|
achicvt: /ha t~:nsi(m necessary for the fence to withstand the pressure from large animals
<br />lc:mi~g ~l,.~.i~ ;t it.
<br />
<br />1 _3. That ~m r,!(~.,,t ruder 20, 2003, the Zoning Administrator issued a letter to the Subject Property
<br /> Owners. ,.tt~cti nenting the observations made during the site visit on November 14, 2003, and
<br /> estabiishin~>, ~: lbllowing conditions: a) regardless of the number of wire strands affixed to
<br /> the i~sid~ (,l' the fence post, the Subject Property Owners would be required to attach 3
<br /> stran(l:~ t~} ~ttc outside of the I'cnce posts to create a barrier to the live wires on the inside of
<br /> thc t't:m:~ i)~}~,is; b) per the offer of the Subject Property Owners, the 3 strands would be
<br /> attachtxi ~t~ Ibc. ,mtside of the fence posts utilizing 5 inch extension arms to increase the
<br /> Sel~anttio~ c/i::tm~cc between the live and non-live wires; c) the live wires would not be
<br /> tumc(I ~ m~til the fence construction was 100% complete, and only on an as needed basis.
<br />
<br />14. That ~ ~)(;~c,nbcr 23, 2003, the City received two written appeals, signed by neighboring
<br /> propc~'~y ~)vmc'rs, regarding the Zoning Administrator's ruling on the electric fence as
<br /> dcscrib,~ d i~ I},c letter dated November 20, 2003.
<br />
<br />15. That i~ ~,t:{:(,,',im~cc with the Appeals process established in Section 9.03.09 of the Ramsey
<br /> City (;~c~:, ~h~: appeal was submitted to the City Council for consideration on January 13,
<br /> 20O4.
<br />
<br />16. That d u ~'i~[, I i?e City Council meeting of January 13, 2004, there were several persons present
<br /> that owu pn)i'~erty adjacent to the Subject Property, to voice their concerns with the electric
<br /> £ence ~,.s 1'~! Io~.,':;: a) that an electric fence at the property line poses a safety threat to any and
<br /> all sm~'atmdin~[ properties; b) that three (3) live wires were excessive and unnecessary; c)
<br /> tlmt thc ]~)n<;:; could reach over the fence onto adjacent properties and thus would not be
<br /> l'ully co~ ~1 :~.i nt:<~ <m thc Subject Property Owners' land if the electric fence were at the property
<br /> linc.
<br />
<br />17. Tlmt (l~'i,~,, t.}~<? City Council meeting of January 13, 2004, the Subject Property Owners
<br /> descrit~.:~'l thc' e~croachments that have occurred onto their property by some of the
<br /> neighb~H ~ I~ opcrty owners, and stated that in addition to secure containment of the horses,
<br /> lhere is; ~ ..,!ct~i neczd to locate the fence as close as possible to the property line in order to
<br /> ccasc ~[~: ~m(:r~,acim]cnts onto the Subject Property.
<br />
<br />18. That i,~ ~_t~: ~!~!)c~tl process, the City Council has the authority to affirm, reverse or modify
<br /> Ci~.~, S i;~ I'f':q d~_:~:i si on s in ad ln inistering the City Code.
<br />
<br />19. That thc (:i~y (;mmcil discussion on January 13, 2004, focused on the fact that the Applicant
<br /> should have t,'~ot'c closely adhered to the August 6, 2003, agreement to 'make a reasonable
<br /> altempl' t(~ ~;t~i the l:kmce 1--2 feet offthe property line in order to create a sufficient separation
<br /> betwc~:~ ll~ ~,.:ighboring properties and the electrically charged wire strands, and avoid a
<br /> situati(m ,)~ ih~ horses actually trespassing onto neighbors space if they reached over the
<br /> l~cncc lin,-~ ~x,i~l'~/heir heads.
<br />
<br />RESOLUTION #04-02-044
<br /> Page 3 of 5
<br />
<br />
<br />
|