Laserfiche WebLink
water STRirCTUKES COMMITI'I-K September 12, !‘.»y2 <br />3. tiinft of Ordinance Amending definitions of permanent and <br />seasonal docks, adopting DNR definition as directed by the Itoard. <br />The committee received a draft of a proposed ordinance to <br />adopt the DNR definition of a seasonal dock. I he description t>f <br />n Permanent l)ock we)uld be changed to any dock which is nt>t a <br />seasonal dock. Thihault .suhniitted a suggested definition of <br />"mechanized means" in the seasonal dock definition. <br />Babcock questioned whether the definition should be in the <br />Ordinance or definition section of the Code. He observed sup|»ort <br />on the Board to allow se/isuna I docks to remain in after the <br />biiating season. He, however, would discourage that. He suggest­ <br />ed a provision that it is illegal to leave a dock in which is not <br />in gootl condition. Enforcement of an Ortlinnnce on di»cks should <br />not depend on the season of the year. The condition of the dock <br />shouhl bo a vnliil concern. If the proposed ordinance is adopted <br />the LMCD loses all control on private dock construction. <br />Carlstni thought the ilefinition of "mechanized means' could <br />be improveil and suggested referrinr it to the I.MCf) attorney. He <br />has a problem with seasonal dock? tig left in. except in wet­ <br />land areas. He noteil the debris leii in the lake after sjiring <br />break-up. He said docks left in can be a hazard to cross-country <br />skit'rs. Carlson suggested making up a list of issues rei.it ine to <br />docks and address alI of them at one time. It is important to <br />have ordinances in place so action can be taken when needed. <br />Gratliwol agreed there could be a studv of all provisions <br />relating to private docks. He suggested a sub-committee on rule <br />changes. Gratbwol observed that Tbibaull and the executive <br />director are experiencing difficulty interpreting the ordinances <br />and. rightly so. are coming i») the <br />He said there could develop staff <br />direction as to how forceful to be <br />suggested there be a review of the <br />Board asking for direction, <br />frustration in not getting <br />in enforcement. Grathwol <br />whole code because when a <br />change is made in one section it can have an impact on other <br />parts of the I'ode. <br />The executive directoi agreed with Grathwt* I’s comments. Ho <br />said there are many viol.it ions of the turient ordinance requiring <br />seasonal docks be removed at the end ot the season. rurrenttv <br />the staff has to ndvise the pi»»f>erty owner, upon com|*laint or <br />formal mat ice. (hit a permanent dc^ck perraif is required if the <br />lloclk ie left in. The one-t iwe lee lor a permanent dc*ck is 1150. <br />It was also noted in the discueeion that even when the dock <br />boards are removed, the posts left in create a hazard. <br />.fohnsictne said he his noi he.iid etioiieh to convince hisiself <br />that the change should l>e oiadc at this time. He tM»ttld like airtre <br />time to c ns icier t Ik implications. <br />NoTIUN: car Ison louved. Johnstone seconded, to table the disius- <br />s I i*n of the t>tclinanc.e ch.invr to further icfrntifv the imp I I cn t t nns <br />of the « it cfi e. The staff is to review t lie discussion gn«| retain <br />to t ho voaniilee with t ecotsMenda t tons . <br />VOTf : Motion carried uciin isMtos Ijr.