03-09-2015 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 32 of 43 (12. #15-3708 CITY OF ORONO – AMEND ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1405(A)(8) – STANDARDS FOR FENCES AS A NON-ENCROACHMENT, continued) Gaffron stated at its January meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment with no public comments forthcoming. The item was tabled upon Staff’s recommendation as it was determined that the draft ordinance was incomplete and there were specific changes requested by the Planning Commission. A revised draft ordinance was reviewed at a second public hearing held on February 17. Following some revisions, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval. Levang stated Staff and the Planning Commission has done a good job with the draft ordinance. Walsh stated if someone would like a 4-foot fence rather than a 6-foot fence, he would allow a 7-inch finial standard so they would be allowed on a lower fence. Gaffron stated the proposed text reads as follows: “Exception: post finials extending above the top of the fence shall not exceed 10 inches in width per finial and shall not extend above the top of the fence by more than 10 percent of the allowed maximum fence height at that location.” Gaffron stated a 6-foot fence would be allowed a 7-inch finial above the top of the fence and a 42-inch fence would be allowed a 4-inch finial. Gaffron stated to his understanding they would be allowed under the current language. Walsh asked what the reasoning is behind the 42-inch fence versus a 6-foot fence. Walsh noted someone would be allowed to plant a 6 or 7-foot fence. Gaffron stated City Code for decades has defined which yards can have which fences and that he is not sure why 42-inches was picked. Gaffron stated the way the Code has read is that someone can have a 6-foot high fence in a side yard, but on a lakeshore lot, that fence must be reduced to 42 inches. Gaffron stated it comes down to a visual impact. Walsh stated it seems to be a double standard since someone would be allowed a 6-foot shrub or bush but not a 6-foot fence. Walsh stated in his view permanent needs to be defined better as it relates to temporary fencing. Walsh stated the City needs to separate it out from someone who might put out silt fencing to aggravate their neighbor and that he would suggest placing a limit on it from October to March. Gaffron asked if he is saying that snow fencing has a limited or seasonal time period. Walsh indicated that is correct. Gaffron noted he also talked about temporary fencing shall not be allowed to remain on a permanent basis and that they need to define what permanent is. Walsh stated permanent could be in the eyes of the beholder and that perhaps the City Attorney has a better definition. Mattick stated without a definition, permanent is rather open-ended. Mattick stated they perhaps could get rid of the concept of temporary or permanent and simply have a limit on how long the materials are allowed.