08-10-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

182883 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 10 August 2015 ITEM NO: 4 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Jeremy Barnhart RJO Planning Department Report Title Community Development Director _____________________________________________________________________________________ Item Description: Request for administrative appeal; Nygard fence viewing _____________________________________________________________________________________ List of Exhibits Request for appeal Statute Fence viewer decision Purpose. Jay Nygard requests an appeal of the fence viewer’s decision that the fence adjacent to his property is not a partition fence. Background. On July 6, Orono Fence Viewers inspected the fence between Jay Nygard and Peter Lanpher’s houses. Mr. Nygard had requested fence viewers to determine if the fence is a partition fence, a statutory designation affording the adjoining property owners certain rights. The fence viewers determined that the fence was not a partition fence and therefore the criteria set forth in Minn. Stat. 344 were not applicable. The fence viewers made their determination based on a viewing of the fence and discussions with Jay Nygard and Peter Lanpher. The fence viewers determined that there was no indication that the fence viewers originally ordered the fence to be constructed pursuant to 344 and that the fence in question wasn’t one of the types of fences described in 344.02 1(a) – (d). Mr. Nygard did not originally share in any of the cost associated with the construction of the fence. It was never contemplated by the parties that the fence, when constructed, was to serve as a partition fence. The fence is completely located on Lanphers’ property, is owned by the Lanphers, and the Lanphers do not consider the fence to be a partition fence. The Lanphers’ have not sought to burden the Nygards with any of the costs associated with the upkeep of the fence. The fence is constructed of wood and is slightly discolored with small gaps in certain parts of the fence. The fence is not in danger of falling over and does not present a safety hazard. No repair of the fence is required. Based on these facts, the fence viewers determined that the fence is not a partition fence and that no repairs would have been required. To date, no additional information has been received by Mr. Nygard. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Council is asked to consider the appeal of Mr. Nygard.