2011-09-22_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Master This Comment Date Who Made Comment List # Tables # or be removed from the Grass Lakes Board. 40 32 live on Lake Owasso and I'm not at all in favor of a no wake zone for this lake. August 16, 2011 Steven Foss I believe that this change would reduce the value of my two properties on this lake and I think Shoreview and Roseville would be affected by reduced tax revenue. A no -wake zone will simply place the some number of watercraft into a smaller area, increasing watercraft density. This becomes a safety issue by concentrating watercraft into a smaller area. A no -wake zone would be riddled with enforcement challenges; i.e. how to enforce, who will enforce? I am absolutely against this proposed no wake zone 41 33 A no wake/ no boating area may have the potential to hurt property owner's values as well as the general public who may do more boating and fishing on the lake than the August 18, 2011 Mary Ann Betts property owners. The current no wake seems sufficient. It seems like a more important issue is how the level are being raised rather than just what may disturb them. I think the effort should be restricting and improving the runoff. 42 34 As a Lake Owasso homeowner and taxpayer, we just learned about a potentially DEVASTATING hidden agenda in the 243 page GLWMO plan draft. There is a single sentence August 18, 2011 Steve Anderson in section 1.9.f of this draft pertaining to establishing a no wake or no boating area of Lake Owasso with the "GOAL" to make it permanent. Who's goal? This is an outrage!!! There are over 13 specific (good) water clarity improvement ideas being addressed in Section 1.9 of this document. The manor in which this ridiculous ordinance has been slid in there is irresponsible and imprudent. We purchased a $1.2m home here in 2008 and have put an additional $500,000 into remodeling. The land value alone is listed on the tax roles at over $450,000 and we pay the real estate taxes to prove it. I'm sure whomever is in favor of this "no boating" idea does NOT live on, nor boat on, Lake Owasso. I can tell you that we would NEVER have purchased property here if Lake Owasso had sections of no wake or no boating. Lake Owasso is a recreational (boating) lake that has provided outdoor activities to generations of families for decades. Our children are a new generation lured to devices with screens. Boating brings children outdoors and teaches them lifetime sports such as skiing, wake - boarding, wake - surfing, tubing, fishing, etc. The mere mention of trying to create no boating sections of this lake will not only pummel our already lowered housing values, but it will kill family dreams of teaching our children not only water sports, but water safety. There are thousands of residents, and transient boating users alike, that depend upon this lake. If this little known clause were allowed to stand as written, like a thief in the night, then the people will discover it and become irate, as we are just hearing about it now! We will spare no expense in fighting this issue and will seek all legal remedies available if necessary. Even if there were a minuscule improvement in water quality, what good does it do if PEOPLE can't use it for the reason's they live on this lake in the first place? We live on Lake Owasso because we can boat here - period. If we wanted a non - boating lake, there are already plenty of them around. The hundreds of pages of this document address good and prudent methods of dealing with lake clarity issues. But as the document states, Lake Owasso IS IN GOOD SHAPE. Do not let the PEOPLE and children sufferjust because you want to try an "experiment ". Creating no wake or no boating areas would be like trying to kill a mosquito with a cannon, the collateral damage to ALL RESIDENTS would be irreparable and damaging. Lake Owasso has a tradition and heritage as a recreational boating lake. We are all in favor of measures that improve the lake, but removing the reason that we live here is intolerable. 43 35 One items that has raised concern among lake users, is the proposal for a no- wake /no boat zone as noted on page 114. It is not a pragmatic choice to include a no- wake /no August 18, 2011 Lake Owasso boat option in the draft document as it has the potential to siphon energy from the more important topics of runoff and general watershed issues. Association: submitted by Joe Bester 44 36 Advocating a no- wake /no boat zone represents a narrow view of the macro affects on a water body. Even within the narrower topic of turbulence on a water body, August 18, 2011 Lake Owasso advocating a no -wake effort represents but a slice of the pie. Consider wind and resulting wave action: Association: submitted while at peak intervals, there can be significant watercraft activity on Lake Owasso, research reveals that energy from continual pounding of wave action far exceeds the by Joe Bester affects of watercraft activity. This is not to say that watercraft have no effect on a water body. The question is what has the most significant effect. All indicators point to external (run -off) as the chief culprit; not internal interaction mechanisms. 45 37 The argument that there is phosphorous release from sediment disturbance from propellers and that a no- wake /no boat zone is warranted is questionable. What is not August 18, 2011 Lake Owasso Grass Lake Watershed Management Organization — 2011 Watershed Management Plan Response to Comments: 60 -dav review period 9/19/2011 Page 4