Laserfiche WebLink
NIINUTES OF TI� <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> Tuesday,January 16,2007 <br /> 6:00 dclock p.m. <br /> 8. � #07-3260 ROGER O'SHAUGHNESSY, 1265 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD,VARIANCE, <br /> 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 high <br /> wrought iron fence to remain where a maximum of 3.5 feet is allowed. The property is located on the <br /> western side of Bracketts Point Road and has over 600 feet of lakeshore. In 2004,the property owner <br /> received approvals from the City of Orono in order to redevelop the property. During a site inspection for <br /> a certificate of occupancy,the building inspector noted that a new fence had been constructed which <br /> exceeded the City's height standards. The property owner would like the fence to remain as constructed <br /> and he has applied for an after-the-fact variance. <br /> The Planning Commission should consider whether the hardship statement presented by the applicant <br /> supports the granting of the variance. If the Commission finds that there is a hardship or reasonable <br /> justification to grant the variance,then a recommendation to approve would be appropriate. If the <br /> Commission determines that the fence as constructed is not reasonable and is inappropriate in the location <br /> and height,then a denial recommendation would be in order. If the Planning Commission feels the fence <br /> is appropriate but not justified under the variance standards, a revision to the code is an option to <br /> consider. If so,this application should be denied and sent to the City Council to determine whether a <br /> 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 shore and � <br /> parked in his driveway. O'Shaughnessy stated the fence helps to serve as a barrier and that it was his <br /> architect's understanding that he would be allowed a six-foot fence since this is a corner lot. <br /> Chair Rahn opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. <br /> There were no public comments regarding this application. � <br /> Chair Rahn closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. <br /> Sue Steinwall,Attorney-at-Law, stated cities have broad discretion in deciding whether a variance is <br /> appropriate and that one of the standards the City needs to consider is whether the application is <br /> reasonable and constitutes a reasonable use of the property. The fence is reasonable to provide the <br /> applicant with the security that he needs and is unobtrusive. <br /> Steinwall stated had they known the fence was going to be an issue,they would have addressed it at the <br /> time this property was developed in 2004. Steinwall stated although one of Staff's recommendations is to <br /> consider a denial of the variance and to send it on to the Council for possible code changes,they would <br /> ask that the Planning Commission approve the variance application. <br /> Kempf stated his feeling is that this is a residential neighborhood and that this is the kind of place that the <br /> . ordinance was written to have lower fences between neighbors. Kempf commented he does understand <br /> PAGE 17 <br />