|
clcct,'i~ i;~:~<zr', il would be subject to the approval of the Zoning Administrator (Community
<br />Dcvc. l(!i:~ ~-,c~~, I )~partment as defined by City Code).
<br />
<br />That {i,~ .lt,~ ~ 5, 2003, City Staff met with the Subject Property Owners at the Subject
<br />I)rop~:~-t5~ ;~ml thc Subject Property Owners stated that their reasons for relocating the existing
<br />tizncc ~]'o~ i!~,z interior to the outer boundary of the Subject Property and retaining the electric
<br />featut'c: ,.~,'~.,~'~: :ts Follows: a) increase acreage of the pasture area for the horses; b) ensure
<br />sull]c:icr~c:,..' t.t' containment system to maintain larger animals; c) implement a forest
<br />manttg~.~c~l plan that includes thi~ming the dense stand of pine trees without felling trees
<br />onto mS?.l~l~r'ing properties in order to avoid damage to a fence that currently is located
<br />insicl{: ti~t~ I~:c line; d) to clearly identify the property line to prevent any further
<br />cncro;.~t Ctn(':~ s ()nt~) their property.
<br />
<br />That .~)~ .i,.~nc 75, 2003, the Zoning Administrator issued another letter to the Subject Property
<br />Owm:r.~ ih~i ~tlined what would be considered an acceptable fence based on the June 5,
<br />2003 .~;iic. xi:qi ~
<br />
<br />That ,1~~, Iciic: :-;om on June 25, 2003, required that the electrically charged wires be attached
<br />to the i~.;icJ~ <,1:' thc l~ncc posts utilizing 1 foot extension arms to provide separation between
<br />thc pr(}l>('~ t~, }}~-tt: m~d the live wires.
<br />
<br />That :;u I);,~',lt~( nt to the issuance of the June 25, 2003 City Staff letter, City Staff learned that
<br />thc e>:ttzr~.'-;ion am~s are not manufactured in 1 foot lengths, but they are available in 5 inch
<br />lengtt-~,~; I't!l'ih(¢r, thc Subject Property Owners stated that the combination of the varying
<br />topog.,'api~5 :u~d. th(~' tension necessary to ensure the strength of the containment fence would
<br />cause thc 5 in,:l', ~trms to snap away from the fence posts.
<br />
<br />That o~/x~.,gu,;t 6, 2003, thc Zoning Administrator issued a follow-up letter indicating that in
<br />lieu o¢' c~xtcnsi~m arms, the live wires should be affixed to insulators on the inside of the fence
<br />posIs :~uicl i}~: non-.live wires should be affixed to the outside of the posts; if feasible, the
<br />Subjc,;l I'~(,p~.z~-t7 Owners would attempt to set the fence 1 to 2 feet inside the property line;
<br />and thc~ ~k~n~.:t: ~¥ot~ld only bt: electrically charged on an as needed basis.
<br />
<br />10. That ca~'i7 it,. ( }etcher, 2003, it was brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator that
<br /> lhc Sullic~..;t I'r~pcrly ()Whets were installing the fence in a manner that did not comply with
<br /> ibc co,~di~ i(~r,.'; ,..roi. lined in the Zoning Administrator's letter.
<br />
<br />11. That t,~ ()cl,.,[,cr 9, 2003, thc Zoning Administrator issued a letter to the Subject Property
<br /> ()wncr:4 ~i~t~i~3., thai the fence must be installed in accordance with the guidelines established
<br /> in the (lit?:; I,~;tcr elated August 6, 2003 or legal action would be pursued.
<br />
<br />12~ 'l'h~t o~ ~,!~>,.,~:~,~bt:r i4, 2003, the Zoning Administrator met the Subject Property Owners on
<br /> thc Sul~ti,:, :i ['r( ,perry to view the portion of fence that had been installed; it was explained to
<br /> the Zo~J~!z ^,,l~ninistrator that all wire strands were being affixed to the inside of the post to
<br />
<br />RESOLUTION #04-02-044
<br /> Page 2 of 5
<br />
<br />
<br />
|