Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 21 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Shoreline ordinance adopted
Camping requirements create stumbling block.
Published Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Sydney Nelson
After four years of planning, the Otter Tail County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday unanimously approved the long-awaited revisions to the county Shoreland Management Ordinance. The final draft will be submitted to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
“This process goes back four years, and it’s good to finally get the job done,” commission chairperson Sydney Nelson said. “We’ve had good public input and work from a citizens advisory committee that included lake-shore property owners, developers, engineers and others.”
In the end, Nelson said he and fellow commissioners did their best to come up with a document that is fair to all concerned — while at the same time keeping lake preservation in mind.
But before the final vote was taken, the board wrestled with what to include — and what not to include — in the section of the ordinance pertaining to single family residential lots containing only one dwelling unit. Similar to the board meeting a week ago, requirements as to the use of a recreational camping unit (RCU) became the main issue Tuesday.
The county board decided not to substantially change the one dwelling per lot rule. As things stand now, RCUs will have to be stored off of lake lots. However, a tent or tents not exceeding 100 square feet of space will be allowed at lake lots.
On Tuesday board members went back and forth discussing proposals to allow RCUs at lake lots. In the end, however, no RCU language was left in the Shoreland Management Ordinance document that will be submitted to the state DNR.
Last week and this week there was proposed wording that an RCU could be placed onsite without a site permit if special requirements — and a certain number of usage days — were met. A stipulation said the RCU could not have any sewer or water connections.
On Tuesday board members talked about special permits for seasonal RCU storage. In the end, however, the fear was that so-called recreational camping units would be used by guests all summer long, and not be unused according to county regulations.
After the board meeting individual commissioners admitted their reluctance to force property owners to store their RCUs off site. However, they said abuse of the RCU regulations could result in possible adverse effects on lakes. They also cited enforcement problems for county employees who do not have adequate manpower.
No reference to RCUs, however, is good news to county resort owners. In earlier citizen input meetings, resort owners said that the RCU provisions — if included in the final document — would encourage people to stay as guests of lakeshore property owners and not opt for staying at resorts.
Other recent changes to the proposed ordinance include a requirement for surveyor drawings for certain subdivisions, new zoning requirements and sewage treatment area designations, to name a few.
“The time has come to make a final vote on the revised document,” Commissioner Dennis Mosher said Tuesday. Fellow commissioners, with the exception of Commissioner Everett Erickson who was absent, concurred.
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 positivelyperham (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
very sad day for our rights just took another massive hit. yes, lakes need help to be protected, but 14 PAGES worth of changes? cmon, the existing plan wasnt that bad. most of the changes are designed to suck alot more money out of the lakeshore owners and NO mention of farmers???? they can still let their cows crap and pee in a lake. they can still farm right up to the lakeshore, cmon, lets be fair, if we are truly going to protect the lakes then lets do it. sad part is, most people that live on the lakes are very concerned about them and do what they can to protect them. the few that dont are still going to do what they want and the county or their bull#$%t new ordinances will not catch them. this was a waste of time and our rights. there is no reason nazi's like bill and mark from shoreland management should ever be given this much power.
Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Crybaby.
Posted by fergusfallsmom (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Positivelyperham is not that positive! ;-)
Posted by HoldenCaulfield (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 8:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
cmon.....cmon
Posted by walleye29 (anonymous) on February 27, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with positivelyPerham we need to reduce the number of restictions placed on us by government not increase them. The fact that allowing someone to have a unit on their property may hurt resorts is crasy. Business's are here for us the taxpayers by providing needed services and products, we are not here to make sure they are successfull. The only real issue is how these units effect the quality of our lakes, personally I don't how someone keeping a camper on the property is such a bad thing,
This kinda reminds you of yesterdays article about the new law that forbides smoking is a privatley owned business. Thats a decision that should be left up to the business owner!
