Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, March 10, 2014 <br />7:00 o’clock p.m. <br />_____________________________________________________________________________________ <br />  <br />    Page 6 of 17   <br />(4. #14-3648 BEN GOODWIN, 565 LEAF STREET AND 550 OXFORD ROAD, VARIANCE, <br />Continued) <br /> <br />Goodwin noted the area on both sides of the fence are fairly rustic and not well kept up. Goodwin noted <br />the owner of the chapel has indicated he would be willing to erect the fence and that he is perfectly <br />amenable to that. Goodwin stated he does not have any plans to paint the cedar fence. <br /> <br />McMillan stated having a fence that looks nice on both sides would be beneficial to both property owners. <br /> <br />Goodwin indicated they want to work with the church owners so that the fence is pleasing to their guests. <br /> <br />McMillan noted there was a situation where the City required arborvitae be planted along a chain link <br />fence, which still exists today, but that they cannot do that with a wood fence. McMillan noted if the <br />fence is erected right on the property line, there would be no room to plant anything. <br /> <br />Goodwin indicated they could move it back a foot to help establish more of a buffer if that is required but <br />that they are simply following the existing fence line. <br /> <br />McMillan noted they technically could erect a 6-foot fence on the property. <br /> <br />Printup stated part of the argument is that the properties are on the property line of a business and they <br />would like to create some additional privacy. Printup asked if any precedent would be set for people who <br />live along trails or parks. <br /> <br />Mattick stated each variance is granted or denied based on the elements involved with the individual <br />application. Mattick stated the discussion here centers around whether there is a practical difficulty. The <br />applicants have said they live in a residential area and they are facing noises and disturbances that are not <br />associated with a true residential area, which is the rationale for increasing the height of the fence by two <br />feet. Mattick stated the City Council has to determine whether that is a practical difficulty but noted the <br />City’s Code does not specifically spell out practical difficulties. <br /> <br />McMillan noted the Goodwin’s are able to construct an 8-foot fence currently and asked if the variance is <br />for the setback. <br /> <br />Mattick indicated the variance is for the extra two feet of fence height. <br /> <br />Bremer noted they can legally construct a 6-foot fence without the variance. <br /> <br />Curtis indicated an 8-foot fence would need to meet a 10-foot setback. <br /> <br />McMillan stated if the fence is constructed 10 feet back, it would eliminate a good portion of their back <br />yard. <br /> <br />Goodwin stated he just planted the white pines last fall that he otherwise would not have planted and he <br />would have to move all of those. <br /> <br /> <br />Item #03 - CC Agenda - 03/24/2014 <br />Approval of Council Minutes 03/10/2014 <br />[Page 6 of 17]