Laserfiche WebLink
an application lor that length for next year with the understand­ <br />ing he can put on an extra section if the water depth is less <br />t han 4’. <br />Foster said he believes the LMCD Code regarding dock lengths <br />is wrong because it is not consistent with what is happening all <br />around the Lake. He said, when looking at a 4’ depth, that is <br />not water generally used by the public. <br />Markus arrived. <br />MOTION; Cochran moved, Reese seconded, to recommend that the <br />Board deny the variance request of Louis Cosentino for a 200’ <br />dock and to allow the applicant 90 days to come in compliance <br />with the Code. <br />VOTE: Motion carried, Markus abstaining. <br />Mrs. Cosentino asked if a request for a 150’ dock would save <br />them the problem of re-applying next year. Foster said he ques­ <br />tioned whether any variance could be granted unless there was a <br />low water year. Babcock said it would be up to the Cosentinos to <br />decide what kind of a variance application they want to make for <br />next year. Babcock added that Cosentino will have to prove <br />hardship in any other variance application. Cosentino is to <br />confer with the LMCD staff in making another application. <br />The committee discussed other ways of determining dock <br />lengths. There was a suggestion from Foster that dock length be <br />allowed to 925.4’ lake bottom elevation to give the 4’ depth from <br />the OHWL. Foster also suggested limiting the size of boats <br />stored at private property. Babcock said there are certain lots <br />on the lake which do accommodate boats of a lies i red size. <br />Cochran was excused. <br />3. Stocks Side Setback Variance, Mound, Halsteds Bay <br />Babcock reviewed the Board approval of the Findings and <br />Order to allow Thomas and Roma Stocks, 3032 Highview Lane, Mound, <br />a variance for 5’ setbacks, restricting the length to one 40’ <br />stick dock with no canopy, for one restricted watercraft with a <br />maximum 7’ beam, to stay within the dock use area. <br />Babcock said, earlier this week the question of the 7’ boat <br />width limitation was raised by the Stocks. Babcock said he does <br />not believe the committee should second guess the action of the <br />Board. He would prefer the question go directly to the Board, to <br />either reconsider or amend the Order. He said the Board could <br />either send it back to the committee or change the Order. <br />Foster asked why the District specified boat and dock <br />widths. He said the committee action on the Revier variance <br />application was to locate a dock within a dock use area without <br />any reference to limiting the size of the boats on the dock. <br />Mr. and Mrs. S'oeks said their application was only for a <br />waiver of the 10’ setback to 5’. Stocks said their survey shows <br />they have 21.9’ of shoreline rather than the 20’ on which the <br />variance was predicated. This would allow them to store an 8’ <br />wide boa t.