Who owns the canal? Was it created when the subdivision was created? If so, there may be no riparian rights.
I'll agree with Cliff's method. That certainly seems the most equitable to all parties.
I've seen this many times. That inside corner is a pain. Best case, the owners work together and build a shared use dock for their lifts. Around here, the city only likes to see lot line extensions, especially for man made water boundaries like seawalled canals. I would try to extend the lines until I get close to the corner lots, then apportion the distance between the last two property line extended. I was just going to post the link to the LABINS page, but I see someone beat me to it.
It may just be that the owners of those lots CAN't build a dock or lift. I've seen that happen. There is no guarantee of boat use just because you buy on a canal. I wonder if they had a riparian survey done before they bought it?
andy
There are four general methods for apportioning beds of streams or highways:
1) perpendicular method: a line is struck from the high-water mark to a point perpendicular with the thread of the stream or highway. This is the "presumed" method to be applied unless there are extenuating circumstances which result in an inequitable situation.
2) extension method: this should be the same as the perpendicular method if the property lines were laid out perpendicular to the thread. An extension of the sideline (when located perpendicularly or radially) would result in an application of the perpendicular method. When the side lines are not radial or perpendicular, odd situations may result where the sidelines cross one another resulting in inequitable distributions or odd situations which are not preferred.
3) proportionate frontage (shoreline or colonial) method: proportionally distributes the frontage length with the length of the thread. This method is a good second choice when the perpendicular method doesn't work. If odd elongations begin to occur, the result may not be the best choice.
4) proportionate area method: relies upon the area of the upland parcels in proportion to the area of the change between the shoreline and the thread. This method works well when fairly large shoreline changes occur while the thread has remained somewhat static (or vice versa).
If you were to offset the curve alignment to determine the thread, and not use a PI, the perpendicular method (which is presumptively the correct method to use) would most likely work well. The sidelines, in this case aren't close to perpendicular, that's likely going to throw out the extension method. Proportionate frontage method might be a good choice if you can come up with logical end points to proportion from (which shouldn't be too difficult in this case, but you'll need to have a good reason to overcome using the perpendicular method.
JBS
Mr. Ranger,
Check out page 8 in the document located at the following address. It deals with the Hayes vs. Bowman case mentioned above.
Have a great weekend!
can you explain what you mean by "no riparian rights"?
> It may just be that the owners of those lots CAN't build a dock or lift. I've seen that happen. There is no guarantee of boat use just because you buy on a canal. I wonder if they had a riparian survey done before they bought it?
But isn't the presumption that someone who buys a lot on a canal does so in the expectation that some dockage right comes with the lot? I realize this is a much more common problem in Florida than in Texas, but it only makes sense that unless it is obvious from looking at the subdivider's plan that there isn't enough frontage for a dock, the equitable scheme will make at least the smallest usable dock possible to construct.
I'm dealing with a somewhat similar situation on a variable-level Central Texas lake at the moment, where the question is how to partition the land that the subdivider owned under the lake between normal pool and a contour about eleven feet below that which was the limit of his title (and to which the lake does recede in dry seasons). The problem is in a cove or bend that is very much like that corner of the canal, only more exaggerated.
"enjoyment" of the water boundary is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. That being said, there is usually a way to make something work, and the city realizes that these lots are NOT going to comply with setback issues. Much like the common question I get..."can I build a pool?" to which I answer, that depends on what kind of pool you are thinking about.
so yes, you can probably build a dock there, but maybe no lift, and maybe not much of a dock. if boating is that important to you, then it's on you as a buyer to look out for your interests.
Interesting result after putting the plat in CAD and playing around with the various ideas. I found that if I create a CL of canal (which has a plat width of 120'), and use a 50' radius at the CL bend (the plat shows a radius of 50' on both the uplands bends to the NW and SE), then draw the lines from the lot corners perp. to the CL arc, they are extremely close to being online with the property lines extended. The east line has a 5' deflection, and the west line has a 30' deflection.
I like this in that it satisifies two of the suggested methods (extending lot lines & perp. to the CL of the channel).
Harmony! gotta love it!
> so yes, you can probably build a dock there, but maybe no lift, and maybe not much of a dock. if boating is that important to you, then it's on you as a buyer to look out for your interests.
Sure, the lots sales were real estate deals, of course. But I'm thinking that a subdivider who laid out lots along canals (and possibly made provisions about bulkheads and dockage in the subdivision restrictions) was probably selling lots with a space to park a boat in front of them and that any method of partitioning the canal front that defeats that would just about have to be the last choice.