CADDNAR Updates
Recent CADDNAR Decisions
Morton v. Shank (22-027W) 16 CADDNAR 29 (2023)
In this riparian dispute, the Natural Resources Commission determined that the holder of an easement approximately 6.5 feet in width could maintain a pier lakeward of the easement. However, the riparian zone associated with the easement was not sufficiently wide to moor a boat to the pier.
Teska v. DNR (23-026W) 16 CADDNAR 28 (2023)
Petitioners asked the Natural Resources Commission to force the Department of Natural Resources to issue a declaratory judgment determining Petitioners’ riparian area, declaring Petitioners’ exclusive right to use that riparian area, and preventing unknown third parties from mooring watercraft and/or building docks and piers in Petitioners’ riparian area. Part of that declaratory judgment would have been affirming Petitioners’ ownership of the land underneath, and thus the riparian area associated with, Lake Shore Drive in the Petitioners’ subdivision. In a motion for summary judgment, the Department of Natural Resources argued that such a declaration would amount to the Natural Resources Commission issuing an order determining landward property rights, something outside the Commission’s jurisdiction. On review, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment and found that 1. The Commission may consider established landward rights, but not create or affirm them without significant documentation, when rendering decisions; and 2. Even if the Commission were to grant Petitioners’ request, Petitioners would essentially gain no relief by the issuing of the declaratory judgment.
City of New Albany v. Ecosystems Connections Institute, LLC & DNR (21-027W) 16 CADDNAR 27 (2023)
This appeal involved a permit issued by the Department to ECI for the removal of a low head dam located in Silver Creek. The Commission granted summary judgment in favor of ECI and the Department, finding the undisputed evidence established that the Department had complied with the requirements of the Flood Control Act in issuing the permit.
Bruick, et al. v. Ohio Consumer Credit, et al. (21-002W) 16 CADDNAR 26 (2023)
Petitioners requested that the Commission review their deeded easement over Respondent’s property and determine what, if any, riparian rights Petitioners were entitled to enjoy. Petitioners argued that they had a prescriptive easement granting riparian rights to place a pier into Snow Lake due to years of continuous placement of a pier on Snow Lake. Respondents argued that the easement was merely a “walking easement,” which granted Petitioners only the right to access Snow Lake without granting the right to build a maintain a pier. The ALJ found that Petitioners did not have a prescriptive easement as they did not satisfy all the requirements listed in Fraley v. Minger, 829 N.E.2d 476 (Ind. 2005), and thus were not entitled to place a pier on the easement into Snow Lake, but that Petitioners did have a “walking easement” granting access to Snow Lake.
Frisinger v. Holderman, et al. (22-060W) 16 CADDNAR 25 (2023)
Petitioners believed that Respondents had placed a pier into Loon Lake that infringed on Petitioners’ riparian zone. Petitioners believed that their riparian line extended out into the middle of Loon Lake. Respondents argued that their pier was fully in their riparian zone as they believed the riparian zone was pie shaped due to both Respondents’ and Petitioners’ properties sitting on a rounded bay. The Administrative Law Judge found that the area in which the parties’ properties are located is a rounded bay and that the riparian zones should be pie-shaped, but also found that an exact determination of those riparian zones could not be determined without a riparian survey. The Administrative Law Judge further ordered that, once the exact riparian boundaries are determined, both parties’ piers must be fully in their respective riparian zones.
West & Wallace v. Leazier (22-061W) 16 CADDNAR 24 (2023)
Petitioners own real property contained within the plat to the North Shore Addition to Tri-Lake Resort Company. Petitioners’ real property does not abut Shriner Lake. However, Petitioners obtained a non-exclusive easement over a 1.87-acre tract of property located between Petitioners’ properties and Shriner Lake. By order of the Steuben County Circuit Court, Petitioners were granted an easement that included the right to a extend a pier into Shriner Lake from the Easement. The court order did not specify a location from which Petitioners could extend their pier. Petitioner West maintained a pier approximately 150 feet from his property line within the easement. He asserted he should be able to extend his pier directly across from his property, where the respondents pier was located. West’s request to order respondents to move respondents’ pier so West could place his pier in that location was denied because the evidence did not show that West had been granted an easement specific to that location.
