09-18-80 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 Jim Weyer---8991 Jane Rd. N. - Read a prepared statement that was eritnreT-Into the record.. He expressed these statements concerning Lake Jane: no water use problem on Lake Jane today, confirmed by Officer Orth and neighbors - lake residents are taxed higher rates because of their lakeshore - is legally possible, practical and workable to allow residents to launch. any size boats and motors from private property and restrict same at a public access (Square Lake example) - against any regulations that restrict existing rights of the lakeshore residents (regulations on horsepower, limitations on skiing hours, limitations on fishing hours, etc.) Recommended no additional regu- lations be passed on Lake Jane, if problems do arise then pass required regulations, regulations should differentiate between non-lakeshore and lakeshore residents based on the fact that lakeshore owners are taxed more.: ,Mr. Weyer stated that Officer Orth feels that there are enough regulations to handle any misuse of the lake by high powered boats. Officer. Orth and Paul Rice, DNR Conservation Officer, feel it is unlikely that problems with speed boats will arise as the Lake Jane access is not designed to eftcourge klrge boats, no public beach, no picnic area, and provides parking for only eight vehicles. Don Klosterboer_ - 2119 Lake Elmo Avenue - Does not see a problem with ia. skng_on_lc Lae' Elmo today. Cites problems with fishermen. .Feels fishermen and skiiers should be treated equally;, and does not feel the hours alloted to skiiers is equitable. Wait until there is a problem before imposing more regulations. Richard Connors - 9250 Lake Jane Tr. - Lives next to the public access on Lake Jane. Said the DNR has dredged a 4 ft., not 2 ft., channel out from the launch. Could launch high horsepowered boats with no problem. Feels the lake should be kept strictly for the fishermen; add a granfather clause for larger boats owned by lakeshore residents. No problem with water skiing now; but anticipates problems if 9 additional ski boats use. the lake at once. Ben Klaus - 8190 Hill Tr. - Have all. sorts of rules; but no law enforce3nefit. Must enforce the rules that now exist. Lives on the channel between Olson and DeMontr.eville. Snowmobilers also pose problems in early morning hours. He has found that the sheriff's department does not have adequate men to handle these typEs,)f complaints. Law enforcement greatest problem rather than changing rules and laws.. Armstrong stated that law enforcement costs money. Are,pesidents'willing, to have taxes increase"dsw.for additional servicee? Roy Brogren 4769 Olson Lake Tr. - question How is the City planning on informing people, other than residents, what the Water Surface Regulations are? No information is': publicized. Mr. Brog.ren suggested posting rules at accesses. John Cromll 7930 DeMontreville.:Tr. - Asked on what basis the DNR can reject City regulations? Why do they have this power. Whittaker reponded that this is public water in the State and the, State governs it, the DNR is a state agency, and the City is only a creature of the State. Mr. Crowell asked about the possible parking ar'a for Lake DeMontreville (1.5a) Will this be limited to a certainn number of parking spaces, this could hold potentially 75 to 100 cars. Whittaker stated it would be held to 1 space for 20A of lake surface. Engineering would limit the area.to 12 spaces.