Wooden piers and lakes

carver wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Hot Runr Guy wrote:</div>
OK, last photo. Found the lot lines, it appears as though he’s attempting to follow his left-side lot line down into the water.

HRG

Yes I believe he is too. It is an effort to block access to the lake from the other docks as there are a lot of reeds there.

Well, that’s why God made Lawyers. Although he has a right to a dock, he does not have the right to encroach upon abutting property owners use of their property. I’ll bet this one is headed to Judge Judy,,,,,

HRG

munchy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>mark-bruzek wrote:</div>
I have friends in the development where this is taking place. I can say first hand that the guy that wants/is doing the long dock is being a total A$$ and has been for a number of years. The guy’s property is beside the lot that is shared by all the residents of the Waconia landing development. As seen in the pictures posted by HRG the fella in question is laying his dock out at a severe angle to crowd out the residents from having use of their lakefront and use of their docks/boats.
Total jack a$$ throwing his money around like power.

So is Docks dock the white U shaped one or Z shaped one? Obviously the HOAs is the one with 4 or 5 slips.

The dock with 4-5 lifts are the individuals in the development that had deeded dock space that went with some of the lots that are “lake view”. The “z” dock is the dock that belongs to the rest of the residents of the development. They were forced to make that shape due to the way the A-hole put out his dock that particular year.

Hot Runr Guy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>carver wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Hot Runr Guy wrote:</div>
OK, last photo. Found the lot lines, it appears as though he’s attempting to follow his left-side lot line down into the water.

HRG

Yes I believe he is too. It is an effort to block access to the lake from the other docks as there are a lot of reeds there.

Well, that’s why God made Lawyers. Although he has a right to a dock, he does not have the right to encroach upon abutting property owners use of their property. I’ll bet this one is headed to Judge Judy,,,,,

HRG

Its been around the courts a few times and the DNR had just backed away from the issue like it was tribal…

Here’s a better view of the lot lines and dock.

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_2950.jpg
   

Typically dock regs fall to the city, county or conservation district. I know on Tonka the LMCD has regs that limit length and include a setback from the property lines.

http://www.waconia.org/AgendaCenter

NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MEETING OF WACONIA CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 20, 2017, at 5:30 p.m., the Waconia City Council will hold an emergency meeting pursuant to Minn. Stat. §13D.04, subd. 3, to discuss the enactment of an interim ordinance prohibiting the erection, construction or placement of permanent docks and boatlifts on public waters within the City, including, but not limited to, Lake Waconia, allowing the City to conduct studies to determine whether the City should regulate or restrict permanent docks and boatlifts in order to protect the health and welfare of the residents.
Currently there are no residential permanent docks within the City and the City does not regulate docks or boatlifts. The City is reviewing the subject matter to determine if regulation is warranted. A landowner has provided plans to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) for a permanent dock on Lake Waconia that would require a DNR permit. The City has been advised that the landowner may have modified the plans so that a DNR permit may not be required. The land owner has stockpiled on the property in question materials for the construction of a permanent dock. There is a high concern that the permanent dock will be built within days before the City is able to study the issue of regulating or restricting docks and boatlifts. The City needs time to study the matter of adopting dock and boatlift regulation and, based on the possibility of the imminent permanent dock construction, the circumstances require an emergency meeting to consider the adoption of an interim ordinance prohibiting the erection, construction or placement of permanent docks and boat lifts.
The emergency meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at 201 South Vine Street, Waconia, Minnesota.
Susan MH Arntz
City Administrator

I urge you to express your concerns\displeasure to the city. You can email them at:

[email protected]

They who they are:
http://www.waconia.org/414/City-Council-Members

munchy wrote:

Here’s a better view of the lot lines and dock.

That’s just a d-bag move…plain and simple…

JoeMX1825 wrote:

That’s just a d-bag move…plain and simple…

I wonder if this is an image from that landowner’s old house.

Attachments:

1. 

