You take the case you quote completely out of context to support your claims that waterfront owners also own the Lake in front of their homes. This item was discussed ad nauseum in the thread about swim lines/platforms. I'll attach only a portion of my reply:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Skip
...and common law and State Statute will not allow you to "claim" a portion of a public body of water for your own by doing same.
Now comes a small portion of a 1979 case. The case cited (although you wouldn't know it by the handful of paragraphs excerpted from a number of pages of text) was not in reference to any of the above. Rather it was a case arising out of eminent domain issues due to the accusations that the outflow from a creek receiving treated sewage denied property owners their rightful usage of waters adjacent to their properties.
The basic common law philosophy stated in the few cited paragraphs are not in dispute here. A lakefront owner has the ability to construct docks or piers, a boathouse, float a raft, obtain a mooring permit or build a swim line...opportunites that a non-landowner does not have. That opportunity is not available to a non-property owner, hence a literal reading of the RSA stated would leave one to believe that a non-propery owner could do & build the same as a property owner. We all know that is not the case and the Court was stating the obvious.
There is other case law cited in the above reading that concerns abutters blocking other abutters usage and views with piers, docks, boathouses and the like. In each instance, while there is no one clearly defined definition or delineation of the size and scope of the projects in question, the Court stated that the standard to be used in this State is, is the structure or intended use reasonable?
Remember the word "reasonable", as that is the standard the Court hangs it hat on in cases like these.
A shore front property owner has the expectation of reasonable use of the water in front of his/her property. He/she has the additional ability to build accessory structures on or into the water as long as the usage is reasonable. But that person does not own the water adjacent to his/her property. That person cannot use those accessory structures in an unreasonable manner to deny enjoyment of that same body of water to his abutting neighbors, or the public at large. FJ, nor anyone else, can constuct accessory structures or employ swim lines or rafts to deny abutters or the general public common usage of public property.
Again, the bottom line is the Lake is public property, to be enjoyed by the public. And no member of the public, whether lakeside property owner, swimmer or boater, can utilize unreasonable methods to deny any other person reasonable usage of such property...(
|
Actually, waterfront owners should be secretly greatful that the State/Town cannot claim that acres of waterfront adjacent to their homes are real property of the abutters. Imagine what would happen to their already extremely high property tax bills if that were the case!!!
Actually, I am confused about all the angst displayed on this particular thread. CabinFever has displayed a reasonable and common sense approach to the issues facing her family as owners of a unique and beautiful Winni Island. Belmont has staked his claim to reasonable usage of a public body of water, a tradition as old, valued and cherished as the State itself.
It seems that basically everyone agrees, passionate posts none the less, (with a few misconceptions about case law and the actual intent of the tresspassing statute) that we all should give each other reasonable space and consideration.
Hopefully Belmont Resident & Cabinfever can determine who and what actually happened on the day in question and come to an amicable agreement as to how to prevent a similar misunderstanding in the future.
Good luck in any case.....
Skip