Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
EXCERPT FROM THE MARCH 16, 2004 <br />CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: <br />11. CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT: <br />A. Fence Ordinance Violations <br />The Lake Elmo Planning Commission was directed to develop new fence ordinance for <br />the City Council’s consideration. Planner Dillerud reported to the Council that the <br />Planning Commission decided not to impose height restrictions on solid fences based on <br />lot sizes because commissioners found taller, solid fences could be installed for legitimate reasons, such as around a swimming pool or tennis court for safety and <br />privacy. <br /> <br />The Planner also reported that the Building Official went through the city and identified <br />at least 25 fences that do not conform to the city’s ordinance. Because the City did not require fence permits until February, Dillerud said it would be difficult to determine the <br />age of the fences. If a fence was built before the city adopted its ordinances, it would be <br />a legally non-conforming fence. If it was constructed after the ordinance was adopted <br />and does not meet the requirements, it would be an illegal fence. <br /> Council member Johnston stated that staff was never asked to look at the whole <br />community. Now the city has to deal with 25 non-conforming fences rather than just one <br />fence. Attorney Filla responded that because he felt it could be discrimination if the city <br />enforced the fence ordinance only in one section of the city, the building inspector was <br />asked to look at the entire city. <br />Attorney Filla said the burden of proof would be on the residents with the non- <br />conforming fences because the time period for which the fence was built would be a <br />defense. He also said residents should be able to easily prove when the fence was built <br />without going to court. All they would need is an invoice from the lumber company that provides the wood. <br /> <br />Council member DeLapp noted that the rule we have been following has been, if there is <br />a complaint then we look into it and correct the problem and do not canvass the entire <br />city. Council member Siedow said he didn’t want to go down the road and find fences not in compliance, just deal with the fence in question. Attorney Filla stated the city <br />doesn’t have to continue to make the same mistake year after year. <br /> <br />Chad Simich, Carriage Station resident, told the Council he was open to working with the <br />city and his neighbors to come up with a solution to his non-conforming fence. It wasn’t his intent to break any ordinances. He was in contact with the Homeowners Association <br />and the Building Official and that is why the fence took the shape it is. Planner Dillerud <br />said he would work with Mr. Simich to see if a compromise or appropriate solution can <br />be found. <br /> <br />