Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council affirms revocation of Nory fence permit after lengthy appeal over easement condition
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing in which Eric Nory argued the city applied an unreasonable condition requiring notarized/recorded access easements from neighbors, the council voted to affirm its prior revocation of his conditional-use permit; the Norys said they will consider legal appeal.
A long public hearing and appeal over the revocation of a conditional-use permit for a backyard fence ended Nov. 19 with the Kasson City Council affirming its prior decision to revoke the permit.
Eric Nory, who paid the city’s appeal fee and spoke at length, told the council he had applied for a permit to build a fence a few inches off his property line. Nory argued the city’s prior practice — which staff described to him as requiring an "access agreement" with neighbors — was ambiguous and that staff and council later treated that phrase as if it required a notarized and recorded easement. Nory said the resulting requirement was effectively impossible to meet because multiple neighbors had publicly stated they would not sign such an agreement. He called the council’s process arbitrary and said the city put his permit "on a train to nowhere." Nory provided written exhibits, cited Minnesota case law and asked the board of adjustments and appeals to reinstate his permit without the contested condition.
A neighbor, Jerry Bird, told the council he opposed entering an agreement for fear of future liability and described himself as uncomfortable giving other parties recorded access to his property. Several planning minutes and neighborhood letters were read into the record by parties as evidence that neighbors had refused to sign the proposed agreements.
City staff and the city attorney responded that the conditional-use-permit process allows the city to impose reasonable conditions and that, in the attorney’s view, the conditions placed on the permit were reasonable. The attorney noted that the city could record conditional-use permit conditions when required and that, overall, the record supported the council’s course of action.
After deliberation the council moved to affirm the earlier revocation. The motion passed on a recorded voice vote with one council member expressly saying "I oppose." The council’s minutes record the affirmation; Nory said he expects to receive official notice and may pursue judicial review in district court.
Why it matters: the hearing highlights tensions between municipal permitting procedures and property owners over ambiguous permit conditions, and the episode may result in litigation that could clarify how the city drafts and enforces fence-related conditions going forward.
