Resolution 1096 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

„. •, .. - � � R�solution No. � 1096 . Page 8 • . • . � l. The LMCD denied applicant' s 1978 dock license because the dock violated the LMCD ordinances by encroaching beyond 200 feet from the shoreline and because the, dock layo'1xt, in � place did not conform to the site plan submitted for approval. ' 2. The 1978 City License was issued contingent upon com- pliance with the City' s and the LMCD' s ordinances and _ Resolution No. 996 specifically called attention to the , � likelihood of dock extending beyond 200 feet and that such dock extensions were considered violations of City ordinance. 3. The 1979 dock plan originally submitted by the applicant � is the same plan submitted to the City and the LMCD in 1978, which dock plan and docks were then and are still in violation of both LMCD and City ordinances. Moreover, ' applicant has shown no intention to reconstruct the docks in compliance with City and LMCD ordinances. , 4. As early as February, 1979, the applicant was advised to submit a revised dock plan conforming to the 200 foot maximum dock length. The applicant' s response was that he would produce a certificate of survey proving that all docks �did in fact comply with this requirement. The survey � was done as of April 18, 1979� at which time, if not before, the applicant knew or should have known that the docks were in fact in violation of the ordinances. Repeated efforts . by the City to obtain a copy of the survey were rebuffed until June 25, 1979 when an incomplete survey was received. - Again, repeated attempts to have the shoreline accurately shown on the drawing were rebuffed until August 9 , 1979 when the applicant submitted the current drawing, which drawing confirms the existence of docks extending into the lake more than 200 feet from shore in violation of the ordinances. The applicant' s only response to thi:s fact was then for the first time to question the definition of • � "shoreline” . At no time was the City ever aware of any attempt by the applicant to revise his dock layout to be in conformance with the law. 5. The berm and baffle weir required by Item 4 of the district court stipulation in 1977 has not y.et been completed, and applicant is in violation of the terms thereof. 6. The lilac hedge screening required by Item 2 of the 1977 stipulation has not been installed, and applicant is in violation of the terms thereof. � ' ' 7. The fence installed along North Shore Drive has not • been properiy maintained and presents a poor image of the marina to the general public. ` .