1999 - 012041 - land alteration - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting June 9, 2004 Page 4 needed. The primary concern he expressed was that fencing at a deicing site needed to be installed within the authorized dock use area. Nybeck stated that Babcock raised a valid point that fencing at deicing sites needs to be contained within authorized dock use areas. However, the vast majority of existing deicing sites do not comply with this requirement and the Board should address it when the ordinance is reviewed. Mr. Robert Eastman, 1359 Park Drive, stated that the neighbors were quiet and good neighbors. However, he questioned why there was a need for a dock to store seven BSU's at it. He stated that he believed four restricted watercraft at this site would be adequate. Skramstad stated that this site could store up to nine restricted watercraft based on the 1:50' General Rule. Zebeck stated that the boats to be stored at the site would be consistent with what has been done in recent years. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed at 7:31 p.m. MOTION: Nelson moved, Foster seconded to approve the Zebeck new multiple dock license application for the 2004 season and refund $26.25 for overpayment of fees. Babcock stated that he would like a condition to ensure that this site was in compliance with the regulations pertaining to deicing, especially since it would have a multiple dock license if the motion were approved. Additionally, he stated that he would like a condition to ensure that all of the watercraft to be stored at this dock were owned and registered to the residents of this site. He recommended these as conditions on the approval of the multiple dock license and that future deicing violations could impact renewal of the multiple dock license. He recommended this as a friendly amendment. Nelson and Foster agreed to this. LeFevere stated that the friendly amendment relating to deicing could be considered to be appropriate as a condition on the multiple dock license because of subjective criteria. , Knudsen stated that he would be in favor of the deicing friendly amendment if the dock to be installed were permanent. Because the dock to be installed is seasonal and could be corrected if problems occur, he expressed concern about placing a restriction on the multiple dock license for deicing requirements. Skramstad stated that he supported the multiple dock license application as proposed without tying a restriction on deicing requirements to it. Seuntjens stated that he believed there was a process to address deicing violations separate from the multiple dock license process. MOTION: Seutjens moved, Knudsen seconded to remove the deicing condition from the original motion, as amended. VOTE: Ayes (8), Nayes (3; Babcock, Foster, and Nelson); motion carried.