|
|
|
|
State of
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
REBECCA A. HUMPHRIES director |
|
|
|
|
State of
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
REBECCA A. HUMPHRIES director |
|
BILL NUMBER: |
|
|
TOPIC: |
|
|
SPONSOR: |
|
|
CO-SPONSORS: |
|
|
COMMITTEE: |
|
|
Analysis
Done: |
POSITION
The Department is
neutral regarding this legislation.
PROBLEM/BACKGROUND
There has been a long
standing issue regarding what kind of boating activity is allowed at road
endings. This issue has grown because of
the continued development of non-riparian properties around lakes. This expanded development has increased the
desire to place docks and hoists along road ends for use by non-riparians. There has been no clear language in the
statute regarding this issue resulting in several court cases dictating what is
allowed.
DESCRIPTION OF BILL
This bill provides for the construction and
maintenance of a seasonal dock, for public use, at a public road end under the
jurisdiction of a local unit of Government provided that use is not prohibited
by any deed restriction. The local unit
of Government is authorized to adopt local ordinances substantially similar to
the language contained in this bill. The
bill also specifies the dimensions of the dock and prohibits unoccupied,
overnight dockage or anchorage on the bottomlands. There is also a clause prohibiting the
obstruction of ingress and egress as a result of any dock installation and
prohibits the placement of boat hoists.
The bill sets forth penalties as a municipal civil infraction and
recognizes the Department of Environmental Quality permit requirement set forth
in section 324.30104 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act,
PA 451 of 1994.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Pro
This bill acknowledges the public’s right to lawfully
access the body of water at these road ends.
This bill brings much needed clarification to
road-end issues and establishes jurisdiction over road ends through local units
of Government which then develop local ordinances governing the placement of
docks.
Con
The statement involving ingress and egress is
ambiguous and subject to interpretation. By allowing a dock and hoist operation, would
this be considered a conflict of use for accessing the water? This bill does not take vehicular traffic
issues into consideration. The normal public use of the road may be affected.
FISCAL/ECONOMIC
IMPACT
Are there revenue or
budgetary implications in the bill to the --
Budgetary:
None
Revenue:
None
Comments:
None
Budgetary:
None
Revenue:
None
Comments:
None
Comments:
The burden of administering this new program rests
exclusively with local units of Government.
It is the local units that will be required to adopt ordinances and deal
with any potential conflicts that may result from the installation of public
docks at road ends under the jurisdiction of local units. Local units of
Government may have liability concerns.
OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS
This
bill may result in an increase in dock permit applications with the Department
of Environmental Quality.
ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
This
bill represents a merging and modifications to HB 4463 and HB 4464 introduced
in April of this year. In this case, road-ends
under state jurisdiction are not eligible for consideration as mooring
locations. Also, the bill mentions a
dock structure four feet wide. Current
Department standards involving universal accessibility specify a dock width of
at least five feet in width.
ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES IMPACT
None
_______________________________
Rebecca A. Humphries
Director
_______________________________
Date
PRD/FMFM
