THE CHARACYEMSTECS OF LAKEFRQNT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ON SELECTED INLAND LAKES lN MICHIGAN Thesis {or The Dogma cf M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Wayne Harris Verspoor 1965 MIMI/INN! ll/Ifl/l/I/l/II/I/ll/II/I/(/II/UI/U/IIH/M 197.18 R A R Y -- ° . Scat! 3 1293 10424 1769 MICh‘Sa“ . - Umvm", ABSTRACT THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKEFRONT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ON SELECTED INLAND LAKES IN MICHIGAN by Wayne Harris Verspoor The State of Michigan, with its many thousands of develOped inland lakes, can be divided into three regional areas showing characteristic lake use and deve10pment trends. The Upper Peninsula lakes are, as yet, rather undevelOped and iso- lated. Location, access, and lack of pOpulation in the area is responsi- ble for a large share of this characteristic but other local factors may also influence lack of deve10pment. Pr0perty values, type of deve10pment, and type of lake use all reflect the isolated nature of Upper Peninsula lakes and for the most part, very little platting is found on most lakes, with the exception of some larger lakes. The northern Lower Peninsula is a transition zone between the char— acteristic} lack of deve10pment in the Upper Peninsula and the extremely intense development of the southern Lower Peninsula. Most areas of the northern Lower Peninsula are within three or four hours driving time from moSt population centers in the southern part of the state and this , coupled with increasing pOpulation, demand and other factors has produced more rapid deve10pment of northern Lower Peninsula lakes. Pr0perty values , Wayne Harris Verspoor quality and regularity of cottages , and a variety of lake uses show the transition from the single purpose and loner type of deve10pment in the Upper Peninsula. Michigan‘s southern Lower Peninsula lakes show the ultimate in lake deve10pment. Almost all lakes are highly develOped, a variety of recrea- tional uses are found on every lake, and problems relating to this devel- Opment are common. User conflicts, carrying capacity, pollution, aquatic plants, and overcrowding are the more common problems on southern lakes, especially in southeastern Michigan, but many local factors also influence lake development quality. Permanent residences on lakes are much more common in the southern Lower Peninsula than in other areas of Michigan and clubs, resorts , and other social service centers are found on most in— tensively develOped lakes. In summary, demand for frontage is increasing, especially in the Lower Peninsula, and use patterns of lakes reflect this demand. With increasing population, more leisure time, and better access , deve10pment of many more northern lakes can be expected to continue and increase. Adequate planning and management is required on all lake deve10pments, whether old or new, in order to assure efficient use and conservation of lake re- sources. Ideal lake deve10pment, therefore, should be geared to this con- cept in order to prevent conditions similar to those found on many southern Lower Peninsula lakes. Good planning techniques, prOperty and use re— strictions , and maintenance of all lake deve10pments will enhance rather than destroy Michigan's inland lakes , one of the state's most valuable re- S ource S . THE CHARACTERISTICS OF LAKEFRONT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT ON SELECTED INLAND LAKES IN MICHIGAN By Wayne Harris Vers poor A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1965 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. Clifford R. Humphrys of the Department of Resource DevelOpment, Mich— igan State University, without whose guidance and constructive criticism this study could never have been completed. Acknowledgments are also due to Dr. Milton H. Steinmueller of the Department of Resource Devel- opment, and to the lakefront prOperty owners who, in the course of the fieldwork, provided much of the required information. Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents and my wife, Betti, who provided the encouragement and finances to complete this endeavor. Wayne Harris Vers poor 11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................ LIST OF TABLES ........................... LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................... Lake Activities and DevelOpment Trends ...... Statement of the Problem and Intentions of the Study ..................... Lake Descriptions ................. Definition of Terms ................. THE USE OF PLATTING FOR LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT . . Northern Michigan Development .......... Southern Michigan DevelOpment .......... The DevelOpment of Inland Lakes — A Historical Analysis ...................... METHODOLOGY ..................... NATURAL AND MAN-ASSOCIATED CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING LAKES AND LAKEFRONT DEVELOPMENT IN MICHIGAN ..................... Natural Characteristics ............... Upland Vegetation Aquatic Vegetation Aquatic Fauna and Associated Problems Other Natural Characteristics of Lakes Man-Associated Characteristics .......... Carrying Capacity User Conflicts Traffic and Accessibility Waste Disposal and Pollution Problems Cottage Development Dredging and Filling Management Problems iii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ....................... LIST OF APPENDICES Page ii vi vii viii 29 29 47 TABLE OF CONTENTS-- Continued Chapter V. AN ANALYSIS OF EIGHT LAKES USED AS EXAMPLES OF LAKE DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS IN MICHIGAN. . Camp Lake ...................... Gulliver Lake ..................... Lake Esau ....................... Gaylanta Lake .................... Sapphire Lake ..................... Big Brower Lake .................... Silver Lake ...................... Cooley Lake ..................... Lakefront PrOperty Development Characteristics of Eight Michigan Lakes .............. General Factors Influencing Michigan Lake DevelOpments Development Patterns of Eight Lakes in Michigan Upper Peninsula Lakes Northern Lower Peninsula Lakes Southern Lower Peninsula Lakes VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... Conclusions ..................... Recommendations ................... BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... APPENDICES ............................. iv Page 59 59 61 62 64 64 65 67 7O 71 105 105 112 127 130 Table 3. Appendix Table ooxlowmprI—a LIST OF TABLES Page General Summary of Lakes Used in Study ......... 7 Variance in Lake Development Factors with Respect to Location ................... 106 Ideal Lake DevelOpment: A Summary ........... 121 Platting Characteristics of Camp Lake .......... 135 Platting Characteristics of Gulliver Lake ......... 136 Platting Characteristics of Lake Esau ........... 139 Platting Characteristics of Gaylanta Lake ......... 140 Platting Characteristics of Sapphire Lake ......... 143 Platting Characteristics of Big Brower Lake ........ 145 Platting Characteristics of Silver Lake .......... 147 Platting Characteristics of Cooley Lake .......... 149 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Location of Eight Lakes by County ............ 8 2. Camp Lake, Iron County, Michigan ............ 8O 3. Gulliver Lake, Schoolcraft County, Michigan ....... 84 4. Lake Esau, Presque Isle County, Michigan ........ 88 5. Gaylanta Lake, Montmorency County, Michigan ..... 91 6. Sapphire Lake, Missaukee County, Michigan ....... 93 7. Big Brower Lake, Kent County, Michigan ......... 97 8. Silver Lake, Livingston County, Michigan ........ 100 9. Cooley Lake, Oakland County, Michigan ......... 101 10. Ideal Lake Development .................. 122 vi Plate II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XII. XIII. XIV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XXII. XXIII. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Rubbish-Strewn Access Point on Lake Esau ........ Private Access Only— Cooley Lake ............ Weed-Choked Shoreline of Silver Lake .......... Low Water Levels , Cooley Lake .............. Characteristic Full DevelOpment on Michigan's Lower Peninsula Lakes .................. Characteristic Low DevelOpment on Michigan's Upper Peninsula Lakes .................. Water Level Control Structure, Big Brower Lake ...... Water Level Control Structure, Gulliver Lake ....... Intensive DevelOpment on Cooley Lake .......... High Speed Outboard Motorboat .............. Small Shacks and Cabins Typify Many of the Smaller Upper Peninsula Lakes .................. Overcrowded Conditions on Southern Lower Peninsula Lakes ..................... A Summer Resort on Gulliver Lake ............. A Row of Commercial Establishments ........... Filling of Lakeshore with Rocks .............. Public Access Point on Camp Lake Public Park on Gulliver Lake 000000000000000 Protestant Church-Sponsored Boys' Camp ......... A Private Campsite on Gaylanta Lake ........... Private DevelOpment on Sapphire Lake .......... One of Two Public Walkways on Big Brower Lake ..... Trailer Camp on the Shore of Silver Lake ......... Lake Property Development with Trailers is Common on Northern Peninsula Lakes ............... vii Page l8 18 35 35 37 37 43 43 50 50 53 54 56 56 57 60 6O 63 63 66 68 69 69 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Questionnaire and Accompanying Correspondence ..... 130 B. Lakefront PrOperty Platting Characteristics , Appendix Tables 1-8 ................... 134 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Lake Activities and Development Trends The State of Michigan has been blessed with thousands of lakes , rivers and streams, and the use of these water bodies for recreation has been and will continue increasing over the years. With the continuous growth of pOpulation and an increase in leisure time, this trend can be expected to continue. This can be seen especially"when one considers some of the recent trends in the demand for water space and use. From 1950 to 1959, for example, the number of the nation's residential swimming pools increased from 3, 600 to over 175, 000. 1 Attendance at state parks in Michigan produces new records each year and the number of pleasure boats in the nation has more than tripled within ten years. In fact, as one writer has speculated, "If the boats of Michigan alone were strung bow to stern, they would encircle the entire length of Michigan's Great Lakes shoreline. "2 It is no wonder, then, that the demand for water-oriented recreation has increased so rapidly over the last few years. Among the more important water—oriented activities found on Michigan lakes are boating, water skiing, swimming and wading, fishing, hunting, 1C. H. Burton, "The Use of Reservoirs for Recreation" (unpublished report), p. 37. ZIbid. camping, and cottage deve10pment. Each of these activities , along with many minor uses, is consumptive of space and time — especially when many of these activities take place at the same time on the same lake. Without adequate management and planning, therefore, many conflicts and dissentions may occur with the result of inefficient use of Michigan's inland lakes. Boating and water skiing are two very consumptive recreational ac- tivities on the actual water surface of the lake. With the deve10pment of high horsepower motors and improved boat design, a tremendous amount of water area can be covered in a very short period of time. This use of space is of course multiplied when many boats ply the lake at the same time, especially if the lake is small. Cottage deve10pment along the shoreline of a lake is also very con- sumptive of space and may actually have a detrimental effect on many valuable recreational activities on a lake. Along with cottages are many accessories such as boat docks , boat houses , launching ramps , bathing beaches, and picnic areas. These, too, are consumptive of much space along the lake shoreline because the individual owner as well as the public require weed- and insect-free swimming and recreational areas for their own personal use. Lakeshore development may take one or more forms depending upon the size, location, accessibility and other factors. Large commercial es— tablishments , elaborate cottages , or small fishing and hunting cabins may characterize any given lake. There is , therefore, a definite need for planning in order to maintain the quality of the lake and satisfy the individual's need for water-oriented recreation. Statement of the Problem and Intentions of the Study Property deve10pment on a lake appears to reflect the recreational uses of the lake. For example, some Northern Peninsula lakes are develOped almost exclusively with small cabins or even shacks used solely for hunting and fishing. In contrast, many Southern Peninsula lakes are built up with very elaborate homes and cottages reflecting the general water sport uses such as swimming, sunbathing, and boating. Much of the deve10pment on some Southern Peninsula lakes is, in fact, of the nature of permanent homes. Northern Peninsula lakes are used mostly as seasonal lakes for the purpose of hunting and fishing, or, on some of the larger lakes , as summer cottage sites. In the last few years , due to increases in vacation time and accessi— bility, many lakes have develOped to such a degree that conflicts and prob- lems have arisen of natural and especially man-associated origin. There are many thousands of Michigan inland lakes that are now being used for recreation and cottage deve10pment, and many of these lakes are now beginning to face problems of overdevelOpment. This is especially true in the more populated areas of southern Michigan where lakes have been developed for many years. Since Michigan is a state with so many lakes that are usable for water-oriented activities, there are many factors 4 affecting their development. Some of these include: (1) accessibility to the lake from centers of pOpulation, (2) adaptability of the lake to the ex- isting deve10pmental requirements , (3) the scenic qualities of the lake and surrounding area, (4) the soil conditions and vegetative growth, (5) the depth of the water in the lake, and (6) a minimum of objectionable features. Of these factors , the most important aspects are probably accessibility, adaptability, and scenic qualities of the lake. The lakes in the Northern Peninsula, not being as intensively develOped as Southern Peninsula lakes, have scenic qualities that abound. Much of the area is forested, giving a primitive and isolated feeling to the lake user. However, the facts that northern Michigan lakes are so far away from centers of pOpulation and the expense of crossing the Mackinac Bridge probably account for their gener- ally undevelOped condition. This condition is changing rapidly, however, with the improvement of state highways and more rapid and easier means of travel. Furthermore, Southern Peninsula lakes are becoming overcrowded and hence are rapidly losing quality for recreational and deve10pmental uses. Northern Michigan lakes are, as yet, relatively free from many of the problems associated with southern Michigan lakes because of their lack of development. However, unless measures are taken, the time will come when they too will show signs of problems similar to those of southern Michigan lakes . 3C. H. Burton, "The Recreational Resources of the Squaw Rapids Reservoir Province of Saskatchewan, Canada" (unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Resource DevelOpment, Michigan State University, 1961). p. 46. a» Some characteristic problems associated with deve10pment on Michigan's lakes that will be emphasized in this study can be placed in two main cate- gories, namely, natural and man-associated. In the natural category are included such aspects as biological and physical problems. The man- associated category will include pollution, user conflicts , carrying ca— pacity, and cottage deve10pment. The main emphasis will be placed on the man-associated aspects of these problems, especially to cottage de- ve10pment and related problems. Pr0perty description in the state of Michigan is gradually shifting from the metes and bounds method to that of platting and subdividing. Because of the detailed descriptions and time consuming process involved in analyzing metes and bounds descriptions , the only property used in this study will be that described in terms of plats or subdivisions , although this has not been a primary criterion in choosing the eight lakes involved. Much of the shoreline prOperty on many Michigan inland lakes , es- pecially in the Lower Peninsula, has been subdivided into lots by this method of platting. In general, the more desirable spots on the best lakes are develOped first and the concentration of deve10pment centers in these areas. 4 Lot sizes vary considerably depending upon the demand for the lake prOperty, and many problems have evolved with respect to the lot size. Uncontrolled deve10pments are common in some areas; this results 4]. I. Lynch, R. Poff, and C. W. Threinen, Improvement of Shallow Lakes for Recreational Use (Madison: Wisconsin Conservation Depart- ment, 1964). p. 1. 6 in overcrowding, conflicting uses , and aesthetically unattractive shore- line development. On the other hand, there are many lakes that have been developed with these problems in mind. This has resulted in nicely de- velOped areas without too many undesirable effects. One of the main purposes of this study will be to show the characteristics of this lake— front property deve10pment in Michigan and from this analysis , an attempt will be made to produce a pattern of ideal lakefront prOperty deve10pment that could conceivably be used on some of the lakes in Michigan. Lake Descriptions For the purpose of this study, eight inland lakes were chosen as ex- amples of prOperty and associated recreational deve10pment trends through— out the state. An attempt was made to choose these lakes from different geographical areas throughout the state in order to allow for different de- ve10pmental characteristics common to the different areas of the state. Because of this , two of the eight lakes were selected from the Upper Pen— insula, three from the northern Lower Peninsula, and three from the southern Lower Peninsula. For the purpose of this study, the northern Lower Penin- sula is defined to include the area from a line running from Bay City to Ludington, north to the Straits of Mackinac. The southern Lower Peninsula includes the area south of this line to the Ohio and Indiana state lines. (See Table 1. ) 0505320000 :0 0030000.. .0 000.90 :0 .3 005.5300. .00 0:50.00 .03.“. 09.08600 .05.. 0 .32 .03... 8.5 05.3 65...: 00. 5 $038... 50: .02. I 8.3 .000 .0503... 00. 0550:, :000: 0.3:: .953 .22 .sn .3. I 30:- nan-4.0.004"... 1'3. mod 22. :3... .0530: 05:0: 050 .0>< 9.00.9“ I 50: .22 5352“}. ".0333 3:: 5 .00m 3.3 05553. 05395003 83 05:00 0.3:: .03.: 00:05.55 00.0..— 00000 0:03.508 "0:93: p.550: 0000 mm on .5302 no: ZN." >038 .0555 00. 0508.0 $02 5 50.. «00300: .000 I 5.2.53: .00 60000534 00. .055: 0509.00. .063 .22 ...u .on I 30:. .00-05005 .05. 0300.0 won 30:05:00 50.... .93... x00 :05 .0500: 05:00 05:0: .22 ...nm.mu I 50.. .22 1% "0.033 3:: 52,0. 3:025 5.3 2.: .00» 3.04 65553. .oSIESoB 0.3 60:30:. 8.3 $20 .0552 .3820»: "may... .2052 83 :55... .08 «v x x «m. .8302 09. 2.... .050 .uonegow £30500 .3 05:0: 00. 5 50.. «003000 .000 I .3 "a .00 0:02 05:00:58 050050 .088 .22 ...v .00 I 30:. .05: 5:020 80. 30:05:00 E00 :39 0:03.500 .055: 05.00: .0555 .22 3%...” I 50.. .22 050- $5550: .30. 3.03. 5.! Va .00» 8.0.. .0585}. 053.8303 #3 003503 0:00.. £02 00:00.05 8.3 00000 00000.08 ”was .2052 800 5:5... :00. RN x x na .0500: 303... 29—. 330:: 0.: connotes. .32.... .3003 05:5. 00. .0508.- 5 50: 000300: .0m .2 I £253: "0.4010104 .00 00030053 00. 05535.- .05x... .99.: .22 .L .3 I 30:- .0030. 2:005 83 .3 8.0.. .0550: .0550: 05...: 0:. .92 3.3.0" I 58 .22 0:80 .2335: 05... 3.3.0 .000 3.04 05553. 