Project Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 16, 2007 6:00 o'clock p.m. (#07-3260 Roger O'Shauglmessy, Continued) the concern that the property is an attraction and draws people to the site, but that there are trees in the area and a 42-inch fence would be a sufficient barrier. Kempf stated a wrought iron fence is probably less intrusive but unfortunately does not meet the City's ordinance. O'Shaughnessy stated the landscape architect p~rhaps interpreted the code inc01Tectly but that there is some ambiguity in the code regarding comer lots and that it should read that it is only along county roads that a higher fence is allowed. O'Shauglmessy stated it was a legitimate mistake and that denial of his variance would require a substantial amount offence to be removed and replaced. Ralu1 stated the fence seems reasonable and is not out of character with the neighboi"hood. Rahn stated given the examples cited by the applicant for security, he would not be opposed to the fence. Rahn conm1ented the City's fence ordinance in his opinion does need some tweaking but. that now is not the time. Ralm suggested this item be placed on a future Planning Conunission work session. Winer stated she agrees with the need for the fence from a security standpoint from the road as well as fi:om the lake and that given the level of architectural detail of the house, it is easy to see how the property owner could overlook this detail regarding the fence. Kempf stated there are a number of incredible properties that draw people and that perhaps the City should look at changing their ordinance to address security. Kempf stated the City has not chosen to ,vrite their ordinances to address a person's desire for security. Rahn stated the City should afford a person's right to privacy to every resident. Kempf stated in his opinion the City should look at changing the ordinance prior to approving this application. Rahn stated the perception of one's security should not be a city issue and should be a personal issue and that the city's fence ordinance could be tweaked. Curtis stated the Planning Commission could reconunend that the ordinance be changed in the fuhire as part of this application. Winer inquired whether the fence height with corner lots has come up in the past. Gaffron stated the City's code reads as follows: "A fence not exceeding six feet in height may be located along the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major thoroughfare." Gaffron stated it is possible the language could be interpreted that since the lot abuts a major thoroughfare, any street lot line could have a s·ix-feet fence. Gaffron stated this is a unique lot and unique layout where you not only abut a county road but also a minor neighborhood road. Gaffron stated this type of fence does :fit the character of the neighborhood in his opinion and that this is a si~tmtion where the fence should remain. PAGE 18