Laserfiche WebLink
. f’i v;<;:.‘’•>.v.r^''■Ir?.- V*-pfs^« <br />I9^?.J»:Pmm4Mi <br />w^vi§'rs-; <br />mki? <br />n- <br />iilfe^r.i <br />‘■■V <br />mm^ik:rife-- ■^ •• ••• <br />M <br />Mh <br />^w- <br />£fev- <br />mmh <br />mpMi^ <br />:S#RM <br />V <br />ii't <br />I'M'' - ■ <br />'V¥?'' ' :■ <br />-Vi>'^' <br />« ' <br />ife <br />;V .' <br />!> «iA <br />SSS- . <br />fe&i.I4-. <br />Water Structures CommitteeB. End of Season Deicing Permits April 11, 1992 <br />The Committee received a memo from Thibault recommending a <br />provision for deicing from March 15 through April 20. which would <br />waive fencing requirements except along the shore. The recom­ <br />mended fee is $50. ... , jn f h,»Grathwol said there is considerable deicing started in the <br />spring. There should be a different treatment of spring deicing <br />vs. winter or all season deicing. Fencing on the Lake should not <br />be required because it would not be safe to go on the ice. H <br />would support some kind of minimal control of springtime <^ejcing. <br />The executive director suggested a special fee schedule lor <br />* ■ _ __ _ _ _short “term'‘5pring’d^icingr Lig'hting and thin ice signs posted on <br />concern about incurring a liability if nothing is done. <br />MOTION: Babcock moved. Grathwol seconded, to coni unit to <br />require a deicing license with the $125 fee. shore signage <br />required, eliminating the need for fencing and signs on the ice. <br />The motion was withdrawn. <br />Foster suggested allo»ing =P^ing deicing with a re <br />suggested that up until <br />licensing requirements, <br />would have to have tlie <br />out beyond the deicing <br />number of thin ice signs on the ice. Me <br />March 15 any deicing should require full <br />After that date anyon.i starting to deice <br />large thin ice signs placed on shore and <br />®*'®*‘moTION; Babcock moved. Grathwol secomled. ^ <br />ordinance change to allow the executive director, after March J-. <br />to issue deicing permits, as differentiated from a license, pro­ <br />viding for shoreline signage. nnno<;esCochran added that the permits be for registration paipo.ses <br />MOT I ON * Grathwol moved, K a s c o p seconded, to t a h j e ^ ^ <br />mo'-.on Jick to the committee. Motion carried, slocu.e and Cochran <br />voting nay. <br />C. Consideration of <br />Licenses <br />Code Amendment on Issuance of Deicing <br />The committee received a memo 1 rom ThibnuU V"'; ' <br />executive director be authorized to isfrue new deicing liccnaes <br />^mout Board approval. The reason is ‘‘ “'’V' fJ <br />sudden fall freeze, such as occurred in November, 1991. . <br />?or deicing is immediate. The license could be subjec to card <br />approval. Another suggestion is to allow renewa1 without hoard <br />approval if there were no violations the previous yeai. , <br />Rascop said if the Board does not ‘ .^.^^he boa J d <br />be a report filed at least once a vear. Foster said <br />should be involved. The ^ ^ cu t i ve di^r e-t o r^^couj^d^ <br />license but inform the Board monthly of h <br />i s ,s u e the <br />D a b c o c k <br />J