05.0.8325 83 05:5 0.33. 6:... 8:305 8.3 820 3030.08 "g .8052 8? :55: .08 a 3m 3.502 30: an"... 9.2008 00:63:00 50800 5 50: “00300: .0: I $3. .0003 “a .00 6:08-5:03— .0500:00 05:0: 00. deg .22 .30 .um I 30:. 50:0. 5:005 8m. .039 05.05 .0530: .0525: .0550: 0:- .0>< 3.00.3 I 50.. .02 .05: 05.3 £05: 8:: an .000 00.04 is. 55...: 6552.30 a; 9.2.: 23.... .8555 8.3 S20 3552 Jane .ea .3 .805: $3 :55... so... on m: .83.... 5: 28: 3:330 .On' I .053 .02 £38308 5 50: :03 0:0: ”a .00 0.5 00000:: 05:20:53 .055: “00300: .3. .no I 30:» :05: 5.00 .030... .03... 0.5 000000.. 6523. .953: .055: 3.. .22 {3.2 I in .03. .58.. £8.52. ~55 2.2.: .08 5555.3. 65333.3 an. 9.2:. 23.... 683:5 8.... :80 2:8 .5... .833 "g .2052 .82 5.5.. so. 9.. m: .23.... as. 2:... 2:: 9.... .:00- 0:0: "3 .0555!- .0538303 .03 I 6&3 .22 .05: 5 .003:- .00 £53m 05:0: 00. 0:33.- 050: 52 303003 .3" .3 I 30:. .0308 £0.00: 2:005 Nov 30:05:00 80.. .039 0309 8. 6553.3. .05.... 3.38. .3... 3.3.2 .. .3: .22 .5. .308 £23 8.... .26. .823 5.3 «J don 8.1. 05000: .0553. 05:0... 8: 0:0 5050.552 :0... 8:255 3.0... «0000 3.00.50: "gummy: .3052 .08 p.553: 88 an x So 3.5002 3:... 2:9 5:30 .ONV I .055: .053 .92 ...u .3 I 2830:: >500 :05 00. .0523. .0530: 000.22 3.00.3 I .00: 0030.2 .3: :30... "a 63020 In Eu. .95... £035.55 05...: .0585}. .0530 0:- £133320>03 .53 £0on .0303 £030: 05.. 2.2.0.5 .000 L39: 658:8 65...: .8: 2...... 23.... :30 so: 988:5 .955: .5. .838 "a .88.... a3 5.5.. so. 2 x 8. .23.: 33.. z": 3.... 9.30 0053002 «000:0 000002 0.3:: 3058 0033000., 0050.8...» 0500:» 5:00 «0150 «05 .0055 50:0 003003 0:32 «000300.60: 00:0 :50 80:55.2 050 00.0.— 55 42,09 505.5000...— «0 2.20.. .300; 0. 0003 0030: .0 >~0580m .0..0:00 .. 5:0... MAW"! ~(f “a. MICHIGAN Figure 1. (III: I NAM. l ANTI.“ 073160 Ito-nu A P "A ossooA ALCONA III-flu ea um 0:60 nun: anon 0::th CLAII f-UD'W nunON a. unuu ”'9‘“ ruscou sAmLAO annoy 96"“ s? LAII CLINTON (AVON manna Cancun “ADC” - - Location of Eight Lakes by County 4“." luau-A0 Will 00“” uumll — - 9 The following eight lakes were chosen for this study: (see Figure l) 1. 2. Camp Lake, Iron County (Upper Peninsula) Gulliver Lake, Schoolcraft County (Upper Peninsula) Lake Esau, Presque Isle County (northern Lower Peninsula) Gaylanta Lake, Montmorency County (northern Lower Peninsula) Lake Sapphire, Missaukee County (northern Lower Peninsula) Big Brower Lake, Kent County (southern Lower Peninsula) Silver Lake, Livingston County (southern Lower Peninsula) Cooley Lake, Oakland County (southern Lower Peninsula) Definition of Terms At this point, an attempt will be made to define a number of terms that will be used throughout the study and may require some clarification. a. Back lots - "Platted lots lying back of the frontage lands of a lake and therefore having no direct water access to the lake. "5 Backshore - the land shoreward from the limit of the beach. 6 Beach - the limit on the shore reached by the waves. Commercial area - an area along a lake built up with commercial establishments . 5]. O. Veatch and C. R. Humphrys, Lake Terminology, Water Bulletin No. 14 (East Lansing: Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, n.d.), p. 12. 6 N. M. Bowers, K. C. McMurry, and K. M. Stahl, Lake Shore Inven— tory and Classification, Vol. 27 (Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, 1942). p. 339. 7Ibid., p. 338. /;v-<: _r [V 10 e. Foreshore - the land lakeward from the waterline. f. Front lots - "Platted lots fronting directly on a lake. Front lots are normally riparian unless certain or all riparian rights were reserved by the vendor. "9 9. Full develomrnent - a lake with almost all the usable shoreline develOped with cottages and commercial establishments. h. Inland lake (MichigLan) - interior bodies of water lying back from the shore and waters of the Great Lakes. 10 i. Intensivepark - a highly develOped park area consisting of many buildings and facilities such as rest rooms, bath houses, beaches , and concessions. j. Low develgiment - a lake with few residential structures , no commercial establishments, with some docking areas and camp grounds. k. Moderate deve10pment — a lake with many residential structures and some commercial establishments. 1. Muck shore - a shore composed of organic materials resulting in a soft bottom and beach area which is of poor quality for water- oriented recreation but ideal for wildlife habitats. 8 Ibid. , p. 339. 9Veatch and Humphrys, op. cit. , p. 90. loIbid., p. 109. 11 C. W. Threinen, Suggested Long-Range Develogment of Camp Lake, Kenosthounty (Madison: Wisconsin Conservation Department, 1964), p. 4. 11 m. Private lake — a lake dedicated to the use of the landowners only, and one which lacks public access. n. Public lake - "A lake to which the public has legal access, and the right to use the water only, or both the water and the shore, 12 for one or more purposes such as navigation, fishing and hunting. " 0. Residential - built up with housing. p. Sandy or firm shore - the type of shore composed wholly of sand or gravel which is Optimum for water—oriented recreation. q. Semi-Wild area — an area along the shore of a lake that has been developed into a picnic grounds or park without disturbing the original primitive-like condition. r. M - the area of water less than 15 feet in depth. 13 s. Undeveloped lake - a lake without commercial or residential structures. t. Waterline - a line along the edge of the lake where land and water meet. u. M2 " "Land dedicated to game and fish production. "1 12Veatch and Humphrys, op. cit. , p. 179. ”Ibid., p. 204. l4Bowers, McMurry, and Stahl, op. cit. , p. 338. 15C. W. Threinen, Some_Spacial Asgects of Aquatic Recreation, Miscellaneous Report No. 6 (Madison: Wisconsin Conservation Depart- ment, 1961). p. 9. CHAPTER II THE USE OF PLATTING FOR LAKESHORE DEVELOPMENT Many of the inland lakes in Michigan, especially in southern Michi- gan are subdivided into one or more plats covering a great deal of the shoreline along the lakes. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this procedure and the final appearance of the lake depends upon the success or failure of the platting methods on the lake. The greatest advantage to the use of platting on inland lakes goes to the real estate man and other persons and agencies involved in analyzing descriptions of property. A subdivision is very easy to describe and assess for taxes since each lot is numbered. The landowner also benefits from this because he is able to see where his lot begins and ends without going through the time-consuming procedure of deciphering long metes and bounds descriptions . The deve10pment of a subdivision is a very involved process since the plat develOper must go through a series of 25 steps before the sub- division is legally recognized. The following is a brief synOpsis of the Michigan Platting Act and the 25 steps required in subdivision deve10pment. 1 The Michigan Plat Act (Act 172, Public Acts of 1929) applies when any lot or tract of land is divided or develOped into five or more lots unless the lsMichiggn Plat Law (Act 172, Public Acts of 1929). 12 13 land area is ten or more acres in size. Once divided in this way, it shall not be further divided into more than two additional parts. The following steps show the procedure required for plat deve10pment: l. The proprietor or owner of the land parcel to be subdivided employs a registered land surveyor or registered professional engineer. This surveyor performs a survey on the land to be subdivided and makes up the preliminary plat. The prOprietor then files a c0py of this preliminary plat with the clerk of the local governing body and also with the county road commission if the land is in an unincorporated area. The prOpri- etor is also required to submit any related information that is per- tinent to the review of the preliminary plat. The local governing body then holds a meeting to review the pre- liminary plat and make any necessary recommendations in writing that are applicable to the plat. The preliminary plat is then re- turned to the prOprietor with the necessary recommendations. If the preliminary plat does not conform with the Plat Act, the local governing body may reject it at this time. The surveyor or engineer makes the necessary changes and drafts a final c0py with four identical COpies. The proprietor places the certificate of dedication and acknowl- edgment on the plat. The prOprietor secures a certificate from the county treasurer 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 14 showing whether there are any tax liens against the land embraced in the subdivision. If the land to be subdivided is located outside the city limits , the prOprietor must first deliver the five identical c0pies of the plat to the county road commission. The road commission then either: (a) reviews the plat and ap- proves it within 30 days, or (b) rejects the plat and gives written notice of such action to the prOprietor within five days. The proprietor then submits the plat to the clerk of each local governing body that has jurisdiction over the land to be subdivided and pays the required fee. The clerk of the municipality presents the plat to the governing body at the next regular meeting. The governing body approves or rejects the plat within 30 days after it is filed with the clerk. If rejected, a written notice and reasons for rejection are presented to the proprietor. If approved, the governing body places a certificate of approval on the plat. The clerk of the municipality delivers the approved plat with the fee of $10. 00 to the clerk of the county plat board. The clerk of the county plat board calls a meeting of the plat board within ten days of the receipt of the plat. If the plat appears to include land located within the city limits 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 15 or on county roads within the jurisdiction of the county road com- mission, the county plat board notes this fact and forwards the plat to the commission for approval. The county road commission reviews the plat and returns it to the county plat board. If it rejects the plat, it gives its reasons in writing to the plat board. The county plat board performs the required examination of the plat, approves it or rejects it, and returns it to the prOprietor if it is rejected. If approved, the county plat board forwards all COpies of the plat to the Auditor General with the fee of $10. 00. If the plat is located on an inland lake or stream, the Auditor General forwards it to the Department of Conservation for review. If the plat includes land along a state highway, the Auditor Gen- eral forwards it to the State Highway Department for review. The Department of Conservation and/or the State Highway Depart- ment approves the plat and returns it to the Auditor General 31; re- jects it and returns it to the clerk of the municipality with a written notice of rejection and notifies the Auditor General of such action. The Auditor General approves the plat and certifies it _o_r rejects it and gives reason to the prOprietor within five days. If approved, the Auditor General forwards it to the county register of deeds. The county register of deeds certifies the time recorded, liber 16 and page, and enters the plat on record. Along with the plat are recorded any building or other restrictions specified by the pro- prietor. The recorded COpy is then filed and a certificate of re- cording is then sent to the Auditor General. 25. The Auditor General: (a) places the recorder's certificate on four copies and inscribes on these COpieS the Auditor General's cer— tificate; (b) sends one c0py of the plat to the county treasurer, one COpy to the clerk of the municipality, and one COpy to the county road commission or city planning board; (c) certifies a sixth copy and sends it to the prOprietor if one has been furnished; and (d) sends the register of deeds a $5. 00 registration fee. In general, it appears that much of the deve10pment on inland lakes tends to reduce public access in order to protect the privacy of the lot owner. Many lakes are completely surrounded with private subdivisions , and dedications on original plats often state that all roads and access points are dedicated to the use of lot owners alone. Once a lake is cut off from public use, the area loses its pOpular appeal, "deterioration sets in, and economic growth stOps. "17 This may be desirable or undesirable depending upon the position of the individual. The private land owners will, of course, favor this in order to keep his lake from an overcrowded condition, whereas the tourist will take the Opposite point of view because he wishes a place for boat launching, swimming, and camping. In numerous 7Resources and Recreation in the Great Lakes Region, U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture Task Force Report, p. 63. ms th: r... (B 17 instances, one can sympathize with the private land owner in this respect. Public access points are often in a degraded condition, parking becomes a problem, and prOperty values may drOp because of intense public use of a lake. Many lot owners near public access points have complained about this very thing. Complaints range from parking on lawns or in private driveways to uncontrollable littering around the premises. Lake Esau in Presque Isle County is an example of this problem (see Plate I). A public launching site was recently Opened on the west side of the lake. It is a fairly large area with plenty parking space and since the lake is relatively isolated, parking will probably not be a problem for some time. However, when the author visited the access point, its condition Was deplorable. Beer cans and a great deal of other litter was strewn from One end to the other. Only one trash barrel was provided and it was lying On its side, its contents spilled over much of the area. Many of the land OWners in the area complained bitterly about this and one person even con- templated relocating to another private lake. On the other hand, if too many of the lakes are held in private hands Only , the lakes with public access will become extremely overcrowded leacfling to very undesirable conditions. The ever-increasing population desiring access to lakes and lack Of access to these lakes will seriously restrict the public use of Michigan's inland lakes. As the U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture Task Force DOintS out, With the exception of [a few areas] , publicly managed Plate I. Rubbish-strewn access point on Lake Esau, Presque Isle County, Michigan #- Plate II. Private access only— Cooley Lake, Oakland County, Michigan 19 high-quality recreation lake and stream shoreline is comparatively scarce. Therefore, as long as unplanned and unzoned deve10pment of private shorelines con- tinues , it is imperative that such publicly owned areas remain open for public use — unrestricted by lease or by special use permit. If this policy is not enforced, and current private development continues in the man- ner of the past decade, it is likely that public access and enjoyment of the region's water resources will be seriously restricted. 18 One of the most acute problems in subdividing may be blamed on the real estate company or deve10pment corporation. A real estate company that does the original platting is usually interested in develOping as many lots as possible with access to the lake in order that they may have more lots to sell. Because of this, many lake subdivisions are imprOperly laid out with very small lot widths. In some locations , lots with 25-foot front- ages are common. This of course leads to very overcrowded conditions unless the prospective buyer purchases more than one lot. If each land owner owns only one lot and builds a cottage on the lot, it can be seen how overcrowded a lake can become. In some cases , a plat will be laid out with extra lots develOped along a canal dug by the original platter in order that each lot owner will have riparian prOperty on the lake. In an- other case, such as is found on Silver Lake, Livingston County (see Fig- ure 8), one large riparian lot will be dedicated as an exclusive park for the sole use of adjacent lot owners , thereby surrounding it on the shore- ward side. Here again is an example of an undesirable platting method. Fortunately, most areas develop adequate zoning procedures to prevent such occurrences . 18Ibid. 20 Multi-tiered deve10pment is common on many southern Michigan lakes. In this case, all of the back lots on the lake will have either no access or access only by a walkway, a beach, or boat launching site. The above-mentioned problems are slowly being met by means of lake improvement associations or rural community leaders. New zoning rules and other controls are being used to reduce such problems , but there is still a great deal to be accomplished. Northern Michigan Development In order to illustrate lakefront platting procedures used by large de- ve10pment agencies, Petticoat Lake in Baraga County, Michigan is used as an example. The Celotex Corporation Of Chicago, Illinois has recently undertaken a large platting deve10pment on this Northern Peninsula lake. This deve10pment, which illustrates good planning and platting procedure, consists of approximately 200 front lots, each with a frontage of 100 feet. Every lot provides the owner with riparian rights to the lake and allows adequate area for cottage deve10pment. According to the brochure pre- pared by Celotex Corporation, the lots sell for $2, 000 and up. A limited number of "lake view" lots (back lots) are also available at lower prices. To provide access to the lake for these lot owners, a boat and swimming dock and beach are provided. This may cause some problems , but no de- tails are available to substantiate this claim. The lake itself is 160 acres in size and at present does not appear to have any serious pollution or aquatic problems. Previous to 1963, the lake was inaccessible by road and hence was not used to any degree by the public. Noc mobi mace sibie home WY: ( Hr (D r). (n 3 21 A number of restrictions have been established on this lake in order to prevent overdevelOpment. Only single family residences are allowed. No commercial or industrial establishments are allowed and trailers and mobile homes are permitted only on the back lots. An attempt has been made to preserve as many of the natural characteristics of the area as pos- sible by clearing away only the vegetation necessary for building summer homes. Celotex Corporation is also advertising cottages built to the owner's specifications. In comparison to the usual lake community, the Celotex plat appears to have many Of the qualities necessary for a desirablelake deve10pment and time will possibly tell how successful this will be. Since the area is relatively distant from pOpulation centers, it seems that deve10pment will be slow and overcrowded conditions will not occur for some time. The large lot sizes also provide low density use thus reducing the threat of pollution and enrichment by domestic wastes. Careful planning has as sured that the scenic qualities of the shoreline will be maintained and the recreational potential of the lake will remain high. 20 Southern Michigan DevelOpment In contrast to the well-planned development on Petticoat Lake, another deVelopment by a real estate firm has taken place on Lake LeAnn, an arti— ficial lake in Hillsdale County. This deve10pment is typical of many \ 19 Celotex Corporation Brochure (Celotex Corporation, Chicago, Illinois) , MdVertisement. 