4.1. DRAFT MINUTES 10-01-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes Page 6 September 17,2012 Mr.Barnhart stated he did not know if the fence was installed then,but it us up now. Mary McDevitt-Kraljec, 10159 201st Avenue-Stated she is opposed to the city changing the current code regarding the five-foot setback. She is further opposed to exempting the Moritz's from meeting the current code requirements. She stated the fence is now completely installed.She submitted pictures showing the destruction to her and her neighbor's property and the environment. Raef Kraljic, 10159 201 st Avenue- Stated they were not informed the fence would be installed.He stated he was forced to hire a surveyor to identify where encroachment on his property occurred with trees removed and stumps left on his property. He reviewed a map that highlighted the encroachment onto his property. He stated he is opposed to changing the five-foot setback and it is good protection for neighboring properties. He stated the buffer from his property has been removed and makes it less marketable. He stated the Moritz's equipment was on their property to install culverts into the Trott Brook. He further stated his trees have been damaged due to the heave equipment use. Mr.Jim Neilson, 118 East Main Street,Anoka—Attorney for Mr.Moritz stated he has never seen a case where a governmental body tries to keep a fence off a property line. He stated his client will have to pay for any property violation issues and the ordinance is a completely different issue. He stated MN Statutes Chapter 344 does apply and have precedent in this case. He stated a barb or wire fence erected five-feet from the property line would allow the adjoining property to adversely possess the additional five-feet of land. He stated City Code Section 30-796-refers to boundary fence but does not define it. He further stated there is no definition in city ordinance of a Property Line. He provided an example stating Mr.Moritz's property is the county road on the east and south side of his property. He stated the boundary line is not where the government occupies it for a road but rather the section line on the east and south side.He stated the easement is not a property line. Attorney Neilson discussed the partition fence and board fence law and stated the law allows for barbed wire in four different sections of state statute.He stated a board fence could be installed so the cattle won't go through the fencing.He stated the five-foot of land would be worthless and questioned its taxable value.He stated many of the barbed wire fences in Elk River are most likely right on the property line. He further stated Mr. Hagen (Mr.Moritz's adjoining neighbor) has a barbed wire fence installed right on the property line. He stated Mr.Moritz received a letter from Sherburne County Public Works stating he was in violation of putting in a driveway without a permit,which was brought to the county's attention by someone other than the government,which Attorney Neilson thought was odd.He stated the driveway has been there for 40 years.He suggested the city delete from its Code,Section 30-796 (d)(2)c,the words "...but not as boundary fences"and footnote #3 from Section 30- 1007 regarding keeping of livestock being prohibited from within five-feet of any property line. Mayor Dietz stated after the August 20 meeting,it was his understanding that Attorney Neilson and his client would wait for an answer regarding the five-foot setback until the September 20 City Council meeting;but his client went ahead and installed the fence anyway without caring what the City Council had to say on the matter. He questioned why Attorney Neilson is back asking the city to change the ordinance after they went ahead and violated it anyway-