11-27-1979 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

R��ULAR t�2EETING OF THE OROP10 COUidCIL, T10VEP4BER 27 , 1979 Page 12 This survey clearlv shows the 1979 innlace NORTH SI30RE DRIVE r�IARIN docks extending 245 feet frorl the 194� shore- (Continued) line and 284 feet from the tirlber retaining wall which is the same as the 930. 4 shoreline on September 11, 1979 (water 12" deep at the wall that day and, therefore , also ?_84 feet from the 929.4 shoreline) . It also sho�vs the docks 270 feet from the April 18 , 1979 shoreline drawn on the plans. In each case, this extension is a clear violation of the LMCD and the City 200 ft. limit on docks , no matter how r4r. Hork wishes to interpret the shoreline location. Using the well established 929 . 4 elevation, the docks are 84 ft. bevond the allowable encroachment at their worst location on the west side of the property and 15 ft. bevond on the east side. Douglas' statement that the lake water levels vary is no excuse for dock length violations in times of ordinary or hic�li water levels as has been the case all this year. His survey clearly shows the docks well be��ond all shoreline variations so there is no excuse for permanent dock encroachment. ` In addition, Hork' s seawall (which has been erected over the years under no permit authoritv from any agency having jurisdiction) actuallv acts to stabilize and define the shoreline location at one point regardless of high �aater location. As r.leasured by the City and Lr4CD inspectors, the 929 . 4 elevation is at the base of the seawall. All dock rleasurerlents should be taken fror_1 this location; this actually benefits Hork in years of high water as is the case this year. mhe fact is that Douqlas aclmits these are seasonal docks. Thev could easily be arranged each year to conform to the varying caater levels. If the lake level were to recede, the docks could then follow the interpretation of shoreline. '.I'his is part of the purPose of the annual license review, to allow dock extensions in low water years to be sure the operator has his full 200 ft. allowable dock use area, yet assuring the public that these docks are then drawn hack in ordinar_y or high water vears. This approach is a common sense one and has been consistently followed b_y the City and the LNICD. The City has for years been tellinc� Hork his docks were too long and exceeded 200 ft. encroach- ment. Hork has for vears maintained otherwise which is whv the City has given hirl ever�� op�ortunitv to present a survey in proof of his contention. (Continued)