Correspondence re LMCD variance application

Home Browse Search

' ' Eric& Laurie Berg Public Hearing Memo, 8117/07, Page 3 Staff believes that the problem is partially created by the appiicant because the proposed width of the dock and boat lift is excessive for a lot with 20' of shoreline and the applicant had purchased the property approximately 30 years after the LMCD side setback regulations were first adopted.A dock and boat storage can be continued from this property if at least one of the adjoining site owners agree to adjust the side setback requirements or even agrees to maintain a common dock between the two properties. LMCD Code Section 2.01 Subd. 2b, allows the authorized dock use area in cases of sites 50' in width or less in existence on February 2, 1970 may be expanded to a side setback limitation of five feet, provided that such setback in no way impairs access to neighboring docks.There are many sites around the lake that qualify for this side setback exception and appear to be maintained in a safe manner that does not interfere with adjacent dock use areas or activities. Staff was able to find a couple similar situations where there were lots platted after the 1970 "grandfather"date that were granted side setback variances by the LMCD Board to reduce the side setback requirements to 5'.With these approved variances,the LMCD Board restricted the width of the dock, width and length of the boat and only allowed one boat to be stored on the dock. The variances also stated that the dock constructed at the sites must be a single straight dock with no "L" or"T". � 3. Code Section 2.02 outlines the number of restrictetl watercraft that can be stored at a residential site based on the amount of 929.4' shoreline and the ownership of the watercraft. Specifically, it allows: 1) General Rule-one restricted watercraft for each 50'of shoreline (without reference to ownership), 2) up to two restricted watercraft may be kept at a dock for a residential site in existence on 8/30/78 (without reference to ownership), antl 3) three or four restricted watercraft are allowed at a residential site if there is one and no more than one single family residential structure at the site and all watercraft are owned and registered to the residents of the site. Staff is unsure how many watercraft the applicant is proposing to store at the proposed dock.The site plan shows an 11'X 14' lift located on the north side of the dock. Staff has requested dimensions of a proposed boat to be stored on the lift but the attorney for the applicant has communicated that the applicant had sold his 23 ft. boat when the LMCD ordered his dock removed. Staff still does not know what size of boat the applicant is applying for. In the past, the Board has typically restricted the number of restricted watercraft that may be stored at a site that requires a variance from LMCD Code. I believe that this should be the case in this proposal and the Board should decide how many and the size of the restricted watercraft that are appropriate at this site. RECOMMENDATION There are three fundamental issues that the Board should adtlress when considering the Berg variance application. These include: 1. The applicants have provided adequate documentation that shallow water exists at this site to grant a dock length variance. However, staff questions why a 55.5 foot long dock is needed if the furthermost portion of the lift is proposed to be located approximately 34' from the 929.4'shoreline.