Laserfiche WebLink
� <br /> �� <br /> �� �� <br /> 0 0 <br /> ��� CITY of ORONO <br /> a � � <br /> �� �'� ' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL <br /> �kEsxo�`'� rvo. 4 6 7 � <br /> � <br /> allow a fence greater than 3 '/z' in height within a required setback to a property line <br /> adj acent to a street. The RR-1 B zoning district has a required 50'setback to the south <br /> property line. <br /> 2. The zoning ordinance does permit fences 6'in height along the street lot line of lake <br /> frontage lots which front on a major thoroughfare, as North Shore Drive is <br /> designated. The reason the higher fence is permitted along the street on lake frontage <br /> lots is the rear of the house is usually where outside storage is located and that <br /> portion of the property generally functions as a rear yard. Applicant's lot is not a lake <br /> frontage lot. <br /> 3. Fences are permitted 3 `/z' in height along all property lines, except a 6' fence is <br /> allowed along the north property line outside of the 50' setback from both streets. <br /> The property owner has stated the reasons for the fence are the lot's proximity to the <br /> road, the direction the house faces, and the hazards of the road as they relate to <br /> traffic, noise, and safety. <br /> 4. A row of shrubs between 4-6' in height is located on the property. The fence would <br /> be located between the shrubs and the house to minimize the visual impact of the <br /> fence from the road. Fences along the road can create a"tunnel"appearance if many <br /> properties were to construct fences higher than those permitted by the zoning <br /> ordinance. Many of the existing shrubs are within the County Road right-of-way. <br /> The City of Orono has no assurance the vegetation will not be removed without input <br /> from the property owner or the City. <br /> 5. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application on <br /> April 16, 2001 and had a split vote of 2 ayes to 3 nays on a motion to recommend <br /> approval of the application. The Planning Commission did not have a consensus on <br /> making a finding of hardship and had concerns about setting a precedent to allow <br /> fences to exceed the Code requirements. <br /> 6. The Planning Commission requested the applicants complete a certificate of survey <br /> prior to the item being heard by the City Council. No survey has been completed. <br /> 7. The applicant made a verbal statement to Staff it was his intension to no longer <br /> pursue the variance application on July 5, 2001. <br /> Page 2 of 4 <br />