Posted by pureprairie (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
keeping up with the californiens,,,
everyone,, i am so glad to see that you have become like the californians.. it took you long enough. way back in the 60,s and 70s, cal began the landuse restrictions that it has taken 40ty years to reach the NORTHWOODs of minnesota.
the saying "think outside the box"implies trying new approaches,,, ottertail county commisioners are still wanting to get in the box and be like the californians.
just to give you the heads up on what else to expect in the coming years.
there are NOW 26 separate inspections by the county inspectors for a normal new home construction. those prividged enough to be able to build,, find these permits cost them 8 to 12 thousand dollars. this money goes to pay the many new inspectors and staff(cars too) to enforce these laws.
(creating more good government paying jobs).
....
i use to speak with pride of how in ottertail county they did not have building permits.
i though it turned out pretty nice...
but then,,,, "trouble in paradise".
BUT TAKING AWAY MANS ABILITIES TO BETTER HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY ON HIS OWN LAND IS A REAL SIN.
repeal this and stop taking away OUR RITES to OUR LAND!
my tent is 12 by 12,,, they want to come out and measure this and tell me to pack it up or go to jail... thats a crime..
and if my son wants to live in my rv parked next to my cabin for the summer,,,that is my business and not the county commisioners.
Posted by PD (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do the resort owners also pay the permit fee for having campers on their property? We have camped several times at local resorts but will review that for future outings. As taxpayers living on the lake, paying additional taxes for the privelige, we should not have to pay permit fees to store our camper on our property. Seems like the county officials didn't stand up for what they believed to be the common sense decision. Too bad they are intimidated by private business and the Shoreland Management team.
Posted by pureprairie (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
K>I>S>S>
"and the beat goes on",,,
douglas county inspectors,,,
another example of more restrictions and inspectors to come..
in douglas county before you can do home improvements like add a deck you have to have inspectors out to test your sewer system and if not up to the newest requirements it has to be replaced..
before you put the new steps or handrail on your dream home you will have to put in a new sewer system or what ever else they mandate.
that sewer system that use to cost us less than a thousand dollars now costs almost ten thousand. material and labor are about the same but permits ,engineering and inspections cost 7 or 8 thousand.
and to make this even more laughible,,, the lake home owners who paid the big bucks on lake miltona and put in these new systems now get to pay again as the commisioners are now planning on putting sewer lines around the lake.
K>I>S>S> keep it simple stupid
Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If any one of those morons who built their mega "cabins" on any one of Ottertail County's beautiful lakes would've practiced personal responsibility, the government would've never had to get involved...plain and simple.
I am happy with the new regulations, though sad that it had to come. However, it means there's hope that my children will be able to enjoy the same lakes and rivers that I did growing up in Ottertail County.
Posted by positivelyperham (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
andy your a crybaby. it was shoreland management and the variance boards that allowed "Mega" cabins to be built. the new ordinance isnt going to affect that at all. as far as personal responsibility, people now a days are more educated and concerned about the lakes. most of these ordinances dont do squat to protect the lakes, just give more people tighter control over our lives.
PD - yes, resorts do pay extra for the campsites, in way of licensing for each one and taxes on the value of each site. the commissioners made this seem like the resorters are the bad guys here. they arent, the whole thing stinks. they dont allow you to have those rv's on the property now, what in the world would ever make you think they would change their mind and give you "more rights" and "control" as they are in the process of taking them away.
most of these new changes were not needed, instead they should have been compromising and working with people to address and fix the real issues needed. call your commissioner and tell them they need to rescind this whole mistake and redo it from scratch. it took 4 years because the group(s) put in charge had their own personal agendas as well. this was a bad deal from the start. also the best part of this is you have to love the timing of this, ram it thru now when most lakeshore owners arent around. they are too gutless to wait until summer and take public opinions from all effected. what a complete joke our county government is.
Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 11:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Look - as a property owner on Ottertail Lake, I know some of your information is very misleading. Most of the people complaining are the jerks like those who live on the east side of the Ottertail Lake - they cry 'cause they can't get their way with how the river is routed. They cry 'cause they have to mow the property where they store their unused RVs. They muscle their their proposals for changing the shoreline by bypassing the lake property owners association and go straight to the Congressman without consulting their neighbors. They'll threaten and harrass neighbors who stand up to them...believing their money will make everyone bend their way.
I'll say it again, I don't like government regulation - but these sorts of people don't have any consideration for the environment or those around them....
Posted by pureprairie (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
hey all, here is another.. when gas gets near 4 dollars a gallon and you can no longer leave the rv parked at the lake lot you bought,, just think of the extra gas required to drive that big rig back and forth.. more gas used,,, high prices..
and then all those mega cabins built as great investment properties.. they need heat year round and yet get used only a few months.. we are told to turn the heat down to conserve and to drive less and to turn the lights off when not in use but yet they build homes that no one lives is and then waste energy and drive land and home prices up and cause a need to enact regulations to prevent polution and yet i see that rich guy in his mega cabin burning his leaves on the beach and causing even more pollution.
disgusted with the commissioners
it is time for a good house cleaning in fergus.
Posted by hennenshouse (anonymous) on February 28, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I doent understand how my rcu on my lake lot is affecting my lake? Please help me understand this.
Posted by positivelyperham (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
it doesnt, its just a control thing for shoreland management, they have bs'ed the commissioners into needing all of this control and ordinances.
Posted by goldwalleye (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 2:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
RCU's have holding tanks, How do the tenters take care of there s#!+
Posted by Subydude1 (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 4:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This just means responsible campers with RCU's will turn into tenting hippies and thrash everything and crap and urinate everywhere and liter t.p. and stuff everywhere. I hope the commissioners catch a huge "brown" bass, maybe they can rethink it then. But then again they probably don't spend that much time at the lake, you know....too busy writing ordinances to ruin other peoples lifestyles.
Posted by AndyMosity (anonymous) on March 1, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah - because:
1. There sure is a hippie problem up in Ottertail County
and
2. That's what hippies are famous for - creating a lot of pollution.
Posted by mgdbottled (anonymous) on March 1, 2008 at 7:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lakes are for millionaires. The people with power. The sooner you poor folk with your trailers realize this, the better off you'll be. It's not at all about any concern over the environment or lake quality. It's all about the fact that rich people's poop doesn't pollute. Poor peoples poop does. Get over it. That's just the way it is.
Posted by pacman (anonymous) on March 3, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The other thing people need to understand is that this does not only apply to the use of campers on a lake. This ordinance also affects the person that lives on any land that is within 1000 feet of a lake. One example is at the public hearings for the ordinance; Mr. Kalar of the Land & Resource department stated that a 200 acre farm is considered one lot, which means that you would not be able legally keep your own RV on this property either.
The other problem with this ordinance is that it is selectively enforced, I have heard both Mr. Kalar and one of the County Commissioner’s say that they do not look for violations but respond to complaints that someone has a RV on their property.
Posted by pplthesedays (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 10:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
a
Posted by positivelyperham (anonymous) on March 4, 2008 at 3:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
thats exactly what they do, respond to complaints, i had to laugh as they came to my lake place to spank me for my popup camper that was next to my garage in the closed position with a tarp over the top of it. as they drove down my driveway passing the neighbors home that uses the same driveway with 2 rvs in use from their family members. they never even stopped there. both my neighbor and i thought that was so "shoreland management". you either have to enforce the ordinance equally at all times or remove it. i think its time for a house cleaning and policy change at shoreland management. i have already told my commissioner (pictured for this article) that i will do everything in my power to make sure anyone else running against him this next term wins. like i said, im all for protecting the lakes but lets use some fairness, equality and for godsake some common sense. 14 PAGES OF CHANGES RAMMED THRU IN THE WINTER WHEN A LARGE NUMBER OF THE LAKE OWNERS ARE NOT PRESENT. nothing fair in that.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)