Let's say you are fortunate enough to own some lakefront property overlooking a nearby island which you also own, together with a vacation rental lodge on that island.  In the past you have crossed the 20 feet or so of water by rowboat to get you and your guests over to the island and back, but you wish to make it easier to cross so you plan to build a bridge to connect your properties together.  You decide to connect your two pieces of private property by that bridge without getting a permit from local or state authorities.  

Have you done something wrong?  

That's what has raised a controversy over in rural Argentine Township in Genessee County, where a rapid construction of such a bridge has some neighbors and officials in a tizzy, and the property owner quoting his attorney as saying he has done nothing wrong.  See what you think once you read what Mlive reports and a brief analysis:

ARGENTINE TOWNSHIP, MI -- The installation of a private bridge to a lake island is making waves in a small southern Genesee County community.


The bridge -- installed Monday, July 8 -- connects a private property off of Whitehead Drive on Lobdell Lake in Argentine Township to the property owner’s island, known locally as Turtle Island.


Argentine Township Supervisor Brian Saad said he received dozens of calls within the first 24 hours as soon as the community caught wind of the bridge going in. The owner of the property, Brett DeGayner, has not submitted any permit applications to build the bridge, the supervisor said.  Officials are still grappling with what to do after the response from the community.


“It is a bridge and it is not allowed by the township," Saad said. “That’s the short answer. We issued a stop work order which, immediately in the same breath he ... handed it, notified us he intended to violate it and pay the fine. He and his workers and his buddies who were all hanging out all got a chuckle out of the fact that we were even issuing a stop work order.”


The township just recently learned DeGayner was intending to put in the bridge, Saad said. Last week, a small crane was parked on the property shortly before the Fourth of July, but it was small, not big enough to lift the sections of the bridge. Monday, a large crane came in and the bridge was in place within the day.


There is only so much the township can do in this matter, he said. The fine can be up to $500.
“Quite frankly, the township (is) ... the lowest form of enforcement,” he said.


Now the situation is in the hands of the state, Saad said, with the township coordinating with the Department of Natural Resources, the Michigan Attorney General’s Office and the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, formerly the Department of Environmental Quality to see what can be done next.

Before the bridge was put into place, the owner would row over to the island where a cottage sits.
Saad said people were told the bridge would float and lift for boats to pass through. The opening has to be a minimum of 20 feet for boat traffic to go through. Previous docks between the mainland and the island had a 26-foot gap where the owner could go back and fourth with a raft.


“Well now the gap is at exactly 20 feet but the problem is the claws and the I-beams that stick out underneath the structure narrow it, it’s not 20 feet,” Saad said. “This gentleman has a laundry list of violations and problems,” he said.


Saad said he informed DaGayner he needed to file for a permit with the township, to which DaGayner replied his lawyer informed him he does not need to do that.


“I’m not an attorney, but I’ve read all the statutes and all the laws surrounding this stuff and there’s no way this can happen," he said. "But he’s done it. He’s put it in the water and it’s there so the courts will have to settle this one.”


From an enforcement perspective, Saad said at this point the township office and board is the “sifter” of information in regard to the bridge situation. The state is handling the permit enforcement and legal requirements.  “We’re exploring what we can do locally versus what the state can do with a big hammer,” Saad said.


Chris Clampitt, an officer with the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, said the state laws that appear to apply in this situation are the inland lakes and streams and the wetlands protection laws, which are both part of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Those are administered by the water resources division of EGLE.


“Those statutes generally require permits for structures in, over, under wetlands, lakes, streams and at this point we’ve not issued a permit for this bridge,” Clampitt said. “We have not received an application for the bridge. That’s where things stand right now.”


A few exceptions in the law apply typically for small seasonal structures, the most common being a seasonal dock or raft for private recreational use by a single family home owner, he said.  “Any structure that’s permanent or interferes with navigation would require a permit from us (EGLE),” he said.


Clampitt said he has also received a “string” of phone calls and emails starting Monday afternoon and continuing into Tuesday from concerned community members.  EGLE will be looking at the affects on wetlands, wildlife and navigation in the area where the structure was placed along the shoreline, he said. Public trust and human use will also be taken into account.  [END]

ANALYSIS:  The township supervisor said bridges were not allowed in the township, but the map of a small portion of Argentine Township shows plenty of bridges being allowed.  There seems to be no legal authority cited for the stop work order, at least none was presented, rather the supervisor seems more upset that the township's permission was never given.  The neighbors are upset because it will be more difficult to go through a channel-- that most would rarely use to get out on the lake. 

The EGLE officer is not very clear on whether this bridge would be considered a permanent structure or one that would fit in one of the exemptions, like the property owner's attorney seems to think.  If the structure is floating and movable to allow traffic to get through, one could believe that it fits those exemptions, since it likely won't interfere prohibitively with boat traffic or the overall ecology.  Yet don't be surprised if they come up with some esoteric executive rules in order to exert their power and put the impertinent taxpayer in his place.

What do you think?  Was he out of line by not seeking the permission of local and state bureaucrats in connecting his two piers with a 'bridge' that seems to meet the objectives of such permits?  Please submit your answer in the comments.

Views: 453

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I can understand the owners desire for a bridge, however it was built over public waters so it may require permission from local and state authorities. I'm sure the bridge owner knew there would be a fuss over this but decided to stir the pot instead of working with the township. Of course the State cannot allow this to stand without investigating and enforcing regulations they are required to enforce. The owner should have gotten approval  before he started this project. If he had been refused then he could have defied the powers to be. I have a feeling he will be spending much more on attorney fees than what he spent on the bridge.

It did not say whether he made the island by removing the dirt to make it.  But then he would of had a permit to do that also. 

UPDATE:  Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) advised the owner that the bridge must be removed.  After an inspection of the bridge, the EGLE enforcement unit determined that a permit would not have been approved by the state for the project.

They said it appeared the bridge was installed in violation of both parts 301 and 303 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. These parts of the act apply to inland lakes and streams and the wetland protection laws.

Effectively, the construction, enlargement, extension, removal or placement of a structure on bottomland without first obtaining a permit from EGLE is prohibited per section 30102(b) of Part 301 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Section 30304(a) and (c) of Part 303 of the act prohibits deposition or permitting the placement of fill material in a wetland and the construction, operation and maintenance of any use or development in a wetland.

The owner was ordered to remove the bridge in “a manner that minimizes any additional impacts to the waterway, such as siltation, pollution to the bottomland or wetland disturbance.”  He has said it will be done on August 13th.  

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service