LMCD/application/variance/meeting minutes. etc

Home Browse Search

` . ti Michae] S. Wallace I'ebruary ]2, 2003 Page 5 use permits for a single commoii dock between adjoining land owners. If available,this would provide some evidence as to how the LMCD should treat the issue of the multiple use permit in your situation. As we discussed, LMCD has broad authoriiy over regulations on Lake Minnetonka, and its actions would be open to challenge only if it acted in an arbitrary or capricious inaruier. If you have information as to how LMCD has applied the multiple use permit to situations simiiuY to yours, the LMCD should treat your situation in a similar manner or its decision could be considered arbitrazy. If this information is not available, LMCD has the authority to interpret the Code, but the LMCD should interpret it in a manner that is consistent with a purpose and intent of the Code. In reviewing the Sta.tement of Purpose of the Code in Section 1.01, we believe an argument can be made that requiring a multiple use pernut in your situation is not required to meet the District's goals and policies. For these reasons, we believe it is appropriate for LMCD to act on the length variance application and there is a good basis for the position that a multiple use pemut is not required for your situa.tion. � Further, we suggest you consider requesting clarifica.tion of the Code as it is uncleaz with regard to its application to your situation. Requesting information or clarification will take some time, and it is our opinion that because of this,the issue of the multiple use pernut should be separate from the issue of the length variance. ; � If you have any questions or need fiu-ther assistance with regard to this issue, feel � free to call me. � Sincerely, `��_ �CZ� Barbaza M. Ross BMR/pbb . 225959 ;U��(�; i`;�(��jj��` (-��P ; i�� : �_ �, �; �� l MA� ? � 2003 .J� ;�,