Continuing to take small steps towards addressing a long standing township issue, the Independence Board of Trustees reviewed an amendment concerning keyholing at the July 19 meeting.
Keyholing refers to the use of one dock by more than one property owner on a parcel of land. For example, residents of an apartment complex or condo association using the same dock or access point.
The township board has consistently received complaints from residents, particularly those on Deer Lake, about this issue for several years. Approximately three years ago, the township began the creation of a keyholing ordinance, but tabled the project when the regulations became too large and the ordinance cumbersome.
The board returned to the issue at a June meeting and formed a committee comprised of township board members and lake residents to help draft an amendment to Article III of the Independence Township, referring to watercraft and beach regulations. According to Supervisor Dave Wagner, Deer Lake property owners were the only residents to participate.
‘Very few other lakes showed interest and no one called us, we called them,? he said.
The result of the committee was a possible amendment brought to the board on July ?? for discussion.
‘This is merely a draft,? said Stuart Cooney, township attorney. ‘It contains a lot of my ideas. Not ideas you have to accept, but points to begin from. I tried to address many of the concerns brought here.?
The amendment is drafted to cover all docks erected on any township lake or waterfront. Some of the larger regulations include:
? Dock Installation ? A dock can only be erected or enlarged on a parcel of land with at least a full 100 feet of water frontage for each dock erected. The amendment does accept parcels which are already on record, have a smaller water frontage than 100 and are not in common ownership with an adjacent lot.
? Size ? No dock may extend into the water more than 75 feet or such distance as may permit reasonable operation of motorized watercraft for docking purposes. Docks may not be built to a length which interferes with the movement of other persons or watercraft on the lake.
? Number of Watercraft ? No property owner shall moor more than three motorized watercraft at any dock.
? State Rules ? Any dock qualifying as a marina under Michigan law is prohibited in the township. However, any owners with a current operational permit from the state are exempt. Their current permit takes priority.
? Definition ? Docks are defined as ‘any projection into the water or anchored material in the water that is used by persons for access to water or to moor, access or service watercraft of any type.?
Trustee Dan Travis voiced several concerns with the amendment. His strongest referred to the number of watercraft allowed.
‘There are myself and many of my neighbors who have five to six water toys,? he said. ‘When you get your boat, sail boat, skis, personal watercraft and such out there, you can have quite a few watercraft to one household.?
Cooney said the limit was placed at three after researching several similar ordinances and amendments. He emphasized that this number is a starting point for discussion.
Continually during the meeting, the issue of enforcement arose among the trustees.
‘Is there an enforcement issue upholding propriety of this type of statute?? question Trustee Charles Dunn. Dunn also asked about any cases or studies showing this matter.
Dunn also questioned whether state law should be used as a definition and bases in the amendment. He stated that Michigan has no firm rules or regulations currently in place on the matter, only ‘guidance being challenged left and right.?
‘To what end are we getting to by doing this? I think the enforcement issue is going to be a problem here,? said Dunn.
‘I do think we have to address this, but I don’t think we can do it in a simplistic manner,? agreed Treasurer Jim Wenger. ‘The last thing I want is another ordinance that can’t be enforced.?
County Commissioner Tom Middleton echoed the sentiment, ‘The unintended consequences when you pass something like this are innumerable, and your starting to see the signs of this now.?
In general, residents voiced approval of the step being taken with the amendment.
‘Simple, straight forward, yet begs some questions. This is what we needed,? said Joe Pelucci, a Deer Lake resident.
‘I’m pleased to see this happening, however I think this has to be an individual issue,? said Glen Cordial, of Deer Lake. ‘I think we should consider that each lakes going to be a different entity depending on the boats it can handle.?
After the discussion, Dan Travis motioned to table the amendment until further research could be done by the committee. He did not place a time limit ‘so that things can be done properly.?
The board approved the motion unanimously.