10-12-2015 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 28, 2015 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 27 6. APPEAL FENCE VIEWER DECISION, CONTINUED HEARING (continued) McMillan stated the fence viewing process has happened, that she has looked at all the materials on it, and that it was done according to state statute. The fence viewers’ determination was that it is not a partition fence according to state statute and that she is in agreement with that. Kahler Stewart Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Road, asked if there could have been a mistake made during the fence viewing process. Nygard asked if the fence viewers were not made aware of all the facts regarding state statute. Nygard stated in light of the new information, in his view there should be another fence viewing and that will resolve or remedy the issue at hand. McMillan stated the City has done its process, made its determination, and that they need to move on. Nygard asked where in the statute it says that fence viewers can determine whether or not a fence is located on a property line. Nygard stated the only determination made by the fence viewers was the location of the fence in relation to the property line. Nygard stated the statute actually says that they are not to determine whether or not the fence is located on the property line. Nygard stated the fence viewers’ findings contradict state law no matter how many times the City wants to ignore it. McMillan noted the letter states as follows: Based on the information gathered by the fence viewers, it has been determined that the fence in question does not constitute a partition fence and therefore is not subject to MN State Statute 344. Specifically the fence viewers noted the fence is located entirely on Mr. Lanpher’s property, that the fence was not originally ordered to be viewed by the fence viewers, there was no agreement by the parties that the fence is a partition fence, and Mr. Nygard did not originally share in any costs with construction of the fence. Nygard stated none of those are set up as a basis for something being defined as a partition fence by the MN State Legislature. Nygard stated everything the Mayor just stated, especially as it relates to the property line, does not count according to state statute. Nygard stated his question is whether the City is going to follow state law or not follow state law. Nygard stated the City is obligated to follow state law. Printup moved, McMillan seconded, to make a determination that the fence located on the Lanpher property is not a partition fence and that the fence viewers’ decision should be upheld. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0, Walsh Abstained. *7. #15-3738 KUHL DESIGN BUILD ON BEHALF OF JOHN AND CYNDY BOWLSBY, 1025 SPRING HILL ROAD, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 6544 Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6544, a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 6519 Granting Setback Variances from Orono Municipal Code Section 78-1279, for the property located at 1025 Spring Hill Road. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. *8. #15-3758 CITY OF ORONO AND CLIFFORD OTTEN, 2251 PINE RIDGE LANE AND CITY-OWNED PARCEL PINS 34-118-23 22 0019 (WELL #3) – LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT AND REZONING – ORDINANCE NO. 158 AND RESOLUTION NO. 6545