Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutre gate work : � v January 31,2QQ3 Mr. Matt Bolterman Orono lnspector,City of Orono 2750 Ke11ey Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Dear Mr. Bol[erman: This letter is in repty ta your tetter dated January 3Q,2Q(}3. I am handlirtg this situation on behatf of rrry famity. As you noted,on January 2,2003,my father and 1 discussed the anonymous complaint you clairr►the city received, and your resulting letter(dated�ec. 3l,2003) in regard tt�aur intentior�of�r�provi�g the existing gates and some exist+ng fenc+�ig at the soutl�east co+-�ier of our lakes3�o+•e propei-ty(all of wl�icl�have bee►3 pi•ove�i in court to have been in place for many decades), install an additional walkway gate in exactly the same location as a portion of the currently existing fence,and place a single additional fence pane!at the southwestern properiy boundary of the lakeshore portion of the property. We wish to improve our property and put in place far better and more effective fencing and gates than the currently existing fencing and ga#es. We agreed vn Jan.2,2003,based or�the ir�complete information available to us at that time,to remove all the new fence and gate panels,and apply for a variance. We never agreed ta any speeifie deadtine by which to app{y and City staff( Wendy Bottenberg City Pkanner)gave us a number of different application deadli►�es and City plat�n+ng and City council n3eeting dates that we could use.No one ever asset-ted t}jat airy specific application date�jad to be met,especially as we had already agreed to remove all of the newly installed fencing and gates by the deadline c�f 3an. 1_S,20(}3 as demanded in your letter to us dated. Dec. 31,2003. AIt new fence and gate panels were removed before Jan. 15,2003.[wimessed you andlor City emptoyees in a marked City of Orono pickup truck view the property again, �or more than ten minutes,at that time, APTER ALL the new fencing and gate panels had been cotnpletely ceinoved. On Jan.2,2003,we explait�ed to Wendy Bottenberg that the fence posts were solidly frozen in the ground ar�d would not be removed. She said that would be acceptibie and agreed that such removai wouid serve n��isefi�l pEirpose as long as a{i of the new fencing and gates were removed. Obviously, we opted to remove all of the fencing and gates,and as such,are clearly in no violation of any code or regulation. We did not"keep them up" until the variance meeting as you claim in your most recent letter. We also requested on Jan.2,20�3 that Wendy Bottenberg send us copies of any variances or permits granEed to any of a number of adjoining properties that currently have fences,gates,driveway monuments,and stonework and masonry structures close to the roadway and the lake that were all installed in the last few years. I telephoned the City of�ces to repeat that req�est the follow+tig week ai�d inquire w4�e+►t1�at inforination would be sent.Those were mailed to us on 3an. 16,2003, immediately prior to the most recent of the vatious app�ication t�ead}ines. This comprehensive search by City staff revealed that none of the adjoining praperties had obtained permits or variances that permitted these recently installed fences,gates,and structures. Even those that had no previously existing fencing or gates were not required to obtain applicabae perm+ts or variances.This causes us to question whether our planned wark will reguire any permits or variances. There is no point in our submitting any variance application until this is investigated and determined. Doing so without the appropriate information would be a complete waste of time and effort for both City staff and my family. In the mear�time,there is no new fencing and no new gates on our property.The very small number of ind'+viduai posts in place are not#'encing and a�e not shuctures. The posts are not causing any hazard or problem for anyone and violate no regulations. Your new demand of a dead{ine that we submit a variance appiicaEion by Feb. 19,2003 or you "wi{1 turn this over to our(the City's)attorney" is completely illogical. We have no new fencing or gates installed on our property (and had none in place during the entire two preceeding weeks before Jan. 30,2�03 when you asserted t4ais new threat in yo�u-latest letter}and therefore we are not in vio}ation ot any code or regulation. t see no City of Orono reguiation which can possibiy purport to reqi2ire a permit or fuii variance to p{ace stakes or posts on my family's private praperty. ]t would be your burden in court to prove that we have any such burden. Please cite, in written response,the exact basis and location in City of Orono codes and/or regulations by which you cla+m we are in violatiar►.Since bath at'ye�ur lettecs have t�►c�eatened legal act�on agai�st us,a�d both see�►to i�dicate that you are unusually eager to threaten legal action against us,and your recent Ietter was inaccurate,we will have to do �1 � . j everything in writing with you, in aniicipation o�any such legal