02-22-1977 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TltrPHONE (l 12) 333 ight bodies srrect >ject. }f 1966, aments•” rst of these } A. 60 (1930). 52 acres of his acreage ts bathing urrounding f land, was ally bordered ated brought he pond, e property he lower court er to many doctrine' and have riparian necticut I Principles 4 (1962). rarian owner \n rights with f ► ’••'ft 1 >-.T •: Ir- !-'V t'-v M ■ i ■3.- -I 4 ..-r' —---------------^I ■ -4-T LAW OFFICES HOWARD. LeFEVERE, LEFLER^ HAMILTON AND PEARSON ’■•r. Fvrijik Mix a .10, 10 72 t.hlri r;i«jlil: is subject l..o a rule of reasojiebleness and that the 'iiumber of such people shar.lng his rights is a factor in determining such reasonableness. In the case of Thompson y. Enz, 140 N.W. 2d 563 (1966), a Michigan lake, known as Gun Lake, was involved. The lake had 2,680 acres of water and only 30 miles of shoreline. The plaintiffs in this case were riparian owners. The defendant was also a riparian owner who owned a very large tract abutting the lake. He wanted to develop his tract into about 150 lots of which only about 16 would be abutting upon the lake. The remaining lots were to acquire access to the lake by a system of canals which they had planned to dredge. The dredging operation would increase the lake frontage^ from 1,415 feet to over 11,000 feet. The plaintiffs brought action to enjoin the dredging on the theory that the ownership of lots abutting upon the canals did not convey riparian rights to use the l€ike or surface waters and that the proposed development would dilute and substantially impair the riparian rights originally invested in the plaintiffs. The court issued a permanent injunction on the grounds that the project would forever change the character of the lake and would impair the relative value of the rights belonging to the other riparian proprietors. It appears from these authorities that the public has an interest in the over use of a public body of water. Consequently, it would seem to be reasonable for the appropriate governmental authority to make regulations which are reasonably designed to prevent the over use of riparian rights to the detriment of other riparian owners We think that this regulation ought to be handled by the individual municipalities abutting upon the lake and that it ought to be done in conjunction with the platting ordinances. (It also could be done in conjunction with the zoning ordinances or any ordinances relating to lake shoreline property.) We are enclosing a suggested provision that could be incorporated into the platting ordinances of the individual communities. Very truly yours. Clayton L. LeFevere CLL:gem Enclosure ..fl '.n ■:n - h.; :• 4-':' ■. ■■■I Sect 8-30