Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

August 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin important bodies of water" passes into private ownership with a grant of ripar- ian land, absent an express reservation. Applying this rule to Lake Placid, a nontidal, inland lake, the riparian owners have title to the bed of the lake, concluded the court. Therefore, explained the court, while the State may hold proprietary title to portions of the lake bed based on its ownership of riparian property on the lake, it does not own Lake Placid in a sovereign capacity and, accordingly, does not have "absolute control" over the lake. In light of its conclusion that the State did not own Lake Placid in it sovereign capacity so as to give it exclusive jurisdiction over "every form of regulation [of the lake] in the public interest," the court next addressed the is- sue of whether the Navigation Law was the source of exclusive jurisdiction preempting local authority here. While the court agreed with Supreme Court's finding that the Navigation Law applies to Lake Placid, the court found that none of the Navigation Law's provisions gave the State exclusive jurisdiction over structures located in the lake so as to preempt the application of the Town's zoning restrictions to defendants' boathouses. While Navigation Law § 2(2) and § 30 give the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation jurisdiction "over navigation on the navigable waters of the state" in the region where Lake Placid is located, § 30 explicitly provides that "nothing authorized hereunder shall be construed to , . . autho- rize . . . any infringement of . . . local laws or regulations," found the court. Thus, by its plain language, Navigation Law § 30 applies only to navigation and does not infringe upon the application of the LUC to structures built upon the waters of Lake Placid, concluded the court. Likewise, the court found that Navigation Law § 32 was not an exclusive statute controlling the placement of docks and other similar structures in the navigable waters of the state, but was enacted to provide an administrative remedy if a structure placed in navigable waters of the state should interfere with "free and direct access" to the water from any other person's property, wharf, dock or similar structure. The court concluded that Navigation Law § 32 did not infringe upon the Town's use of the LUC to regulate the construc- tion of boathouses on the lake. Moreover, the court found that Navigation Law § § 46 and 46-a allowed lo- cal municipalities to regulate the use of a lake or other body of water within the municipality by setting speed limits for vessels or prohibiting personal wa- tercraft within a designated "vessel regulation zone." The court concluded that: "As Lake Placid is not owned by the State in its sovereign capacity and most of the lake is within the Town's boundaries, the Town's zoning authority includes that portion of the lake, making the LUC applicable to structures constructed therein." The Grimditches' boathouses were subject to the Town's LUC. Case Nate: The holding here that the Navigation Law does not confer exclusive jurisdiction upon the State over structures in the navigable waters of the state abrogated holdings in Mohawk Valley Ski Club, Inc. v. Town of Duanesburg, 304 A.D.2d 881, 757 N. YS.2d 10 ©2012 Thomson Reuters