20 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Op. cit. , p. 64. an 9 cum on ti adec are 1 22 southern Michigan lakes in the sense that lot sizes are small and multi- tiered, thus producing a high potential for overcrowded conditions. Eight large plats have been established, each with relatively few front lots and an extremely large number of back lots. Access to the lake by back lot owners is limited to a few private parks located along a number of the bays on the lake. The lot frontages are approximately 60 feet wide, and hence adequate room for cottage development is lacking unless two or more lots are purchased. Even the islands in the lake have been platted. Although a number of building restrictions have been established for this deve10pment, no information is provided with respect to sewer facil- ities, water supply or other health standards. It appears , therefore, that this deve10pment has been poorly‘planned, and laid out solely for the bene- fit of the real estate company. It is very probable that before long this lake, like so many other southern Michigan lakes , will become overdeveloped and crowded with summer cottages, and a lack of adequate sewage facilities may Cause pollution—enriched waters. Conflicts in recreational uses may also appear and controls will have to be initiated to prevent overuse. The Develomnent of Inland Lakes — A Historical Analysis Inland lakes can be classed into three types based on their size: Small lakes being less than 100 acres in size, medium lakes being 100 to l ' 000 acres in size, and large lakes being over 1,000 acres in size. 2 (M IC- W- Threinen, An Analysis of SJDace Demands for Water and Shore aciison: Wisconsin Conservation Department, 1964), p. 22, P101 0H! A Dc‘ A V‘ M 23 Small lakes are usually considered the least desirable for recreation and pr'Operty deve10pment because they are generally surrounded by a boggy or marsh-like shore due to a lack of wave action. Medium-sized lakes may have some areas of good, well—develOped beaches because of wave action. The beaches , however, are found only on the windward side of the lake where wave action is the greatest. The large lakes are, for the most part, considered Optimum for recreation and property deve10pment because wave action is quite extensive, this allowing for well-develOped beaches around the whole shoreline with the exception of sheltered bays or coves. In general, it may be said that large lakes and some medium—sized lakes were the first to be used by the recreation—minded pOpulation. Since these lakes require little attention to the shoreline and most Of the back- shore is relatively firm, cottage deve10pment is easily accomplished with- out the necessity of dredging and filling of shorelines at considerable ex- pense to the prOperty owner. When the demand for lake prOperty increases , and the more desirable lakes become intensively develOped, and lake front- age becomes scarce, develOpers will, of necessity, be forced to turn to the smaller, less preferable lakes. 23 This transition has already taken place to a great extent in southern Michigan where the demand for lake- front prOperty is greatest. Northern Michigan's small lakes are still rather j-S<>1 ated and lack development. \ 22%. 23LynChl OE. Cite I p. 337. four me: 24 From a historical standpoint, lake development can be classed into four eras or stages of deve10pment from the time of the white man's settle- ment in Michigan. C. W. Threinen, Administrative Assistant of the Wis— consin Department of Conservation, has very adequately outlined these eras as follows: For an appreciation of the impact that this has on rec- reation it is well to take a hypothetical example through its historical evolution within the time of the white man. Such a picture is available in Wisconsin because of the large supply Of lakes and varying distances of them from centers Of pOpulation. The medium-sized lake has gone or will go through four distinct eras beginning with pre— settlement. In the first era when the wild shores were intact the fish and game use of the shores and littoral area was undisputed. The second era may be termed the estate era because the entire shore or large parts of it could be held by a few individuals. There was little human pressure on the shoreline and fish spawning, wildlife and aesthetic Op- portunities remained intact. Public use Opportunities were generally available because pressure was light. The third era marked or will mark the transition of prime frontage into residential prOperty on both large and medium- sized lakes. Large blocks of frontage cannot or will not be held because of increased tax burdens on the prOperty and also the possibility of high returns on lot sales. This era marks some deterioration in aesthetic Opportunities [s_ig_] but much of the fish and wildlife habitat remains intact on the frontage of secondary value and the steep SIOpes are still not disturbed. Small lakes either go undeveIOped or remain in the estate era. The last stage in the normal evolution of human develOp- ments, assuming normal functioning of the free market is to ring the entire shore with human habitations and to pro- vide improved shoreline which best serves the swimming and boating activities. This marks the passing of certain species of fish and wildlife, and the destruction of aes- thetic monuments such as the bulrush stand or water lily bed — the most obvious symbols of a varied aquatic environment. LOW! medi M96 :4 (D :1 devel are de quite ( (I) r4 —\ ..._..4 (£7 '1)‘ p \l 25 The shoreline and shallow areas , usually considered the nursery grounds for fish and wildlife, are converted to a monotype of bare sand. As this occurs an increased rate of eutrOphication may set in and water guality de- teriorates , especially if fertile originally. 2 In reference to Michigan, it is probably true that lakes of the southern Lower Peninsula have entered the fourth era of deve10pment. All large and medium-sized lakes are intensively develOped and many of the small lakes are even characterized by full development. Farther north, the lakes of the northern Lower Peninsula can be classed as being in the third era of development. It is true that many of the large and medium—sized lakes are developed either moderately or fully, but the small lakes are as yet quite free from human inhabitation. The Northern Peninsula lakes , on the other hand, may generally be classed between the second and third era of development. For the most part, only the large lakes are develOped to any degree with the exception of a few larger medium-sized lakes. In fact, many of the lakes in northern Michigan are still isolated from all access points and have been, for the most part, untouched by human hands. The small lakes in the Upper Pen— insula are, almost without exception, free from development of any kind unless owned by one or two individuals. Many of these lakes are publicly Owned and hence are Open to public access because the desire for frontage 1 S qujte low. 2 4C. W. Threinen, Some Spacial Aspects of Aquatic Recreation, Mis- c e‘Llal'ieous Report No. 6 (Madison: Wisconsin Conservation Department, 1961), p. 8. ‘1'“ 5‘11. sin: 1:49 “El‘ CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY From the large number of platted lakes in Michigan, eight were chosen to show recreational and prOperty deve10pment trends. Of the eight lakes , only two were chosen to represent the Upper Peninsula, Camp Lake and Gulliver Lake, because of the lack of deve10pment in the form of platting and subdivisions in this northern area. Camp Lake in Iron County was chosen because, for its size, it is rather unique with respect to develOp- ment. Almost the whole lake has been platted and some of the shoreline has been developed with either fishing and hunting shacks or good quality summer homes. This is rather unusual for a small Upper Peninsula lake since most pf the small lakes are as yet undevelOped or are owned by one individual or by the state. Gulliver Lake, on the other hand, is somewhat typical of the larger Upper Peninsula lakes in the sense that it is developed with many nice summer homes. Three lakes were chosen from the northern Lower Peninsula, and each of these lakes was chosen to show as many of the lake deve10pment char- ac=teir~istics common to that part of the state as possible. Lake Esau is in a near primitive condition, and is as yet in a state of extremely low shore- line development; Gaylanta Lake is in an area with a rather high demand f or Water—oriented recreation but it is one of the less desirable lakes; 26 hem 1 PA U"? ‘N 27 Sapphire Lake is in an area of high recreational pressure from peOple of Southern Michigan. desiring to go north for their vacation. These lakes , when analyzed together appear to reflect a good share of the lake devel- opment problems common to the northern Lower Peninsula. Of the three southern Lower Peninsula lakes , Silver Lake in Livingston County and Cooley Lake in Oakland County were chosen as representatives of the many undesirable patterns of lake deve10pment common to much of the highly populated Southern Michigan areas. Big Brower Lake in Kent County was chosen because Of its ideal plat systematization, its shoreline being all within one section and being ringed completely with plats. During a six—week period in June and July of 1965 , investigations of these eight lakes were carried out by the author in as much detail as pos- During that time, the data from the Register of Deeds and Treasurer's s ible. Field offices with regard to lake platting was examined and obtained. studies covering such items as use, accessibility, public access, dredging or filling, upland and aquatic vegetation, and other general characteristics PhotOgraphs (see Plates I—XXIII) were also were undertaken at each lake. Personal discussions were taken during the course of these field studies. held with many prOperty owners on the lakes regarding past and present problems associated with each lake. Questionnaires (see Appendix A) Were sent to a random sample of prOperty owners on each lake in order to determine their dislikes and preferences with respect to many lake devel- 0 pm e nt characteristics . ins afie S t \r .Hb 15‘ V 1'- H- h 28 The Register Of Deeds and Treasurer of each county was instrumental in supplying plat names , lot numbers , frontages of front lots , and the as- sessed valuations of each lot on the lake in question (see Tables 4-11 in Appendix B). From this information, assessed front foot values of the de- velOped and undevelOped lots on each lake were determined by a simple division of the assessed valuation by the frontage. The assessed front foot value was determined for each lot, each plat, and each lake as a whole. Back lots were not used in this study because of their varying influence on lake deve10pment trends. The importance of back lots in lake development is explained in Chapter V, however, but their actual analysis with regard to value and size analysis is beyond the sc0pe of this study. Figures 2-9 (Chapter V) are a series of sketches drawn up by the author in order to illustrate the eight lakes used in the study and the ap— proximate locations of the various plats on the lakes. NO claim is made with respect to the accuracy of the dimensions and lot sizes on these drawings since they are for illustrative purposes only. The source of the se sketches are U. S. Geological Survey tOpographic maps (one inch per mile) and comes of the actual plats themselves. From the descriptions on each plat, their approximate location along the shoreline of each lake 3‘ ‘3 a S determined. CHAPTER IV NATURAL AND MAN—ASSOCIATED CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING LAKES AND LAKEFRONT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT IN MICHIGAN Natural and man-associated characteristics are, Of-course, the deter- mining factors affecting lake deve10pment. Without adequate planning and management of the resources of the lake area with respect to these natural and man—associated aspects, lake development problems may continue to increase considerably. The natural characteristics of a lake in part deter- mine the aesthetic nature Of the lake. These are extremely important virtues of any lake and should be maintained to the highest degree possible. On the other hand, man-associated aspects may or may not be desirable de- pending upon the degree of planning involved by the occupants of the lake area. Natural Characteristics Among the more important natural lake characteristics is upland and aquatic vegetation. There are many benefits as well as problems that may be associated with vegetation around and in a lake. Upland vegetation is generally one of the more aesthetically desirable aspects of any lake. A shoreline surrounded by trees and shrubs gives the lake a "wilderness" atmosphere that is desired by most people who live near the lake. Upland Vegetation The type of upland vegetation is an important factor in the quality of 29 30 the lake shoreline. A pine, spruce, hemlock forest, or a white birch hard- wood association characteristic of the sandy or sandy loam soil of the Upper Peninsula, are generally considered to be the most Optimum upland vegeta- tion types because of their beauty and wilderness-like nature. These types of forest cover are common on many of the most northern lakes. A decid- uous forest cover may also be desirable, especially if the trees are large enough and provide a good deal of shade. This cover is common in the southern Lower Peninsula. A mixture Of the two types of forest is found in the northern Lower Peninsula. A good upland forest cover is not only aesthetically attractive, but also provides other benefits to the lake user. A stand Of mature trees, for example, reduces the wind over a lake, thereby reducing wave action and allowing for more recreational uses on the lake even on windy days. The presence of a forest cover, therefore, will prevent excessive wave action, supply refuge and feeding areas for game fish, and prevent excessive evap- oration from the lake surface. Many lakefront property developers make the mistake of cutting too many of these trees when developing a subdivision. They pay no regard to the possibility of erosion and filling-in processes that may occur as a result of this cutting. It is true that in building, some of the upland vegeta- tion must be removed; however, the aesthetic benefits as well as the prob- lems associated with their removal should be taken into account before wholesale cutting and removal is accomplished. 31 There are a number of disadvantages associated with an upland forest cover. If the land around the lake is swampy in nature, the mosquito prob— lem may develOp to such a degree that the conservation of the forest cover may be a disadvantage rather than an asset. Also, the lack of wind on a lake due to heavy forest cover reduces the wave action necessary for the self-cleaning process 5f the waves on the shoreline, thereby leading to a more rapid deposition of inorganic and organic materials that fill in the lakeshore. A lack of good beaches and swimming areas may be a partial result of this , especially on the windward side of the lake where no wave action is developed at all and mucky shorelines are present; however, this may be a good wildlife habitat area. A good stand of terrestrial vegetation produces more advantages than disadvantages , however, and the benefits overrule the disadvantages. As the Wisconsin State Planning Board says, "Lake management, therefore, implies that conservators of lakes must also be conservators of forests, and assist in protecting and replacing forests on Open and wind—beaten shores. "25 Aquatic Vegetation There are many controversies regarding aquatic vegetation. The swimming, boating, and waterskiing enthusiasts desire a lake free from aquatic vegeta— tion because Of its interference with these activities, whereas the hunter and fisherman desire aquatic plants for game and fish habitats. Fish and game habitats, of course, are among the more important attributes of aquatic 5Wisconsin State Planning Board, Inventory of Northern Wisconsin Lakes (Madison: Division of Land Economic Industry, 1939), p. 19. 32 vegetation. Most game, fish, and waterfowl require many species of aquatic plants as a source of food and as a place for nesting and prOp— agation. The sportsman will benefit from this type of lake because of an increase in fish and game production brought about by this natural habitat. Aquatic plants are commonly considered as one of the greatest prob- lems associated with lake developments. Their control and eradication is one of the foremost concerns of the majority of lake prOperty owners. The aquatic weed problem is one of fairly recent origin on many lakes and may be attributed in part to the increase in population and use of the land. As F. F. Hooper says, Weed problems in the early days were probably not at all what they are today. Intense cultivation, the addi- tion of fertilizers , and the disposal of waste through septic tanks all tend to charge our . . . waters with nutrients. 26 In other words, the lake itself is not the sole producer of many Of the nutrients necessary for the intense deve10pment of the aquatic weed problem, although plants may be present in a lake without outside en— richment. Runoff from farm lands and surrounding soils , along with in- efficient waste disposal practices are the main factors involved in this problem since Michigan soils alone are not exceptionally rich in the essential nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus compounds. 27 26W. S. Siefert et al. , Aquatic Weeds and Their Control (n. p. , no pub., n.d.), p. 1. 27Ibid. 33 Aquatic plants may be classed into higher aquatic plants and algae. Of the higher aquatic plants, the submerged type is usually not as un- desirable as the emergent type which commonly clogs shorelines to such a degree that use of the lake from the shore is practically impossible. Algae are often responsible for dense blooms, toxic by-products resulting in fish kills or odors , and other aesthetically undesirable characteristics. Aquatic weeds are thus one of the main problems interfering with water—oriented recreation and lakefront property development. As can be seen from Table 1, the most desired recreational values on lakes are swimming, fishing, boating, waterskiing and aesthetics. All of these are modified at least to some degree by a high concentration of aquatic plants. For the fisherman, aquatic plants may be either desirable or undesirable depending upon the concentration. A large concentration may cause a condition of stunted growth of fish. This condition is espe- cially common with bass, bluegills, sunfish, and perch. With a con— siderable number of stunted fish, the food supply in the lake is seriously diminished for the larger fish resulting in an Over—population of fish under the legal size. 28 Sapphire Lake in Missaukee County is a good example of this. The lake is very shallow and since the photosynthetic property of the sunlight is useful all the way to the bottom of the lake, aquatic plants, both submerged and emergent, grow in large numbers. As a result, due to the concealment and food supply produced by these aquatic plants, the fish in the lake are extremely runty and stunted. This was one of the 28Wisconsin State Planning Board, op. cit. , p. 18. 34 main complaints received by the author on the questionnaire sent out to Sapphire Lake property owners. Swimming, boating, and waterskiing are, of course, limited to a great extent by a large buildup of aquatic plants , especially along the shoreline. Beaches are ruined and become mucky, the lake bottom be- comes filled with silt and organic debris, and motors on motorboats be- come clogged with weeds. This condition appears to be especially true in the southern Lower Peninsula lakes; Silver Lake, Livingston County (see Plate III) and Cooley Lake, Oakland County are examples of this situation. The filling in of lakes is also related to plant growth since plants are capable of collecting and holding fine silt particles and organic debris from dead and decaying plants and animals. Rather than being washed away, much of this material settles to the bottom where it is held in place by the roots of the aquatic plants. This material also con- tains nutrients that become available for further plant growth by recycling, thereby leading to a worsening condition. Once heavy concentrations of aquatic plants have develOped to any extent on the lake, control measures must be taken. The use of chemi- cals such as OOpper sulfate for killing off aquatic plants and algae, and rotenone to eradicate stunted fish is rather extensive for this purpose. The application is usually a costly procedure and is successful only when applied by experienced personnel. Following the treatment, unless exten— sive preventive measures are taken, the problem may rapidly recur. Effective 35 "—— . .