Carrick Add/MP-CS001103Andrea Roy - Re: Nov. P&Z Case-Carrick Addition (Minor Plat) Page 1 I
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Greg Jones
Andrea Roy
Fri, Nov 3, 2000 8:57 AM
Re: Nov. P&Z Case-Carrick Addition (Minor Plat)
Andrea,
Your question regarding this particular fence centers around the act of abandonment. It is my
understanding that the owner is wanting to remove the fence, build up the land, add a retaining wall and
then reconstruct the old fence back. Section 40 was written so that an existing structure would not be
required to be removed by the city just because an ordinance provision had changed. This provides
some protection to a property owner due to the cost of bringing a structure into compliance. In this case,
the cost of removal is part of the owners proposed site improvements and the act of removal would be
considered abandonment. This would prohibit this fence from being re-erected.
Greg
>>> Andrea Roy 10/30 1:56 PM >>>
Greg,
We briefly discussed this plat over the phone-the property is at the corner of Sandy Lake and Lodge.
This is the case where the property owner has constructed a wrought iron fence along the perimeter of
the property-specifically along Lodge Road, where the owner is now wishing to place the front yard of
new home. You had mentioned that the fence is "grandfathered" because it is an existing structure.
Can you provide me with a written interpretation of this--explaining that the existing fence is legal
nonconforming and that if it is taken down it loses it's nonconformance rights and must then comply with
the current regs of the zoning ordinance (or whatever you typically say). It appears that this keeps
coming up and I would like to have this issue put to bed Thanks-Andrea.