Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 16, 2007 · 6:00 o'clock p.m. 8. . #07-3260 ROGER O'SHAUGHNESSY, 1265 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD, VARIAN CE, 8:23 P.M. -8:50 P.M. Roger O'Shauglmessy, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant.is requesting an after-the-fact variance to allow the existing five-foot high wrought iron fence to remain where a i11aximum of 3.5 feet is allowed. The property is located on the western side of Bracketts Point Road and has over 600 feet oflakeshore. In 2004, the property owner received approvals from the City of Orono in order to redevelop the property. During a site inspection for _ a certificate of occupancy, the building inspector noted that a new fence had been constructed which exceeded the City's height standards. The property owner would like the fence to remain as constructed and he has applied for an after-the-fact variance. The Plaiming Conm1ission should consider whether the hardship statement presented by the applicant supports the granting of the variance. If the Conm1ission finds that there is a hardship or reasonable justification to grant the variance, then a recommendation to approve would be appropriate. If the Conunission determines that the fence as constructed is not reasonable and is inappropriate in the location and height, then a denial reconm1endation would be in order . If the Planning Conunission feels the fence is appropriate but not justified under the variance standards, a revision to the code is an option to consider. If so, this application should be denied and sent to the City Council to detem1ine whether a code change should be pursued . O'Shauglmessy commented he does travel a lot and that he would like the fence for security. O'Shauglmessy stated he has experienced people picnicking on his property, fishing from his shore and parked in his driveway . O'Shaughnessy stated the fence helps to serve as a banier and that it was his architect's understanding that he would be allowed a six-foot fence since this is a comer lot. Chair Rahn opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. There were no public conunents regarding this application. Chair Ralm closed the public hearing at 8:29 p .m. Sue Steinwall, Attorney-at-Law, stated cities have broad discretion in deciding whether a variance is appropriate and that one of the standards the City needs to consider is whether the application is reasonable and constitutes a reasonable use of the property. The fence is reasonable to provide the applicant with the security that he needs and is unobtrusive. Steinwall stated had they knovm the fence was going to be an issue, they would have addressed it at the time this property was developed in 2004. Steinwall stated although one of Staff's recommendations is to consider a denial of the variance and to send it on to the Council for possible code changes, they would ask that the Planning Commission approve the variance application. Kempf stated his feeling is that _this is a residential neighborhood and that this is the kind of place that the ordinance was written to have lower fences between neighbors. Kempf conm1ented he does understand PAGE 17