15:38 AM
Creation date
3/19/2026 10:14:04 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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
[:)(H71?1T (/ <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Tuesday, January 16, 2007 <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />8. #07-3260 ROGER O'SHAUGHNESSY, 1265 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD, <br />VARIANCE, 8:23 P.M. -8:50 P.M. <br />Roger O'Shaughnessy, Applicant, was present. <br />Curtis stated the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance to allow the existing five-foot <br />high wrought iron fence to remain where a maximum of3.5 feet is allowed .. The property is <br />located on the western side of Bracketts Point Road and has over 600 feet oflakeshore. In 2004, <br />the property owner received approvals from the City of Orono in order to redevelop the property. <br />During a site inspection for a certificate of occupancy, the building inspector noted that a new <br />fence had been constructed which exceeded the City's height standards. The property owner <br />would like the fence to remain as constructed and he has applied for an after-the-fact variance. <br />The Planning Commission should consider whether the hardship statement presented by the <br />applicant supports the granting of the variance. If the Commission finds that there is a hardship <br />or reasonable justification to grant the variance, then a recommendation to approve would be <br />appropriate. If the Commission determines that the fence as constructed is not reasonable and is <br />inappropriate in the location and height, then a denial recommendation would be in order. If the <br />Planning Commission feels the fence is appropriate but not justified under the variance standards, <br />a revision to the code is an option to consider. If so, this application should be denied and sent to <br />the City Council to determine whether a code change should be pursued. <br />O'Shaughnessy commented he does travel a lot and that he would like the fence for security. <br />O'Shaughnessy stated he has experienced people picnicking on his property, fishing from his <br />shore and parked in his driveway. O'Shaughnessy stated the fence helps to serve as a barrier and <br />that it was his architect's understanding that he would be allowed a six-foot fence since this is a <br />comer lot. <br />Chair Rahn opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. <br />1
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.