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 6 of 27 6. APPEAL FENCE VIEWER DECISION, CONTINUED HEARING (continued) Jay Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Road, stated he asked for the fence viewing and that he is asking for it to happen again. Nygard stated he is asking for the Council to actually do what they are supposed to do per state law, which is to have a fence viewing per state statute. Nygard stated this fence has been illegal from day one and has been under investigation since 2012, which is over three years. Nygard noted he did ask for a fence viewing hearing in 2012 as well but the City denied it as Mr. Gaffron’s memorandum states. According to the counsel of Mr. Soren Mattick, Orono’s City Attorney, the Council and Staff did not follow state law and should not have the statutory obligation unless it was requested again. Nygard noted that happened back in 2012. Nygard stated the frustrating thing is how this has been set up as adversarial from day one and made to appear that it is him against the City. Nygard stated he is not sure how many other times that has happened, but whenever the City has to do a grass viewing at a property, Mr. Mattick drives all the way out here and has a meeting with the people doing it first. Nygard stated it seems pretty obvious that he is being treated differently than everybody else in the City and that everybody has to walk on eggshells around him to make sure they do not do anything wrong. Nygard stated what the City should really be concerned about is moving forward and looking at the real problems in the community rather than running and hiding from their obligations. Nygard stated a couple of things came up as part of the recent packet that he has seen before but were not part of this until recently when his neighbor presented them. The information is from the State Court of Appeals and the District Court dealing with his lawsuit with the neighbor. Nygard stated he is glad Mr. Lanpher presented these, because in the District Court action, they talk about how he was not able to show that it was a partition fence, and in the appeals court it says, because the appellant failed to show it was a petition fence, we affirm the District Court’s ruling. Nygard stated he happens to have in his hand the 1998 Minnesota House of Representatives information which shows that a partition can be on or near a property line. Nygard stated because he did not have that information, he lost those lawsuits. Nygard stated the information says that the District Court judge chose to rule against him based on the parties’ stipulation that this is not a common fence. Nygard stated that is not true because he did state to the judge that it was a common fence. Nygard stated party stipulation and state law are two different things and that it is disappointing to have a judge decide that applying state law is not important. Nygard stated the City Council is required to follow state law but the City Attorney is not interested in doing that. Nygard noted Mr. Barnhart denied his fence hearing because he claimed it is not a partition fence. Nygard stated nowhere does his letter quote a state law, a state statute, or anything that is referred to, and that this is all stuff that is made up out of thin air. State law says fence viewers do not determine exactly on or near a property line a partition fence should be located. Nygard noted the letter also states, which Mr. Mattick counseled the City Council that the statute applies to rural areas only. Nygard noted it states in the brief that the statute generally applies to all property owners throughout the state and not just rural areas as the City Attorney is suggesting.