Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 4 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
People want more than what lakeshore property can sustain
Published Saturday, February 23, 2008
Impervious surface — a term used often during recent public input for revisions of the county Shoreland Management Ordinance — is at the crux of the debate as commissioners try to balance manageable development while at the same time protecting lakes.
The term refers to a constructed hard surface that either prevents or retards the entry of water into the soil.
This, in turn, causes water to run off the surface in greater quantities and at an increased rate of flow than prior to development near lakes in Otter Tail County.
As stated in the current and in the proposed Shoreland Management Ordinance, to be finalized by commissioners in the near future, no more than 25 percent of a lake lot can be covered by impervious surfaces.
Examples of impervious surface include decks, rooftops, sidewalks, patios, permeable pavers, storage areas and concrete, asphalt or gravel driveways.
“Surface water running off the lake lot property — rather than soaking into the ground — runs off into the lake itself, oftentimes carrying nutrients and chemicals,” county Land and Resource Director Bill Kalar said. “Ordinance requirements are written to help curtail the amount of runoff.”
Gone are the days, he said, when people, for the most part, were satisfied with small lakeshore cabins.
Today, he said, dwellings and associated construction “seems to get bigger all the time.”
In previous decades, at lakes throughout Otter Tail County, the norm was pretty much a small unpaved driveway with people parking vehicles, outside, alongside their cabins.
“Today,” Kalar said, “you see not only larger dwellings but also large garages, larger driveways and side buildings such as pole sheds. People oftentimes want more things on their property than what the lakeshore property can sustain.”
Thus far the five-member board of commissioners (Sydney Nelson, Everett Erickson, Dennis Mosher, Roger Froemming and Robert Block) support the 25 percent rule.
The board will hold its next regular meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 26.
Comments
The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.Posted by acclyde (anonymous) on February 23, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
total Bull$^tt.
i'm not even a lakeshore owner, but those idiots that make the rules about "wetlands" and "lakeshore" are really getting a god complex.
personal freedom is dieing in this country. i used to be Republican, they used to watch out for freedom. now the Republicans are the ones pushing for wire taps and less personal freedom.
maybe when we get rid of the Republicans this year, the laws will losen up a bit on lakeshore.
Posted by Clara (anonymous) on February 25, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is one case where I believe regulation is necessary. Those clearwater lakes in Otter Tail County, without regulation, will end up polluted and unuseable.
I really don't think this is a political issue, just good environmental stewardship.
Posted by Mel (anonymous) on February 25, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What is funny (strange) is that people think the gov't is interested in tapping your phone. But the left is perfectly willing to turn over all their medical records to get national health care. (among other things) Back to the Lake shore thing, the county should ease off a bit, and tax a little less.
Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on February 25, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the people who are most upset about the way our lakes and surrounding areas are being treated are the people who grew up on the lakes.
Personally, I grew up on Ottertail Lake, back before jerks like Ed Smith and the 'River Rats' built their multi-million dollar "cabins" on the lake - back when people actually cared about their neighbors and the effect they have on the environment.
There wouldn't be a need for regulation if these sorts of people would take a step back an examine the negative impact they have - however, because they have the money, they don't have to care...they'll do what they want, and make everyone else deal with the problem.
So, what happens? - lack of personal responsibility is what leads to government regulation. I hate regulation, but I love the lakes even more.
I'd like my children, and my children's children to enjoy the lakes. I'd also like them to learn to respect the environment and their neighbors...
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)