New Dock Regs - Where the Problems Lie

My goals for the dock regulations are to preserve our enjoyment of ownership and protect our property values.

1) Owners should be able to build an nice dock as long as it fits in the easement and does not obstruct access (as stated in the easement language).
2) Owners should be at liberty to build the dock of his/her choice with maximum latitude.
3) Unnecessary rules, intrusive inspections, and additional fees detract from owners' enjoyment and make Lake Worth properties less desirable and less valuable.

Michael Dallas
President of the Scenic Shores Neighborhood Association

My thoughts on the Current Proposal:

Here is a breakdown of each item in the proposed ordinance. Some items are already regulated. Some items seem to have general agreement. Other items do not have agreement and need more discussion to reach a consensus.

Items that are already regulated:
(These items are already proscribed in other existing legal documents. Reiteration of these items in the dock ordinance should be for information or clarification only and should reference the proper regulatory document so as to not cause conflict.)
1) Distance from shoreline (100/150-584' elevation) - Deeded easement
2) No toilet facilities - Building code
3) Encapsulated flotation - Building code
4) Permit fee - Building code
5) Construction time frame - Building code
6) Fuel dispensing facilities - Building code

Items that seem to have agreement:
1) Contractor liability coverage required
2) Potable water supply allowed with backflow prevention
3) Maximum of two stories
4) Dock lighting required for docks over 100' long
5) Total number of facilities (i.e. docks on property) is only limited by the total FLAR
6) Color of improvements is not regulated
7) No bonding requirements (of contractor or owner)
8) No requirement for adjacent owners' permissions

Items that do not have agreement:
1) Living quarters not allowed - The definition of "living quarters" and reasons for a prohibition are not clear.

2) Boathouses are being disallowed by two restrictions - These prohibitions would violate the property owners' deeded easement rights.
The two proposed provisions that violate the deeded easement are:
-- a) "Enclosed structures not allowed"
-- b) "Enclosed storage area maximum of 27sf"

3) Specific building materials are being required - New and better materials become available over time. In addition to listing specific materials, set the criteria that alternative materials must meet.

4) Minimum roof pitch of 6 in 12 - this is 45'. It's not clear why we need a provision for roof pitch.

5) Size Restrictions - The FLAR "method" (Floor to Area Ratio - i.e. how much of the easement may be covered by dock) of calculating size limit is adequate but there is disagreement on specifics.
-- a) The FLAR percentage under consideration (25%) is substantially too small.
-- b) Under a FLAR, small lot owners may be prohibited from building adequate docks on their easements.
-- a) Use a 40% FLAR
-- b) Walkways up to 8' width should be excluded from the FLAR to encourage larger (i.e. safer) walkways.
-- c) Docks under 1000sf are not subject to FLAR or setback requirements.
The only two requirements for docks 1000sf or less are:
------(1) The structure must fit within the easement.
------(2) The structure must not obstruct access (as stated in the deed).

6) Side building lines (i.e. setbacks from easement) 5ft to 20ft - a variable setback is unacceptable. State a minimum setback that prevents obstruction (as stated by the deed).
--- a) Setbacks should only apply to docks >1000
--- b) Setbacks should be 7ft from easement border and 14 foot from adjacent structure.

No comments: