Laserfiche WebLink
UUUR 93 pi,E 67 <br />and that would be a point of distinction for the Code Enforcement <br />Board to determine. Generally the ordinance refers to interior <br />lights which would be indicative of inhabitance. <br />Commissioner Bird asked whether we have any requirement in the <br />ordinance requiring waste disposal. <br />Mr. DeBlois responded that liveaboards are allowed only at <br />specifically designated multi -dock facilities or marinas with <br />pumpout capability. Liveaboards are prohibited entirely from <br />single-family accessory docks. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone <br />wished to be heard in this matter. <br />Robert Golden, resident of Island Harbor, spoke in favor of <br />the revisions. He requested that the exemption for commercial <br />fishing vessels be excluded because commercial fishermen usually <br />tie up at a marina or fish house and do not care to sleep on board. <br />He also requested that the beginning time for the presumption of <br />inhabitance be changed to 6:00 p.m. rather than 9:00 p.m. He <br />pointed out that a person can be employed evenings and/or nights <br />and live aboard the vessel in the daytime, thereby avoiding the <br />requirement. He suggested a further amendment to the effect that <br />a liveaboard need not be established solely as provided in the <br />ordinance but may be established by any other appropriate evidence, <br />because the ordinance is intended to preclude and prohibit living <br />aboard vessels at single-family docks. <br />Jo Kelley, resident of Harbor Island Road, asked how many <br />complaints of liveaboards have been filed other than the complaints <br />against her. <br />Mr. DeBlois responded that there have not been many, and Ms. <br />Kelley's case is the only one that has been presented to the Code <br />Enforcement Board. The other incidents were resolved. <br />Ms. Kelley argued that if the law is changed after there is <br />only one incident that is equivalent to individual legislation, or <br />changing the law so it affects one person. If there are no other <br />complaints, what's the point of changing the law? <br />County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that the law would <br />affect everyone similarly situated, not just one person. <br />Mr. DeBlois pointed out that other people are affected by the <br />same ordinance, but they comply with it and we do not hear about <br />it. <br />Ms. Kelley <br />liveaboards. <br />August 15, 1994 <br />argued that enforcement is not possible for <br />12 <br />