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

Home

electric fene~ e, it would be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator (Community Developmeiat Department as defined by City Code). That on J ,tine 5, 2003, City Staff met with the Subject Property Owners at the Subject Property a.nd the Subject Property Owners stated that their reasons for relocating the existing fence from lhe interior to the outer boundary of the Subject Property and retaining the electric feature were as follows: a) increase acreage of the pasture area for the horses; b) ensure sufficiency!of containment system to maintain larger animals; c) implement a forest managemen~t plan that includes thinning the dense stand of pine trees without felling trees onto neighboring properties in order to avoid damage to a fence that currently is located inside the i'.tree line; d) to clearly identify the property line to prevent any further encroachmOnts onto their property. That on Jur~e 25, 2003, the Zoning Administrator issued another letter to the Subject Property Owners that outlined what would be considered an acceptable fence based on the June 5, 2003 site visit. o That the letter sent on June 25, 2003, required that the electrically charged wires be attached to the ~ns~de of the fence posts utilizing 1 foot extension arms to provide separation between the prope~,,~ line and the live wires. That subsequent to the issuance of the June 25, 2003 City Staff letter, City Staff learned that the extension arms are not manufactured in 1 foot lengths, but they are available in 5 inch lengths; fi~her, the Subject Property Owners stated that the combination of the varying topography?and the tension necessary to ensure the strength of the containment fence would cause the 5 inch arms to snap away from the fence posts. That on August 6, 2003, the Zoning Administrator issued a follow-up letter indicating that in lieu of extension arms, the live wires should be affixed to insulators on the inside of the fence posts and the non-live wires should be affixed to the outside of the posts; if feasible, the Subject Property Owners would attempt to set the fence 1 to 2 feet inside the property line; and the fenCe would 6nly be electrically charged on an as needed basis. 10. That early ig October, 2003, it was brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator that the Subject ;Property Owners were installing the fence in a manner that did not comply with the conditiOns outlined in the Zoning Administrator's letter. 11. That on October 9, 2003, the Zoning Administrator issued a letter to the Subject Property Owners stating that the fence must be installed in accordance with the guidelines established in the City'S/letter dated August 6, 2003 or legal action would be pursued. 12. That on NoVember 14, 2003, the Zoning Administrator met the Subject Property Owners on the SubjeCt !Property to view the portion of fence that had been installed; it was explained to the Zoning Administrator that all wire strands were being affixed to the inside of the post to RESOLUTION #04-02- Page 2 of 5