Salem will be holding a public hearing on the extensive ordinance that governs activities on lakes and rivers in the town on Wednesday, Jan. 19 at 7 p.m. at Salem Town Hall, 9814 Antioch Road.
The ordinance, also referred to as Chapter 20, has been overhauled by village staff, elected officials and community members, including representatives from town lake districts and associations.
The complete ordinance is viewable here.
One significant possible objection to the ordinance may have been headed off. Earlier this month, Silver Lake officials rescheduled their second monthly Village Board meeting so board members could attend the hearing. They wanted to object to a provision they saw as seeking to split patrol of Silver Lake between the municipalities. Silver Lake officials current patrol the entire lake, though much of the shoreline lies within Salem. For doing this, the village of Silver Lake Police Department receives funding from the state Department of Natural Resources.
Silver Lake village President Roger Johnson said Tuesday night that he has been assured by Salem Chairman Linda Valentine that Salem will not seek to take over patrol of part of the lake.
and Reaffirmed here:
“Silver Lake village President Roger Johnson said Tuesday night that he has been assured by Salem Chairman Linda Valentine that Salem will not seek to take over patrol of part of the lake.”
The Village of Silver Lake has long patroled Silver Lake and there is no intention of making any changes regarding that authority. Our goal is to bring the ‘ancient’ verision of the TOS Chapter 20 up to date and to reflect the present day.
This effort came about from the Brainstorming Session that occurred after the April 2009 Flash Flood. Conversations with people around all of our lakes reflected not only emergency flood problems but spilled into issues pertaining to recreation ON the waters. Lakes Committee was created and after many meetings, with much input, the result will be reviewed as a package tonight. Even as recent as yesterday, changes have been made to reflect the input from all the Lakes Committee participants and so tonight’s attendees should confirm their ‘planned’ comments to the document that will be used as THE main document tonight. It is a good document, a long time coming.
Linda
A guide to Wisconsins lake management law, this is where you can find the reason we don’t need to change chapter 20. Granted we don’t like anyone getting hurt while enjoying the outdoors.But people have to take responsibility for themselves.This is the only regulation needed for icebound waters.Here it is”The enactment of ordinances permitting traffic on icebound inland water does not render the lake district liable for any accident occurring on the icebound water.All traffic on icebound waters is at the risk of the traveler.” If Salem makes a law,would we then have to enforce the law? Would this then open us up for a law suit?
traffic is not the issue.
SOUND, ARTIFICAL SNOW BERMS and SAFETY on DISTRICT LAKES and NON-DISTRICT LAKES (aka TOS liability) are the issues.
We have had public Lakes COmmittee Meetings on Chapter 20, beginning with State Chapter 30 and 33 thru each entry on CHapter 20. Spouting that we should review Chapter 30 as if it was not done, is deciteful and deflecting of the efforts made by many people who did attend and worked diligently. Statements were taken at the Public hearing and again at a special board meeting and at a regular board meeting.
A LAKES COMMITTEE meeting will be on 03 21 at 6:30. At this meeting the Committee members who happen to be the town Board members will discuss and prepare. I state this now, THIS WILL NOT BE a PUBLIC HEARING. I suspect that the document that left the Lakes Committee will be the basis of the meeting. This, because all the QUESTIONable areas was clearly identified. GOing back a year, when a document does exist resulting from the Lakes Committee Meeting is unnecessary.
Until then, Chapter 20, in all its archaic-ness remains. By the way, I am not so sure that Chapter 20, as it currently is, would pass muster with the DNR.
v
The snowmobilers are the traffic or travelers so are trucks and atvs. It,s their responsibility to know where they are going. Your best bet would be to hold a snowmobile, atv safety course at the town hall or library. The fact is the state has laws for noise dbls. so what does the town need them for unless you are trying push other issues that might be overlooked by person concerned to take more rights away from the citizens of the town, wisconsin,ill., and so on.