— Plate III. Weed—choked shoreline of Silver Lake, Livingston County, Michigan Plate IV. Low water levels — Cooley Lake , Oakland County, Michigan ion cc 3 \ u "Md nu \HU N i‘n ‘ 0“ Vs} o mm“, 36 sewage disposal systems , controlled application of fertilizers, and ero— sion control are probably the best preventative measures that can be used. Of the eight lakes used in this study, only Gulliver Lake, School- craft County, and Lake Esau, Presque Isle County appeared to be rela— tively free from aquatic weed problems. This was especially true of Lake Esau where the lake bottom appeared to be composed wholly of a sand and gravel mixture. Myriophyllum appeared in Gulliver Lake in a few areas , but the concentration was not built up to any great extent. Since Lake Esau is only about 13 percent developed at the present time, this weed-free condition will probably continue for some time until the lake becomes enriched with nutrients from septic tanks or other uses of the land surrounding the lake. Presently, however, since there is so little prOperty developed, this source of eutrOphication is probably very slight. (See Plate VI.) Gulliver Lake, on the other hand, is about 76 percent developed and effluents or fertilizer runoff, if allowed to enter the lake, may produce some undesirable weed problems in the future. Of the remaining six lakes , Cooley Lake, Oakland County and Silver Lake, Livingston County are burdened with the greatest aquatic plant problem. This condition is probably brought about by intensive land use around the lakes and the high shoreline deve10pment of the lakes them- selves. (See Plate V.) The main complaint from prOperty owners referred to this problem and to the resultant muck shoreline and lake bottom. At present, steps are being taken in both lakes to remove this vegetation 37 Plate V. Characteristic full development on Michigan's Lower Peninsula lakes. ‘ ate VI. Characteristic low development on Michigan's Upper Peninsula lakes . 38 and improve the shore and bottomland in order to restore the lakes for more intensive recreational and aesthetic uses. In summary, it may be stated that inland lakes in Michigan with high property deve10pment and land use adjacent to the lake appear to be plagued with aquatic plant problems, whereas lakes without development or with a sparse development have fewer problems. Other factors such as soil type, water level, lake location, and water quality also play a part in aquatic weed development, but land use involving the addition of nutrients favorable to plant growth appears to be the main causative factor. Aquatic Fauna and Associated Problems The availability of high quality fishing and fish problems , as has been mentioned before, have caused numerous complaints among prOperty owners on Michigan lakes , especially in the southern Lower Peninsula. Much of this problem has been associated with aquatic plant over—devel- opment but many property owners claim that excess fishing and winter spearing have also lowered fish populations on many lakes. 29 Every lake used in this study has been affected by diminishing fish populations or by over-population of stunted fish. Restocking procedures have been developed to a great extent by the Michigan Department of Conservation. One example of this was the poisoning of Reeds Lake, Grand Rapids , Michigan with rotenone and the subsequent restocking of the lake with trout, Northern pike, and bass. However, this problem is so extensive ngamp Lake, Sapphire Lake, and Big Brower Lake questionnaire re- sponse. it (7“ 39 in the state that a complete restocking program cannot be satisfactorily initiated. This procedure was paid for in part by the landowners and the Michigan Department of Conservation. Many complaints were received by the author from prOperty owners desiring more and larger fish in their lakes. A great many of these people, however, do not seem to realize the cost and procedure involved in this process and thus are really not in a position to criticize. One big problem that has develOped is the intrusion of rough fish, especially carp, into many Michigan lakes. Here again the prevention of overenrichment of the lake would be a good control method for these rough fish. Aquatic invertebrate pests have caused problems on many of Michigan's lakes, the more prevalent being swimmer's itch, mosquitoes, and leeches. Swimmer's itch, an infestation of an area of a lake with certain larval trematode worms (schistosome cercariae) that have emerged from a pOpula- tion of snails, is a very irritating problem to bathers of that lake. The cercariae, a parasite of certain birds and mammals, depend upon the snail as an alternate host for their deve10pment. Upon emergence from the snail host, they become free—swimming and seek to locate an adequate vertebrate into which they penetrate for completion of their life cycle. This life cycle may be interrupted by the human swimmer with the pene- tration of the cercariae into the skin of the bather, resulting in an inflam- matory skin reaction causing a burning and itching sensation. This condi- tion can be very annoying to the swimmer for a period Of up to a week. 40 Infestation of these cercariae commonly appear during the summer months in the warmer water along the sandy areas of the shore of the lake. These areas are, of course, the most desirable swimming spots and thus the swimmers are subjected to attack and penetration by the cercariae. Many very desirable recreation areas may be shunned as a result of this problem even though the infestation may last only for a few days. This problem appeared in 1964 in Gulliver Lake, Schoolcraft County, and the resort on the lake lost popularity for some time as a result. The Michigan Conservation Department stepped in when the problem appeared and cor- rected the condition by chemical means. Mosquitoes have long been a problem in lake areas especially in southern Michigan. Since most mosquitoes breed in still water, the shallow edges of lakes with a great deal of emergent aquatic vegetation serve as perfect habitats for them. As Mackenthun, Ingram and Porges of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare say, The mosquito production of a lake or reservoir appears to be directly proportional to the amount of intersection line between plants (or flotage) and the water surface. Likewise, the relative mosquito production potential of different plant types is in direct proportion to their rela— tive amount of intersection line per unit area of water surface, other factors remaining equal. Situations with an abundance of intersection line provide mosquito larvae with food and natural protection from enemies and also 30U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Limnological Aspects of Recreational Lakes (Cincinnati: Technical Advisory and In- vestigations Section, Technical Services Branch, Division of Water Sup- ply and Pollution Control, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, 1964), pp. 106-118. 41 furnish adult mosquitoes with an ideal environment for the deposition of eggs. 31 On many southern lakes all mosquito habitats are sprayed in spring and fall to prevent their reproduction and this has proved to be quite successful. Removal of aquatic plants, especially the emergent type, along shores Of a lake also plays a part in the reduction of the mosquito population. Leeches are more of a nuisance than Of a parasitic nature. Almost all lakes have some problems with leeches but they are usually not of the blood sucking variety. Many ideal recreational areas are avoided by the public because of their repulsive nature even though they rarely cause problems . Other Natural Characteristics of Lakes Receding water levels in the past few years in Michigan have been a source of many inland lake development problems. Decreasing water levels may be either of natural or man—made origin. Lack of precipitation, unsealed lake bottoms , and rapid evaporation are three main natural causes that may produce a drOp in water level. Drainage structures and over— pumpage are generally the two main artificial methods for lowering water levels. There are many effects of drops in water levels on a lake. Muddy bottomland and exposed and decaying vegetation is one result with serious consequences to the property owner. (See Plate IV.) Beaches are ruined 31Ibid., p. 98. 42 for swimming and other recreational uses, aesthetic values are decreased, and Odors are produced by the decaying vegetation. Much lakeshore de- velopment is geared to the water level present at the time of building. With lowering water levels , docks become exposed, sedimentation in- creases, water sport possibilities are reduced, launching areas are ruined, and many aesthetic values are lost. Unsanitary conditions along the shoreline abound and afflictions such as ear and eye infections may in- crease. 32 The problem is especially acute on lakes with many shallow bays and inlets. In this case, much more bottomland will be exposed resulting in more muck and decaying vegetation on the shoreline. PrOp— erty values are also adversely affected by falling water levels. Consider- able sums of money are required to clean up the condition and anyone trying to sell his property will have to take a significant loss due to this situation. Of the eight lakes used in this study, only three have not experienced water level problems. Of these three, Gulliver Lake, Schoolcraft County, and Big Brower lake, Kent County, have formerly had problems but have since added water level control structures to correct this. (Plates VII and VIII.) These structures have met with good success and the property owners appear to be pleased with the results. Lake Esau, Presque Isle County, is the only lake that has maintained a fairly stable water level without artificial correction. 2 Cooley Lake questionnaire response. 43 Plate VII. Water level control structure, Big Brower Lake, Kent County, Michigan Plate VIII. Water level control structure, Gulliver Lake, Schoolcraft County, Michigan 44 Of the lakes that have been affected, Silver Lake, Livingston County, and Cooley Lake, Oakland County, appear to be the most seriously af- fected. (Plate IV.) Three years ago, a gravel company dug a number of very deep excavations near Silver Lake. Apparently the lake does not have a sealed bottom and water has seeped through into the gravel excava- tions. Water from the lake is also used for gravel washing Operations and is then diverted into streams running away from the lake. Many property owners have complained excessively to the gravel contractors , apparently without success. As one property Owner wrote, The water level situation is extremely critical. Com- plaints to the gravel excavation contractor have no effect. Their very deep excavations are much too near our lake and they are apparently continuing along a route that appears to be sure to aggravate the situa- tion. They divert pgrplpp water [sic] to streams that flow in the other direction — where a portion of that water, we believe, could be directed into Silver Lake. 33 Steps are presently being taken to correct this situation by legally forcing the gravel company contractor to modify their operation. Cooley Lake has had water level problems that seem to stem from natural causes — lack of precipitation and evaporation. Much of the shoreline has been exposed to some degree and many unsightly areas are in evidence (see Plate IV). The western quarter of the lake has , in fact, become isolated because of this considerable drop in water level. Boat traffic, which is quite prevalent on this heavily populated lake, has be- come dangerous because of lack of water depth in many parts of the lake. 3 . . . Silver Lake questionnaire response. 45 Swimming rafts have been moved farther out into the lake , thus reducing the surface area even more. Waterskiing is limited to an area 300 feet in width due to this lack Of space , and other recreational interests have also been debased to a considerable extent. Swimming, for example, can take place only from a raft out in the lake due to the exposed muck bottomland. Many property Owners have become alarmed at this condition and have since contracted to clean the lake out by means of dredging, although this procedure will not correct the low water level. Sedimentation, another natural problem of lakes, may be caused either by precipitation of chemicals such as salts, borax, calcium car- bonate, and others , by erosion of the shoreline, or by dead and decaying plant and animal material. 34 This problem is especially acute on Older lakes where plant life has had the time to develop extensively or on lakes with water of high mineral content. Plants die, sink to the bottom of the lake and decay. Much organic debris is released by this process and since it is held in place by other plant life, produces a marl, muck, or peat bottom. This condition is very undesirable for many water-oriented recreational uses such as swimming and wading due to the fact that the bottom becomes soft and unstable. Erosion, another factor Of sedimenta— tion, may be natural due to wave action on the shoreline of the lake, by overuse of the land, or by unwarranted cutting of the shoreline vegetation. 341. D. Scott, Inland Lakes Of Michigan (Michigan Geological and Biological Survey Publication No. 30, 1921). 46 The nature of the shoreline is an important determining factor in the riparian and recreational uses of a lake. Depending upon the recreational “use of a lake, a deeply indented shoreline or a shoreline without any sig— nificant bays or inlets may be most desirable. As C. H. Burton sums it up, The nature of the shoreline is of more than passing interest for it is tied in closely with the relative value of the reservoir for recreation. Aside from aesthetic considerations, the lack of any significant bays , in- lets or islands can be a detrimental factor influencing boating use, in that no protection is Offered from any of the prevailing winds. This also increases shore- line erosion. An irregular shoreline offers consider- ably more SOOpe for the development of a park and more frontage is available for other riparian uses. From the standpoint Of water sports, a deeply indented shoreline can be an advantage in that there is a quicker warming of the inlet waters to a degree suitable for use. 35 Some disadvantages are also associated with a shoreline composed of many bays and inlets. Since there is more shoreline frontage for riparian uSes , there is a tendency to utilize this land for cottages or other uses. This is especially true if the lake is rather small because it can lead to oVercrowding, user conflicts and other associated problems. Related to this is the fact that numerous shallow inlets tend to develop stagnant conCiitions resulting in heavy plant growth and mosquitos. Decreasing Water levels will produce unsightly conditions in these areas by exposure of S0ft bottom and decaying aquatic plant life. Natural characteristics of lakes , then, are important in determining 5Burton, Op. cit. , p. 19. 47 the pattern of development. They may vary to a large degree from lake to lake and area to area. Good lake management, therefore, must con— sist of careful consideration of natural characteristics and problems in order that Optimum development Of the lake shore as well as of the lake itself can be Obtained and the merits of the lake maintained in their opti- mum condition. Man-Associated Characteristics Perhaps of more importance than the natural features of a lake are the man-associated characteristics affecting lake development patterns. Man has greatly modified many features of lakes and, in fact, has occa- SiOnally introduced factors that influence natural problems. There are many man—associated features of lake development, some Of which may cause very serious lake use problems and others that may improve the quality of the lake for both recreational and developmental DUI‘poses. In this section, an attempt will be made to delineate a num- ber of the more important of these man-associated characteristics and to explain their significance and relation to lake development. Carrying Capacity The carrying capacity of a lake is an extremely important lake feature relating to its development. Carrying capacity is the measure of the ca- 1”acity of the lake for all recreational and deve10pmental uses. A given lake may have a considerable number of uses — waterskiing, boating, fishing, cottage deve10pment — and all of these uses, when put together, 48 determine its carrying capacity. The size of the lake and the intensity of use are the two main limiting factors. A small lake with many uses has a very low carrying capacity since space is limited for all of these uses. However, if this small lake is in a state of low deve10pment, it may be Of sufficient size to support all of the uses without any dissen- sions between them. A large lake, on the other hand, even if intensively develOped, may be of sufficient size to permit all of the uses without any conflicting problems. As a rule, the smaller the lake, fewer uses are compatible unless it is not highly develOped. Hence a larger lake may be able to adequately support all water-oriented recreational uses and a small lake, if intensively develOped, may be able to support only one of these recreational uses , and even this one use may have to be limited. 36 User Conflicts Closely pertaining to carrying capacity is the user conflict problem— a problem that has increased considerably over the past few years with an increase in pOpulation, leisure time, and accessibility. A user con- fliCt may be defined as a clash or discord between the various recreational or developmental uses Of a lake. For example, a fisherman wants a rela- tiVely quiet area free from motorboats and waterskiers whereas a high— Speed motorboat operator and waterskier desire much Of the lake's surface. \ 36Michael Chubb, " Outdoor Recreation Land Capacity: Concepts, gsage, and Definitions" (unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of esOurce Development, Michigan State University, 1964). 49 (See Plate X.) This clash between these two uses Often leads to argu- ments and perhaps even severely dangerous conditions. The relation between this problem and carrying capacity is close because a lake, geared to the correct carrying capacity will very likely not experience user conflicts whereas an overcrowded lake will experience the problem simply because of lack Of space. Traffic and Accessibility Lake accessibility, within the past few years, has proven to be one Of the main factors in the rapid shoreline development and use of many lakes, even Northern Peninsula lakes. Ten years ago, much of the Upper Peninsula was unaccessible by car and consequently, many Of the lakes remained undevelOped. With the continued improvement of state highways and secondary roads, people are no longer required to spend long hours On the road to get to a northern lake. Many lakes , therefore, formerly untouched, are now being develOped, and this trend appears to be con- tinning. Because so many lakes are reaching the full and intensive development Stages , traffic problems around lakes are increasing. Many cottage owners complain of parking problems around their property, especially near public acCess points. There is also high speed driving along roads encircling lakes and near public bathing areas. This poses a potentially dangerous prohlem to small children and even adults. Many complaints from cottage OWners along Big Brower Lake, Kent County, and Camp Lake, Iron County, Wel‘e received regarding this problem. 