10-22-1990 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and access ramps have not been the source of the growth in boating over the last 15 years. Municipal docks now put 81 percent more boats on the lake than they did 15 years ago. Marinas have grown by 22 percent and Homeowner associations by 96 percent. Add yacht clubs and apartments on the lake, and there are now nearly 1100 more boats stored at these facilities than there were 15 years ago. (See Table 4 in the plan). During that time, public access boat ramps have not changed significantly. The threat to increasing the number of boats on the lake is cleat ly not public access points, but the other forms of access. Our emphasis on public recreational lands on the lake has the potential of increasing the number of boats by approximately 3^ at a maximum. The problem is not with public access, it is all of the individual multiple dock licenfvs that the LMCD reviews each month. This plan proposes unprecedented controls on access to the lake; controls that do not now exist. The level of discipline required by the LMCD Board in the future far exceeds that presently required. 2. The Plan still does not specifically incorporate: a. a definition of Metropolitan Council's role in plan review. the process for changes in the plan that may require review by others in the future. How actual or alleged differences between the plan on the one hand and LMCD actions and ordinances on the other are to be resolved legally. b. c. RESPONSE: Page 7, third paragraph after "ALITHORITY" states; "Section 473 grants the Metropolitan Council specific authority to review management plans prepared by local or regional (metropolitan area) agencies...and precludes implementation during the review period." As for point b, above, we know of no statutory provision that requires review by any organization, if the LMTO Board determined changes were needed. Perhaps the LMCD attorney should review this point. What happens when the LMCD Board decides to diverge from the plan is not handled in any statute that we are aware of. Certainly, lake ma^'^gement agencies are not now subjected to the same sort of consistenc> review that cities are with their comprehensive plans. Cities are go\.^*-ned by the Land Planning Act, the LMCD is not. The legislature would have to decide that lake management agencies need that kind of consistency review. If Orono wants consistency review by the Metropolitan Council for this Management Program, we suppose the LMCD could seek an interagency agreement to establish such a review process. If Orono has some other form or review in mind, the LMCD Board could most probably establish the apptopria»e interagency agreement. No such proposal was made during the planning process, and w^ know of no specific proposal now.