Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Waite Park to enforce property maintenance at 435 Aberdeen Drive
Summary
At the March 17 Waite Park City Council meeting, resident Phil Schafer described ongoing yard clutter, an encroaching shed and dogs digging under a fence at 435 Aberdeen Drive and asked staff to investigate code enforcement options.
Phil Schafer told the Waite Park City Council on March 17 that a neighboring property at 435 Aberdeen Drive has long-standing maintenance problems, including tall grass, construction debris in a shed he says may sit on his lot, and dogs that dig under a shared fence into his yard.
Schafer, who gave his address as 445 Aberdeen Drive, said he first reported the property in September 2023 and that city staff replied they would have police and other departments look into the situation. "I would like to get a phone call or an email back on this, what you guys decide," Schafer said, and left photographs with the city showing overgrown grass and debris.
The resident described damaged yard areas and fence posts he said are the result of animals from the neighboring property, and said he is reluctant to bring a grandchild into his backyard because the dogs have dug through the fence in the past. He also said the shed, installed by a previous owner, is located very close to the fence and is currently full of construction debris from work on that house.
City staff identified several departments that handle different aspects of such complaints. A city employee told Schafer that long grass and weeds are handled by public works while some yard-nuisance complaints are addressed by the community service officer in the police department. The staff response noted the shed's placement may predate the current owners and that staff often gives property owners reasonable time to relocate noncompliant structures; staff said they had a notice in place to address the shed.
On the question of the dogs, staff said licensure alone does not resolve property-boundary issues and that where a dog crosses into another yard can be a civil matter ultimately the owner's responsibility; staff said the city attorney's office would need to be consulted if the council wished to pursue enforcement avenues beyond nuisance code processes. Staff said they would "take a look at all those" items and start coordinating follow-up, including work on the shed.
Schafer also said he had spoken directly with the neighbor about some issues but not the full set of maintenance concerns. He gave the city a set of photographs and asked for follow-up by phone or email.
The exchange occurred during the meeting's public input segment; Schafer's remarks were the only public comment recorded on this property that evening. Councilmembers and staff did not take a separate vote regarding the complaint during the meeting; staff committed to further review and follow-up.
