Laserfiche WebLink
statute; nevertheless, Defendant did not consider Plaintiffs' <br />application in this light and in fact Defendant never considered <br />Plaintiffs' application other than as a lot size variance; that <br />administratively Defendant had indicated in its inception that <br />this application could not be granted. <br />X. <br />That Defendant's Ordinances relating to the issues herein <br />are vague, confusing and ambiguous; that Defendant itself during <br />Plaintiffs' application process interpreted the Ordinances and <br />regulations under which they were considering Plaintiffs' appli­ <br />cation in contradictory ways; that Defendant has interpreted the <br />same Ordinances under which Plaintiffs' application exists to <br />permit boat docks on land without principal structures. <br />XI. <br />That Defendant did not, in accordance with its original <br />application instructions, determine a reasonable use for subject <br />property, but rather directed Plaintiffs to combine their land <br />with the land adjacent or, in the alternative, told Plaintiffs to <br />use the property for picnics. <br />XII. <br />That following the Resolution of Denial in August of 1988, <br />Plaintiffs applied for a "shared use dock" with the adjacent <br />property owner Tillotson; that the pre-existing dock used by <br />Tillotson but located on Plaintiffs' property was a lawful, non- <br />conforming dock being used by Tillotson with permission of <br />Plaintiffs. <br />XXIII. <br />That at a City Council meeting in December of 1988, <br />-4-