08-22-1988 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• MINUTES OF REGULAR ORONO COUNCIL MELTING AUGUST 22, 1988 ZONING FILE #1303- REZABEK CONTINUED was already there. Mr. Rezabek stated that contrary to what Mr. Fisher had said about Affidavits supporting ownership of the fence, there is identical fencing on the northern side of his property. However, it was not the duty of the Council to decide who owned the fence. Mr. Fisher stated that it was his understanding that the Rezabek's had sold their house. He failed to understand what the continued interest and value of reinstalling the fence was under those circumstances. Mr. Rezabek stated that Mr. Fisher's information was incorrect. His home was being sold contingent upon he and his wife obtaining approval to purchase another home. As of the time of the Council Meeting, they had not received word to that effect. Councilmember Peterson asked Mabusth what would happen should the fence deteriorate while it is being moved. Mabusth stated that the applicants could not build a new fence, they can only relocate the old one. Any Resolution written would need to include language indicating that City approval would be required prior to installing a new fence. Peterson asked what constituted a new fence. Mabusth stated it would depend upon how the • structure was classified. Under the definitions in the zoning code, the fence would not be classified as an accessory structure. A 6' fence in a side lakeshore yard is allowed: City Administrator Bernhardson suggested that a specific percentage of replacement be indicated, if approved, as to what would be considered a new fence or merely repairs to the existing fence. Councilmember'Goetten asked whether having new owners of the property apply for a variance to make repairs to the fence would then classify the fence as a new fence? If so, would the Council be compelled to vote favorably in light of approving the reinstallation of the fence? Callahan stated that in his opinion, the only concern was whether to approve the application for a variance to reinstall the existing fence. Peterson asked for clarification with respect to applicant's hardship. Zoning Administrator Mabusth stated that circumstances beyond the Rezabeks' control, a newly defined lot line, created the necessity to move the fence. Councilmember Nettles stated that he did not understand why applicant required Council approval to move the fence 6" to 11. It was always located within the 0' -75' zone and the Rezabek were merely conforming to a judicially determined boundary. Councilmember Callahan stated that there are existing "rules" that mandate City approval of any changes made within 75' of the lakeshore. Councilmember Callahan stated that he was sympathetic with • Mr. Nettles' point of view. Reinstalling the fence on Rezabeks' property will not affect the City of Orono in any way. He complimented Mr. Fisher on the aesthetic quality of his property, and said that the fence should not detract from that. He did not 5