action. You stated to my father and I,on)an.2,20(33,that it is not neeessary to have a varianee or any permit to enable us to make repairs to existing fences or gates,but that you considered our installation to be new construction. It seems to b�a matter subject to intei-pa•etation wlaethei•au►•pi•opc�sed cl�a�ages i�a const�v�tion �naterials and/or the exaet lcscatian ratative to the existing fencing and gates constitu[e sufficient need for a variance,or some other permit,ar any permission at all. Based on the written appiication information suppiied by Wendy Sottenburg and ihe possible concerns you briefly verbally mentioned,our planned fencing and gates wi11 be a significant improvement under the City's criteria and also better for all sun•ounding neigi�bors over the currently existing fencing and gakes. This should have t>een cEearly e�rfdent wheR khey were in place. Obviae�s�y,we are extreme�y unteappy with the current fencing and gates,w}►ich were originalty h��ilt by Ralph Bagley,and we are very eager to dramatically improve them. That is exactly wfiat we were doing. After we talked with you,my father and 1 personaHy checked the city records of adjoining properties in this area. Wendy Bottenberg assisted us in the search of her f les�s well as oEher so�rces of inforrnation..The search failed ta reveal that appropriate variances or permits were ever granted for similar fence replacements,gates, structures,and even the installation of completety new fencing,gates,and structures. This appears to be a clear vialation of the prit�cipie of fai�•aiad equitable applicatiun�f regulations and laws. What Eegat action has the City of Qrono threatened those property owners with,especially as those recent improvements have been in piace longer,are larger,and you,yourseif,could not possibly miss seeing them near the roadway in both directions from our property when recentiy inspecting our property?These were ce�tainiy especially obv+ous when you were coming out to this area specifically regard'+ng exactly the same issues of fencing,gates,and structures,a trip that you/�ity staff have made more than once! Yaur own city property files reveat no threats,no demands,no deadlines,no tegal action,rtot even any inquiries af those property owners. Why not?Why only us? By the way, it is NOT our burden, legally or otherwise, to report every possible occu�Tence in Orono,to you or tk�e City, �n order to fu11y receive our legally guaranteed right to fair and equal treatment and enforcerner�t of any and a!1 laws and regulafians that the City asserts upon us. So whether anyone repartec!thase property owr►ers and structures is completely irrelevarrt, if yau are�ssertir�g that we m�st f�lfiil samething,then whaEever that is rr►ust be fairly and equally enforced on all other property�wners in the entire city as well. We have no great dislike or object+on, at th�s t++ne,to these other sti-tictu�es. But we do insist on receiving fair and equal treatment.They have irr►proved those praperties,just as we are aEtempting to irnprove ours.'There is no reason any low and coward{y anc�nymous caller shc�uld have any objection to our plans or to our clearly improving our properiy.No one can possibly claim that the fencing and gates you have required be removed are not a giant i►nproveme�i on the existing fei�cing and gates. The existing fe��cing aa�d gates were, a+�d have been, inten[ionally l�ft in compl�Eely�ndisturbed condition by us,during our recent work. Sa�easy comparison can be made. We made no similar complaint cails when a11 of the adjoining properties were reeently being improved. We have examined the City records. The City has not had any difficulties with any of these��ther fences,gates,and structures. The C+ty has not ta�Cen any legal action,has not tl�reatetied any legal act+on,has+iot asserted any deadlines,has done no inspections,has demanded no meetings,has not made any demands to remove or alter anything,has not demancied ar�y permit or vafiance requests,has not dem�nded any information,and has not even corr►municated with or questioned these adjoining owners. Why not? How are our plans so different?Why are we being r�p�atedly threatened and treated so aggressively,even after cooperating with your demands,deadlines,and requests? You asked on Jan.2,2003 whether we were responsibte for the recent fill,and various debris deposited immediately east/southeast of the driveway gate location(that you stated you had personnally noticed and been concerned about while there,examining our property). Apparently y�u l�ad a problem with that material and were going to pursue �t with us. We +nfonned you that as far as we knew, Jolin {3rooks�ad done this,ai�d that we know with certainty that al}af it is Iocated completely within the.iohn Brooks'905 West Ferndale Road property,aot oar properiy. We atso told you that we do not appreciate or approve af that debris and fcll either. Et certainky does not improve the appearance of our adjoining property. As the City's professional inspector,you mast