pf_02821 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~~:~~t\ ~~ ~''2.\CX- -- CARMEN BELL 807 HEINEL DRIVE ROSEVILLE MN 55113 Marcn 8, 1995 ~.. -------.- '-- ---- Roseville City council 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville MN 55113 RB: LAD OWASSO USE Dear Council Members: The Roseville City Council has asked for homeowners' input on certain Roseville ordinances regulating uses on Lake Owasso. The following is my recommendation. I am urging the Ci ty Council to take no action. I recommend that the present ordinances regulating the uses on Lake Owasso remain as they are. .,. I agree that the present rules and regulations affecting the lake are inconsistent. However, the present state statutes delegating authority to various governmental units to promulgate rules are a mess. Some of tbe responsibilities are given to the Department of Natural Resources, some given to tbe local cities, and some of tbe responsibilities given to tbe local sberiffs. The sberiffs typically are not in a position to decide wbat the proper use of a lake is or is not. Tbe sheriffs are law enforcement agencies and tbe present state laws giving tbem certain autbority to approve or not approve certain types of uses is ridiculous. However, the City of Roseville can do nothing about that. I am however, sending a copy of tbis letter to all of our local legislators and perhaps they will address the problem. The regulations affecting a local lake sbould be made primarily by some local unit of government tbat is directly responsible politically to tbe citizens that are using tbe lake. In many occasions it might well be a municipality, or for larger lakes, it migbt well be a county. The :i.ssue that concerDS most of tbe residez1ts that .:live on the south eJ2d of Lake Owasso is not what the so-called -no-wake- zone is. Tbe local residents do not want an additional slalom ski course. There is already one on the lake. The ski course is used by a limited number of people, and an additional ski course would only intimidate otber uses of the lake. Unfortunately, the state legislature bas apparently given the authority to approve or disapprove such slalom course to the local sheriff. I hope our legislators change that law. In the meantime, however, the sheriff apparez1tly is taking the position that if Roseville and Shoreview have inconsistent ordinances on the so-called -no-wake- sone that he will not issue any permi ts for addi tional slalom courses. In other words, wi th the so-called 300 foot rule that now exists in Roseville a slalom course would be impossible. If that is what it takes to prevent a slalom course, we urge you to please leave the 300 foot rule in effect.