Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
posted to alt.sailing.pbsa,rec.boats,rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about live aboard at / on docks constructed on privatelyowned submerged land in Pinellas County, FL. Salt water.
Scenario:
Location; Pinellas County Florida. Canals dredged in the 40’s or 50’s (not naturally submerged). Houses on the canal were built in 1950’s 60’s and maybe 70’s. (Single family homes) The developer was the owner of record of the property that was dredged to become the canal. The son of the developer sold the submerged land (the canals) to a third party in the late 1990’s or the early 2000’s. 55 docks are situated on 4 canals with the submerged land being owned by a private third party. The canals are salt water and lead to Tampa Bay, then to the Gulf of Mexico. Each dock is adjacent to a house and a residential lot. The owners of the adjacent upland houses likely think they own the docks and have never considered who may own the submerged land that the docks are actually constructed upon. Questions; With the permission of the owner of the submerged land, would live aboard vessels be permitted? Does this depend on local ordinances, local zoning, state laws, other? Would the local power, water, and other utility companies provide utilities to the live aboard boats / docks / residents? Some of the 55 houses adjacent to the docks are in foreclosure, abandoned, or otherwise vacant and being ignored. These vacant houses might be a good place to start docking if these questions can be answered in a light favorable to live aboard. I posed some of these questions along with other general questions regarding submerged land. This particular answer / response was very informative and interesting. It specifies other parcels that are very similar, almost exactly the same, as the parcel I refer to above. Here is the answer mentioned above; This summarizes a number of examples and is not meant to be fully comprehensive. After reading about these examples, one would wonder how many similar situations exist in Pinellas County. If you are aware of any, or find any, please reply to this post with details. The most publicized transactions involving submerged land occurred when Pinellas County sold the submerged real estate adjacent to 61 waterfront homes to a buyer named Don Connelly for a price of $2000 at a tax deed sale. Depending which source you rely on, this sale to Mr. Connelly happened in either November 2001, or February 2002. After Connelly purchased the submerged parcel he put a price of $100,000 per dock on the property. He requested that the neighboring residents, who thought the docks to be theirs, stop using the docks and said he would fence off the docks if they did not respect his rights as owner of the land on which the docks were constructed. Lawyers got involved. Reportedly, a suit was filed which accused Connolly of being ‘unfair’ and accused the County of failing to follow proper procedures. No criminal charges were filed against Connelly relating to the purchase or sale of this real estate. Pinellas County started telling the waterfront residents that before they could modify their docks, they needed to ask for permission from Connelly. The affected waterfront residents and the lawyers who represented them quickly started making offers to buy the property. Connelly accepted an offer of $18,000. The money was paid by a married couple, Geoff and Tammy Apthrop. They are one of the families who wanted to use one of the docks on what was Connelly’s property. The dock they wanted to use was directly behind their own recently purchased home. Now, the new owners of the submerged property seemed to share similarities with the unpopular individual they had just purchased the property from. They, purportedly with help from lawyers, wrote letters to their neighbors demanding equal reimbursement from each neighbor for their respective submerged land and dock. No reports surfaced regarding how many neighbors eventually ‘chipped in’ their fair share, if there were any that refused to do so, or if any that refused to pay were ever denied access to their docks. By many accounts, Connelly seemed to be regarded as schemer and as a rogue speculator. There are facts, however, that seem to be difficult to dispute. Connelly owned the property. Even the affected residents came to believe and realize that what he did was legal. Connelly wanted to sell the land he had purchased for an arguably very large profit. Putting emotions, personalities, etc. aside, this happens every day in every way, in every nook and cranny of the USA; someone selling something at a very large profit. What happens when an entity that owns submerged land approaches the sale differently, and is perceived to be ‘professional’ and ‘proper’? A company called Bayesplanade.com LLC, by looking at public records, seems to have had considerable real estate holdings on the valuable barrier island called Clearwater Beach. It appears that a significant portion of their real assets on the beach has been, and still is, submerged land. While this LLC is still the owner of record for large tracts of submerged land, they have sold off some such parcels. Parcel 05-29-15-00000-320-0100 is one such parcel. It is adjacent to a small hotel on Clearwater Beach, and has a dock constructed on it. This parcel was sold to Jake Enterprises at a price of $18,000. No lawsuits, no news coverage, just a deal between two real estate owners on 9/19/2007. Bayesplanade.com LLC also sold what used to be parcel 05-29-15-00000-340-0100 to the contiguous upland property owner. Like each of the prior examples, there was a dock already on the property. The price was $5900 on 5/4/2007. If success is measured either by the most money, the amount of property sold, or by the most buyers of underwater property, the most successful and prolific sellers of submerged land, and actual docks in recent history seem to be John and Nancy Modica. Mr. and Mrs. Modica sold parcel 05-29-15-54756-077-0060 to Boca Ciega Dock Owners, Inc for $60,000. This parcel is contiguous to a condominium development, and once again, already had a dock on it at the time it was sold. Apparently, the buyer of the submerged parcel and the dock was already using the dock at the time the purchase was made. Reportedly, they wanted to make improvements to the dock. They were told that before they could obtain a permit to improve the dock, they had to have the approval and/or the participation of the owner of the dock and the parcel on which