Thursday, February 7, 2008

P.O.P.U.L.A.R.: Property Owners Protecting Useful Lake Access Rights

Welcome to the new blog for P.O.P.U.L.A.R., Property Owners Protecting Useful Lake Access Rights.

My name is Sam Stern. I'm an attorney who has been working with clients with homes on Lake Minnetonka and Gull Lake to respond to efforts by the Minnesota D.N.R. to further regulate the use and enjoyment of lakeshore property by the property owners.

We formed P.O.P.U.L.A.R. as a means to focus the efforts of property owners interested in this issue. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. is an unincorporated association. If you want to be a member, you're a member. We recognize that with hundreds of thousands of lakeshore property owners in the State of Minnesota, we will not reach unanimous agreement on all issues affecting lakeshore property rights. However, by working together in areas of common interests, and forcing public officials responsible to their constituents to feel the heat of our sheer numbers, we believe we can achieve our goals and limit the government's intrusion with unnecessary regulations.

I decided to create this blog as a way of making it easy to keep everyone up to date. While I have been sending out e-mails (and will continue to do so when a new blog is posted), some recipients have had trouble downloading the attachments. By referring people to the blog, that won't be a problem.

We hope to reach some resolution of the difficulties posed by the 2008 General Permit issued by the DNR on January 24th as quickly as possible. We are aware that P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members would like some direction prior to the start of the 2008 season. Today, I had several meetings at the Capitol. The meetings included discussions with Governor Pawlenty's office and with legislative leaders. The consensus that came out of the meetings was that this remains first and foremost a DNR issue. The governor's office is arranging a meeting for me with the Deputy Commissioner of the DNR. The letters and e-mails that have been sent out by P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members are having a positive effect insofar as the administration is open to discussion and knows it cannot merely pay lip service to the concerns of the thousands of lakeshore owners our message reaches.

We need to keep up the pressure. Please continue to correspond with your state representative and state senator, and with the governor's office to let them know of your concern. You can identify your state representative and senator by going to www.leg.state.mn.us and clicking on the "Who Represents Me?" link. Be sure to correspond with legislative representatives at both your lakeshore site and your regular home (if different). Governor Pawlenty can be reached by e-mail at tim.pawlenty@state.mn.us

We have been highlighting the following points:
1. It ain't broke; don't fix it.
2. The DNR has no scientific studies to back up the decision to restrict the size of dock platforms. The Dock Advisory Committee noted the need for more information in its final recommendations. The study that was referred to in the Dock Advisory Committee's town hall presentations focused on the differences in aquatic environments resulting from allowing a pristine lake to be developed, not the incremental changes resulting from the installation of docks once development occurred.
2. It does not make sense to impose the same regulations for all lakes.
3. It is unfair not to grandfather in existing structures, at least up to some reasonable size, for lakeshore owners who have had the structures in place since before the regulations were adopted in 2002.
4. It is unfair not to allow lakeshore owners who installed dock platforms after 2002 to retain them insofar as the new regulations were adopted without adequate notice, ignored with respect to enforcement and included permitting procedures that were not followed by the DNR.
5. The inclusion of an "Aquatic Impact Area" as a condition in the 2008 General Permit is the first step towards significantly more onerous restrictions on the use and enjoyment of lakes by lakeshore property owners. Although currently discretionary because the DNR did not want to go through formal rulemaking, the DNR's history of moving towards increase restrictions makes it likely that there will be an attempt to mandate the Aquatic Impact Area in the future.
6. Lakeshore property owners stand to lose thousands of dollars on obsolete dock sections if the 2008 General Permit is enforced.
7. There is no way to effectively enforce the 2008 General Permit. The DNR has indicated enforcement will vary by county since some county attorneys refuse to prosecute dock size violations. The DNR has also indicated that it does not have the resources to patrol every lake in Minnesota to assure compliance with the 2008 General Permit. The inability to uniformly enforce the 2008 General Permit renders it constitutionally deficient.
8. Property taxes are based on the length of shoreline owned. If the DNR is allowed to tell someone with 100 feet of shoreline that he or she can have no greater use than the neighbor with 50 feet of shoreline, an unavoidable result from imposition of an Aquatic Impact Area regulation, then taxes on the longer shoreline should be reduced. As we neither expect that or H*ll to freeze over, more onerous regulations that will have the limiting affect described should not be allowed.
9. This is a non-partisan issue. P.O.P.U.L.A.R. members range from owners of large homes on well-developed lakes to owners of small cabins that have been in the family for generations located on more pristine lakes.

