09-28-1992 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LMCD nOARI) OF D .RKCTORS AUKU^t 26, 1692 Ihf I.MCD thc-n has the* cunsci|uencc* t>f for the Uoaril to District has no authority other than to charpe the facility witli operating without a license. That forces the District into the position of enforcing the city’s zoning code, to foot the hill for the litigation. That is denying a license for non-lake related 'ssues. L e F e V e r e c o n t i rui e d that it is i mo r t a n t determine what the city’s objections are and wliether or not they are related to the F.MCD’s responsibilities. On the other hand, if the reason for the city asking for denial is something like interfering with public lake access or blocking a channel or the criteria the Hoard looks at in granting or denying a multiple dock license, there is more reason for the LMCD to rely on local zoning codes. LeFevere said the proposed language in the motion does not support the city in agreeing to litigation or to prose cute c»r carry the city’s burden. The proposed language formally recognizes that the city has jurisdiction over this matter and it has the right to enforce its own restrictions. Ihe I.MCD's prant- a license in no wav affects the city’s right to enforce its1 ng hecfi cases where the c ooF’C * a l i V e I y i ii a n is movitrg away from own regulations. LeFevere said there have munici|>al borly ami the LMCD have worked enforcement action. Hurt said the motion before lire Board cooperating witfi the cities. Carlson quest iorred what official notification is necderl from a city. Me suggest e<l adt*pting a policy as to whom the District listens, for an official position. LeFevere said there is no provisioti as to what is oflicial. Babcock responded tliat the cities <lo not want the LMt D to act above the 626.4 oilWL. Bloom wondered if this motion is suggesting ft change from there being nothing to prohibit a city from having stricter requirements than the LMCD. LeFevere said it is a matter of Bi>ard discretion. It raises the question as to what the city staff should do. Should they start prosecution the U.'iy after the license is issued, should they formally reply that the license is not in compliance with the city code so licen.se revo cation proceedings can be started or will it be ignored until it comes up again. Foster exi>ressed his concern that the Board would be tssuine Q license with the knowledge of non-comp I i line e with the city ordinances. Babcock said if the 'itv of i rme to the IMs- Irici and s.aid it has a serious |Mtd>lem with co«f»l lanco with i t .s ordinance, he would not have a probleie in coopeiatine with the city. He asked if this compliance iesuc applies to new licenses or renewals. LeFevere responded that it appliei to all fun me. Tfie problem is that it draws the LMapplicable to the I M« D chat it* regarding the lake. M is neces- aaiy to ari.slvre coaipliance with local regulations as they relate to the standards of interest to ihe »o»rd Baheotk said this de- Miinds the I Mi'ti lake action before a city does. Oahriel Jahbour. Ofono City Counc i I eewbe r . said Ihe l» ahoulU put the cities on notice that they should do ewe thing about their shoreline ordinances. Me said there should he €«•- pliance with court orders affecting ane ■artna. i.ekeveie le- viewed the hit tote of the LMcD lMig.stM»n with Worth ghore !»• lee