Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 112 PAGE <br />to lots owned by a developer and, after much discussion and several suggestions, staff was <br />directed to insert language to ensure there would be one owner/one dock. (The intent of this <br />motion was to preclude a developer from having several lots and building a dock or docks <br />prior to developing the landside property.) <br />There was additional discussion about putting back the requirement for a $1,500 bond <br />which was deleted at the first public hearing, but the general consensus was to not include <br />it for the same reasons stated previously. <br />AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION regarding use of <br />docks/piers on vacant single-family lots was made by <br />Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, <br />to include in the language of the ordinance that there be one <br />owner/one dock. <br />THE CHAIRMAN RESTATED THE AMENDMENT TO THE <br />MOTION AND CALLED THE QUESTION on the amendment <br />which was approved unanimously. <br />The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION ON THE MOTION <br />(on docks & piers) AS AMENDED (one owner/one dock) and <br />the motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Stanbridge opposed). <br />(ORDINANCE NO. 2000-004 ADOPTED AS AMENDED.) <br />(CLERK'S NOTE: Copies of letters from Mr. Thomas R <br />Collins and Ms. Sallydale Wimbrow have been placed in the <br />backup file of this meeting.) <br />February 15, 2000 <br />50 <br />