already have�Cnown at t�iat time,and been able to determine later if necessary,that the City c�f CJro�o and the Min�ehaha Creek WaEershed District both have previously claimed and forc�fuiiy asserted their deterr��ination of that specific area as being protected flood plain. Have you threatenea.tohn Brooks with any�egal action?Have y�u taken a�jy legal actio��? Have you de+tiat�ded aiiy action by him,as the property owi�er?Have you asserted aiiy perfoi-���ance deadaities against�iiin? Has lie completed any?Is�e being required to meet with you ar suhmit any permit ar variance applications?What deadline have you asserted far his applieations? Fiave you discussed this with him? What is the City d�ing about this? If anything has been communicated, demanded,asserted,or done,please provide accurately dated and defailed copies of such to us,and#he results, so that we can fairly determine if you are being equally aggressive and threatening in�nforcing City rutes with ather people.Yo�seemed very eager ta pursue this matter on Jan.2,2003, �. � when yo� incorrectly thought we were responsible_Al1 of that rr�ateria! is sti11 there today, ir�cluding multiple planted trees,very obviously planted entirely in sarrouading artifcial fitt brought in to the site(which have n�t been there very long). Who did that?. Was any variance or permit ever granted to do that? We found r�one i�the 905 property files. I have examined them myself,more than once, including ali of the microfilm. There is no evidence of this issue ever being addressed in any way.What is being clone about this? In orcler to c�mpieEe any appiicaEion(if one is actualiy neec�ed}and address the City's concerns regarc#ing our fence and gate plans,we need to know, from you,specifically what objeetions, problems,hazards,eonsiderations,or difficulties the City laas�vith our proposed fencing and gates. If the City has any,then you would certain]y want us to address them, in detail, in any applicatiun. 1 see��reasc►n Ehe CiEy sh�utd have any probiem wiEh c�ur impravement plans. You saw exactly what they were,and where they were placed,until we removed them before your Jan. 1S, 2003 deadline. So you should be able to respond in MORE detail,and MaRE effectively,and MORE specifically than you could respond to mere survey depictia�s or va�•iance application descriptions. Please alsc�cite the sp�cific basis and the lacarion in Orono City codes and/or regulations that provide the jurisdiction you ctaim and/or the City's legal right to require any items(aside from those already cieariy stated in the fencing section of the City code and regulaTions book)that the City will insist on regar�ing the City's items of c�ncern on our f�ncing and gates. I need this additiana! inforn�ation so t}aat w�can provide t�e naflst app�•op�-iate,accurate,comprehensive,and useful response ta the City at this stage of this process. I have had discussions in the past with Mr. Morse and Mr. Gaffron in the city offices,specifically in April/May of 2002,with regard to our desire,plans,and past efforts to improve ow existing fencing,gates,and lakeshore property. I was told by Mr.Gaffroi�,during that meeting,that the City had already been receiving numerous comptaints about the condition of the existing fencing and gates. He did not explain wha was complaining,or whether it was merely multiple complaints frorrt the same souree. E explained that whatever we did to improve the fencing and gates or anything else on thaY portion of our properiy, no maiter what it was,there have been and would be complaints due to the r+diculously adversarial neighbors wl�o unfottu►�ately n3oved into tl�e two adjoining properties,9a5 and 980,on each side of ours.They are extremely unhappy that Ehe cow-ts have ALL agreed that this property is,and always has been,our exciusive privaEe property. They have boEh recenEiy comp4eted numerous and extensive works of various kinds on their own properties with no resulting telephone ca11s or complaints to Orano from us! We have not been wasiing City tir�e and�-eso�i�ces oi�groui�dless and sp+te�ul coi��plaints? They certainly have been. Immediately after receiving your most recent threatening letter, I have,this afternoon,spoken by telephone with Mike Gaffion(Mr. Morse was not in the office for the remainder of the day)and requested an appointment to discuss these issues with Mr. Gaffron and Mr. Morse,again, in more detail.Mr. Gaffron has agreed to schedule such a meeting and stated he will telephone me next week to set up the time and date for that meeting. ! trust tt�at you will not initiate Eegat action of any kind,(especially as there are no possible grounds for any)and we look forward to your replies ta our questions and the informalion we have requested in this ietter. information we need to determine what is appropriate,necessary,and to submit any variance application, if one is determined to be necessary.Thank you. Sincerely, ��'–C��..� —�-".�:.�--�j�`-.. Robert Floyd 950 West Femdale Road Way�zata, Mn. 55391 952-473-2384 � J