IN.gov - Skip Navigation

Note: This message is displayed if (1) your browser is not standards-compliant or (2) you have you disabled CSS. Read our Policies for more information.

CLOSE MENU
  • Business & Agriculture
  • Residents
  • Government
  • Education
  • Taxes & Finance
  • Visiting & Playing
  • Family & Health

Indiana Natural Resources Commission

Amber Alert
Amber Alert - TEST

Indiana Natural Resources Commission

NRC > AOPA Committee > CADDNAR > CADDNAR Updates CADDNAR Updates

Subscribe for e-mail updates

 

Recent Caddnar Decisions (as of October 25, 2016)

Fankhauser Holding, LLC & Sedgwick v. DNR, 14 CADDNAR 110 (2016)

For consideration, is the Department’s denial of a permit to place an 80-foot concrete seawall along the shoreline of Clear Lake. The subject shoreline is located within an “area of concern” (312 IAC 11-2-2), and any new seawall must be comprised of either glacial stone or bioengineered materials (312 IAC 11-4-2(c )).  No evidence was presented identifying concrete as the only viable method for controlling shoreline erosion. The permit denial was affirmed.  Administrative Cause No. 15-122W

Smith v. Simanton, 14 CADDNAR 103 (2016)

For consideration, is a riparian rights dispute on Hamilton Lake in Steuben County. The common riparian zone boundary lines between the parties are determined through the proration application of the Fourth Principle of Information Bulletin #56. A buffer zone of five feet must be maintained on either side of each common riparian zone boundary, and no portion of a temporary structure, including watercraft moored to the temporary structure, may be maintained within a buffer zone. Administrative Cause No. 15-070W.

Deister v. JR Realty Corp., 14 CADDNAR 97 (2016)

For consideration is a riparian rights dispute on Lake Wawasee, in Kosciusko County. JR Realty’s claims include claims as a riparian owner, a member of the public and on behalf of the public. JR Realty may not assert claims on behalf of the public. The property line between the parties is extended consistent with the Second Principle in Information Bulletin #56. A buffer zone of five feet on either side must be maintained on either side of each common riparian boundary established by the order. Administrative Cause No. 15-077W

Jennings v. Parkison, et al., 14 CADDNAR 91 (2016)

At issue in this proceeding is a permit to place a temporary pier lakeward of the shoreline of Big Long Lake, located in LaGrange County. The temporary pier would be situated along a 30-foot stretch of shoreline associated with multiple lots in Block 8 of Long Lake Park. Administrative Cause No. 15-031W

Bowman v. Walls, et al., 14 CADDNAR 85 (2016)

At issue in this proceeding is the extension of piers by three easement holders from the shoreline of a tract of property situated along a channel of Big Barbee Lake in Kosciusko County.  The Commission acknowledged its authority to consider matters associated with land, including restrictive covenants under the Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction, noting, however, that the exercise of such authority “should be restrained to those occasions when such consideration is necessary.”  The matters in dispute were determined relying exclusively upon Indiana law and administrative rule making it unnecessary to address the issues raised with respect to the restrictive covenant.  The Commission determined that the Lot owners involved in the proceeding must exercise their riparian rights reasonably and with courtesy to other Lot owners and members of the public, and to this end, were restricted with respect to the distance piers and moored boats may extend into the channel in order to establish a clear lane of navigation in the center of the channel.  Administrative Cause No. 15-021W

Cress v. Byer & DNR, 14 CADDNAR 81 (2016)

[NOTE: On June 17, 2015, the Steuben Circuit Court entered its order of remand. On April 15, 2016, the Commission entered its Order on Remand.] For consideration is a riparian rights dispute on Lake George, a public freshwater lake located partly in Steuben County.  The decision construes multiple easements from a riparian owner to an off lake lot owner.  Included is a definition of a “boatlift”.  Administrative Cause No. 12-192W

Oakwood Property Owners Assoc., Inc. v. Mekus, 14 CADDNAR 74 (2016)

At issue in this proceeding is a petition filed by Oakwood Property Owners Association, Inc. seeking relief against Mekus with respect to Mekus’ placement of a personal pier, boat lift, and pontoon within the boundaries of and extending from the Hill Street Easement into Hamilton Lake.  Oakwood requested relief regarding the declaration that Hill Street and other easements within the Oakwood Subdivision be dedicated for the use and enjoyment of all lots owners; issuance of an order enjoining Mekus, without prior written consent from Oakwood, from erecting or maintaining any structure or property within or extending from any easement within the subdivision; and issuance of an order which imposes fines and penalties for noncompliance.  The Commission determines that its jurisdiction does not extend to the enforcement of Oakwood’s bylaws and rules and is without authority to impose fines and penalties.  The Commission also determines: Oakwood is not a riparian owner within the definition at 312 IAC 11-2-19; Mekus is a riparian owner as defined at 312 IAC 11-2-19 with respect to the Hill Street Easement abutting the shoreline of Hamilton Lake; and Mekus’ rights to extend and maintain a pier is subject to the competing interests of other riparian owners and Mekus’ use must allow for common use by all Lot Owners.  Administrative Cause No. 15-038W

Rennaker v. Simmers, et al., 14 CADDNAR 66 (2016)

For consideration is a riparian rights dispute on Blue Lake, a public freshwater lake, in Whitley County.  In this case, the Petitioners, who owned real property abutting either side of a 30-foot wide drive claimed ownership and the right to exercise riparian rights associated with the shoreline of that drive.  The Respondents, who were not owners of shoreline on Blue Lake, claimed the right to use the riparian rights associated with the shoreline of the drive to extend a pier by virtue of language contained within their deeds.  In a decision limited in application to the identified parties and to the issues presented it was determined that neither the Petitioners, nor the Respondents were entitled to exercise riparian rights along the shoreline associated with the drive.  Administrative Cause No. 15-091W

Walthers v. DNR, 14 CADDNAR 57 (2016)

[NOTE: WALTHERS TOOK JUDICIAL REVIEW IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT ON MAY 16, 2016.] At issue in this proceeding is a notice of violation (NOV) issued under IC 14-27-7.5 (commonly known as the “Dam Safety Act”) to Walthers and Richards, the owners of the Forest Lake Dam.  Richards filed an Agreed Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal; and subsequently, a Final Order of Dismissal was issued as to the Richards.  As to Walthers, the Commission affirmed the NOV and mitigation plan.  Administrative Cause No. 13-147W

DNR v. Cruse d/b/a Cruse Hardwoods, 14 CADDNAR 54 (2016)

At issue in this proceeding is a complaint to revoke Timber Buyers License and Agent Card against Perry Cruse. Cruse had been charged with 25 criminal violations involving numerous victims in multiple counties for failure to pay for timber harvested.  Cruse was convicted in five of those criminal cases and several others were dismissed after restitution was paid. The timber buyers license issued to Cruse was revoked under authority of IC 25-36.5-1-12 IC 25-36.5-1-16 and in accordance with IC 25-36.5-1-11 Cruse is prohibited from being issued a timber buyers or agents license until all sums due to all timber growers have been satisfied. Administrative Cause No. 12-105F

Yager v. Ryan, 14 CADDNAR 50 (2016)

For consideration is a riparian rights dispute on Bass Lake, a public freshwater lake in Starke County.  The property line between the parties is extended consistent with the Second Principle in Information Bulletin #56.  Because both the Yager and Ryan lots (as well as neighboring lots) have 50 feet of frontage, it is determined that there is sufficient space for a setback of ten feet of clearance on either side of the dividing line between riparian zones.  Administrative Cause No. 15-062W