Buckle Up Lake Front Home Owners If Selling Is In Your Future. We Could Be In For A Wild Ride

If you have a lake front home with an existing dock permit and you want to sell in the future, I encourage you to read this post and understand where the LOZ is headed as a result of the SMP. All of the elements that occur within the SMP at Smith Mountain Lake in Virginia are found in ours as well.   In earlier posts we have discussed the vegetative cover policy.  Well, here is how Ameren and the FERC have enabled themselves with the power to make sure we abide by this new rule.  If you want to sell, you better know your permit could be held hostage until you comply with the new and improved SMP.

 Appendix B to SMP/ Requirements for Ameren Permits/Construction LOZ

Taken From Appendix B To The SMP/ Page B-34:

8.2 Transfer of Ownership

If the ownership of the property, dock, or other permitted facilities changes, Ameren Missouri must be notified. If the property is transferred to a new owner, the existing permits are required to be transferred to the new owner.

Why,  you ask?  This is a great question.  “MUST BE NOTIFIED” is a huge stop sign.   To this veteran realtor it means BEFORE I convey your home, I must let Ameren know or potentially I put myself at risk of a lawsuit if something manifests with your dock permit AFTER you close.  You ask what could possibly go wrong?  I mean, you only have to let them know….right?  Maybe, but let’s take a lesson out of the play book from Smith Mountain Lake in Virginia to potentially help us predict the future here.  If you ever plan to sell…you had better read this post!  This is coming from a veteran realtor at LOZ of 17 years.  I strongly suggest you take this one very seriously.

Taken directly from:

http://www.curb-ferc-aep.com/abuses-of-power

Example #1 of how things could go terribly wrong:

When better isn't good enough

Prior to SMP regulations Jim and Mary receive a permit from Appalachian Power to build a dock depicted with a hand drawn preliminary sketch. Jim applies and receives a building permit from the County. During construction the dock design is changed. The final as-built dock is smaller and its setback from adjacent property is greater (less intrusive) than the preliminary sketch. The dock is completed after the SMP becomes effective. The completed dock is inspected and receives a certificate of occupancy from the County building official. [IAW State Code § 15.2-2307 – this dock is vested and can continue to exist as it was built, even if regulations change in the future.]

Three years after completion Jim and Mary decide to sell and ask Appalachian Power to inspect their dock so its permit can be assigned to the new buyer. Appalachian Power’s inspection reveals that the as-built dock is different from the hand drawn sketch. Appalachian Power directs Jim and Mary to either modify their dock to match the hand sketch or apply for a new permit for the as-built configuration. In either case, Appalachian Power informs them that they must also submit a landscape plan for their shoreline and agree to plant several native plants as punishment (mitigation) for this offense. Appalachian Power inspectors ensure them there will be no problem if they cooperate.

Jim and Mary decide to make application for the as-built dock, submit a landscape plan and agree to implement that plan. Appalachian Power sits on the new application refusing to approve and instead asks for additional and costly modifications to the as-built dock. Jim and Mary continue to discuss with Appalachian Power, but never get a straight or timely answer from the SMP staff, and new issues are raised at every meeting; the discussions extend over two years; Jim and Mary lose their buyer; real estate market values fall; and Jim and Mary eventually ask Appalachian Power for a final decision. During this same period, Appalachian Power allowed the neighboring property to expand a non-conforming dock in violation of the SMP.

Appalachian Power demands they modify their as-built dock; submit a new revised and more costly landscape plan; and remove a paved pathway to the dock. Jim and Mary write to the FERC asking it to review the matter and further explain how Appalachian Power has been inconsistent, slow to respond and did not follow SMP rules. FERC responds they think Appalachian Power has not been inconsistent and furthermore they agree with Appalachian Power’s final decision.

Jim and Mary ask the FERC if this is a final decision as they want the FERC staff to “rehear” (revisit) this issue. FERC denies the rehearing and informs Jim and Mary they can request a rehearing of the denial to re-hear. Jim and Mary requested the re-re-hearing and have moved the argument to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile three years have elapsed since Appalachian Power’s inspection.

Synopsis

Jim and Mary’s as-built dock is superior in all regards to the preliminary hand drawn sketch: (1) smaller in area, (2) shorter in length, (3) narrower in width; and (4) better in placement. Appalachian Power’s position – yes, but it doesn’t match the original hand drawn sketch.

ynopsis

sExample #2:

Only if you want to sell

Dick and Jane own a lot with 375 feet of waterfront. Dick and Jane receive a permit to build a dock from Appalachian Power. They apply for and receive a building permit from the County. Because of the shoreline length, Dick and Jane have the right to build a dock with three slips and up to 3,000 square feet. They choose to build a smaller dock with only one slip and less than 1,000 square feet in total coverage. They complete the dock and receive a CO from their County building inspector.

Dick and Jane decide they want to sell and ask Appalachian Power to inspect their dock so they can transfer the permit. Appalachian Power determines their as-built dock is slightly larger and of a slightly different configuration than what was permitted, but still far smaller than the 3,000 square feet maximum.

Appalachian Power insists they modify their dock to be more conforming with the permit (even thought their dock conforms with the SMP) and directs they plant native trees and scrubs along their entire 375 feet of waterfront, as punishment and at great personal expense. Dick and Jane protest and Appalachian Power eventually agrees that only 100’ of the waterfront needs to be planted with native trees and scrubs. Dick and Jane make the necessary modifications to get the dock permit transferred; they sell and leave the area. After the sale is complete they protest that their transfer permit was held hostage. They remain bitter and tell friends and neighbors up North not to consider SML because of Appalachian Power’s unfair and unreasonable actions.

Synopsis:

Dick and Jane’s as-built dock met all requirements of the shoreline management plan. But rather than allow them to submit as-built plans and transfer the dock to the new owners, Appalachian Power instead held up the sale until Dick and Jane planted native vegetation along 100 feet of their shoreline as punishment.

SCARY THING IS THAT THERE ARE EVEN MORE EXAMPLES! GO HERE TO READ ABOUT THEM:  http://www.curb-ferc-aep.com/abuses-of-power

It is so important to realize that you must  be educated by the truth and KNOW what Ameren’s own words in their Appendix B really say and mean.   Ameren is pretty loose with their allegations about all of the “misinformation” out there.  Do they mean their own?   I am pretty sure we know what this means: (Taken from page B-7 of Appendix B in Ameren’s own words)

Since every possible situation cannot be anticipated, Ameren Missouri reserves the absolute right and discretion to make appropriate exceptions or modifications to Ameren Missouri’s requirements, to make special rulings, and impose additional requirements…..

Laughable. Read their words and be scared. These guys have given themselves the latitude to change the rules when and IF they see fit according to the above paragraph.   They predict our future if you understand what you are reading.  Pass this post on to anyone you might think would be interested in selling their lake front home in the future.  This could be just one more scary part of the new SMP that “lots of people asked for”…… according to Ameren. 

MAKE A DIFFERENCE!  TAKE THE TIME TO SEND A MESSAGE TO THE FERC AND DEMAND THE 660 CONTOUR ELEVATION FOR OUR LAKE!

*****GO TO :  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NXR9RWC  AND RECORD YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE JANUARY 15 ON WHY WE MUST GO TO THE 660 ELEVATION TO ELIMINATE THIS NIGHTMARE FROM BEING OUR REALITY IF WE DO NOT SPEAK UP!