Agenda - Council - 02/10/2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

December 20, 2003 REC'D DEC 2 3 2003 Oity of Ramsey 15153 No,wthen Blvd NW Ramsey, MN 55303 Re: electdc fence on neighboring property To the City Staff and Council members: We are submitting this letter to appeal the City's outlined approval for the Konzaks ~-Iectric fence. As adjoining property owners, we feel that our concerns were not ;properly addressed. Although we have been told that Mr. Elvig has spent a great deal of time on this matter, many of us have not heard from him at all. We feel he represented the Konzaks, but not the affected community. Our goal is to !arrange a meeting with the City council, so that we may also have a voice in this matter. This only seems fair, if the City wants to consider the final approval ~ "compromise" to all involved. Many of us were told that the set-back would be :1-2 feet. If we had known this figure would be less, you would have heard from us sooner. The following are some (but not all) of our concems: Why wasn't a 1-2 foot set-back acceptable to the Konzaks?. We feel that a 2-3 foot set-back would be required to contain the animals 100% completely on the Konzaks property. This figure takes into consideration the size of the horses, the potential reach of their neck, and containment of their waste. We question the use of 8 wires ( 3 live). This seems excessive, when many times, a single live wire to contain a horse is adequate. The other wires seem to be for the purpose of keeping others out. This is not an acceptable reason to be approved for an electric fence in the City of Ramsey. If they want so much of a barrier between themselves and their neighbors, they should be required to use chain link, or wood, just as any of us would have to. Why is [his fence'classified as "potentially" electrically charged? Either it is electric, or it is not. And how are any of us to know when it is turned on? Why were we informed of the approved set-back, only after the fence was half-way completed?