Anyone reading this who wishes to be on the P.O.P.U.L.A.R. mailing list should send an e-mail to protectlakes@gmail.com. I wish to express my thanks to everyone who has been so responsive to my requests to provide information needed to carry on this cause. Also, the willingness of individuals with contact lists to share our information with their contacts has been incredibly beneficial.

Finally, for now, here is the PowerPoint Presentation I prepared to use as a lobbying tool. It's crude, but it makes the points. It's also hard to read many of the slides at the size allowed by this blog. In the coming days, I'll post the substance of the PowerPoint slides and comments on the blog so don't worry about not being able to read everything below. When watching the slideshow, press the "pause" icon to stop it and take more time to read a particular slide.

Please note that the reference to the 250 square foot dock platform described as a goal has to be read in connection with the corresponding goal to mandate the issuance of permits for non-conforming platforms where the property owner demonstrates a need.



21 comments:

Anonymous said...

We are on Hunters Point, Gull Lake. Our platform is larger than 120 sq ft. We use this platform extensively especially when we have larger gatherings at the lake. Family, relatives, friends including grandparents come out on the dock to enjoy the kids playing, skiing, tubing along with other water activities, which from the shore would be hard to see. This is a completely riduculous circumstance that someone else is trying to dictate what is best for the lake owners. No one on Gull or any other lake would want to Jeapordize the value or quality of their lake. We find that sitting out on the dock with friends and family watching boaters and other activities is one of the most enjoyable parts of the lake. Leave our docks alone.

Anonymous said...

We are on the north shore of Trout Lake of the Whitefish Chain. Our platform is larger than 120 ft. Our frontage is very shallow so our dock extends a long way from the shore. We added to our platform so that we could sit comfortably and watch our children swim at the end of our dock. We have recently purchased the property next to our original property. We naturalized the shoreline and did not put a dock from that property at all. It is not fair that someone with more shoreline is held to the same standards at those with 100ft. We paid a lot of money initially and continue to pay alot of property taxes for that additional frontage which you are now not allowing us access to. The lakes that the DNR studied for dock conformity on our chain (Hay and Bertha) are small lakes with little elevation therefore having no need for a bigger platform. The larger lakes such as Whitefish, Trout and Cross have a substantial number of docks with large platforms to allow them access to the lake. There is no one more concerned about the quality of our lakes than the lake owners themselves. It seems that DNR could do a lot more good focusing on issues that would actually do something to improve the water quality of our lakes.

Anonymous said...

I own a dock sales and service company in mid-minnesota with the majority of my service work on the whitefish chain. I would say that over 50% of the docks I service on the chain have a platform over the 120' mark. The most common concern I hear from my customers is the investment they have into their platforms. I know the cost well as I have sold to many of them.
This is all I do so obviously I am concerned. The dock industry is a staple business in the lakes area, employing hundreds of people. has anyone looked at this matter through a economic standpoint? I do everyday.

Anonymous said...

I'm a cabin owner on Lower Hay Lake and have been since 1975. I
have had a non-conforming platform since that time un'be'knownst to me. Why? Because that is the space our family needs and uses for all the activities to our lake. My boat and pontoon shore station cover 240 sq. ft. each and now I'm told I can only have a 170 sq. ft. platform! It makes no sense at all. Paul Schroeder

Anonymous said...

I have a place on Trout Lake on the Whitefish Chain and have a platform considerably larger than 120 square feet. My house is at the top of a steep hill which runs down to the water's edge and I have left this hill in a natural state. Would the DNR prefer I clearcut my property near the water's edge in order to create a an area my family and I can utilize for recreation and reduce the size of my dock platform? This does not make any sense! It would be far more detrimental to eliminate these trees and natural vegetation which reduce erosion and aid in natural filtration. However, if that's what they want.....

Anonymous said...

I put my first dock in at my cabin when I bought it in 1990. The platform was larger than 120 square feet. I replaced it with new dock in 2000 and again, the platform was larger than 120 square feet. Now I am being told I will be in violation of state law if I install my dock this spring. If the rules were changed in 2002 why was there not any public notification or discussion? There goes my clean record.

Anonymous said...

