|
Post by mwardncsu on Jul 3, 2014 14:09:53 GMT -5
And of course there is still the question of fishing on LAND vs. on the dock (if you are the owner or long-term renter)
|
|
Gator
New Member
Posts: 1,534
|
Post by Gator on Jul 3, 2014 15:08:38 GMT -5
Sounds like Brian was correct. Ask 10 officials and get 10 different responses.
|
|
|
Post by mytoyzfishing on Jul 3, 2014 20:39:05 GMT -5
And of course there is still the question of fishing on LAND vs. on the dock (if you are the owner or long-term renter) Talking with him he said they count the dock as being on their land
|
|
|
Post by goldendaze on Jul 9, 2014 12:23:51 GMT -5
Let me throw a wrench in the discussion. In most cases, in Bedford County at least, AEP owns the shoreline and lake bottom, I think to 800 feet elevation but I'm not 100% sure. In those cases it'd be hard to argue that you are on your own property. But there are SOME properties which extend below lake level, sometimes rather extensively. AEP only has a "flowage easement" that permits them to flood the land. There would be no question that you are on your own property in this case.
I spent many hours on the Bedford Co. GIS system (http://www.co.bedford.va.us/Res/GIS/index.asp) before buying last year, and it clearly shows properties that extend into the lake. Mine does not.
...and yet the Shoreline Management Plan somehow applies equally whether or not you own the lake bottom???
|
|
Brian
New Member
Posts: 611
|
Post by Brian on Jul 9, 2014 18:52:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by goldendaze on Jul 10, 2014 9:05:14 GMT -5
Brian, your citations made for interesting reading. However, I don't believe they apply to SML's somewhat special case. The Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled on this directly, see SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE YACHT CLUB, INC. v. James K. RAMAKER, et al., in which the court explicitly ruled that Smith Mountain Lake Yacht Club owns the lake bottom according to their deed of purchase, subject only to AEP's flowage easement. caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1339935.htmlI do not even want to think about the implications of this case as combined with the two that you cited. What a disaster it would be if property owners on the lake could prohibit fishing above their piece of the bottom. -Bob
|
|
Brian
New Member
Posts: 611
|
Post by Brian on Jul 10, 2014 10:07:19 GMT -5
Brian, your citations made for interesting reading. However, I don't believe they apply to SML's somewhat special case. The Supreme Court of Virginia has ruled on this directly, see SMITH MOUNTAIN LAKE YACHT CLUB, INC. v. James K. RAMAKER, et al., in which the court explicitly ruled that Smith Mountain Lake Yacht Club owns the lake bottom according to their deed of purchase, subject only to AEP's flowage easement. caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1339935.htmlI do not even want to think about the implications of this case as combined with the two that you cited. What a disaster it would be if property owners on the lake could prohibit fishing above their piece of the bottom. -Bob Good find. I was wrong! I guess that's why I'm an engineer not a lawyer. Not that it matters but I disagree with their finding that lakes are not included in "waters of the commonweath". That's like saying the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the internet because it didn't exist when the bill of rights was put on paper. Again, not a lawyer
|
|