Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Code Enforcement <br />September 20, 1993 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />June 30, 1993: Another letter is sent to Mr. <br />Patenaude asking for removal of the non-conforming <br />fence by July 15, 1993, or legal action will be taken. <br /> <br />Throughout this time, staff continues to receive complaints <br />from adjacent neighbors regarding dangerous aspects of the <br />fence and are requesting removal of the fence according to <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />CURRENT FENCE ORDINANCE <br /> <br />Staff is not asking the Council to consider amending the <br />fence ordinance. The fence standards as previously adopted are <br />appropriate. Unfortunately, Mr. Patenaude's case initiated the <br />code amendment which made his fence non-conforming. <br /> <br />COUNCIL ACTION <br /> <br />This issue is brought before the City Council at the request of <br />the City Attorney because any legal action against Mr. <br />Patenaude will involve the Attorney's assistance, therefore, <br />additional legal costs to the City. At this time, normal <br />operating procedures would be to pursue legal action to remove <br />the fence in violation of City ordinance. <br /> <br />OPTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />1. Direct staff and City Attorney to proceed with legal <br />action to remove the fence. <br /> <br />2. Amend the non-conforming section of the ordinance <br />removing the amortization period for buildings and <br />structures that have a value of less than $2,000. <br />These non-conforming buildings and structures would <br />be treated as others in a similar situation that are <br />phased out over time or at the time of development. <br />