Whitefish owner,
Our dock has been larger than 120 sp feet since 1986. Our property has a 15-20 foot elevation abovet the lake, whe do not have a beach or seating area on shore. The DNR will not let me modify the shoreline to rectify this. Our family is not large, 2 parents, 2 children, two in-laws, one grandchild and two golden retreivers. 120 square feet provides 17 square feet per person (if my daughter is pregnent that becomes 15. We expect both kids to conceive or adopt at least 2 kids apiece... now we are down to 12 square feet apiece. If the dogs join us it beomes 8.5. With the 120 square foot rule we won't have any friends or visitors so that isn't a problem. Unfortunately, my wife's family visits often... then we have at least 20 people. Now we're down to 6 sq feet apiece. This rule makes it very difficult for our family to use the property, however,I still get to pay political subdivisions of the State of Minn over $25,000 a year it taxes. As luck would have it, I am not a resident of Minnesota so I have no voting rights and enjoy fractional benefits. This rule sucks.

Anonymous said...

I am a property owner on the south side of Big Trout Lake and have been since 1999. The area where I am at is very shallow and I have to have a long dock (over 120 feet)to get to water deep enough to pull my boats in and for swimming. I have a platform larger than the 120 sq ft. I also have a steep bank to the lake, which I've chosen to leave natural, instead, using my dock/platform for lakeside activities. I use my dock extensively for having guests, watching my kids swim and having multiple guests with boats tied up to the docking area.

Anonymous said...

We have a place on Gull Lake, please explain how anybody could dock a boat on a windy day, with a platform that is 120sf?

Anonymous said...

I hope nobody has any children or teenagers that might be inclined to dive off the end of their dock. Have the first responders standing by because four feet of water is not a sufficient depth and we will see a marked increase in injuries this year.

Anonymous said...

We are on Rocky Point Gull Lake. Our platform is greater than 120 sq ft. We require a platform our size to safely dock boats, swim from while we have guest boats tied up, and for general sun, as our shore is shaded with natural majestic pines that we intend to leave. As new owners we reshaped the dock arrangement and reduced the non-platform area by 160 sq ft. We have been allowing our shoreline to 'go back to nature' to reduce pesticides from the lake and make room for the little creatures. This is magnitudes more important than "dock control". We deeply care about the lake. We would not want to jeopardize the value or quality of the lake for any reason. We don't know how this dock rule improves our lake; we see it as a ridiculous infringement on our rights. We are not even mentioning the burdensome cost to comply, nor the enormous ever increasing property taxes continuously paid. The DNR should get on to something important like pesticides.

Anonymous said...

We have a lake home on Daggett Lake, in the Whitefish Chain. We purchased in 1990. We also have had a nonconforming dock, since about 1995. It has a platform depth dimension of 10' and is in almost 6' of water as our bottom drops off quickly. The area is around 192 sft, but certainly much smaller than some of the really outrageous platforms around us. Having spent many years on the Whitefish chain, I am absolutely confident that nonconforming docks are 50% minimum.
The Mn DNR must have better public meetings on this subject than what they did - clearly they must have scheduled the meetings that were held to avoid public input, not foster it. The Mn DNR is obligated to substantiate their claims concerning habitat and vegetation impact with scientific data. I keep looking for evidence of any data, and have not found anything quantitative. The current rules are excessive, unenforceable, and not well thought through. Reload and come up with something achievable.

Anonymous said...

One blogger already mentioned this thought but it bears repeating: The lakeshore property owners are the ones that have been and continue to be primarily concerned and protective of the lakes and the shoreline. We own a seasonal cabin on Trout Lake and 6 years ago invested in a top shelf dock that included a platform that excees the dimensions now limited by the DNR. The reason for the platform is simple: our property is seasonal and we enjoy the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to come join us for extended weekends. In addition we have elderly parents who also enjoy the beauty of the lake country and the larger platform allows all of us the opportunity to be on the dock and enjoy watching the children swim and the boats that pass by. If the DNR wants to proceed along this line then at a minimum a property owner who has made the investment in a dock and a platform should be grandfathered in prior to the implementation of the new rules. Of course, that grandfather privilege would be premised on the property owners respect and protection of the lake and the shorelone. Having spent all of my life in the lake country I have never come across a single lake front property owner who has not protected and taken care of the water quality and the shoreline. I urge the DNR to postpone the effective date of these rules and allow for a more detailed study and the consideration of grandfathering in those property owners that have made a substantial investment in a dock and a platform. Thanks for taking the time to read this note.

Anonymous said...

