Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF TFIE <br /> ORONO PLANN�TG COMMISSION <br /> Tuesd�y,Jam�Rry 16, 2007 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.in. � <br /> 8. " #07-3260 ROGER O'SAAUGHNESSY, 12G5 BRACKETTS POTNT ROAD,VARIANCE, � <br /> 8:23 P.M.—8:50 P.M. <br /> Roger O'Sliaughnessy,Applicant, was�resent. . <br /> Curtis stated the applicant is requesti�ig an after-the-fact variance to allow the existing five-foot high <br /> wrought iron fence to remain where a inaximum of 3.5 feet is allowed. The property is located on the � <br /> western side of Bracketts Point Road aild has over 600 feet of lalceshore. In 2004,the pro�eriy owner � <br /> received approvals from the City of Orono in order to redevelop the property. During a sifie inspection for <br /> - a certificate of occupancy, the buildiiig ins�ector noted that a new fence had Ueen const�•ucted�which <br /> exceeded the City's lieigl�t siandards. The property ownei would like the fence to remain as constructed <br /> and he has applied for an after-the-fact variance. <br /> The Planning Coinmission should consider whether the hardship statement presented by the applicant <br /> supports the granfiing of the variance. If the Coinmission finds that there is a hardsliip or reasonable � <br /> • justi�cation to grant the variance, then a reconunendation to approve would be a��ropriate. If the <br /> Coiimussion detennines that the fence as consh•ucted is not reasonable and is inappropriate in the location <br /> and height,then a denial recommendation would be in order. If the Planning Conunission feels the fence <br /> is appropriate but not jttstified 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 deterinine whether a <br /> code change should be pursued. � , <br /> O'Shaughnessy conuilented 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 pro�erty,fishing from his shore and <br /> parked in his driveway. O'Shaughnessy stated the fence hel�s to serve as a barrie"r 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 Ralui o�ened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. . <br /> . There were no ptiUlic coirunents regarding this application. <br /> Chair Ralui closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. � � <br /> Sue Steinwall,Attorney-at-Law, stated cities have Uroad discretion iii decidin�whether a variauce is <br /> a�pro�riate and that one of the standards the Ciiy needs to consider is whether the application is <br /> reasonable and constiiutes a reasonable use of the property. The fence is reasonable to provide the <br /> applicant with the security that he needs and is unoUhusive. <br /> Steinwall stated had they known the fence was goiiig to be an issue,they would have addressed it at the <br /> time this�roperly was developed in 2004. Steinwall stated although one of StafPs recoiiunendations is to <br /> consider a denial of the variance and to send it on to ihe Couacil for possible code clianges,tl�ey would <br /> ask Chat fihe Planning Commission approve the variance application. <br /> Ken�pf stated his feeling is that tl�is is a residential neighUorhood and tliat this is the kind of place that the <br /> ordinance was written to have lower fences Uetween neighUors. Kem�f convnented he does understand <br /> PAGE 17 <br />