50 Plate IX. Intensive development on Cooley Lake, Oakland County, Michigan Plate X. High speed outboard motorboat — one of the main complaints related to user conflicts. 51 Waste Disposal and Pollution Problems One of the greatest man-associated problems on Michigan lakes is the problem of waste disposal and pollution. Almost all lake cottage de- ve10pment, as intensive as it may be, utilizes septic tanks as a means of waste disposal. On some lakes with well-drained sandy soils, this may be a very efficient means, and no problems may be encountered; on crowded lakeshores with poor soil conditions , the waste disposal problem can lead directly to a rapid degeneration of the lake in both water quality and the buildup of aquatic weed populations and algae blooms. A septic tank, when first installed, is generally quite an efficient means of waste disposal. However, since little or no attention is gen- era lly paid to the system until it overflows , much of the effluent may leak out, totally untreated, and drain into the lake. High nutrient con- centrations and possible dangerous bacteria and viruses accompany this effluent into the lake resulting in waters potentially dangerous for swimming and other water sports. Aquatic plants rapidly pick up the nutrients and before long, dense accumulations of aquatic weeds and algae may run rarrlpant. This shows the increasing necessity of newer and more efficient means of sewage disposal. Probably the best and most feasible method WC>‘L11d be the installation of central sewage disposal systems for all lake (1 . . . . . e‘Ielopments. In this way, an efficient means of disposal can be achieved a . . nd lakes can be maintained and kept free from overenrichment and resultant e utrOphication. 52 Cottage Development Cottage deve10pment on inland lakes may vary from a few fishing and hunting cabins which may be found in the Upper Peninsula to multi-tiered deve10pment patterns similar to some Southern Peninsula lakes. (See Plates XI and XII.) Many problems are associated with cottage develOp- ment such as overcrowding, lack of zoning, encroachment on lake shore- lines , lakefront accessories, and lot sizes, to name a few. All of these COUld be eliminated with adequate planning and management. Overcrowding is the most serious problem that has been plaguing Michigan lakes for many years. Cottages built on small lots may be Squeezed together to such a degree that the natural beauty of the entire Shoreline of the lake may be ruined. (See Plates V and IX.) In many cases 1ihis is true not only for front lots but also for tier upon tier of back lOts. Stemming from this are problems of overuse of the lake itself by exceeding the carrying capacity of the lake with resultant user conflicts. Lot sizes play a big part in this problem. Too Often, develOpers, being unaware of this situation, design lots with frontages of 50 feet or less. Unless the buyer purchases two or more lots , which rarely happens , overcrowded COI1ditions become eminent. On many lakes, one may find a large, expensive summer home flanked on 130th sides by fishing shacks or small, unkempt trailers. This condi- tion . due to inadequate zoning or plat restrictions, may be both unsightly and Unappealing . 53 Plate XI. Small shacks and cabins typify many of the smaller Upper Peninsula lakes 54 Plate XII. Overcrowded conditions on southern Lower Peninsula lakes 55 Every cottage owner requires additional waterfront accessories to fulfill his personal recreational desires. These accessories may take the form of boat docks , boat houses, rafts or boats , swimming ladders, walks, breakwaters , lawns, and innumerable other facilities. The shoreline of a lake may become completely modified by a congregation of these accessories with a resulting congested shoreline condition. Commercial establishments are commonly found on the more inten— sively develOped lakes. (See Plates XIII and XIV.) Gas stations , grocery stores, bars, boatyards, and resorts are common. Many cottage owners feel that much of the commercial deve10pment, with the exception of a service area or two, is unnecessary especially on a lake that is exces— Com- sively used for recreation and private summer home deve10pment. mercial areas on a lake may tend to allow for shabby deve10pment and dra vv too much of the public sector into an area that may already be over- developed. Dredging and Filling Dredging and/or filling is a method commonly employed by many lake pro perty owners to either improve their beach, reduce erosion, or, in some Case s , to enlarge their property size. In some instances dredging and filling , used as a method of improvement is warranted especially if the Shore and lake bottom is of an organic or marl nature and beach improve- ment is necessary. (See Plate XV.) On the other hand, some prOperty o Whers extend their prOperty lines out into the lake with the use of a sand \ 3 7All lakes , questionnaire responses. 56 sod-0'“ .- ' Q '- Plate XIII. A summer resort on Gulliver Lake, Schoolcraft County, Michigan Plate XIV. A row of commercial establishments (commercial area) on Cooley Lake, Oakland County, Michigan 57 Plate XV. Filling of lake shore with rocks on Big Brower Lake, Kent County, Michigan or rock fill. This is a highly undesirable and now an illegal practice since the shoreline of the lake becomes so unnaturally modified. Artificial filling not only robs the lake of its natural beauty, but also tends to de- Pr‘i ve other lake users of their rights to the surface waters of the lake. Stringent laws and strict enforcement are necessary in this case. Dredging and filling may be accomplished in many instances where the use of such a precedure is warranted but wholesale dredging and filling resulting in obj ectionable modification of shorelines is not sanctioned. Management Problems Good lake management implies careful consideration of all of the above natural and cultural characteristics and problems of lake develop- me Iits and the use of all techniques and control measures necessary to 58 maintain adequate and efficient lake development. On an undevelOped lake, techniques such as zoning, control and limitations on property size and location are probably the best possible methods to develOp a lake consistent with all uses. On a develOped lake, controls on recreational uses may be employed to prevent overuse and user conflicts , and addi— tional research may be required to reduce or arrest other lake problems. CHAPTER V AN ANALYSIS OF EIGHT LAKES USED AS EXAMPLES OF LAKE DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS IN MICHIGAN Table 1 describes many of the general characteristics of the eight lakes used in this study. There are, however, a number of features that must be explained in more detail in order that a more accurate picture of each lake may be attained. It is the purpose of the following section, therefore, to describe these features. Camp Lake, Stambaugh Township, Iron County, Mich—igap This 101-acre lake is a rather small but very beautiful Northern Pen— insula lake. It is located in the western part of Michigan's Upper Penin- sula only a few miles from the town of Iron River, Michigan. Much of the property on the lake is of a private nature, but the presence of a public fishing site (see Plate XVI) enables launching privileges for the public. As a rule, however, the lake is not overly used by the public because of its "out of the way" nature. It is accessible by means Of a graveled county road which encircles much of the lake. Most of the property owners are from Michigan although there are a few from states as far away as Florida and Arizona. The owners from Michigan are mostly from the Upper Peninsula and generally use the lake in a seasonal manner. The most in— tensive use of the lake is in the summer months but some use is made 59 60 Plate XVI. Public access point on Camp Lake, Iron County, Michigan .‘2 .m,“ r .0 ‘ v i -‘.4 'Q . I. VP?!“ i Plate XVII. Public park on Gulliver Lake, Schoolcraft County, Michigan (1 C)“ 61 during the fall hunting season. The basic recreational trends are water— skiing, boating, fishing, and hunting during the summer and fall, and ice skating and ice fishing during the winter months. 38 Since the lake is, as yet, a little more than half develOped with cottages and other structures, much of the shoreline has remained wooded and serves as the greatest attribute to the lake. Gulliver LakeL Doyle Township, Schoolcraft County, Michijpp This 837—acre lake is the largest lake used in this study. The lake is located near the town of Manistique, Michigan, in the east central part of the Upper Peninsula. There is ample public access to this lake in the form of parks, launching sites, walkways , and resorts , although many of these access points , especially the parks, are rather run down in nature. (See Plate XVII.) The majority of the lakeshore is developed with summer homes and cottages and most of the prOperty owners are mem- bers of the Gulliver Lake Property Owners Association, through which most of the improvements on the lake are made. Access to the lake is easy, being in the form of a paved county road that leads directly from highway U. S. 2, the most frequently traveled highway in the Upper Peninsula. Public pressure is, therefore, quite heavy in the summer months. The prOperty owners are from the Midwestern states, Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana. Of the owners in Michigan, many have permanent homes on the lake since the access is so easy. The remaining owners use the lake during 38Camp Lake questionnaire response. quit obs wat- 3100 Since The 1 62 39 the summer months only. The cottages on the lake are generally of quite high quality, and no fishing shacks or other small structures were observed. The primary recreational activities on the lake consist of waterskiing, swimming, fishing, hunting, and boating in the summer months, and ice skating and ice fishing in the winter. Lake EsauLPresque Isle Township, Presque Isle County, Michigan This 275-acre lake is located about 40 miles south of the city of Cheboygan, Michigan, just inshore from Lake Huron. It is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful lakes in Michigan's northern Lower Peninsula since most of the shore is as yet undeveloped and in a wooded state. The lake itself appears to be almost virtually free from aquatic vegeta— tion and the beach is composed of clean sand and gravel. The develOp— ment that is present is all private with the exception of a boys' camp (see Plate XVIII) and a recently Opened launching site. Public pressure is probably extremely light because access to the lake is very difficult, the roads being no more than rutted sand and gravel trails. The prOperty Owners are all from Michigan and use the lake only on weekends and in the summer months. 40 Winter use of the lake is limited since access is impossible by car during the winter. Many Of the existing structures on the lake are Of a small, cabin-like nature, although some modern, summer cottages are now being built. The basic recreational trends on the lake 9Gulliver Lake questionnaire response. 40 Lake Esau questionnaire response. 63 Plate XVIII. Protestant Church-sponsored boys' camp on Lake Esau, Presque Isle County, Michigan . V . # cl ~ ~ in : ”(“1 I'- A. l Plate XIX. A private campsite on Gaylanta Lake , Montmorency County, Michigan J]. 41 64 are swimming, fishing, boating, and hunting. Problems relating to user conflicts are non-existent at the present time since the lake is so isolated and only 13 percent of the shoreline is developed. Gaylanta Lake, Vienna Township, Montmorency County, Michigan This llS—acre lake is located in the northeast central part of Michigan's northern Lower Peninsula. The lake appears to be quite eutrophic in nature due to the presence of many submergent and emergent aquatic vegetation along the shoreline. Most of the lakeshore prOperty is in the hands of private owners with the exception Of one fairly large access point. Little of the property is developed with permanent structures due to the fact that taxes are extremely high and lack of water supply is critical. 41 Wells must be dug to depths greater than 200 feet before any water is obtained. Much of the shoreline is heavily wooded, and trailers and tents are common. (See Plate XIX.) The lake is accessible by means of a graveled county road that completely circles the lake. Most of the property Owners are from Michigan and use the lake during the summer months only. Fishing, hunting, and boating are the main recreational activities on the lake. Since the lake is so lightly develOped, the use pressure, both public and Private is minimal. Sapphire LakeLLake Township, Missaukee County, Michigan This 264-acre lake is located in the southwest central portion of Gaylanta Lake questionnaire response. 65 Michigan's northern Lower Peninsula. The lake is extremely shallow, its deepest spot being only eight feet in depth. 42 Consequently, much Of the lake bottom is exposed to the photosynthetic properties of the sun; the entire lake bottom is thus in the littoral zone and covered with vegetation. About two—thirds of the shoreline is developed with private cottages and one public access point is located on the south side of the lake. Much of the develOped portion of the lake is private. Most of the prOperty owners are from Michigan and use the lake for the most part during the summer months only. 43 There are few permanent homes , but the ones that are present are of high quality. A state highway is the only public access route to the lake, and this access is limited to the southern edge only. The remaining roads around the lake are private and dedicated to the use of lot owners only. (See Plate XX.) The lake is quite heavily utilized for recreational activities such as waterskiing, swimming, and fishing, although they are limited to a considerable degree by the aquatic plant problem. During the winter, the lake is used to some extent for ice fishing and ice skating. _B_ig Brower Lake , Cortland Township, Kent CountyL Michigan This 85-acre lake is located about ten miles north Of Grand Rapids in an area of many small highly developed lakes. Almost all of the lakefront 42 C. R. Humphrys, Michigan Lake Inventory Bulletin No. 57 (East Lansing: Department of Resource Development, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1962). p. 57a. 43Sapphire Lake questionnaire response. 66 " um); I ( 'DIUuJI pmx3“ _.3-5AEPMRE” "u: LAKE PLATNOZ «,7 Plate XX. Private development on Sapphire Lake, Missaukee County, Michigan 67 property is developed with homes and cottages. The only public access is in the form of two walkways , 15 feet in width but lacking car or trailer access. (See Plate XXI.) Most of the property Owners are from the Grand Rapids area and many of the homes are of a permanent nature. The Brower Lake Cottage Owners Association is active in improvement work on the lake. Access to the lake is easy; well-kept, paved, county roads service the entire area. Many well-kept lawns grace the lakefront but there is an almost complete lack of swimming beaches. The primary recreational activities are waterskiing, swimming, fishing, and boating during the summer and ice fishing during the winter. Silver Lake, Green Oak Township, Livingston County, Michigan This highly develOped lSZ-acre lake is located about 30 miles north of Ann Arbor. It is of natural origin and has a dam to control its water level. Aquatic plants have run rampant in the past few years and practi— cally the entire shoreline is overgrown causing a very undesirable condi— tion. (See Plate III.) This weed problem and the decreasing water level by seepage into nearby gravel pits has nearly ruined the lake for many recreational uses. 44 Although the lake is develOped, much of it two tiers deep, with private homes and cottages, no public access point was ap- parent. A large trailer park is located on the northern edge of the lake. (See Plate XXII.) Most of the landowners are from Michigan and from 44Personal interview, Silver Lake prOperty owner, July 10, 1965. 68 r—fi Plate XXI. One of two public walkways on Big Brower Lake, Kent County, Michigan. Note trees that prevent access by car or trailer. 69 Plate XXII. Trailer camp area along the shore of Silver Lake, Livingston County, Michigan Plate XXIII. Lake property development with trailers is common on Northern Peninsula lakes. neig with lduc man doc] call skii by a five Pent and 00m flank Cons usab. ’ her‘vln 70 neighboring states such as Ohio and Indiana. Access to the lake is good with county roads both tarred and graveled completely encircling the lake. Much of the lake is developed with homes of a permanent nature although many summer cottages are also present. Lakefront accessories such as docks , boat houses, breakwaters and steps are found in front of practi- cally every lot on the lake. The primary recreational activities, water- skiing, swimming, fishing and boating, have been limited considerably by aquatic plant and water level problems. Cooley Lake, White Lake and Commerce Townships, Oakland County, Michigan This small but intensively developed 86-acre lake is located about five miles from the city of Pontiac on the east side of the southern Lower Peninsula. Its deve10pment is almost entirely made up of permanent homes , and public access is limited to one public fishing site and beach although commercial establishments such as motels , summer resorts and nightclubs flank part Of one side of the lake. This lake, like Silver Lake, has had considerable trouble with aquatic weeds and water levels; much of the usable surface area of the lake is now rendered useless. As a result, many user conflicts have arisen regarding recreational uses on the lake. The primary recreational activities on the lake are waterskiing, swimming, fishing . and boating during the summer and ice skating and ice fishing during the winter. Access to the lake is good, but the county roads serving the lake are unsurfaced and in very poor condition. acc the to ‘ of 1 isti (6) stri no; 71 Lakefront PrOperty Develppment Characteristics of Eight Michigan Lakes General Features Influencing Michigan Lake DevelOpments Property development trends on Michigan lakes vary considerably according to numerous factors, the nine more important ones being: (1) the size of the lake, (2) the accessibility to the lake and from the lake to the neighboring lakes and streams or the Great Lakes, (3) the location of the lake with respect to population centers , (4) the natural character- istics of the lake, (5) the type of development already present on the lake, (6) the price of the lots, (7) the public facilities on the lake, (8) the re— strictions on the lake, and (9) the social and economic status of the lake prOperty owners. These factors, along with numerous other local factors , play a vital role in the overall deve10pment, lot size, and frontage values of lakefront prOperty. The importance of the size of the lake varies with respect to its loca- tion. Upper Peninsula lakes are numerous and the demand for frontage is not nearly as high as it is in the southern Lower Peninsula. Hence, only the larger lakes in the Upper Peninsula are platted and developed to any extent with cottages. In southern Lower Michigan, on the other hand, the demand for frontage on water greatly exceeds the amount of frontage on large bodies of water, and all lakes , large or very small, are develOped quite extensively. 