   12-neighbors_nocrop_w710_h2147483647.jpg
   

CaptainMusky wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>JoeMX1825 wrote:</div>
That’s just a d-bag move…plain and simple…

I wonder if this is an image from that landowner’s old house.

That’s just a warning sign so you don’t fall into the hole!

Hopefully the city votes to stop this d-bag. Otherwise the next thing is to file lawsuit. If the other property owners are denied legal access to the property that they paid a premium for and pay higher taxes for, I’d have to say this guy is liable.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this guy files a lawsuit against the city if the vote against him.

Otherwise save your attourneys fees and build a bigger dock that blocks his.

munchy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>CaptainMusky wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>JoeMX1825 wrote:</div>
That’s just a d-bag move…plain and simple…

I wonder if this is an image from that landowner’s old house.

That’s just a warning sign so you don’t fall into the hole!

Make all docks, lifts, piers illegal on any body of water. That’d sure cut down on the desire to own and abuse lakefront property (fertilized lawns, dogs crapping on shore, chemicals sprayed to treat weeds, obnoxious drunken pleasure craft, etc).

I’m so glad I do all of my fishing on the River, or far north where docks, piers, HOAs, and all that other nonsense rarely exist.

Nanny state is alive and well I see…

The most pathetic part is Carver asking everyone to contact the council. When I grew up we watched our own bobber.

I really hope he found out about this emergency meeting and got his dock in before tonight. Would be funny as hell if he was the reason for an ordnance yet he’s grandfathered in.

c_w wrote:

Nanny state is alive and well I see…

The most pathetic part is Carver asking everyone to contact the council. When I grew up we watched our own bobber.

I really hope he found out about this emergency meeting and got his dock in before tonight. Would be funny as hell if he was the reason for an ordnance yet he’s grandfathered in.

C_w must not fish waconia.

If you watch your own bobber, why post here, sounds like you don’t care so why waste the effort?

Meeting tonight with him in attendance was quick. 1 yr moratorium on any permanent structure.

I don’t like what this guy is doing, but does anyone have any sympathy for him? He spends a ton of money to build his dream home on a nice lake and something (relatively new?) goes up right next to him that will hurt his property value and his enjoyment of his property. Having neighbors is one thing, but having 5-10 households zipping in and out all night wouldn’t be a lot of fun either.

DaveB wrote:

I don’t like what this guy is doing, but does anyone have any sympathy for him? He spends a ton of money to build his dream home on a nice lake and something (relatively new?) goes up right next to him that will hurt his property value and his enjoyment of his property. Having neighbors is one thing, but having 5-10 households zipping in and out all night wouldn’t be a lot of fun either.

From the looks and sounds of it the “marina” was setup and built before this home was built, which from the homes history shows 2012.

then screw him

The pin is where the home should be and you can see the existing path and shore structure of the docks.

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_2962.jpg
   

I’m sorry, but I don’t have a a lot of sympathy for the HOA. They took a skinny-access lot, that’s 19′ narrower than the 1538 one, and put long docks off each corner. If you look at the minutes from the April 2017 meeting (pages 34-36)

http://www.waconia.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04062017-237

Their “fuzzy math” is trying to ask for an ever-widening dock area, yet the Lake Minnetonka guidelines they also supplied clearly show the dock area as an extension of the lot lines.

Maybe the HOA should have bought the 1538 lot, rather than pin themselves into a corner? Maybe the buyer of 1538 looked at the property in the winter, when the docks were pulled? I’d laugh if the guidelines get created that only allow 1 long dock per xxx’ of frontage, and they have to lose the 2nd dock.

HRG

Attachments:

1. 

   LMCD-guidelines.jpg
   

2. 

   outlot-1.jpg
   

Hot Runr Guy wrote:

I’m sorry, but I don’t have a a lot of sympathy for the HOA. They took a skinny-access lot, that’s 19′ narrower than the 1538 one, and put long docks off each corner. If you look at the minutes from the April 2017 meeting (pages 34-36)

http://www.waconia.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_04062017-237

Their “fuzzy math” is trying to ask for an ever-widening dock area, yet the Lake Minnetonka guidelines they also supplied clearly show the dock area as an extension of the lot lines.

