LMCD/application/variance/meeting minutes. etc

Home Browse Search

, . ' Michael S. Wallace February l 2, 2003 Page 5 use permits for a single common 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 ii�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 maruier. If you have information as to how LMCD has applied the multiple use pernut to situations simil4r to yours, the LR�CD should treat your situation in a similar manner or its decision could be considered arbitrary. 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 Statement of Purpose of the Code in Section 1.01, we believe a.n argument can be made that requiring a multiple use permit 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 permit is not required for your situation. � Further, we suggest you consider requesting clarification of the Code as it is unclear 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 permit should be separate from the issue of the length variance. ; � If you have any questions or need further assistance with regard to this issue, feel � free to ca11 me. � Sincerely, �C��C�.- �C� Bazbaza M. Ross BMR/pbb , 225959 ;�� ,; �;-�_��,�;��L<<�-;1� , ;�. : , � � � �; '� � Ma� 1 � zao� : ,�� -�,,