Laserfiche WebLink
\ n *:• t , <br />' i <br />Act ion Report : <br />Mce ting: <br />I.AKIi MlNN ‘-’TONKA CONSliKVATlON DISTRICT <br />Uc. <br />Water Structures Committee <br />7:30 AM.. Saturday. February 13. 1993 <br />Norwest Bank Building. Wayzay^^ R(^og| <br />Douglas Babcock. Chair. Spring Park; Bert <br />James Grathwol. Excelsior: David Cochran. <br />Members Present: <br />Foster, Deephaven <br />Greenwood: Scott (Carlson. Minnetrista; Tom Penn, Tonka Bay; <br />Robert Slocum, Woodland. <br />The meeting was called to order by Chair Babcock at 7:30 AM. <br />1. First reading of draft ordinance prohibiting non-cncased <br />molded polystyrene foam in floating structures. <br />The committee received a draft of the subject ordinance. <br />Babcock submitted a letter from the City of Spring Park express­ <br />ing its objection to the sunset prevision on pre-existing struc­ <br />tures being set at 12/31/94. except mooring buoys less than 2’ in <br />diameter which will be allowed to exist to 12/31/97. The Spring <br />Park Council expressed the opinion that the proposed ordinance <br />was showing favor to ;: iilboat owners and their mooring buoys. <br />Babcock explained that Spring Park believes the deadline for <br />buoys should be same as the dock structures. He interpreted the <br />committee action as based on the fact that there are so many <br />buoys that time is needed to communicate the prohibition to the <br />owners. Grathwol questioned the reasoning that the purpose was <br />to favor sailors. Babcock responded that, while there is a <br />logistical problem in notifying users, there is a perception of <br />favoritism. He agreed the problem is disintegration of the po­ <br />lystyrene at docks and at the time of ordinance preparation the <br />thought was that the buoys were not an immediate problem. The <br />purpose was to eliminate the disintegration of non-encased po­ <br />lystyrene foam in an orderly manner. Foster added it is his <br />belief the large buoys fields are using encased buoys and the <br />extended deadline was aimed at the individual buoy user. <br />MOTION: Babcock moved. Grathwol seconded, to amend the draft <br />ordina:ice to bring both docks and buoys into the same time frame. <br />DISCUSSION: In response to a question from Carlson regarding the <br />number of buoys involvevl, Thibault will get the actual count for <br />1992 from the Water Patrol. <br />Grathwol suggested a letter to Spring Park e.xplaining that <br />it was a matter of enforcement rather than an intent to favor any <br />group of users. Carlson added tha' the letter should ex(.lain <br />where the firoblem now exists, noting that i.ne larger buoys fields <br />are using encased polystyrene. <br />VOTE: Babcock voted aye. Foster. Slocum. Carlson. Grathwol. <br />Cochran and Penn voted nay. Motion failed. <br />FURTHER DISCUSSION: Grathwol suggested eliminating (a) from Subd <br />13. a preamble in which the LMCD Board of Directors gives reasons <br />for the adoption of the ordinance. He said it could be moved up <br />to Section I and not put into the Code. <br />- continued