Maybe the HOA should have bought the 1538 lot, rather than pin themselves into a corner? Maybe the buyer of 1538 looked at the property in the winter, when the docks were pulled? I’d laugh if the guidelines get created that only allow 1 long dock per xxx’ of frontage, and they have to lose the 2nd dock.

HRG

I’m guessing that red dashed line into the lake is the perpendicular lakeshore property line?(or whatever it may be called?)

If it is then compare these two pics and judge for yourself.

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_2964.jpg
   

2. 

   IMG_2963.jpg
   

I’m guessing that red dashed line into the lake is the perpendicular lakeshore property line?(or whatever it may be called?)

If it is then compare these two pics and judge for yourself.
[/quote]

Munchy, I agree. the HOA wants the perpendicular lakeshore method, 1538 is using the extend the property lines into the lake version.

Today, on Judge Judy,,,,,,,

HRG

That lot map is on the point by Coney Island, the property in question is in the bay to the west of that. Regardless I’m with Carver on this one. The single property owner seems to be overstepping his boundaries, and if allowed every owner on the lake could do the same basically cutting off a large percentage of travel and fishing on the lake.

BigWerm wrote:

That lot map is on the point by Coney Island.

Doubtful. The lot layout is completely different. The reason it says “Lake Waconia” to the left is it is a marsh area and still considered part of the lake.

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_2966.jpg
   

Kare11 ran a story about this earlier in the week. Looks like he built it anyways. Curious to see how a dock like that holds up to the ice.

Attachments:

1. 

   dock.png
   

Pike1401 wrote:

Kare11 ran a story about this earlier in the week. Looks like he built it anyways. Curious to see how a dock like that holds up to the ice.

Thanks for the update. HRG

DaveB wrote:

I don’t like what this guy is doing, but does anyone have any sympathy for him? He spends a ton of money to build his dream home on a nice lake and something (relatively new?) goes up right next to him that will hurt his property value and his enjoyment of his property.

No, I do not have sympathy for the guy or the HOA for that matter.

This situation is created by the allowing of private property owners to construct private structures on property that they DO NOT OWN. Lakeshore property owners in MN are the only ones in the state who are allowed to do this.

This creates a false sense of ownership and entitlement when it comes to property that is really owned by the people of the State of Minnesota. I hear it all the time, lakeshore owners calling the lake “my lake”. And just look at the antics that “lakeshore owners associations” have gone to to control use and access to “their lake” (as they see it). There are constant efforts underway by lakeshore owners and LSOAs to restrict, limit, or outright deny access to the general public.

MN needs a new uniform standard for what lakeshore owners are allowed to do when it comes to erecting private structures on public property. These rules should NOT be “governned by exception”, but rather be iron clad and uniform so the law is understood and can be easily enforced.

The lakeshore is what it is. Exceptions should not be granted for the convienece of lakeshore owners. There is NO right to convienent access to public property.

The #1 threat to the future of fishing and water recreation in MN is the privatization of our lakes.

Grouse

I’m just going to buy a house on a lake and build docks that go out to all my favorite fishing spots. That way I don’t even need to buy a new $70,000 boat. I’ll just take the 4 wheeler(that way I can troll).

How much dock can I buy for like 70-100k?

TheFamousGrouse wrote:

MN needs a new uniform standard for what lakeshore owners are allowed to do when it comes to erecting private structures on public property. These rules should NOT be “governned by exception”, but rather be iron clad and uniform so the law is understood and can be easily enforced.

This or make all docks, regardless of who put them out Public Property. Meaning anyone and everyone would have full use of dock 24/7 while in the water. Party on!

-J.

Jon Jordan wrote:

This or make all docks, regardless of who put them out Public Property. Meaning anyone and everyone would have full use of dock 24/7 while in the water. Party on!

-J.

Why stop at docks, think of the possibilities. If your camper or motorhome is at a county, state or federal campground, anyone could have the use of it.

HRG