01-06-10-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

visible on the Maloneys' side. See our photos #3 [Exh. A] and #4 [Exh. D] showing color variation, knots, and screw heads all visible on the Maloneys' side. The 1x6 and 1x8 fence boards were upgraded to "clear" cedar (i.e., no knots), and are all "rough -sawn" on both sides. The "good" side of all boards was installed facing the Schneiders' property. Where there were any blemishes, the blemished side was installed facing the Maloneys' property, except for three installed in error with the better side facing the Maloneys. The builder was asked by city staff to reverse them, and he did so right away. We don't know what the complaint re "no structural supports showing" on our side of the fence means. There are three horizontal cross -members on all fence panels on both sides of the fence. See enclosed photos. It looks identical on both sides. 4) All fence footings were inspected by city staff to examine their placement in relation to the property line. They determined that concrete from four of the footings had extended closer to the property line than it did everywhere else. They asked the builder to remove the extra material at those four posts. It was removed by the builder the very next day and verified by city staff. No part of the fence or footings encroaches on the Schneiders' property. The fence itself is set back six inches inside the Maloneys' property. See our photo #5 [Exh. E] showing the east end of the fence set back six inches from the red survey stake. The same setback of six inches was applied along the entire property boundary, following a string -line the builder established at the outset. Our photo #6 [Exh. E] is a less successful attempt to show the west end of the fence clear of the survey marker; a tree unfortunately impeded my access when attempting this shot. In any case, the Schneiders' claim of continued encroachment is a canard left over from their earlier claim to a 300 foot strip of our land. Even after we paid for a survey (see enclosed surveyor's invoice [Exh. F]) to establish the true property line, they refused to accept the results and vandalized the markers placed by the surveyor. That's when we retained legal counsel. See enclosed copies of correspondence between Mr. Schneider and our attorney [Exh. H, 5 pages] . 5) The footings were purposely installed with a little concrete above ground, sloping away from the posts on all sides to enhance drainage and prevent rotting where they meet the ground. Rotting of fence posts is a common occurrence when the top of concrete footings is level with the ground or below grade, thus allowing soil to make contact with them or rainwater to pool around them. See quote from cedar experts in # 12 below about needing to avoid contact with the ground. 6) The zoning regulations governing the building of fences in Arden Hills were sent to us by James Lehnhoff on July 18, 2007. They stipulate that fences in side or rear yards may not exceed six feet. In good faith, we ordered pre-cut six-foot board lengths and had our builder proceed to install them. Note that the lumber invoice [Exh. B] lists 269 pieces of 1 x6x6' clear cedar. These were used as the vertical members of all the fence sections. Only the posts exceeded six feet, to enable them to be sunk in the ground; but once installed, all of them were cut off at the six-foot mark, too, at the request of city staff because of the Schneiders' complaints about the fence extending higher than six feet. The fence itself does not exceed 6 feet in height anywhere. 2