45 The northern Lower Peninsula is somewhat in between these two extremes. Some small lakes are quite highly developed here also but the majority of the develOped lakes are over 200 acres in size. 45Threinen , loc. cit. This many only. and r more 06551 is 00 Many Uona. (neat much LCwez Dana COttar Lowe. 72 Accessibility to the lake is an important factor in its development. This is especially true of lakes in the Upper Peninsula where access to many lakes is limited to foot trails or by rough roads suitable for jeeps only. Lakes close to main highways are generally develOped with cottages and resorts first. After this more desirable frontage is used up, some of the more undesirable areas will be opened up to access and developed. Ac- cessibility from the lake, either by water or car to other neighboring lakes is Often an important factor in the desirability of the lake for deve10pment. Many small lakes have a critical lack of space for water-oriented recrea- tional activities and thus access to neighboring lakes , streams , or a Great Lake is important. Lakes located in close proximity to population centers are generally much more intensively developed than those more isolated. 46 The southern Lower Peninsula lakes are good examples of this. Lakes in counties near Detroit, Grand Rapids , and Flint are much more highly develOped with cottages, resorts , and commercial establishments than those in the northern Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula. The distance people are willing to travel makes a great deal of difference in this respect also. Some people are willing to travel 200 or 300 miles to a summer resort on a lake farther north but the majority require a lake in close proximity to a job or permanent home so they can commute easily without taking too much driving time. This trend may change, however, with the continued improvement of major highways and a reduction in driving time. 46Burton, Op. cit., p. 76. factor nee i fluen. where areas For 8: 0080 same ago i 73 Natural and aesthetic characteristics are among the most important factors influencing prOperty and cottage deve10pment. A lake relatively free from aquatic vegetation and with a nice stand of shoreline timber in- fluences many people. This is exceptionally true in the northern areas where demand for lakefront prOperty is not as high as in the southern areas. Even the lake name will affect its desirability to a great extent. For example, Lake-of-the—Clouds in Ontonagon County, Michigan, is one of the main tourist attractions in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. This same lake, however, was quite universally rejected a number of years ago when its name was Carp Lake. 47 The fish species and the quality of fishing in the lake determine its deve10pment to a great degree especially by the sportsman. Much lake development in the Upper Peninsula is geared to the fishing quality. Trout, bass and northern pike are the most sought after species and the lakes supporting them are Often rapidly develOped. 48 This is not as true in southern Michigan where demand for water frontage as such Often ex- ceeds all other requirements. The type of development already present Often determines the lake's desirability for further development. Shabby, unkempt and crowded devel— opments often repel peOple from wanting frontage on a lake. Few people desire to build or buy a summer home on a lake crowded with shacks and run-down deve10pments. Commercial establishments are Often another 7Personal interview with C. R. Humphrys, Department of Resource DevelOpment, Michigan State University, September 7, 1965. 4 8All lakes , questionnaire response. ture priv lake soul des: lots the fact tion acce lake faci. COm] mOs! 0f p1 74 factor that may or may not draw further property deve10pment. Some peOple feel that grocery stores, gas stations and restaurants are a desirable fea- ture, while others prefer to get away from this and want more isolated and private conditions. The price of frontage lots Often limits many people in their choice of lakes. Lots selling for $100 per front foot, which is common on many southern Michigan lakes , often limit most people to smaller, and less desirable frontage or even back lots. In general, Upper Peninsula lake lots are not as expensive as southern Lower Peninsula lots because of the difference in intensity of demand for frontage. The controversy between public and private lakes is often a deciding factor in deve10pment trends. Many prOperty owners require private condi- tions with a lake free of any public access, whereas others tolerate public access or are not influenced one way or another. The public desire for a lake, of course, is often governed by the quantity and quality of lake facilities. Beaches, boat rentals, restaurants, cottage rentals and other commercial features are among the more important facilities. As a rule, most Michigan lakes are open to public access but the quantity and quality of public facilities Often differ considerably. PrOperty restrictions on a lake often influence to a great degree the prOperty and cottage deve10pment of a lake. Restrictions may take the form of easements, rights-of-way, Oil and gas leases, use restrictions, building restrictions and plat vacations. Many lakes , especially those 75 in the Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula, are quite free from any property restrictions. Southern Lower Peninsula lakes, however, often have many restrictions , especially relating to building and plat vacations. Prospective buyers often hesitate to buy prOperty clouded by numerous restrictions. On the other hand, the deve10pment of a lake may be greatly benefited by building, use, and other property restrictions. Many of these restrictions, especially those relating to building and land use, are very elaborate and prohibitive. An example of a very tight control of prOperty use and the building of structures is found on Reeds Lake, a rather exclu— sive lake located in Grand Rapids , Michigan. This restriction, which is recorded along with the deeds to the property, in the Manhattan Beach Plat, reads as follows: A. Special Land Use. Lot 9 of said plat [Manhattan Beach Plat] shall be used for private purposes in accordance with the rules and regulations Of Manhattan Beach Association. NO dwelling, boat-house, beach house or structure of any nature whatsoever shall be erected on lot 9 of said plat. Title to said lot 9 shall be vested in the owners of lots 10-23 inclusively of Manhattan Beach Plat and said title shall be held in conjunction with membership of said owners in Manhattan Beach Association. Should said lot 9 be no longer used for private bathing beach pur- poses or maintained purposely by the aforesaid Man- hattan Beach Association, title of lot 9 shall revert to Richard D. Brooks. B. Architectural Control. No building shall be erected, placed or altered on any lot until the construction drawings , specifications , and a plot plan showing the location of the structure have been approved by the architectural control committee as to quality of workmanship and materials , harmony of 76 external design with existing structures , and as to loca— tion with respect to tOpography and finish grade elevation. No fence, hedge or wall shall be erected except on lot 1 without approval of the architectural control committee. C. Dwelling Cost, Quality and Size. NO dwelling shall be permitted on any lot at a cost of less than 34,000 dollars , based upon cost levels prevailing on the date these covenants are recorded [1961] , it being the intention and purpose of the covenants to assure that all dwellings shall be of a quality of workmanship and materials substantially the same or better than that which can be produced on the date these covenants are recorded at the minimum cost stated herein for the minimum permitted dwelling size. The living floor area of the main structure exclusive of Open porches and garages , shall not be less than 1600 square feet. D. Building Location. On lots 1-8, the distance between the structure and the street lot line shall not be less than 35 feet and the distance between the structure and the concrete markers at the lake front shall not be less than 75 feet. E. Easements. All easements shall be reserved as required. F. Nuisances. No noxious or Offensive activity shall be carried on . which may be or may become an annoyance or nui- sance to the neighborhood. G . Temporary Structure 5 . NO structure of a temporary character, trailer, base- ment, tent, shack, garage, barn, or other out building shall be used on any lot at any time as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. H. Signs. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to the public view on any lot. I. Livestock and Poultry. NO animals . . . of any kind shall be raised, bred or kept on any lot, except that dogs , cats or other tie 10 501 abc whi REC 77 household pets may be kept, provided they are not kept, bred, or maintained for any commercial purposes. I. Garbage and Refuse Disposal. No lot is to be used for dumping and all incinerators and other disposal units must be kept in a sanitary condi— tion. 49 The above restrictions are unusually strict but there are many restric- tions, on many lakes, which are similar in their intent. Restrictions as to use of a lake for recreational purposes are employed on a number of southern Lower Peninsula lakes where overcrowding and user conflicts abound. This type of restriction may divide the time of day or week for certain recreational uses on the lake. For example, waterskiing may be allowed from 10:00 A. M. to 2:00 P. M. on one day, whereas fishing may be allowed during the hours of 6:00 A. M. to 10:00 A. M. Often, this may apply to all recreational uses on a lake and may be very effective and useful in cases of extreme overcrowding. The procedure for obtaining such a restriction is rather involved. The property owners on a lake, either individually, or in the form of an association, may appeal directly to the circuit court in the county in which the lake is located. The resultant hearing then determines the necessity of such a restriction. If approved, a copy is sent directly to the County Clerk who stamps it and immediately sends it to the County Register of Deeds where it is filed with the deeds to the lots in the plat. 49Kent County Register of Deeds , Manhattan Beach Plat, liber 1970, 1121. 78 An additional certified copy is also forwarded to the Auditor General's office when it is recorded. 50 In summary, a restriction may produce a very desirable pattern of development on a lake by prohibiting certain patterns of property deve1- 0pment and uses. On the other hand, if too strict, it may prevent many individuals from their right to use a lake, and their ability to purchase and build according to their own liking. The restriction is , therefore, a tool that may be used to improve, maintain, and correct patterns of lake prOperty deve10pment and recreational use. The social and economic status of the property owner is , at times , a determining factor in lake property deve10pment. Property on most lakes , of course, is owned by peOple of all ways of life no matter what their social or economic status. There are cases, however, where an entire lake may be owned by professional men only. Silver Lake, Kent County, Michigan, is an example of this situation. All Of the prOperty on the lake is developed with $30,000-plus summer homes, and all Of the owners are professional businessmen— doctors , lawyers and business executives. Occasionally, a lake will be developed by a group of doctors or lawyers only, although this is not too common. DevelOpment Patterns of Eight Lakes in Michigan The eight lakes used in this study represent some of the varying pat- terns Of development throughout the state. Each lake, therefore, will be 0Personal interview with Ruth E. Webber, Kent County Register of Deeds, September 3, 1965. 79 analyzed, according to its own particular mode of deve10pment, using all of the above factors and any local factors that affect each lake. Each lake was chosen to represent some of the features of lake property devel- Opment common to the particular area of the state in which it is located, and hence, should be considered exemplary of the lakes in the same area although some characteristics of the lakes used in the study are peculiar to the lake in question. Upper Peninsula lakes Camp lake, Iron County, is a lake that has been develOped fairly recently. It is somewhat atypical of most Northern Peninsula lakes in the sense that it is quite highly developed for its size. (See Figure 2.) A little more than two-thirds of its shoreline is platted, and numerous small cottages and shacks dot about one-half of the shoreline. There is a public fishing site on the lake, but it is not heavily used at the present time. Only a small part of the western shore is organic in nature and ap- parently it is not very serious because a few lots have been developed along this part of the shore. There are four subdivisions that have been platted along the shore of Camp Lake, all of which are of recent origin (1953-1959). As can be seen by Appendix Table 1, all lots are approximately 100 feet in width at the shoreline. Most of the property is as yet undevelOped with cottages, and those that are present are mostly hunting and fishing shacks. There are about 20 cottages on the lake; most are used only during the weekends of 80 ooknuouosm oflcmmuo mobmcmuwoo g ”a 0 3110'] dumg 1° told aioqs "I 240.1022 {.2300 20m. 33.. E240 .N 33on 81 summer months and during the fall hunting season. Since the lake is as yet so undevelOped, frontage values are still low, the average develOped assessed front foot values on the lake being $7. 05 and the undeveloped assessed front foot value only $2. 62 (see Appendix Table l). The present deve10pment of Camp Lake is probably a result of the town Iron River, Michigan, which is only a few miles away. Most of the property owners on the lake are from this town and have businesses and permanent homes in the surrounding area. Their occupations vary from miners to professional businessmen. Location, then, is probably the most important factor influencing the development of this lake. Since Camp Lake is still in the low deve10pment stage and most of the development is not oriented to strong recreational use, there are not very many lakefront accessories. There are a few docks for boats and an occasional swimming beach, but much of the shoreline remains in its original state. Lake use varies from waterskiing to hunting and, at present, all uses appear to be compatible due to the lack Of pressure, either public or private. There are, however, a number of problems that have arisen relating to or resulting from the deve10pment already present. The main problem pertains to the fishing on the lake. Many complaints were received regarding this problem. The lake is considered to be a trout lake even though they do not propagate naturally in the lake. The Michigan Depart— ment of Conservation has maintained the fish population in the lake by planting trout, bass and bluegills. Many prOperty owners have complained 82 that the amount of planting is far too small and that fishing is good only during a few weeks in the spring of the year. Many also feel that a greater variety of fish would help to eliminate this problem. Another problem that has been plaguing the lake for some time is the nature of the lake bottom and the aquatic plant population. Nymphea sp. and other emergents have caused problems during the summer months, especially on the wind-free side of the lake. In addition, a muck bottom has limited much of the shoreline for recreational use; as a result, some owners have dredged the shoreline and filled the beach area with sand. The roads that encircle the lake are also a source of numerous com- plaints from the prOperty owners. Since they are unsurfaced and no ditches line the side of the road, they are frequently washed out in the spring and become extremely dusty in the summer. During the winter months , they are virtually impassible. The biggest deterrent to property deve10pment on Camp Lake at the present time is the tax rate. Apparently the tax rate on improved lake— front property is rather high in the county. This may be a result of lack of industry and other important tax bases , but the fact remains that peOple are unwilling to improve their prOperty to any degree for fear of increasing their tax rate to higher levels. In fact, prOperty owners list this as the main problem that may lead to the relocation of their cottage sites. In summary, Camp Lake shows some features in common with many 51 Camp Lake questionnaire response. rn no 83 Upper Peninsula lakes as well as some problems peculiar to the lake itself. Since it is an Upper Peninsula lake, the demand for frontage is not'high at the present time. This is due to both its relative isolation with respect to pOpulation centers and the lack of tourists in the area due partly, per- haps, to the Mackinac Bridge toll rate. It appeared, therefore, that at the present time, Camp Lake is relatively free from many of the man- associated problems such as overcrowding, user conflicts and pollution common to many southern Michigan lakes. If the present use trends con- tinue, however, Camp Lake will also be faced with many of these problems unless planning and management of the lake resources is initiated within the next decade. Gulliver Lake, Schoolcraft County, Michigan (see Figure 3), is one of the larger Upper Peninsula lakes with a development in common with other large Upper Peninsula lakes. About half of its shoreline has been platted and much of this subdivided prOperty has been developed with cottages. There are numerous public access points in the form of parks and walkways, and the presence of a summer resort makes the area quite popular for public recreational use especially since access to the lake by the major state highway in the Upper Peninsula is so easy. The south and east side of the lake has been develOped and since the remaining shoreline is organic in nature, a correlation can be made between this and the lack of development on the north and west side of the lake. ..:v.:- _ N e V. N 84 oosbouonm Oucmmuo moumcmfimop p o 60 chap 0:53 2 4 Sex .6? saw 3 . 9/. to a a. a. a. oQ \V V c b 00..., \0 hp. .xém ’0 ’0 Q ace/4 on so Nkv‘q thaxqub Old 'Deertleld First Addition 245.10.: >hzzoo hmk2300 wmxzdmmi ux._.zooo 02413.40 5.4.. 