Re: Narrows Dock lot issues - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

._ • Jim Zimmerman August 9, 2000 Page 4 . The findings made by the City Council in the 1985 CUP's support continued use of the existing docks subject to a small number of conditions. At this time the Citv does not intend to�ursue removal of the docks from anv of the dock lots. City staff believes that it will be virtually impossible to legislate these docks out of existence, given their long history of continued use. The issue of whether the second dock on Ginther and Ault's lot is legally nonconforming is extremely murky in our opinion. The factthat the City has allowed this property to exist unhindered with two slips for nearly 30 years makes it difficult for the City to make the case that this use shouldn't be allowed to continue as it has in the past.Had the second dock appeared very recently,the City would be in a much better position to pursue its removal. It is my understanding that the Mayor has had numerous discussions with you and with various dock lot owners in an attempt to gain for you and your neighbors a`first right of refusal' for purchase of the non-resident dock lots as they come up for sale. City staff fully supports the concept that dock lots should be owned by property owners in the immediate neighborhood. City staff will support your efforts to establish covenants which will disallow the separate sale of dock lots from the neighborhood principal residence property to which they are accessory. Such a covenant would provide you with more neighborhood control of the situation than currently exists. B. General expansion of use at the docks: 1. We do not consider the flagpole as an intensification or extension of the nonconforming use or a violation of any past CUP conditions, and we will take no action regarding the flagpole. 2. We do not consider the provision of electricity at the docks as an extension or intensification of a nonconforming use,even though electricity allows the docks to have certain amenities which may be offensive to the neighborhood such as lighting, etc. 3. We do not consider the addition of canopies over the individual docks as an expansion of the nonconforming use. 4. We do not consider ovemight occupancy of boats stored at the docks as an expansion of the nonconforming use. The City has not adopted any ordinances prohibiting overnight occupancy of boats.