Laserfiche WebLink
XVII. <br />That there are no specific standards or criteria in the City <br />for applicants to meet in either of the applications Plaintiff <br />made; to-wit lot area variance or shared dock proposal; that the <br />act of denial by Defendant in these applications was arbitrary <br />and capricious and in no way related to public health, safety and <br />welfare concerns; that Defendant ignored advice by its own <br />counsel that it could permit Plaintiffs a non-use variance and <br />never advised Plaintiffs of this opportunity; that Plaintiffs' <br />application was never considered in light of a non-use variance <br />and Plaintiffs' application for shared use with Tillotson was not <br />considered in light of any specific criteria or standards. <br />XVIII. <br />That Defendant unlawfully demanded removal of the valid, <br />non-conforming boat dock on the premises of Plaintiff by Mr. <br />Tillotson. <br />COUNT ONE <br />Illegal Removal of Non-Conforming Boat Dock <br />1. That Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in <br />paragraphs I through XVIII above. <br />2. That Defendant's conduct in ordering removal of the <br />lawful non-conforming boat dock on the premises of Plaintiffs was <br />illegal. <br />COUNT TWO <br />Unconstitutional Taking <br />1. That Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in <br />paragraphs I through XVIII above. <br />-6-