Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING <br />Monday, August 22, 2016 <br />7:00 o'clock p.m. <br />12. PETER LANPHER APPLICATION FEE WAIVER REQUEST (continued) <br />That fence is six feet in the front and six feet on the side and goes well within the 0-75 foot setback. <br />Lanpher indicated there is also a neighbor down at the end of the street that has a 6 -foot fence within the <br />0-75 foot setback and another neighbor replaced their existing fence that is six feet in the front and on the <br />side. <br />Lanpher stated he is not asking for anything nonconforming to what already exists in the neighborhood <br />and that he feels a $700 nonrefundable fee is too excessive for what he is proposing to do. <br />Printup asked if there is a court order regarding this particular fence. <br />Lanpher stated when the fence was painted by the neighbor without their permission, they took him to <br />court and that court order has been provided to Staff. The court order allows the fence to be fixed and <br />repaired with police enforcement as needed. <br />McMillan stated perhaps the City needs to start requiring permits for fences even though she hates to add <br />another regulation. McMillan noted she asked the City Administrator if fences require a permit in Tonka <br />Bay and they do. McMillan stated she does not want to add more regulations in Orono, but that if people <br />cannot police themselves, the City might have to start requiring a permit for fences. McMillan <br />commented that might be a way to resolve issues but that it will not help this situation. <br />Mattick stated he does not want to prejudge the merits of the variance, but that he has spoken with <br />Mr. Lanpher before regarding nonconformity. Mattick stated he understands the word lawful does not <br />appear in the statute but that the statute presumes it is lawful. Mattick stated he understands Mr. Lanpher <br />disagrees with that. <br />Mattick stated as he understands the application, the fence is contemplated in the 0-30 front yard setback <br />and the 0-75 foot setback, which would be an expansion since the height and length will be increased. <br />Mattick stated as it relates to the fee, that would be a policy issue and it is up to the City Council on <br />whether the fee should be waived. <br />McMillan stated she has received numerous calls from residents about not being allowed a fence in the <br />0-75 foot area and that the City has not allowed them in the past. McMillan stated the City has been <br />pretty adamant about not allowing fences in that area and that people need to go through the variance <br />process since each situation is different. McMillan stated there has to be real justification for a waiver of <br />the fee. <br />Lanpher stated the fee does not make sense to him and that the $700 fee is a standard fee. Lanpher <br />indicated he has been trying to work with the City to make things compliant. Lanpher commented they <br />already have issues in the neighborhood and that he is looking for peace and quiet and extra security. <br />Lanpher stated he had nothing to do with the fence installation and that he can replace the existing fence <br />and extend it to the 75 -foot line by court order. Lanpher stated he is asking for a little longer fence for <br />extra security and safety and that in his view the $700 for a variance that might not get approved is a little <br />bit excessive. <br />Printup asked what the reference is about when it talks about the fence viewers. <br />Page 10 of 15 <br />