Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL !MEETING AUGUST 22, 1988 <br />ZONING FILE #1303-REZABEK CONTINUED <br />was already there. Mr. Rezabek stated that contrary to what Mr. <br />Fisher had said about Affidavits supporting ownership of the <br />fence, there is identical fencing on the northern side of his <br />property. However, it was not the duty of the Council to decide <br />who owned the fence. <br />Mr. Fisher stated that it was his understanding that the <br />Rezabek's had sold their house. He failed to understand what the <br />continued interest and value of reinstalling the fence was under <br />those circumstances. Mr. Rezabek stated that Mr. Fisher's <br />information was incorrect. His home was being sold contingent <br />upon he and his wife obtaining approval to purchase another home. <br />As of the time of the Council Meeting, they had not received word <br />to that effect. <br />Councilmember Putersor. asked Mabusth what would happen <br />rhould the fence deteriorate while it is being moved. Mabusth <br />stated that the applicants could not build a new fence, they can <br />only relocate the old one. Any Resolution written would need to <br />include language indicating that City approval would be required <br />prior to installing a new fence. Peterson asked what constituted <br />a new fence. Mabusth stated it would depend upon how the <br />structure was classified. Under the definitions in the zoning <br />code, the fence would not be classified as an accessory <br />structure. A 6' fence in a side lakeshore yard is allowed. City <br />Administrator Bernhardson suggested that a specific percentage of <br />replacement be indicated, if approved, as to what would be <br />considered a new fence or merely repairs to the existing fence. <br />Councilmember Goetten asked whether having new owners of the <br />property apply for a variance to make repairs to the fence would <br />then classify the fence as a new fence? If so, would the Council <br />be compelled to vote favorably in light of approving the <br />reinstallation of the fence? Callahan stated that in his <br />opinion, the only concern was whether to approve the application <br />for a variance to reinstall the existing fence. Peterson asked <br />for c:arification with respect to applicant's hardship. Zoninq <br />Administrator Mabusth stated that circumstances beyond the <br />Rezabeks' control, a newly defined lot line, created the <br />r -essity to move the fence. Councilmember Nettles stated that <br />re did not understand why applicant required Council approval to <br />move the fence 6" to 11. It was always located within the 0'-75' <br />zone and the Rezabek were merely conforming to a judicially <br />determined boundary. Councilmember Callahan stated that there <br />are existing "rules" that mandate City approval of any changes <br />made within 75' of the lakeshore. <br />Councilmember Callahan stated that he was sympathetic with <br />Mr. Nettles' point of view. Reinstalling the fence on Rezabeks' <br />property will not offev . -lie City of Orono in any way. He <br />complimented Mr. Fisher on the aesthetic quality of his property, <br />and said that the fence should not detract from that. He did not <br />I <br />