Re: docks/permitting/LMCD - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PACKOVSKY VARIANCE PUBLIC HEARING MEMO, 6/20102, PAGE 2 The applicant has requested a dock length variance of approximately 110'from the 929.4 NGVD shoreline. It appears that shallow water might be a physical hardship in this area of Maxwell Bay; however,the applicant did not document water depths at the dock use area for this site 60'from the 929.4 NGVD shoreline and at the end of the dock on the two proposed site plans. Water depths at similar lengths of the two abutting dock use areas are estimated at 3.2'to the west and 3.5'to the east. Staff believes that the water depth measurements at this site need to be documented by the applicant. !n addition to the fength variance,the applicant would need some combination of adjustment of lot line extensions (reducing the area available to the neighbors on one side or both sides)and setback reductions. The impact on dock storage rights of the neighbors could be reduced by granting side setback variances to the neighbors or by changing the configuration of the applicant's dock, or both. An aiternative dock design, possibly a straight dock with all watercraft stored on one-side of the dock, might �e more appropriate for this site. In compliance with MN DNR General Permit 97-6098, the MN DNR and the City of Orono were provided a copy of the proposed variance application on 6/14/02, with comments due in the District o�ce by 6/24/02. To date, the District has not received feetlback from either the MN DNR or the City of Orono on the proposed variance application. RECOMMENDaTfON , Staff has the foliowing recommendations or comments: • The Board could approve the dock length variance from Code, provided the applicant can document that the water depth at the end of the proposed dock would not exceed four feet, measured from the 929.4' NGVD. � Staff believes that there is a physical hardship to grant an adjusted dock use area variance; however, the Board should take into consideration how it would impact the abutting property owners. The abutting property owners have expressed concern with the proposed site plans and the Board might want to consider an amended site plan that would have less impact on them.