Is there such a thing as a landlocked lakefront lot?

EMILY, MINN. - A 48-lot housing tract planned here would give buyers perhaps the next best thing to the traditional lake place.

The homes would be on curved streets tucked in the woods across a highway from Roosevelt Lake, but owners would have private access to 1,600 feet of shoreline held in common and the opportunity to buy a boat slip for $20,000.

Officials of the tax-poor town in central Minnesota were enthusiastic. But a sizable group of residents on Roosevelt and nearby lakes reacted as if the Minneapolis developer, Chris Scott, wanted to put up a power plant. They packed public hearings, hired experts and went to court to force the city to require an environmental impact statement.

Such battles are becoming more common as developers and buyers settle for "common-access" alternatives to the high cost of shoreline properties.

Donald Dee, a leader of the opposition to the Roosevelt Lake project and a seasonal resident of the area for 35 years, sees himself as looking out for future generations.

"This is a sensitive part of the shoreline," Dee said. "It has natural springs. Walleye spawn there. There's a historic ice ridge that protects wetlands behind it. We who live here have a responsibility to protect the lakes for the future."

Scott, the developer, a Minneapolis insurance underwriter who, with his wife, Clare, created City Lakes Investment Group to develop property as a side business, argues that the resistance seems to have more to do with exclusivity than environmentalism.

"Our lakes shouldn't be restricted only to the wealthy and those already on them," he said. "My project is designed to protect the environment, while at the same time giving access to the North Woods experience that not all can afford."

Scott's proposed development, called Northern Lights Over Roosevelt Lake, has lots 500 feet from the shoreline that would list for $40,000. In contrast, undeveloped lots recently made available directly on the lake list for $275,000.

Some residents oppose the development on those grounds alone: Why, they ask, should a newcomer get the same private lake access for which others pay dearly in the form of taxes on property assessed at much higher values?

New rules likely

Off-lake developments with lake access, such as Scott's, may be harder to build in the future if shoreland-development reform advocates get their way.

The Department of Natural Resources is in the midst of revising minimum standards for lot size, setbacks, lake access and other facets of shoreland development for nearly all lakes larger than 25 acres, of which Minnesota has more than 11,000. The rules, enforced by municipalities, townships and counties, last were updated in 1989. The Legislature ordered the new scrutiny last year.

Experts say there is a growing consensus among planning and zoning administrators that standards need to be strengthened, not just for the environment, but also to preserve the atmosphere that attracts throngs to lake country and underpins its economy.

"If our lakes were ever built completely out to the density allowed by the current state standards, it would kill them," said John Sumption, environmental services director for Cass County, which has some of the state's most desirable lakes and has moved to more tightly control development.

Cass is among several counties and municipalities that have banned developments with "common-access lots" -- parcels designed to give shoreline rights to a group of off-lake residents.

"We're not seeing the development of 1,000 feet of sand beach anymore," Sumption said. "What you see instead is a strip of lakeshore and a huge chunk of land behind it, or a piece of shore where nothing can be built except on one spot."

In 2003, Otter Tail County approved a 138-lot development on Dead Lake, but lake residents rose up against the Blue Heron Bay project and its planned jointly held marina and community beach. They sued the county and developer, who reduced the project to 94 lots. The slowing economy eventually did the project in -- construction was delayed, and this year the property went into foreclosure.

Opponents say giving shoreline rights to large numbers of new residents increases foot and boat traffic, hurting water quality and habitat.

"We know that the more disturbance to shorelines, the greater the impact on that sensitive, near-shore aquatic habitat," said Peder Otterson, who is overseeing the DNR's shoreland rules revision process. Otterson said common-access developments and high-density shoreland developments have been hot-button issues and probably will face new restrictions under the revised rules.

Growth and preservation

Emily Mayor George Pepek thinks opponents of the Northern Lights project have overplayed their hand.

He said Emily, population 900, is hurting and could use the extra tax revenue and additional people.

Pepek, who lives on a lake himself, said he doesn't believe the project would have a major impact.

"People need to be realistic," he said. "This man bought this property. He has the right to build on it legally. He's followed all the rules. I think they've taken a stance of trying to beat us rather than work with us."

But the opponents say they won't apologize for being aggressive in trying to preserve what brought them there in the first place.

They point out that experts from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the DNR, the University of Minnesota and others voiced some of the same concerns before the two sides went to court.

"I am not against responsible development. However, I do not consider [Northern Lights] to be a responsible development," wrote Dennis Neill in one of the 52 letters submitted by interested people as part of the process. He lives on Roosevelt Lake, on a lot his parents cleared in 1953.

"We have many fond memories of our years coming up here with our parents, our kids, and now our grandkids," Neill wrote. "It is our hope that as much of the natural character of the area [as possible] can be maintained, and [that] the lake is protected."

Larry Oakes • 218-727-7344