Laserfiche WebLink
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District <br /> Regular Board Meeting <br /> August 22, 2007 Page 6 <br /> prepare Findings of Fact and Order to deny the side setback variance request and to <br /> approve the dock length variance request. In this case, the only way the site would have <br /> a dock use area would be if one or both of the abutting neighbors, by mutual agreement, <br /> adjusted the side setback requirements. <br /> • An alternative recommendation was for the Board to table or continue this agenda item to <br /> a subsequent Board meeting to allow staff to work with the applicants to amend their <br /> application and site plan to meet the direction of the Board based off of information <br /> collected during the public hearing addressing the three fundamental issues outlined <br /> above. <br /> • He entertained questions and comments from the Board. <br /> Seuntjens asked LeFevere to comment on the recommendation made by Harper to table or continue <br /> this agenda item, including the status of the public hearing. <br /> LeFevere stated that the Board had two options to consider relating to the public hearing. First, the <br /> Board could open the public hearing, take testimony, and close the public hearing. Second, the <br /> Board could keep the public hearing open for additional testimony at a future meeting by tabling or <br /> continuing it. He reminded the Board that there was no need to act on the application at this <br /> meeting, whether or not the public hearing was closed. <br /> Harper stated that he had recently discussed this recommendation with the legal counsel for the <br /> Berg's. He believed that there had been some preliminary discussion with the abutting neighbors on <br /> revising the proposed site plan. <br /> Tanner asked if the abutting neighbors had agreed in writing on side setback relief for the applicants. <br /> Harper stated the neighbors had not agreetl in writing. <br /> Babcock questioned the status of the variance application with the 60-day rule. <br /> Nybeck stated that the 60-day rule commenced on 8/1/07 when the variance application was <br /> deemed complete. <br /> Seuntjens opened public hearing at 8:00 p.m. <br /> Mr. Eric Berg, 2965 Casco Point Roatl, statetl that discussions were being held with the abutting <br /> neighbors to the north, Curtis and Kathleen, and the abutting neighbors to the south, Theotlore and <br /> Deborah Roseboom. Alternative proposals, inclutling a zero foot side setback from the Roseboom's <br /> site, have been discussed and Peter Johnson, representing the Bergs, was in attentlance to discuss <br /> them. <br /> Mr. Peter Johnson, Attorney at Law, made the following comments: <br /> • There have been extensive discussions with the abutting neighbors and he concurred that <br /> changes should be made to the variance application at this point. <br /> • The Roseboom's have indicated that they have no reluctance to a zero foot side setback <br /> variance, which has existed through consent since 1978. The Roseboom's also do not <br />