Thalls, et al. v. Draving, et al. (19-045W) 16 CADDNAR 23 (2023)
Respondent placed a pier on a six-foot strip of land abutting Big Chapman Lake and moored boats and other watercraft at the pier. Petitioners believed that the moored boats and watercraft crossed into, and thus interfered with, Petitioners’ riparian zones. Respondent argued that Petitioners infringed on Respondent’s riparian zone by moving their pier and requested that a safe navigation zone be established per the guidelines of Information Bulletin 56. The ALJ ordered that Respondent may not moor watercraft or maintain boatlifts in such a way as to infringe on Petitioner’s riparian zone and that Respondent’s pier may only be as wide as the given riparian area. The ALJ also ordered that Petitioners must create no less than three feet of safe navigational space between their piers and the Respondent’s riparian zone.
Antrup v Liston & Piering (21-049W) 16 CADDNAR 22 (2023)
Petitioners filed a petition alleging that Respondents had place a pier into Lake George in Steuben County, Indiana that violated the terms of a permit previously granted to Respondents by the Department of Natural Resources in 2012. Petitioners further argued that Respondents’ new pier did not comply with the safe navigational zones recommended by Information Bulletin #56. The ALJ found that Respondents no longer needed to comply with their previous permit as they were found to have riparian rights granted by their easement burdening Petitioners’ property, including the right to build and maintain a temporary structure like a pier into Lake George subject to the conditions of a general license found in 312 IAC 11-3-1. Citing N.G. Hatton Trust v. Young & Pfeiffer, 14 CADDNAR 176 (2017), the ALJ ordered that Petitioners must maintain a safe navigational zone of 5 feet from the dividing riparian line at all times and that Respondents must maintain a safe navigational zone of their side of the riparian line of at least 2 feet at all times.
Vogues v. DNR (23-001D) 16 CADDNAR 21 (2023)
Petitioner’s Indiana hunting privileges were revoked pursuant to a diversion agreement with the Dubois Superior Court which barred the Petitioner from holding an Indiana hunting permit for one year. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the Department of Natural Resources because the Natural Resources Commission does not have authority to review the decision of the Dubois Superior Court.
DNR v. Russo (23-019F) 16 CADDNAR 20 (2023)
The DNR filed a complaint with the Commission to impose civil penalties because respondent violated the Timber Buyer’s Act by buying timber without first securing a registration certificate and by purchasing timber without a written contract. An order of default was issued against respondent for failing to participate in the proceedings and a hearing was held on the civil penalty issue. The Commission imposed a civil penalty against the respondent for $2,000.
Rehlander v. DNR, Lenzen, & Templin & Amelio (22-025W) 16 CADDNAR 19 (2023)
Summary judgment was granted in favor of Respondents, upholding the group pier permit issued by the Department.
DNR v. Barnes (21-028F) 16 CADDNAR 18 (2023)
In this complaint to impose civil damages against Respondent for violation of the Timber Buyer’s Act, the Department sought the imposition of the maximum penalty for each violation of the Act. The Administrative Law Judge found the Department proved sixteen violations of Act and imposed the maximum penalty for each violation.
Gray & Shrock v. Beaudoin, Demaris & Matthews (22-048W) 16 CADDNAR 17 (2023)
Respondents in this riparian rights case placed and maintained a pier, from which they moored a boat, from the shoreline of an area designated in the plat as “Lake Access” for their exclusive use. The Commission determined the platted Lake Access property was intended to be used by either the generally public or the owners of lots within the platted subdivision. The Respondents could not put the Lake Access property to their exclusive use.
Frazzetta v. Kreft, Lomperski, & Wagoner (22-043W) 16 CADDNAR 16 (2023)
The parties to this riparian dispute possessed an easement for access to Tippecanoe Lake that burdened Frazzetta’s property. Although the parties shared a common use of the easement, there was no requirement in the document creating the easement that required the parties to maintain a common pier, even though they had done so over the years.