By Anne Thom

The public hearing on motor regulations on South Chain Lake brought a chain of residents to the June 11 North Branch City Council meeting, many with something to say on the issue.

A history lesson was provided by City Planning Director Alan Cottingham in the council packet. On Aug. 1, 1973, Max Malmquist of Branch Village had made a motion for public input on Ordinance 14 regarding restricting the use of motors on boats on Lower Chain Lake. A public hearing was held Sept. 5, 1973 and on Nov. 7, 1973 was adopted.

Malmquist, who is still a resident on South Chain Lake, asked to speak first. He said it wasn't clear in those November 5, 1973 minutes that the ordinance was approved. He recollected that the ordinance may have been tabled as this was the same time Branch Township became Branch Village and the township was more focused on getting the minutes of Branch Village out to the public, than on the detailed documentation of events.

Malmquist told the council he had spent two years trying to get Ordinance 14 passed. He spoke of South Chain Lake as a designated wildlife refuge and he has a particular concern that motors, no longer just limited to motors on boats but now including our modern toys such as ATV's and jet skis, absolutely disturb the nesting of the migratory birds that come to the lake.

Malmquist opened the floodgate as more than a dozen residents requested a turn to speak on the issue.

Woody Walters told the council "We are a motorized family." Walters said he and his family use motorboats, including for waterskiing and his children use jet skis on the lake. Walters said he was told by the developer he purchased the property from that motorized vehicles are allowed on South Chain Lake.

Walters said he scratched his head about two years ago when a gentleman he could identify only as "Tom" came to his door with a petition to allow motors on Chain Lake. This man told Walters that the North Branch Police Department had told him and his grandchildren motors were not allowed on the lake and had chased them off of it. Walters said he then checked a document on the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Web site. That information showed Chain Lake is "motorless."

Walters felt that motorboats were the least of the problem however, and briefly spoke of damage being done to both the shoreline and the lake by ATVs.

ATVs have not only torn up the shoreline, but residents told the council that in the summer when the water levels are low, riders are driving into the lake "whooping and hollering" at all hours trying to see how far they can drive through it.

Resident Stan Murray said, "I knew there was a question about whether a motor was allowed on the lake or not."

Murray was adamant on his view on restrictions saying also he would propose "no ATVs on the lake period" and that he is "not in favor of jet skis, they tear up the lake."

Murray spoke about the beauty of the wildlife he sees on the lake including the five loons, the true Minnesota State Bird, he had counted recently. Don Swanson reinforced that saying "ATVs are running up and down the shoreline and pretty well destroying it."

Councilor Kathy Blomquist recalled that when Chain Lakes Preserve development had been approved the council had stipulated conceptual open space and wildlife preserve area.

Blomquist referenced the city's comprehensive plan which referred to South Chain Lake as "...while not suitable for active recreation" the lake was a wonderful conservator of nature.

Resident Kurt Jensen told the council the lake is not large enough for water skiing or high powered motors and Virginia Erickson seconded that. "We love the wildlife and the quietness and the lake really doesn't support too many motors," she said.

Randy Westby of Finley Road found fault with any ordinance that doesn't address all motors saying, "If you're going to ban, it has to be across the board." He called for "responsible use and common sense." Westby approved of Hunt's call for peace and tranquility but wants to see balance with "what we paid to use it (the lake) for."

Several residents including Pat Henry said they were told by a real estate agent or developer who had sold them their property that the lake was motorized but at a 20hp restriction. Henry said, "It's a nice quiet little lake with lots of wildlife. But if no motors are allowed how will that affect resale value?"

Mayor Gloria Karsky asked Henry what he thought would be a reasonable restriction. "A trolling motor," he answered. Another resident commented, "The lake is a small lake that would not support any large type of watercraft." Though she said her home had been purchased for retirement, she was also concerned about resale value.

The council listened carefully to each speaker. After hearing all the residents who wished to speak and looking over Cottingham's suggested options: adopt a new ordinance to reaffirm the 1973 ordinance restricting motors on the lake, adopt a new ordinance that would allow motors up to a certain horsepower, or adopt and ordinance allowing unrestricted use, Mayor Karsky said, "It seems to me we have to look at some type of restriction."

Councilor Larry Erickson would first like to see a copy of a covenant that was shown to the homeowners who purchased lots on the lake as more than one resident had mentioned that they had been told by a developer or real estate agent that motors were allowed on the lake. City Attorney Thomas Miller advised the council that a covenant agreed upon by a homeowners association could not legally supersede or enforce an ordinance. Councilor Theresa Furman also requested to see the covenant and suggested there could be some kind of compromise. She agreed ATVs and the migratory birds nesting there are major concerns for her.

Karsky said the council will consider types of motorized vehicles, speed and horsepower. The matter will now be brought to a future work session for finalization. City Administrator Bridgitte Konrad promised residents a notice would be sent out when the matter comes back for consideration.

Ball field issue, again

There was no question that the refrain "Play Ball!" should be heard loud and clear in the city, the question was how often and at how many locations. Don Simons from the North Branch Baseball Association (NBBA) stepped up to the plate (the podium) to argue the call.

The NBBA serves 755 area kids, fielding 55 baseball teams on seven fields in city parks. The strategy is to add at least three more fields allowing scheduling of at least 20 more games over the short season. In order to accomplish this, the Association and the city Parks Commission were looking at putting lights in Harder Park and finishing off the diamonds with fencing. Simons had originally received a bid from Musco Sports Lighting to install the lights at a cost of $152,959.56 for one field. The city was seeking to accomplish this through a Joint Powers Agreement with the city of Rogers. That would allow North Branch to get around a statutory bidding process.

"When we saw how expensive it was, we went with one (field). The park Association suggested two," said Simons.

The Parks Commission approved $65,000 for lighting two of the ball fields at a meeting in May. The city council approved $180,000 for the lights at the May 29 meeting. Since that meeting a quote had come in from Collins Electric to wire the lights at a cost of $45,400 bringing the total to 198,359.56. The money was to come from park dedication fees paid by developers and park set aside funds. This is now $18,000 more than the city had planned on and it prompted some discussion.

Councilor Larry Erickson said he thought the city needed more parks and should be putting money away for those new parks, "...not to put lighting in old parks."

Erickson added he thinks the city needs more fields, not lights and said, "I think we're over-reacting to a roomful of kids who came in with their coaches. I don't think we're visionary enough."

Councilor Furman mentioned not being able to justify taking the money for ball fields from funds for a community center.

Simons said, "None of the money that we asked for did we ask for from other funds." He thought that the numerous trips NBBA representatives had made to both the council and the parks commission should have made that clear.

"The only point I am trying to make is this is something for the kids to do now," Simons told the Post Review.

The council remained committed to the $180,000 and Simons pledged that the Association will be able to raise the $18,000 through boosting the participation fee by $5 per kid. A proposal to add fencing has now been tabled to the next council meeting.

In Other News

A motion was approved to restrict parking on 380th Circle due to residents concerns about traffic from the high school. Councilor Erickson did state though that he wants residents of cul-de-sacs to understand that it is a street however and not a playground for kids.