Thanks for the question on the changes to the Yadkin Shoreline Management Plan that will occur once APGI receives its new license. The proposed changes are outlined in the Appendix D of the Relicensing Settlement Agreement.
If approved by the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC), the changes would allow eligible property owners to build larger private piers with an overall maximum square footage of 1,100 square feet. Within that footprint, the modifications allow greater flexibility in the design of the facilities to meet individuals' needs. The changes would still require that piers be constructed of pressure-treated lumber and pilings, although proposals to use materials other than pressure treated lumber will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Other proposed changes that would benefit pier owners allow:
Individual or shared piers on lots with a minimum shoreline width of 50-ft within subdivisions developed prior to May 1, 1987;
Piers to be constructed in a minimum of six feet of water depth;
The length of piers to be 75 feet in total length regardless of the water depth unless there is a safety, navigation, and/or ingress/egress concern;
Boat lifts with supports resting on the reservoir bottom and boat lift covers;
On-pier structures, such as gazebos/shelters on the stationary section of the pier;
A sitting area within the 100-foot forested setback; and
Vegetation management in the 100-foot forested setback to create a view corridor.
Once APGI receives a new license, these new benefits could be implemented within three months.
Posts
1 comment:
I don't know, those changes all seem fairly insignificant with the exception of the boat lifts being able to be on the lake bottom. Some of it may be pretty significant to those with lots where this will now allow them to have a pier at all where they couldn't have before, but for those of us with existing structures it isn't much of a change.
I guess I understand why you don't want people building floating structures out of wood with upper decks and the like, but I don't understand why manufactured floating structures, like the Alumadock stuff, isn't allowed. You mention it might be on a "case by case" basis, but is it really likely that something like that would be approved?
I have a modest U shaped floating dock with floating boat lift in the slip. I have an aluminum structure awning on it, and I also have a floating dual jetski dock attached. Without changing my "footprint" in the water at all, I'd love to replace the entire thing with one Alumadock structure with the same features. The only "change" would be that instead of just a cover for the slip, I'd make that "roof" a second story deck.
I see no reason why this has any greater impact on the lake or my neighbors or anything, but I also have little feeling that this would be approved for some reason under this "case by case" clause. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about...
Post a Comment