HomeMy WebLinkAboutRE Variance Application #16-3852 (1)Peter,
Thanks for your email. I understand your position and your need/ arguments for the fence height variance, but I am unable to waive or defer the fees imposed by the City Council. Until
the fees are paid, I can't put your application on the Planning Commission agenda.
In your third paragraph, I think you are referencing 462.357 1e. "(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises
existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement,
but not including expansion..." The nonconformity statute protects lawful structures, not illegal structures, regardless of who installed them. Portions of the existing fence were
installed illegally by previous owners, and requesting approval formally through the variance process is the correct course of action.
We can chat on Monday if you would like to discuss further.
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Direct 952.249.4626
Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620
2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us
Dear Jeremy,
In discussion with Penny and in response to your email letter dated 7/28 of this month we would like to further explain our position to our request.
We are trying to work with the City of Orono in this matter and we do understand the 'normal' process in asking for variances. But we believe that our circumstance is not normal and
should merit not having to give any money that is not able to be refunded back to us by the City prior to any meetings.
First and foremost these fences were installed by other owners of this property. The State of Minnesota considers these fences as nonconfromities (462.2457 Subd. 1e). "These may continue,
including through repair, replacement and restoration."
In regards to the street side fence request. Our plan is not to do anything with this nonconfroming fence other than that of maintenance.
In the matter of our nonconforming side fence, our height and set back request, is unfortunately only being made because of the unhealthy relationship that has been created with our
neighbor and the ongoing trespassing and disturbance that we continue to endure. We seek to 'buffer' ourselves as much as possible.
As you know, and written in our application these fences were constructed by two different previous property owners in 1999 and 2002.
After each of these fences were installed there was not a single complaint made to the City or action by the City for any remedy until a complaint made by our direct downhill neighbor
in 2012 about their nonconformity. Why is their a complaint being made 13 years after the fence was first constructed (under protest to the City by the same
neighbor) but once installed..... nothing? Then 2+ years later no complaint again when a new owner modified the street fence? For the record there have been 4 owners of this property
since 1999.
The lawsuits with this same neighbor that the City has had as well as our entanglement in 4 different lawsuits and 5 appeals that have happened to my wife and I beginning in 2011 has
not been enjoyable to us or anyone. The climax for us came on January 11 of this year when our City Council voted to not pursue the other known and documented violations on our neighbors
property. Since 2011 the City of Orono has allowed these neighbors to take a residential property and create an illegal turbine complex that is in violation of City and State Code
on many fronts. These and the other violations that have been well documented to the City has further exasperated this unhealthy situation for us and only continues to expand. The
City Council may want to revisit the January discussion of these violations that exist on our neighbors property and that have become a nuisance to their neighbors.
Penny and I are requesting that you ask the City Council to waive the
$700 non-refundable variance application fee. We can then go through the process and state our special circumstances in this matter to the committees involved. Our neighbor has already
publicly stated that a variance should not be granted because this issue was already been weighed in on in the past.
Per your request, on Monday, I will drop off to the City a survey showing the 75' lake yard boundary and where we would be extending the fence.
Sincerely,
Peter H Lanpher
Penny A Rogers
1380 Rest Point Road
Orono, MN 55364