53000 .m 939m Mkvd xNuQQD 33:63.6 m.oEmEmm xcca =_scu sou m.02 ro’m m.EO:me m 59.233 eaci that men sive the side for I tant this 35 t wid‘ are Coo My 1381*, 102 each other, as well as with numerous other southern Lower Peninsula lakes ,. that they will be analyzed together with respect to their prOperty develOp- ment and recreational characteristics and problems. Both lakes are inten- sively developed with cottages and subdivisions on both lakes encircle the entire shorelines with the exception of a small area on the northeast side of Silver Lake where the shore type is organic and hence undesirable for deve10pment. (See Figures 8 and 9.) Both lakes were platted in the early 1920's and thus show how impor- tant the demand for lakefront prOperty was even then. The lot sizes reflect this early deve10pment in that frontage widths on both lakes are as low as 35 to 40 feet on sOme lots although most frontages are about 50 feet in width. The actual cottages also reflect this early deve10pment since many are rather old, two story frame houses. Many of the structures on both lakes are of a permanent home nature although this is especially true on Cooley lake. Most of the prOperty, owners on the lakes are from the highly populated Detroit and Pontiac metropolitan areas. The mode of develOp- ment on both lakes is related to their location. Lake frontage is in ex- tremely high demand even though prOperty on Lake Huron and Lake St. Clair is also Occasionally available. Furthermore , with the exception of Oakland County and a few other areas , most of Michigan's extreme southern Lower Peninsula has a limited supply of lakes available for platting and property deve10pment. The lakes that are capable of being develOped are so keenly in demand that frontage values go very high. This is evident 1h. P3 hie 103 on both lakes where undeveloped assessed front foot values are approxi- mately $11, whereas develOped assessed front foot values range from $27 on Silver Lake where many of the cottages are rather old, to over $50 on Cooley Lake where some of the development is quite new and modern. The highest use patterns on both lakes are found during the summer months when fishing, waterskiing, boating, sailing and canoeing are prevalent. Many lakefront accessories are associated with almost every cottage, and shorelines are often aesthetically disfigured by their presence. Silver Lake and Cooley Lake also have many problems in common. Probably the most important concerns carrying capacity and user conflicts. This is especially true on Cooley Lake where public access is available by means of a public launching site and many commercial establishments such as summer resorts, a night club and rented cottages. Since each lake is so intensively develOped with as many as three tiers of cottages , the carrying capacity is undoubtedly exceeded to such an extent that use patterns become highly incompatible. If present use trends continue, the high space consumption uses such as waterskiing and high speed motor- boating will have to be controlled to allow for other important recreational uses. Water level problems on both lakes have become critical in recent years with the lack of precipitation and other local factors. This decrease in water levels has also aggravated the already present aquatic plant prob- lem by exposing much of this vegetation to decay and other undesirable 104 aesthetic annoyances. Cooley Lake has experienced a severe limitation of recreational use space since much of the formerly usable lake surface area is now unnavigable. Lakefront accessories such as docks and swim- ming beaches have been left high and dry, and much and other organic materials have been exposed. This problem has been aggravated on Silver Lake with the additional drawdown of water levels by seepage into nearby gravel pits. Cooley Lake has experienced a problem that is generally quite unique to southern Michigan lakes, namely, access. Roads serving the lake are in extremely poor condition as they are not surfaced and contain many ruts and potholes. The prOperty owners are aware of the problem but are unable to correct it since the maintenance of the roads is in the hands of the county. Cooley Lake and Silver Lake may therefore be considered exemplary of many deve10pment and use patterns and associated problems conven- tional to most southern Lower Peninsula lakes in heavily pOpulated areas. The intense demand for lakefront property in these locations often exceeds all other considerations of good lake deve10pment resulting in many prob— lems and conflicts that seriously alter many potentially beautiful inland lakes. 4Personal correspondence, Cooley Lake property owners , July 15 , 1965. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conclusions The conclusions of this study will be divided into four categories: Upper Peninsula , Northern Lower Peninsula, Southern Lower Peninsula , and Statewide. Table 2 is a summary showing variances in lake devel- opment factors with respect to location. Upper Peninsula 1. The Upper Peninsula is a low pOpulation area. No large cities are present throughout the whole area, and thus , high concentrations of people are absent. 2. Since the pOpulation of the Upper Peninsula is low, demand for lake frontage is also low. Since so many lakes are available for devel- opment, both public demand for use and private demand for frontage is light. 3. Since demand for frontage is very low, large lakes, with few excep- tions , are the only lakes that are developed to any extent in the Upper Peninsula. In some areas, even large lakes show an almost complete lack of deve10pment. 4. As a rule, Upper Peninsula lake frontage is of lower value than other areas of the state, this being caused by low demand and numerous lakes. 105 106 Table 2. Variance in Lake Development Factors with Respect to Location Lake Feature Related to Upper Northern Lower Southern Lower Development Peninsula Lakes Peninsula Lakes Peninsula Lakes Size of lake Very important deter- mining factor in extent of lake deve10pment. Moderately important determining factor in extent of lake devel— opment Of little importance in de- termining the extent of lake development, espe- cially in the most southern areas. Accessibility Few smaller Upper Peninsula lakes ac- cessible by car. Most lakes accessible but some very isolated. Almost all lakes acces- sible by county side roads or state highways. Location with respect to pop- ulation centers Distance factor and cost of bridge reduce lot value and use. Some lakes highly de— veloped as summer re- sorts for city people. Nearness to large metro— politan centers produces high demand for lake prop- erty and high lot values. Present devel— opment Fishing and hunting shacks on small lakes but many nice summer homes on large lakes. Mixture between small cabins and modern sum- mer homes. May vary depending upon loca- tion. Many homes of a perma— nent nature although much deve10pment oriented to summer lake use. Many older developments on southern lakes. Restrictions Very few restrictions on the rather undevel- oped Upper Peninsula lakes. Some restrictions re- lating to land use found on a few lakes. Many restrictions con- cerning building, vaca- tions, easements and land use common on many lakes. Public facilities Common on many lakes but not too heavily used at present. Found on most lakes and use may be very intensive in some areas. Access points as well as commercial establish- ments found on many in- tensively developed lakes. Natural char- acteristics Desirable natural features abound on most lakes. Aquatic plants of some con- cern. Upland vegetation usually preserved. Some aquatic weed problems present. Much natural shoreline modified by lakefront de- velopment. Water level and aquatic plant prob- lems common. User conflicts Carrying capacity of most lakes exceeds present use. Many problems have developed on the more highly developed lakes. User conflicts common due to intensive property de- velopment on most SOuthern Lower Peninsula lakes. Water levels Problems have been experienced on some lakes. Control structures utilized. Many problems have accompanied lack of precipitation in last few years. Many, problems have ac- companied lack of precip— itation in last few years. Has decreased carrying capacity of many lakes. Use character- istics Hunting, swimming, fishing, and boating most common lake uses. Waterskiing, swimming, fishing, and hunting most common lake uses. Sportsman oriented. Waterskiing, swimming, fishing, sailing, and canoeing most common lake uses. lakes mostly resort oriented. Lot size, as- sessed valua- tions and front foot values More recent develop- ments show larger lot widths. Frontage values generally low. Taxes high due to lack of tax sources. Some lakes with older developments have nar- row lot widths. Others are more recent and lot widths show greater widths. Frontage values vary. Lot sizes smaller due to old developments and high demand. Frontage values high in many areas of in— tensive development. Time of use Most lake prOperty is not used during winter months when access is difficult. Lake property used during winter months in some areas and is left idle in other areas. Most lake property used both summer and winter throughout much Of the southern Lower Peninsula. 107 5. Since most Upper Peninsula lakes show much more recent subdividing and platting, plats are more modern in the sense that lot widths are larger and overall lot sizes are larger, thus permitting larger and more modern cottage development. 6. Development on Upper Peninsula lakes is extremely irregular. A large, modern summer home may be flanked on one or both sides by small fishing shacks, trailers, or even tents. As a rule, there- fore, most development is of a lower quality and less uniform than in other parts of Michigan. 7. Due to a lack of access and hence, isolation, most Upper Peninsula lakes are limited to a seasonal use. Summer months are generally the only months in which cottages and other lake facilities are utilized; however, the fall hunting season produces some use of lakefront structures although actual lake use is nil. 8. Coupled with low development and limited seasonal use is the fact that there are few lake service centers. Large resorts , clubs and other public facilities are absent. 9. Almost all lakes in the Upper Peninsula encounter very little public use of access points. This fact, along with characteristic low development, produces few user conflict problems. Consequently, use controls are nonexistent. 10. Since development of cottages and use of Upper Peninsula lakes is low, natural lake characteristics are of high quality. Overenrichment 1‘. \ ‘ I 3),-w.- . 108 and pollution are practically non—existent, many shorelines are virtually unmodified by man, and most all lakes show near primi- tive qualities that are rare in most other parts of Michigan. 11. The initial lake user or the original lake invader is of the loner type in Upper Peninsula areas. Many lakes, especially the smaller lakes , may be owned either fully or partially by one person and the only development is in the form of one cabin or shack. The remaining shoreline is completely undeveloped or unmodified. 12. Group recreational activities such as yacht clubs, night clubs , sailing regattas and waterskiing clubs are not prevalent on Upper Peninsula lakes. Large lakes may have some variety of use but almost all small lakes are single purpose lakes. 13. Most lake property owners on Upper Peninsula lakes are against further development. Since they are of the loner type, they desire isolated conditions and Oppose more cottage development or public use. On the other hand, public officials such as mayors and con- gressmen along with local businessmen desire more development of resort facilities. 14. There are three factors impeding further Upper Peninsula lake devel— opment. In the first place, the distance to northern lakes is often too great for peOple from many of the large pOpulation centers in southern Michigan. Secondly, the toll of the Mackinac Bridge is higher than most tourists are willing to pay. Finally, Canadian 109 competition has induced many vacationers to the nearness of Ontario's many undevelOped lakes. Northern Lower Peninsula Michigan's northern Lower Peninsula may be considered a transition zone between the characteristic low development of the Upper Peninsula and the high development of the southern Lower Peninsula. Most northern Lower Peninsula lakes are within three or four hours drive from large southern Michigan population centers. Consequently, demand for frontage is much higher than in the Upper Peninsula. Frontage widths and overall lot sizes vary from location to location depending upon the age of lake deve10pments and subdivisions. Frontage values are generally higher than Upper Peninsula areas. Since access is easier and demand is higher, some larger northern Lower Peninsula lakes have very elaborate and exclusive lake service centers such as resorts, stores and gas stations. Some lakes may have high social groupings in the form of clubs, re- gattas, and resorts from cities such as Grand Rapids , Flint or Lansing. As a rule, basic community services (electricity, telephone and gas) are easily available on northern Lower Peninsula lakes. This fact influences use of lakes by families rather than loner types as is common in the Upper Peninsula. Cottage deve10pment is , as a rule, of higher quality and more regular— ity due to the presence of restrictions and zoning in some areas. 110 8. Single purpose lakes are uncommon in the northern Lower Peninsula / Lakes are used for a large variety of seasonal recreational uses and seasonal use is not limited to summer months in some areas Since demand for recreational use is greater, public access points 9. Be— are more moderately used in the northern Lower Peninsula. ’5 . ill cause of this, and the overall higher deve10pment, a few instances of user conflicts have appeared and the use controls may soon be required in these cases. Depending upon the extent of deve10pment on any given lake, natural 10. Pollution and lake characteristics may or may not be modified. enrichment is not too prevalent but the more southern areas have experienced some overenrichment. « 11. Continued development should be expected to continue with more population pressure, easy access, shorter driving time from pOpula- tion centers, and less competition from Canadian areas. Southern Lower Peninsula 1. A high percentage of usable lake shoreline on southern Lower Penin- sula lakes is utilized for permanent homes and full—time residents. Frontage values on this prOperty, especially in a metropolitan vicinity, is very high. 2. Demand for lake frontage, even on very small lakes, is extremely high throughout all of the southern Lower Peninsula. 3. Most lake subdivisions are old and lot widths and overall size is 4. 8. l. 111 often small. Demand for frontage may produce this same effect in many newer subdivisions to allow for more available lots. Public access points are used very intensively during summer months. Weekend use is massive on almost every lake in the southern Lower Peninsula. Single purpose lakes are non-existent in southern Michigan and a great variety of recreational uses are found on almost all lakes. User conflicts are common and many use, location, and time con- trols are used on numerous lakes. Small lakes are even developed to high degrees with multi-tiered sub— divisions common in all areas. Lake service areas, public facilities, and social and group organiza— tions are common throughout the southern Lower Peninsula. Res- taurants , grocery stores, gas stations, night clubs, yacht clubs and other social organizations are found on a large number of lakes , especially those in close proximity to metropolitan areas. Due to high deve10pment with cottages and other structures , natural shoreline characteristics of most lakes are highly modified. Over- enrichment and pollution are prevalent. Aquatic plants have be- come a problem in most areas and muck lake bottoms are of great concern. Statewide With the exception of the southeastern part of the southern Lower 112 Peninsula, only large lakes have many service facilities and so- cially—oriented deve10pments. 2. The continually expanding demand for frontage and overcrowded condi- tions will cause higher development and more public use of Michigan's lakes. 3. All lake developments , even on the most isolated lakes, should be zoned and restricted in order to control the desired type of devel— opment. Recommendations Since lake developments vary considerably with respect to location, accessibility, size, use and many other factors, it is difficult to deter- mine, for any given lake, the actual preferred development pattern. There are, however, a number of important desirable values that can apply to most lakes in order to give a lake its most optimum use and deve10pment pattern. The more important of these values are recreation, aesthetics, and property. All lake deve10pments, with the exception of certain com- mercial lakes, should be geared to the best application of these values in order to preserve and maintain the natural resources in the lake area and the purpose for which the lake is developed. Since recreation is one of the primary reasons for most lake deve10p- ments it is important that lakes be of such a quality for their utilization for water oriented recreation. There are many types of water recreation ,. some of which, when undertaken together are compatible, and others which 113 are not. For this reason, it is necessary to predetermine use patterns of a lake before extensive deve10pment is executed. There are a number of factors that may determine this , all of which should be studied when planning for recreational lakes. Location is the first factor determining the use of a lake. Northern lakes, for example, have many qualities such as water temperature, ac- cessibility, and distance from centers of pOpulation that may influence recreational preferences. Cold water discourages such sports as swimming, (T .' '. , " o .- ‘4’er - skin diving, and waterskiing and encourages uses such as fishing, hunting, and boating. A lake with poor access roads may also encourage some activities and discourage others that depend upon good access for trailers and other accessories that may be too bulky or heavy to carry in. Southern lakes , on the other hand, have warmer waters and generally better access , thereby attracting some of the resort oriented recreational activities such as waterskiing and swimming. Another factor affecting recreational use is adaptability. Some lakes With much organic shoreline may be suited for use completely contrary to lakes with a high mineral shore type. Lakes with firm, well drained shores are . of course, much more suitable to cottage deve10pment and swimming beaChes than are lakes with muck shores. Some lakes, therefore, are natLlI‘ally suited for wildlife preservation, fishing, and similar natural lake uses whereas others may be more suited to resorts and associated activities. 114 A third factor to be considered is the presence or absence of other nearby recreational areas. For example, it is useless to develop a lake with resorts and certain correlated recreational activities in an area where demand for such a deve10pment has already been satisfied by another lake deve10pment only a few miles away. Other, more pressing demands for lake use should be analyzed in this case before development is encouraged. There are numerous other factors that influence use patterns for any given lake such as lake shape and size, depth of water, fertility, existing developments, and water quality, but it is beyond the sc0pe of this study to analyze each factor individually. The important point is that one should recognize that there are a number of aspects in relation to lake use patterns and lack of regard for any one of them may lead to unwise lake development. Recreational uses of a lake are very consumptive of both water and 55 . . .. . . . Sl'1CDre. The most intenswe uses such as waterskiing, boating, sw1mm1ng, a nd fishing are generally classified as being more consumptive than all CDtI’ler uses on a lake. It is for this reason, that on smaller lakes, con— fliets between such uses have emerged. Swimming and cottage develop- me ht are more consumptive of shore space than of actual water area but e VQ n here, conflicts may arise since both require the same sandy and well- dra ined soil conditions for their deve10pment. Waterskiing, boating and f1 8 l'ling are, of course, many times more consumptive of water surface S r S a and hence, especially on many overdevelOped small lakes, they must \ 5 Threinen, An Analysis of Space Demands for Water and Shore, p. l 115 compete for the limited space available for their execution. In planning a lake deve10pment, therefore, care should be taken to classify lakes as to their best adaptability to recreational uses. One lake may, for example, be suited for fishing whereas another may be suited for activities such as waterskiing, boating and swimming. Because demand for water-oriented recreation is steadily increasing, future lake deve10pments should be geared to this lake classification and should be fashioned in a manner that makes best use of the lake resources for recreational use. This is the only way outside of time, location and user controls that will inhibit the user conflict problem. This can also be applied to public and private use of lakes. In areas of high population where demand is great, some lakes can be develOped for private use only, whereas some of the larger lakes with a high carrying capacity can be develOped for public use. This can only be accomplished, of course, where numerous lakes are available for development. Incompatible recreational uses are ever on the upswing and with this Increase, the need for good planning is becoming more and more critical. AS J. R. Wright says, "No two lakes are the same and each area requires it 8 own planning, analysis, and solution. " The aesthetic quality of a lake is one of the main determinant of its \2 filue for property development and recreational use. It is essential, for t h is reason, that utmost care is taken to preserve high quality aesthetic 56 S I. R. Wright, "Lake Shore Beach Development" (Department of Re- Q1.1rce Development, Michigan State University, 1963). (Unpublished r S Dort.) 116 features of any lake when planning for development. Crowding of lake— shore with cottages and lakefront accessories not only detracts from the natural beauty of the shoreline, but it defeats the primary purpose for which lakes are developed, namely, its recreational potential. Once a lake has reached the stage of extreme deve10pment, it is no longer a place for relaxation and enjoyment, but becomes no more than a metro- politan-like suburban deve10pment. To destroy a beautiful shoreline by removal of the forest cover would in essence, destroy the whole lake of its natural beauty. As O. W. Threinen says, "In reality, the flat surface Of water alone has little aesthetic value without the contrast of shore and Water and the element of space. " The carrying capacity of a lake is limited by the space available for Cottage deve10pment and recreational use. Property deve10pment is thus a direct influence upon the type of lake use and upon the ultimate appear- a I“ice of the lake. Well—planned lake prOperty development and improvement 1 S an attribute to any lake but complete modification of lake shores without due consideration to its impact on the overall attributes of the lake is a S Qurce of many problems. Lake frontage is becoming more and more scarce and valuable, espe- cially in Michigan's pOpulous Southern Peninsula. Real estate companies Qre recognizing this fact and many lakes are becoming rapidly overdevel— Q Ded with unplanned and crowded subdivisions. The amount of frontage 57Threinen , loc. cit . 