We are on Daggett Lake on the Whitefish Chain. When we installed our new docks and platform in 2001 we were in compliance. When Boathouses were "outlawed" by the DNR, the existing ones were "grandfathered" and did not have to be torn down (or reduced in size). Why shouldn't docks and platforms be the same? Why should we have to throw out good dock sections that we paid a lot of money for when we were in compliance when they were first installed? Also, limiting the depth at the end of the dock to 4' with the changes in water depth that have been evident in past years, will cause many property owners not to be able to enjoy their boats when the water level is lower. Even last summer many boat owners could not get their boats away from the dock. And, at what point in the summer will the water depth be measured when it varies so much. We have a 26' foot boat and we need to be in water deep enough to bring the boat in so that the end of the boat is up to the end of the dock so that the elderly in our family can enter and exit the boat safely on the back of the boat. Depth allowed should be at least 6' at the end of the dock. Reconfiguration will cost additional expense to add connections. We think that the vast majority of property owners on the lakes are respectful of the lakeshore and do a good job of properly maintaining it for the good of the environment.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

The Minnesota legislature should immediately call for hearings in regard to this matter and put in place a moritoriam on enforcement by the DNR of their new rules until both adequate public comment can be taken and the legislature can enact legislation in reaction thereto.

Anonymous said...

We are on Big Trout Lake.  Our platform has been larger than 120 sq ft. for over 12 years.  Our place on the lake is the families gathering spot and we spend 90% of our lake time on the dock platform. We often have 15-20 family members including very young grandchildren and children with disabilities on that platform.  We remain there virtually all day, bothering no one.  Without this safe island for our family we will be forced to put our most fragile and vulnerable family members at risk and join the thousands of boaters that already conjest our waterways.  We will be forced to buy insainly expensive fuel to motor around the lakes, which will in turn contribute to air, water and noise pollution.  We will now be forced to compete with enormous boats, some going in excess of 100mph. and piloted by drinking drivers.  I don't understand why the DNR would want to eliminate these safe haven docks for families and put these families at risk in boats.  Our family has been able to enjoy the lake in this "0-impact", way for many years. There is no good reason to change it now.  Furthermore, in the years we've been on this lake, we have seen the water clarity and fish populations increase.  Put on a snorkle and mask and look under our dock.  You will find that several fish species thrive here.  Fish spawn all around our dock and stay there for protection and shade.  Fisherman love these larger docks because they provide, shade, shelter and a perfect habitat for fish to enjoy.  Its no coincidence that during fishing tournements we have many fisherman casting under and around these larger docks.  These larger docks are providing critical habitat and an ecosystem that promotes fish populations.  We believe these new regulations are at the very least untested and short sighted, and in reality are  detrimental to lakes and fish and dangerous for families like ours.To reduce air, water, and noise pollution on our lakes and promote a healthy and vibrant fish environment, we believe the DNR should embrace the larger docks and concentrate their limited resources on pesticide/herbicide elimination from our lakes and shores.  We, the lakeshore owners, are excellent stewards of our lakes because we study and observe it every day. We are probably more in tune with the health of our lakes than a DNR official, who with limited resources, can only take a snapshot once in a while.
Please don't destroy these vital ecosystems. At least grandfather the larger docks in so there can actually be some study done to prove their worth.

Anonymous said...

Our family is on Island Lake, part of the White Fish Chain. We too like most of the docks on the lake will not meet the “newly enforced” rules by the DNR. We added a larger platform at the end of our dock not because we have parties, but rather because of a need to enjoy the lake. Our lakeshore is extremely porous and we are not able to sit on the shore line. I would also enjoy reading an in-depth analysis on the advantages or disadvantages of a larger platform. Fishermen sure seem to know where the best fishing is located. Our family supports clean lakes, vegetation at supports fish, protection of our shoreline and safe boating. These are the areas I would ask the DNR to focus and spent our tax dollars on. Sitting on a dock with one’s family should not be in the domain of the government!

Anonymous said...

Our family has a place on Rush Lake. We also have a platform section larger than 120 sq. ft. I agree with the others that have posted here. The people that care the most about keeping the lakes nice are the home owners not the general public. The DNR needs to say out of the tax payers business and quit taking things away from the homeowners. I also agree with whoever posted about how having a nice platform greats a safe haven for everyone instead of forcing them out onto the water only to pollute the waterways even more with even more traffic than there already is.

Anonymous said...

As a lake shore owner and taxpayer, why do we need legislation to govern what most of us cherish. We will have to pay for "enforcement" of less than 10% of violation of a "suggested" law. This is not what I call good business or common sense.

Anonymous said...

