My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-10-2014 Council Minutes
Orono
>
City Council
>
2014
>
03-10-2014 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/5/2015 2:10:51 PM
Creation date
3/5/2015 2:10:32 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 10, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br /> <br /> Page 8 of 17 <br />(4. #14-3648 BEN GOODWIN, 565 LEAF STREET AND 550 OXFORD ROAD, VARIANCE, <br />Continued) <br /> <br />Bremer stated once you have the visual break and some sound barrier, it is a benefit to anyone down in <br />the area by the church property. Bremer stated there also is an attractiveness element to consider for <br />keeping the height of the fence the same all the way along. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if Good Shepherd Church has had any problems with their columbarium. <br /> <br />Bremer indicated they have not but noted it is a flat structure. Bremer noted they also do not have <br />outdoor weddings. <br /> <br />Levang noted the neighbors of the Good Shepherd Church requested additional screening. <br /> <br />Printup moved, Bremer seconded, to approve Application No. 14-3648, Ben Goodwin, 565 Leaf <br />Street and 550 Oxford Road, and to direct Staff to prepare a resolution approving the fence height <br />variance. <br /> <br />Levang asked if the yellow is the existing fence along the McCarthy property. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated the yellow line is the portion of the fence that will be new and will not require a variance. <br />The pink line on all properties is the area that would require a variance. Curtis pointed out the location of <br />the existing fence on the McCarthy property. <br /> <br />Curtis noted there is a brick sculpture wall which this fence will cover and go to the end of that. Curtis <br />stated the two fences do not appear to meet. <br /> <br />Levang asked if the applicant is asking to fence in that little jagged area. <br /> <br />Curtis stated to her knowledge he is not. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if any additional landscaping details should be submitted. <br /> <br />Curtis stated if the City Council would like to see additional landscaping detail that should be included in <br />the motion. <br /> <br />Mattick pointed out the church cannot approve the landscaping, and if there is anything the City Council <br />specifically would like to see with the fence, those should be included in the motion. <br /> <br />McMillan asked whether maintenance would be covered in the resolution. <br /> <br />Mattick indicated the property owner who erects the fence would be solely responsible for the <br />maintenance of it. Mattick noted most property owners would likely just go on the other side of the fence <br />and maintain it but that the church could object to that if the fence is located on the property line. <br /> <br />McMillan asked if the City has any enforcement mechanism regarding maintenance of fences. <br /> <br />Mattick stated to his knowledge the City does not have any specific fence maintenance standards.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.