Monday, July 6, 2015

Your Pier/Boathouse May Be in Trouble

The PRVWSD takes the position that piers, boathouses, or other structures, extending into the Reservoir from residential property, are without authority unless that area in the water is included in a lease. The PRVWSD argues the waterfront leases entered into with lessees stop at the water's edge; therefore, private piers or boathouses -- some of which extend 25 feet into the Reservoir -- are not located on the homeowner's lease.  If that homeowner wants a pier, he or she will have to lease additional acreage in the water to do so. The alternative, I imagine, will be for the PRVWSD to tear down the structure.

Brian Broom drops this bomb in the Clarion Ledger today:


[PRVWSD Executive Director John] Sigman said leaseholders on Barnett Reservoir land lease just that — the land where their home is built. The right to build a pier or boathouse that extends into the water is not included in the agreement. He said the fact that some pier and boathouse owners are not leasing the areas in the water was discovered recently through the Building and Permit Department.
"What has happened was a gentleman bought a house over there (in Windrose Point) and wanted to build a boathouse," Sigman said. "Through the process we checked to see if he leased the property (in the water) and he did not. Sure enough, none of them had either a lease or easement for the addition beyond their lot."

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well this is going to stir the pot

Anonymous said...

So i guess that this will be done by measuring the dock or pier and then a charge is assessed to the leaseholder? Really interesting. I wonder if there is some connection between this and the failed lake usage fee?

Anonymous said...

Part of my lot is in their lake. Wonder when they will start paying me a lease fee for letting the use part of my lot.

Anonymous said...

Fees to enter parks, stickers for boats & watercraft, now updating leases for piers... I know they are desperate for money (or so they say) but you'd think they would learn that any idea that ostracizes their base does not go over well... It's getting ridiculous. What's next? A membership fee to use the jogging/biking trails? Registering your running shoes to hike the nature trail? Gotta have a sticker on your bike to ride the trails? (Oh, wait... don't want to give them any ideas....)

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:08am
When will y'all stop with this mindset that they care about us or think about our concerns with their decisions?!
Leaseholders- they do NOT care what you think nor consider you in their decisions.
They only care about ONE thing- $. $ to keep their salaries paid and to keep the status quo going.
You doubt me on this?! Call John Sigman and Jack Winstead and ask them pointblank.
The PRVSWD is not setup to conider the leaseholders of the Rez- we are leasee-sheeple from which they derive the majority of their operating fund to keep the spillway going and pay their salaries.
Wake up!

Anonymous said...

This might could be challenged in court. I'm no lawyer, but I recall learning in college that a landlord's repeated actions to allow things for some length of time, even if those things are prohibited in the lease, has implied that they have changed the lease and can't suddenly enforce those parts of the lease.

PRV has allowed those piers for decades, right? The law might prohibit them from removing no matter what the terms of the lease are.