Re: bridge - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

' Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 8,2006 Page 4 docking stipulations, and 3)granting the request, with bridge height standards, to maintain navigable waters within the wetland area. MOTION: Nelson moved, McDermott seconded to direct LMCD legal counsel to prepare Findings of Fact and Order to approve the bridge and variances applications submitted by Marvin and Nancy Blair. Seuntjens recommended a friendly amendment to the motion that would require docking and boat storage at the main site to comply with LMCD authorized dock use area requirements. Nelson and McDermott agreed to this. Ms. Blair stated that they would remove the dock from the main site, if needed, VOTE: Ayes (9),Abstained (1, Gross); motion carried. Skramstad informed the applicant that the draft Findings of Fact and Order would be on the agenda for the 2/22/06 Regular LMCD Board Meeting. 1. WATER STRUCTURES B. Discussion on whether there is a need to establish an ordinance that establishes a time period that pending LMCD applications need to be processed in. Skramstad asked Nybeck for background on this agenda item. Nybeck stated that pending LMCD applications, which have signed an indefinite extension form to the 60-day rule, have been listed on the bottom of recent Board agendas for informational purposes. Some Board members have expressed an interest in resolving these applications within an undetermined time period, possibly through either an ordinance amendment or new policy. He stated that he did not have a recommendation for the Board and this was scheduled on the agenda to encourage Board discussion. McDermott asked if there was a recommendation on how long this time frame should be if a new ordinance was established. LeFevere stated that he did not have a recommended time frame for the number of days. However, the Board could consider that some applications would become"stale"over time as LMCD Code, Board members, and demographics change. If one of these applications were reinstated, a new public hearing would likely be required. Whether an ordinance amendment or policy is needed is a decision that needs to be made by the Board. The Board, with Nybeck's assistance, discussed the pending applications listed on the Board agenda, the pros and cons of establishing a time frame schedule, possible time frames, and potential waivers for these applications that could be addressed within a draft ordinance amendment.