1997-01-23_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regardless iftha ordinance is changed or not, x~ould the cin~ be liable,for ant' accidents on the lake? The cih• would not be liable unless the situation were ver<• unusual. Roseville would have "diseretionan' immunity". II'Izat effect ~rould atz orditzatzce change have otz other lakes in or partly itz Roseville, such as 1~IcCurroizs atzd Josephine? The other lakes would also be changed (what if a JP?, with another cit}' was required?-PE). Only 702.03 (speed) and 702.10 (aircraft) are unique to Owasso. II'lzat role do the coutzn• commissioners have, ifany, in setting rules or in detarmifzing the nan~re of etforcement and permitting? They have no role in enforcement, permitting, or setting rules, unless the city does nothing. Both Shoreview (city code 903.020) and Roseville (702.04, 702.06) have 300' no-wake buffer ordinances enacted in 1953, so the count}• would not step in. Shoreview cannot change to 150' without Roseville's agreement and D':`TR approval. The old laws are in effect now. Other discussion: The reason to change the ordinance is to compl}' 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 would hold up in court (1~~1C). iI'ith regard to seasotal permits, does the sheriff consider only safen~, or are there ant' other criteria? It is primarily safety, but also env other laws, including cit}~ codes (t-IC). 1\lore general state goals for wrater surface use (MIST 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) II'hat is the lagnl status of tlza currant procadatra for grantitzg annual permits? Is the sheriff obliged to follo„• the cities' ~,~ishes? (`Sheriff obtains approval of both Roseville and Shoreviei,• before gratzting; public tzotification and~`or hearing and cir}--level dacision- making process) Current Sheriff s polic}• is to require approval of both cities, but this is not a legal requirement. Roseville cannot create a cit}' ordinance requiring the Sheriff to obtain Roseville's approval prior to issuance of a permit. nor can Roseville specifically outlaw any installation such as a slalom course. since the DNR gives this power to the cottntt• Sheriff. ~ change in state law would be required to do this. general discussion of Roseville's method of approving seasonal permit applications ensued -The LOTF should make recommertdations to city council regarding an appropriate permit approval procedure (PE). The city could consider both safet<• and other lake management goals. In the last few years, residents near current installations were notified 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 (~ortlt). The ezisting slalom course is too 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 penttanent: it would serve users in the SW end (DA). II "bar era the specific riparian rights? "Reasonable" use =access to, use of water. Rights e~-tend to ordinary high water mark (the point at which vegetation changes from primarily terrestrial to primarily aquatic (?~1C); commonl}', where trees start (JS). A Di~'R appropriations permit is needed to pump > 10,000 gallons r day. Do shorn o~rtzars Nava the right to clear access from shorn to lake? `Y'es. It is a riparian's right to motor out from a .dock. Because statutes or ordinances are in abrogation of (supersede) common. law, travel fromito dock must he done at no-wake speed, according to the current ordinance. I~1C felt morn information was needed on how to specify this right and said he