Laserfiche WebLink
e <br />Ep 3 ® 1936 <br />BOOK 65 P�vJE 90� <br />Commissioner Bowman noted that this amendment to the Zoning <br />4 Code will allow construction of a structure but not its use; so, <br />why can't we just vest the permit? <br />- Attorney Vitunac advised that all vested permits expire <br />after a certain time if you don't proceed, and Director Keating <br />agreed it would be preferable to do it that way, but he did not <br />think it can be done. <br />Commissioner Lyons believed people just want insurance <br />against a change in the rules. <br />Chairman Scurlock wanted to make sure we are only going to <br />allow docks in the places they normally would be allowed, and <br />Planner Challacombe assured him that this is all reviewed through <br />the same procedure and staff would have to see all associated <br />permits.. <br />Commissioner Bowman questioned the use of the wording " <br />vested riparian rights" in paragraph a. on Page 1 of the proposed <br />ordinance as she felt riparian suggested that you own the bottom <br />lands. She suggested saying "riparian access." <br />Planner Challacombe believed that riparian rights just <br />suggests there are certain legal rights of access, and this was <br />confirmed by Attorney Vitunac, who stated that one does not <br />actually own the bottom land. <br />Discussion continued regarding the legal definition of <br />riparian rights. <br />MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by <br />Commissioner Lyons, to adopt Ordinance 86-66 with the <br />condition that the use of riparian rights be limited <br />to access but not use of the bottom lands. <br />Commissioner Bowman commented that the Coding phrase states <br />that "Words underlined are additions." She felt possibly this <br />should state double underlined because all the headings are <br />underlined. <br />66 <br />