the dock was constructed. This issue of permitting for dock improvement seems to be similar to what transpired in the case of Don Connelly. The Modicas appear to have sold at least 2 or 3 dozen more submerged parcels to respective contiguous upland property owners as well. For each of the below examples, I have included an Official Record book and page number so that these transactions may be easily verified and further researched; Adjacent Upland Address Price Sale Date OR BK/PAGE 6904 SOUTH SHORE DR SOUTH $1,500 6/1/1998 10115/0752 7092 S SHORE DR S $2,500 8/21/1998 10211 / 1317 7088 S SHORE DR S $2,500 8/25/1998 10215/0085 7056 S SHORE DR $2,500 10/26/1998 10281/1135 7112 S SHORE DR $2,500 4/9/1999 10472/2160 7072 SOUTH SHORE DR S $2,500 4/14/1999 10478/2515 7040 S SHORE DR $2,500 4/13/2000 10877/1370 7050 S SHORE DR SOUTH $2,500 6/1/2000 10929/1685 7068 S SHORE DR SOUTH $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1043 7064 SOUTH SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1048 7020 SOUTH SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1053 7172 SOUTH SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0919 7168 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0922 7164 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0925 7132 S SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/0927 7008 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1062 7004 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1067 6900 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1071 6948 S SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1081 6956 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1084 6984 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1088 6996 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1091 7000 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1102 7160 SOUTH SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1102 7148 S SHORE DR S $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1105 7144 S SHORE DR $1,300 8/25/2000 11027/1108 The three aforementioned sellers seem to have done very well on the investments they made in submerged land. There are a few examples of submerged land owners who have not sold their submerged interests to adjacent upland owners (yet?). These owners of record have owned the properties for several years. A reason for this may be the fact the property taxes are minimal on these parcels. Not a single case comes to light in which a completely submerged parcel is appraised as having a dock as an extra feature. Instead, in every instance found, the value of the dock is assessed, appraised, and taxed as part of the value of the immediately adjacent house and property. This seems to be completely unique to the appraisal and taxation of docks as an ‘extra feature’. Sheds, pools, patios, etc, are never taxed to neighboring property owners, naturally they count towards the value of the property on which they are constructed. So, the neighbors of the submerged land owners essentially pay the lion’s share of any taxes on the value submerged areas and docks. This would seem to make ownership of the submerged land an effortless and very affordable endeavor. This may be why some owners of submerged land have held their parcels for sometimes decades, seemingly almost forgetting about them until they are ready to capitalize or a seller- friendly market, or on their own financial circumstances. With a pattern of great returns on this type of real estate, one would wonder when, not if, these land owners will endeavor to reap some rewards from what appears to have been a wise investment decision. Parcel # 04-31-15-00000-340-0100 is in Lake Seminole. Looking at the aerial map presented by the county property appraiser on their web site, it appears that there are 4 houses contiguous to this submerged parcel. Adjacent to each of the contiguous lots with houses, there is a dock constructed directly on the submerged parcel. The owner of this property, seemingly, may have some VERY valuable real estate. How much would the market bear if he decided the best business decision would be to rent the docks rather then sell them? If each dock were rented for $100 per month, that comes to a payout of $400 per month. The neighboring parcel to the south of the Lake Seminole parcel discussed above, # 15-30-15-00000-410-0200 was purchased at a tax deed sale on April 4th for a price of $1100. There are 5-6 adjacent upland residential lots, each with a house. The owner of record of (Lake Seminole) parcel 15-30-15-00000-410-0200 also owns a submerged parcel in the wide waters of Boca Ciega Bay, parcel # 04-31-15-00000-340-0100. The price paid for this parcel at tax deed sale, on 4/7/1994, was $900. This appears to be in the same general area where the Modicas and Mr. Connelly owned and sold their submerged land. This parcel is contiguous to 3 upland residential lots, each with a house. The assessed values of these houses are $343,086, $350,014, and $408,000. In this case, if the ability to be able to have exclusive use of a dock and submerged land can be calculated at a mere 3% of the value of a waterfront home, the value of this submerged parcel is over $33,000. Anyone trying to obtain a permit to construct a dock in Pinellas County must sign agreeing; ‘it is my responsibility to obtain any necessary permits and approvals applicable for the proposed activities on either private or sovereign owned submerged land. Questions about live aboard at / on docks constructed on privately owned submerged land in Pinellas County, FL. Salt water. |
#2
posted to alt.sailing.pbsa,rec.boats,rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
Questions about live aboard at / on docks constructed on privately owned submerged land in Pinellas County, FL. Salt water.
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:45:40 -0800 (PST), Rusty Nelson
wrote: Questions; With the permission of the owner of the submerged land, would live aboard vessels be permitted? The regulations regarding live aboard vessels vary greatly from town to town and county to county. Does this depend on local ordinances, local zoning, state laws, other? It absolutely does, all of the above including the US Corps of Engineers. Would the local power, water, and other utility companies provide utilities to the live aboard boats / docks / residents? Utilities will supply power to the owner of structures on land adjacent to the dock. It is the responsibility of the dock owner to install shore power. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|