We are on the east shore of Rush Lake on the Whitefish Chain. According to our latest Survey we have 162 ft of shoreline. We have a 10 to 12 ft elevation from the lake. We have owned this property since the very early ninties and have chosen to keep our shorline in a natural state. In doing so, we have limited our "trimming and removal" of trees and vegetation along our bank and bluff areas. I am sure that if we had chosen to do so whether it was legal or illegal, we could have "landscaped"
or "altered" our shoreline over the years. We have seen it done elswhere permitted or not. The consequence of this is that it has limited our lake views but has gained us privacy and we believe, enhanced the overall "natural" look of our shoreline.

We give this background because we made the decision to have a dock platform many years ago. It would be redundant to repeat all the comments made by previous property owners so we would just like to add or empahsize a few points. We have two elderly grandparents that are reluctant participate in lake activities because it is difficult for them to access the dock due to the stairs and elevation. They were uncomfortable walking or sitting on an unstable 4 ft dock with a 10ft "L". With our dock platform, we can assist them down to the dock and they can literally enjoy hours of relaxation with family and grandkids as well as fishing right off the dock without climbing in and out of a boat. Yes, we have a small table with an umbrella on our platform, to shade from the sun. One grandparent has had skin cancer surgery.

Our six grandkids spend most of their time at the lake on the dock, fishing, swimming and other family recreation. The dock platform allows safe separation when excited 3 to 10 year olds are learning to "cast". They enjoy catching all species and as many have stated earlier, our dock and platform are a haven for everthing from minnows to bullheads. Our platform allows us to limit our use of our boats and still enjoy our lake property. Every fishing tournament brings contestants in search of the largest Bass. We have tournament sized Bass hanging out under our platform. We have taught our kids and grandkids the virtues of "catch and release" from our platform. And yes, we do on occasion keep some Sunnies and Crappies for a fishfry. None go in to the freezer. Isn't that what life at the lake is all about?
We have never had a "Party" on our platform. We do on occasion bring down a bottle of wine, watch the sunset or the "fireworks", and wave and socialize with neighbors passing by on their boats. We cannot do this from our land because of the elevation and aforementioned decision to favor trees and vegetation. Again, our boat can remain in its lift. We love the "Chain" and spend many hours boating on it. The truth is, it is getting more congested, and any way to limit this congestion by using our dock platform should add, not detract from the overall quality of life both on the lake and off.

With all of the other more pressing demands on the DNR manpower and financial resources, we need to see scientific proof that our dock is detrimental to the quality of our lakes. If this can independently and fairly verified, we will voluntarily bring our dock platform in to whatever is deemed reasonable. We do not need another government regualtion. Our guess at this point, is that once again we find complaints from a very few who are "offended", dictating policy, without the science to validate it. Every controversial issue has its plus's and minus's. We hope this one can recieve a balanced reviewal. We, like most of those who have commented so far, have the most to lose if the Quality of our lakes is not maintained.

Anonymous said...

We own an expensive and beautiful home on Lower Whitefish and 5-6 years ago invested in a top shelf dock that included a platform that exceeds the dimensions now limited by the DNR. The reason for the platform is because we live on the sands banks with steep elevation, no room for beach area, and the need for at least 100ft of access dock to maintain a water level of at least 4-5 feet at the end of the dock for swimming and speed boat and fishing boat lifts. All homeowners have this problem on our end of the lake. Like many others, the platform becomes the major gathering point to enjoy the lake for our children and friends who come to join us for extended weekends. In addition we have handicapped friends who also enjoy the beauty of the lake country and the larger platform allows all of us the opportunity to be on the dock together and enjoy watching the children swim and the boats that pass by. Much more time is spent on the platform than out in the boats during the summer. Let’s not forget that we live in Minnesota and only have 4 months to really enjoy the water access to the lake(Memorial Day to Labor Day). Our family has had a Brainerd area lake home for over 30 years, and I can not remember ever getting the docks in much before Memorial Day and always out by mid –Sept.
If the DNR wants to proceed along this line then at a minimum a property owner who has made the investment in a dock and a platform should be grandfathered in prior to the implementation of the new rules. Of course, that grandfather privilege would be premised on the property owner’s respect and protection of the lake and the shoreline. It should also provide for clear exceptions to general rule to meet special needs as have been expressed by myself and others.
I have never come across a single lake front property owner who has not protected and taken care of the water quality and the shoreline. I urge the DNR to postpone the effective date of these rules and allow for a more detailed study and the consideration of grandfathering in those property owners that have made a substantial investment in a dock and a platform. Thanks for taking the time to read this note.