Laserfiche WebLink
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> MINUTES FOR APRIL 17,2000 <br /> • <br /> (#2573 David and Marti Blodgett, Continued) <br /> street. Hawn stated in her opinion the majority of the fence should not obstruct a person's view. <br /> Stoddard commented it sounds like the City's application forms did not delineate the setback <br /> requirements. <br /> Bottenberg indicated the information the Applicant is referring to is attached as Exhibit I. <br /> Blodgett indicated they would like to construct a fence in order to obtain some privacy and is <br /> consistent with the other fences in the neighborhood. Blodgett stated he was attempting to avoid <br /> the need for a variance until he was notified of the 30 foot setback requirement. <br /> Nygard expressed concerns that the Applicant has commenced to construct a fence which exceeds <br /> the City's standards even though he has been informed of the height restrictions. Nygard stated <br /> some other issues for consideration is a parking spot that is elevated next to a retaining wall, and a <br /> fence would obstruct the vision of a person traveling over the hill if a fence is constructed on top of it. <br /> Nygard noted the fence is to be 3.5 feet from the ground level. <br /> Blodgett stated his fence posts and boards have not yet been trimmed to meet the 3.5 foot <br /> requirement. <br /> Nygard inquired where the Applicant was measuring the 3.5 feet from. <br /> Blodgett stated the only place he was out of compliance was in that 30 foot section. <br /> • Nygard commented it is his opinion there are other sections of the fence that exceed the City's <br /> requirements. <br /> Hawn stated the building inspector can inspect the fence to see whether it exceeds the City's <br /> requirements. <br /> Nygard stated all of the boards currently installed by the Applicant exceed 42 inches, noting he has <br /> installed 48 inch boards. Nygard stated the fence needs to be measured from the ground level. <br /> Lindquist suggested the fence be inspected by the building inspector to insure compliance. <br /> Hawn agreed that this matter should be reviewed by the building inspector. Hawn stated it is up to <br /> the Planning Commission to give direction to the Applicant on what requirements need to be met <br /> regarding his proposed fence and that it is up to the building inspector to see that the requirements <br /> are then complied with by the property owner. <br /> Blodgett commented he is attempting to have a fence that is consistent with his neighbors.] <br /> Hawn expressed regret that the Applicant apparently was not given all the information necessary in <br /> order to comply with the setback requirements, noting that there is not ample justification for <br /> changing the City standards at this time. Hawn stated the Planning Commission needs to <br /> consider whether this fence will create a tunnel effect along this road. <br /> Lindquist stated he has voted for other fences in this area, noting he will support this fence. <br /> Lindquist stated the concerns raised are legitimate issues. <br /> • Hawn moved, Stoddard seconded,to recommend denial of Application #2573, David and <br /> Page 22 <br />