My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 01/13/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2004
>
Agenda - Council - 01/13/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/24/2025 2:17:55 PM
Creation date
1/13/2004 9:27:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
01/13/2004
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
262
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
December 20, 2003 <br /> <br />City of Ramsey <br />15 153 Nowthen Blvd N.W. <br />Ramsey, Minnesota 55303 <br /> <br />Re: Electric fence on neighboring property <br /> <br />To the 'Ramsey City Council: <br /> <br />The purpose of this letter is to submit a formal appeal to the City of Ramsey regarding <br />the installation of an electrically charged fence on the property owned by Bruce and <br />Karen Konzak and abutting 1'3 other residential properties including my own. <br /> <br />As stated in the letter November 24, from Chris Anderson, Ramsey's City Code states <br />that wood or chain [ink are acceptable fencing materials and any other type of fencing <br />requires specific approval of the Zoning Administrator. Chis Anderson states in his letter <br />that the clause permitting consideration and approval of other types of fencing was <br />included in the code to allow other types of fencing to be used in conjunction with <br />agricultural activities and horses and livestock. While this may be true, there is no reason <br />to believe that the ordinance was intended to allow approval of electrically charged <br />fencing in a relatively dense, non-rural residential area. . <br /> <br />As it is written, the ordinance clearly designates wooden and chain link fencing as <br />acceptable. Because it requires specific approval of all other types of fencing, the <br />ordinance implies that other types of fencing would be acceptable only for compelling <br />reasons. For this ordinance to be properly enforced for the benefit of the city's <br />community of citizens, as any ordinance should be, approval of fencing other than wood <br />or chain link must be made only where such fencing reasonably accommodates the <br />interests of the parties immediately involved and the larger community's interests. The <br />electr/cally charged fencing as currently proposed by Chris Anderson fails to balance the <br />interests involved. Electrically charged, open-wire fencing, 6 inches from the property <br />line, is neither safe nor desirable for all the family lite surrounding the Konz-ak property. <br /> <br />In fact, there is no compelling reason to approve such fencing as a deviation from the- <br />wood or chain link fencing approved by the City. If it is determined that. a wooden fence <br />wo'uld not adequately serve the purpose of containing the Konzak's horses, then one live <br />wire could be placed inside a wooden fence. This has been the practice for other horse <br />owners in Ramsey and there is no acceptable or compelling reason to make an exception <br />to this past practice for the Konzak's in this instance. This type of wood and single-wire <br />fencing would be acceptable to me and, I believe, the other families that adjoin the <br />Konzak property. It involves a minimal electrical charge and offers maximum protection <br />against injury or harm to other people or animalsl <br /> <br />-205- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.