Laske Owasso Task Force - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 Regczrdless if the ordinance is changed or not, would the city be liable for any accidents an the lake? The city would not be liable unless the situation were very unusual. Roseville would have "discretionary irnmunity". What efJ�ect w�uld an ordinance change have aiz ather lakes in or partly zn Roseville, such as McCurron,s and Jo,sephine? The other lakes would also be changed (what if a JPA with another city was required?-PE). Only 702.03 (speed) and 702.10 (aircraft) are unique to Owasso. What rale do the county com»iissioners have, if any, in setting rules or in determining the nature of enfarcement and permitting? They have no role in enforcement, perrnitting, or setting rules, unless the city daes nothing. Both Shoreview (city code 903.020) and Roseville (702.04; 702.06) have 300' no-wake buffer ordinances enacted in 1953, so the county would not step in. Shoreview cannot chasige to 150' witliout Roseville's agreetnent and DNR approval. The old laws are in effect now. Other discussion: The reason to change the ordinance is to comply with DNR rules (GW). The Sheriff doesn't like to enforce 300' because it is hard to estimate, and warnings are issued unless the violation is so clear that a citation wauld hold up in court (MC). With regard to seasonal permits, does the sheriff'consider only safet��, or are there any other criteria? It is primarily safety, but also any other 1aws, including city codes (MC). More general state goals for water surface use (MN 6110.3200) are not considered. Both cities' approval is needed before a permit is issued (DA); a slalom that is not left up overnight doesn't need a permit (SP) What is the legal status of the ct�rrent procedZsre for granting annual permits? Is the sheri� obliged to fallaw the citzes' wishes? (Sherif,�obtains approval af bath Rosevzlle and ` Shoreview before granting; publzc notification and/or hearing and city-level decision- making process) Current Sheriff s policy is to require approval of both cities, but this is not a legal requiretnent. Roseville cannot create a city ordinance requiring the Sheriffto obtain Roseville's approval prior to issuance of a permit, nor can Raseville specifically outlaw any installation such as a slalom course, since the DNR gives this power to the county Sheriff. A change in state law would be required to do this. A general discussion of Roseville's method of approving seasonal permit applications ensu�d - The LOTF should iYiake recotntnendations to city council regarding an appropriate permit approval procedure (PE). The city could consider both safety and other lake management goals. In the las� few years, residents near current installations were aotified prior to the city decision (DA); no objections were raised, so notices ceased to be sent; starting 1996, the city will no longer approve without a public hearing (North). The existing slalom course is toa crowded; owners cannot prevent others from using it; a course in SW end of lake would be useful in certain wind conditions; this course would be portable but not necessarily pennanenr, it would serve users in the SW end (DA). What are the specific riparian rights? "Reasonable" use = access to, use of water. Rights extend to ordinary high water mark (the point at which vegetation changes from priniarily terrestrial to primarily aquatic (MC); commonly, where trees start (JS). A DNR appropriations permit is needed to pump > 10,000 gallons / day. Do shore owners have the right to clear access from shore to lake? Yes. It is a riparian's right to motor out from a dock. Because statutes or ordinances are in abrogation of (supersede) cominon la.w, travel from/to dock must be done at no-wake speed, according to the current ;, ordinance. MC felt more information was needed on how to specify this right and said he