Laserfiche WebLink
Miclzael S. Wallace <br /> Pebruary ]2, 2003 <br /> Page 4 <br /> Subd. 3 c) provides for adjustment of side setback and dock use areas between two <br /> or more adjoining sites subject to the conditions listed, which include the following: <br /> (4) no more watercraft inay be stored at the adjacent sites affected by <br /> the adjustment and the sum of the number of watercraft,which <br /> would be allowed at each site if there were no such adjustments. <br /> Our interpreta.tiQn of th.is provision is that the owner of each adjacent site cannot store <br /> more than four restricted watercraft on their site. In applying subsection c)�4)to your <br /> situation, you and your neighbor are in compliance as neither of you aze storing more than <br /> four restricted watercraft at your adjacent sites. It is our opinion that a multiple use permit <br /> is not applicable to circumstances where Section 2.01, Subd. 3c)is applied. It could be <br /> argued tliat c) applies to your circumstance rather than b), si.nce your dock is located on the <br /> property line and in essence you have waived the side setbacks to share a common dock <br /> and aze storing your own watercraft on your respective sites. <br /> The issue then is whether a multiple use permit is required,or should be required, <br /> where both you and your neighbor are in compliance with Section 2.02, Subd. 3), simply <br /> , because of the fact you shaze a dock. The Code does not address your situa.tion,where the <br /> shared dock is located on the property line and the restricted watercraft aze stored on your <br /> respective sites in your respective dock use areas, which dock use azeas are regulated <br /> separately regazding length and setbacks. <br /> Section 2.03 of the Code sets out the requirements for application for a license for a <br /> multiple dock,mooring area, commercial dock, and launching ramps. In reviewing the <br /> requirements for the license,particularly the review criteria in Subd. 3),it does not appear <br /> that the reasons for requiring a multiple use permit should be applied in your situation with <br /> a single shared dock located on the property line between two adjoining pazcels of <br /> property. Since your shared dock riuis along the prop�rty line and branches out onto each <br /> property, you and your neighbor are in compliance with regazd to the number of�stored <br /> watercraft, and the only basis for considering whether a multiple use permit is required is <br /> the fact that it is a shazed dock. Since you each store your watercraft on your own <br /> property, concerns such as volume of tr�c, safety in use in the dock use�areas or dock <br /> mooring areas, adverse effects on nearby properties,navigation, safety or the environment <br /> should not be of concern to the LMCD. This is in contrast to the situation where there is a <br /> single dock facility located on one site that is used by multiple owners. <br /> It is our opinion that the Code is unclear as to whether a multiple use permit is <br /> required for your dock, and fiuther there is a good basis for the position that a multiple use <br /> permit is not required. The question is how to interpret the Code when the dock is located <br /> on the property line and branches out onto each dock use azea. It is our redpznri�er��lat�or�"��`,�.._�"r <br /> that you request information from the LMCD regarding prior decisions in�i l�ihig 4�tu7�iple =' �� � <br /> , ' I � <br /> ,.jL� MAR 1 3 2003 ;_�; <br /> f <br /> � ' <br /> ,_ <br /> �--._ ..-----� --..__ -�-----� <br />