12/14/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

600K iii PAGE i 16. Soundings at bridge location provided are in the immediate vicinity of the foot bridge only. North of the Exhibit 16 sounding area to the docks recently constructed exists more shallow waters. No channel exists between he foot bridge and end of docks. Some of the information provided to the Board of County Commissioners attached to Michael O'Haire's Oct. 12, 1999 letter of appeal was not provided to the County Administrator for his consideration in October, 1999. Furthermore, there has not, to this date, been any tangible evidence that the boats shown in the photos have been docked at the newly constructed docks or have used the foot bridge area. Many County staff; including myself; have visited the Paris frequently for many years and none have seen such boats use the foot bridge area. It also seems odd that over two years have passed and this issue has not been vigorously pursued. No appeals have been filed with SJRWMD nor the Corps ofEngineers. The property owners themselves have shown a different path to the ICWW in their dock permits. Mr. O'Haire has submitted three court cases to justify his position that the County has interfered with riparian property right and severely damaged the values of property rights. The first case, Lee County v Riesel, deals with an obstruction of the property owners view caused by a County bridge. In this case, the court determined that "an upland owner must in all cases be permitted a direct, unobstructed view of the channel as well as a direct, unobstructed means of ingress and egress over the foreshore and tidal waters to the channel: in the case of the foot bridge, no view has been obstructed and the means of ingress and egress has not been diminished "over the foreshore across the waters toward the channel"... "as near as practicable in the direction of the channel" since the footbridge is not in the direction of the ICWW channel. The case Mr. O'Haire has provided does not support his position. The second case, Game and Freshwater Fish Commission v Lake Island, LTD (198 1) addressed the state denying island property owners access to their lands by the use ofmotorboats on Lake Lamoma during duck season. The courts determined that `reasonable access must, of course, be balanced with the public good, but a substantial diminution or total denial ofreasonable access to the property owner is a compensable deprivation of a property interest." In the case of the Round Island foot bridge, reasonable access has not been denied norhas substantial diminution of access occurred. The dock owners can still access the ICWW by the path indicated to the state on their dock permit application. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff is of the opinion that 1. There is no channel between the foot bridge and the and of the property owners docks. 2. The foot bridge area has not been used regularly nor, in our observation, occasionally by large boats.(>201 3. The County has not obstructed the unmarked channel north of No Name Island between the property owner docks and the ICWW. 4. The property owner's boats do not have greater than a 2 % ft. draft which does not prohibit them from using the channel shown on their dock permits, thereby maintaining their access. 5. The County correctly obtained all permits for the foot bridge. 6. There has been no diminution of access and no harm to property values. For the above reasons, staff recommends that the foot bridge remain as permitted and constructed in the spring of 1997. DECEMBER 14,1999 0 -60-