HomeMy WebLinkAboutVariance Application #16-3852
August 1,2016
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Orono, MN 55364
Subject: Variance Application #16-3852 - EMAIL LETTER
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