117 that can be used for deve10pmental purposes has a definite limit on any lake and growth must taper off at some point before the lake in question is ruined by aesthetically unattractive shorelines, overcrowded access points , user conflicts , and overenrichment from inadequate sewate dis- posal practices. Any lake deve10pment, therefore, should be planned to prevent these destructive practices. The number of lake lots should be limited to keep within the lake's carrying capacity and to maintain the beauty of the shoreline. Lot sizes should be large enough to allow for building without congestion. Lot locations should be kept away from natural shorelines. Public access points should be of sufficient size to allow for adequate public use but should be held to a size in keeping With the best use potential of the lake. It is granted that lake frontage den'iand is increasing but congested lake developments and overuse of la1E>irig sand fill often produces a very desirable beach as well as a good 6 H 0U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Environmental Mhacfice in Recreation Areas (Cincinnati: Robert A. Taft Sanitary ngiI'leering Center, n.d.). p. 1. 121 cottage site. Although the process is expensive, it is still a possible solution to satisfy future high demands for lake frontage. Figure 10 and the following summary illustrates a recommended ideal type of lake deve10pment on small Michigan lakes. The deve10pment postulated in this sketch is but one of numerous forms for possible ideal lake developments since many factors such as location, size, and acces- sibility play an important part in determining a design to fit any particular situation. An attempt is made, therefore, to analyze some of the more important characteristics of lake deve10pment that may be desirable in planning for the utilization of any lake. Table 3. Ideal Lake Development: A Summary 1. Access Road— The access road to any lake should not encircle the entire shoreline because certain areas of the lakeshore should be reserved to its natural characteristics. The road itself should be maintained in a paved condition and should be designed to prevent high—speed driving. It should run behind the public beach area to keep it from severing the beach from the lake. The end of the road should be supplied with a cul-de-sac to permit cars with trailers the ability to have easy manuvering room for the launching area. 2. Private Road— The private road should diverge from the access road and should be limited to the use of the lot owners in the cottage de- velopment area only. It, too, should be kept in a paved condition in order to minimize dusty and muddy conditions. It should run through 122 ”UL < _tu'auu do ‘3 A3 (1 2594403 8 888888 . . E kzwz a ouw>mo 3:3 419 or semi 123 the cottage development area thus allowing each prOperty owner ac- cess to his cottage. The road should, as with the access road, end at the private launching site where a turn-around should be provided. Parkianea — This area should be in such a position so as to permit easy access to both the public beach and the public park. It should be of sufficient size to allow for car and trailer parking but should be limited to the largest possible crowd that the lake is capable of handling so as not to permit an overcrowded condition. The size of the parking area, along with the size of the beach and park, would be the basic limiting factor to public use of the lake. Public Beach -- The public beach should be develOped on the windswept side of the lake in order to allow for the self—cleaning process of wave action. It should be composed of a highly porous sand and should be of such a size to allow for uncongested public use. It should be located far enough away from all private developments to prevent bothersome noises and nuisances for private owners. Private Beach— The private beach should be develOped in the same manner as the public beach but should be dedicated to the use of private lot owners only. Its size is dependent upon the size of the lake and thus the size of the cottage development area. Care should be taken in providing access to the beach to minimize interference with other property owners. Public Park -— The public park should be kept in a semi-wild condition ’1 124 and access by car or other vehicle should not be allowed. A walking trail should be provided tO allow for access to the area from the parking lot. The size Of the park and the number Of picnic tables and other picnicking facilities should reflect the size Of the lake. Its location should allow for easy access to and from the public beach so that there would be no necessity tO drive from place to place. 7. Public Launching Site — The public launching site should be located on the outer edge Of the public portion Of the lake deve10pment in order to minimize traffic problems and danger Of accident. The size of the lake should influence the number Of launching sites that should be available for public use. As a rule, "In an area where boating is popular, one boat launching facility for trailered boats should be prO— vided for each 160 acres Of boating water. “61 A service area may be provided to supply gas and other boating needs but should be limited tO this use only and not become a general concession area. 8 . Private Launching Site — The private launching site should be con— structed tO the same general specifications as the public launching site but should be dedicated to the use Of the private prOperty owners only. A service area would not be necessary in this case because the private lot owners would be able tO obtain such supplies from the service area at the public launching area. Private boat docks adjacent tO the private launching area is an Optional feature but may \ 61Ibid. , p. 104. 10. 125 be desired by private Owners using their cottages during the whole summer. Under no circumstances should docks be built along the private beach area or the remaining shoreline in front Of the cottage deve10pment area. Cottage DevelOpment— The size Of the lake is the main determining factor in the amount of cottage deve10pment. There is no set num- ber Of cottages that must be develOped on a lake Of a certain size but all cottage deve10pment should be limited tO one area Of a lake. The best location for cottage development is along the windswept side Of the lake so that shorelines are kept free from aquatic plants and organic material by means Of waves produced by prevailing winds. The lots themselves should be no less than 200 feet from the lake- shore tO prevent aesthetically unattractive shoreline conditions. Lot sizes should be nO less than 100 feet in width and nO more than two tiers Of lots should be allowed. Building, health, property use and similar restrictions should be utilized tO prevent shabby housing, pollution and Other development problems. Parking space could be provided adjacent to each cottage for owners' cars and boat trailers. Wilderness and Wildlife Area — An area comprising about 50 percent Of the shoreline Of any lake should be dedicated tO primitive wilder- ness areas and for the protection Of wildlife for the purposes Of keeping the lake in a natural state and prevent overcrowding and overdevelOpment. NO access to this area should be allowed by either the public or private Owners. 11. 126 Shoreline —— NO deve10pment Of any kind, with the exception Of beaches and launching facilities , should be permitted within at least 200 feet of the lake shoreline in order to effectively maintain the natural beauty Of the lake. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Fassett, Norman C. A Manual Of Aquatic Plants. Madison, Wisconsin: University Of Wisconsin Press, 1960. Reid, George K. Ecology Of Inland Waters and Estuaries. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 1961. Periodicals Bowers, N. M. , McMurry, K. C. , and Stahl, K. M. "Lake - Shore In- ventory and Classification, " Papers of the Michigan Academy Of Science, Arts, and Letters, XXVII (1941), 337—44. MCMurry, K. C. , Eschmyer, R. W. , and Davis, C. M. "Objectives and Methods in the Lake Inventory Of Michigan, " Papers Of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, XVIII (1932), 259-76. Reports and Bulletins Burton, C. H. "The Use Of Reservoirs for Recreation. " Unpublished re- port, Department Of Resource DevelOpment, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1961. 1LiOI‘ner, R. N. "Inland Lakes — Public or Private. " Unpublished report, Department Of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1961. (Mimeographed.) Humphrys, C. R. Inland Lake DevelOpment and Management Problems. East Lansing: Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1965. \____. Waterfrontage: Uses and Abuses. East Lansing: Department Of Resource DevelOpment, Michigan State University, 1965. I‘1 I‘ll'Tlphrys, C. R. , and Green, R. F. Michigan Lake Inventory Bulletins 1—83. East Lansing: Department Of Resource DevelOpment, Michigan State University, 1962. 127 128 Lynch, I. I. , Poff, R. , and Threinen, C. W. Improvement Of Shallow Lakes for Recreational Use. Miscellaneous Report NO. 13. Madison: Fish Management Division, Wisconsin Conservation Department, April 1964. Scott, I. D. Inland Lakes Of Michigan. Michigan Geological and Bio- logical Survey Publication NO. 30, Geological Survey NO. 25, 1921. Siefert, W. S. , HOOper, F. F. , Smith, I. W. , Bredahl, W. R. , Damm, C. A., Roelofs, E. W. , and Bacon, E. H. Aquatic Weeds and Their Control. n. p. , nO pub. , n.d. Threinen, C. W. "An Analysis Of Space Demands for Water and Shore. " Unpublished report, Fish Management Division, Wisconsin Depart— ment of Conservation, 1964. Some Spacial Aspects Of Aquatic Recreation. Miscellaneous Report NO. 6. Madison: Fish Management Division, Wisconsin De- partment Of Conservation, December 1961. Supplvand DemandJ Surface Water ResourcesLSOutheastern Wisconsin. Miscellaneous Report NO. 12. Madison: Fish Manage- ment Division, Wisconsin Department of Conservation, 1964. Threinen, C. W. , Poff, R. , Paulin, F. , and Lynch, 1. "Suggested Long- Range DevelOpment Of Camp Lake, Kenosha County. " Fish Manage- ment Division, Wisconsin Department Of Conservation, July 1964. (Mimeographed. ) Veatch, I. O. , and Humphrys, C. R. Lake Terminology. Water Bulletin NO. 14. East Lansing: Department Of Resource Development, Mich- igan State University, 1964. Wis consin State Planning Board. Inventory Of Northern Wisconsin Lakes. Bulletin NO. 5. Madison: Division Of Land Economic Industry, 1939. r1Cell'it, J. R. "Lake Shore Beach Development. " Unpublished report, Department Of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1963. U. S. Government Publications ‘ S - Department Of Agriculture. Resources and Recreation in the Northern Great Lakes Region. A Department Of Agriculture Task Force Report. Washington: U. 8. Government Printing Office, n.d. 129 U. S. Department Of Agriculture. Water: The 1955 Yearbook Of Agriculture. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1955. U. S. Department Of Health, Education and Welfare. Environmental Health Practice in Recreation Areas. Cincinnati: Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, n.d. U. S. Department Of Health, Education and Welfare. Limnological Aspects Of Recreational Lakes. Cincinnari: Technical Advisory and Investiga- tions Section, Technical Services Branch, Division Of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, 1964. Other Sources Burton, C. H. "The Recreational Resources Of the Squaw Rapids Reservoir, Province Of Saskatchewan, Canada. " Unpublished Master's thesis, Department Of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1961. Chubb, Michael. "Outdoor Recreation Land Capacity: Concepts, Usage, and Definitions. " Unpublished Master's thesis, Department Of Re- source Development, Michigan State University, 1964. Clarkson Map Company. Guide tO Fun in Michigan. Kaukauna, Wiscon— sin: Clarkson Map Company, 1965. 25 Michigan Hydrographic Lake Maps, Favorite Fishing Lakes, Upper Peninsula. Kaukauna, Wisconsin: Clarkson Map Company, 1965. Horner, R. N. "A PrOpOsed Recreation Classification for the Lakes Of Jackson County. " Unpublished Master's thesis, Department Of Re- source DevelOpment, Michigan State University, 1959. Hubbard, F. H. " Planning and Control Of Recreational Use on Inland Lakes." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department Of Political Science and Business Administration, University Of Michigan, 1963. Michigan. Michigan Plat Law. Act 172, Public Acts Of 1929. SiCivvell Studios, Inc. AerOplat Atlas Of Kent County, Michigan. Chicago: Sidwell Studios, Inc. , 1960. "I . rp- . ~ I APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE AND ACCOMPANYING CORRESPONDENCE 130 131 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ammo ”WWWDW May 20,1965 Dear PrOperty Owner: The Department Of Resource Development at Michigan State University is conducting a statewide study Of lakefront property development for the State Of Michigan. Very little is known about the trends or economic importance Of this development in the state and in order to Obtain this informa- tion, the enclosed questionnaire has been develOped to sup- ply data concerning lakefront prOperty use, trends, and preferences. Your lake, along with eight others throughout the state, has been selected purely at random from all Of the develOped lakes in Michigan in order to Obtain a cross section of lake- front prOperty deve10pment information. Please note that the information you supply will be held strictly in confidence and will be tabulated without any personal references. You are thus .112}. required to give your name. ONLY YOUR FULL COOPERATION WILL MAKE THIS STUDY A SUCCESS!!! Please fill Out the enclosed questionnaire and mail it as soon as possible in the enclosed self—addressed, s t a m p e d e n v e l o p e . 991x.t_h_0_s_e._9_9_§.i_r.ns.r£2Q_13_Y_J_t1_tls_.§..9l_l.2.§;§. ggn be included in the stu_d_)L_. Your assistance in helping to accurately reflect lakefront property development trends in this state is greatly appre— ciated. Sincerely yours, g / / 1/7'4 fl. LW/ ‘Wayne H. Verspoor Graduate Research Assistant (I WHV:dm Enclosures (2) 132 LAKEFRONT PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE County Lake Date I. Pers onal 6. How many more PeOQLe stay at the cottage on weekends 7 1. Where do you live? (permanent address) as Opposed to during the week ' City County State 7. Do you rent the cottage while you do not use it? 2. What is your voting registration address? (check one) If not, would YOU? a. ( ) same as other 8. What other waterfront accessories are associated with b. ( ) other your cottage? (check one or more) 3. How many in your family? (include yourself) 4. Age of your family: children adults a. ( ) 0—10 d. ( ) 21-40 9 b. ( ) ll-lS e. ( )41-60 ‘ c. ( ) 16-20 f. ( ) 61 and over 5. Years of school completed: (check one for each spouse) husband wife Elementary __ __ Secondary 10 _ __ College ' _ __ Graduate Technical 6. Occupation: (check one for each spouse) 11' husband wife Professional or Technical _ _ Manager, Official, Owner 12. _ _ Clerical, Sales __ __ Craftsman, Foreman _ _ Machine Operator _ __ Assembly Line Worker __ _ Farmer, Farm Worker __ _ laborer Protective (police, army, etc.) __ _— Ill. __ __ Student __ _ Housewife l. __ __ Retired __ Other 11. Property 1. Type of cottage: (check one) a. ( ) two story b. ( ) one story ranch c. ( ) one story bungalow d. ( )Other 2 2. Do you: (check one) 3, a. ( ) own the cottage? b. ( ) rent the cottage? ' 3. How often is the cottage used? (check one or more) a. ( ) weekends only b. ( ) summer months only c. ( ) winter months only d. ( ) permanent home e. ( ) other 4 . How many of your family generally stay at the cottage? 5 . Do relatives and friends frequently stay at the cottage ? If yes, for what length of time? (check one) one day c. ( ) one week weekend d. ( ) more than a week a() b.() ) walk or steps ) swimming ladder ) raft or float a. ( ) dock or pier b. ( )boathouse c. ( ) swimming beach 9. ( )Other d.( e.( r.( If you have no cottage on your prOperty, what are your future plans for the use of that land? (check one only) a. ( ) sell the land (1. ( ) use for camping b. ( ) plan to build e. ( ) build a commercial c. ( ) leave as is establishment f. ( )Other If not develOped, do you use your property for anything at the present time? If yes, please specify use How much lakefront property is developed with cottages ? Approximately how many cottages are on the lake? Why did you select this particular site? (check one or more) a. ( ) 900d fishing b. ( ) good hunting c. ( )isolation d. ( ) aesthetic beauty location near home retirement site cooler climate friends nearby other () () () (l () ~270me Activities What recreational activities do you participate in most on the lake or in the area ? (check one or more) . ( )waterskiing h. ( )racing . ( ) swimming 1. ( )hiking . ( )fishing 1. ( ) sun bathing . ( ) sailing k. ( ) skin diving . ( )hunting 1. ( ) ice skating . ( ) ice boating m. ( ) ice fishing . ( )canoeing n. ( )Other Gama—DUO: Do you own a boat? How many? Please classify the boat used most according to the following: (check one) a. ( ) 8 ft. 6: under a' ( ) cabin cruiser b. ( ) 9-12 ft. b' ( )houseboat c. ( ) 13-16 ft c' ( ) run about with motor (1. ( ) 17-20 ft d' ( )rowboat without motor e. ( ) 21-24 it e' ( ) sailboat f. ( ) 25-29 ft f' ( ) canoe g. ( ) 30 ft 6: over 9' ( )Other 9.?ir’sn. .. 39- ‘ 133 4. Is there public access to your lake? 6. HOW would you describe the State Highways in the area If yes , how? (check one) of your property? (check one) a. ( ) public launching site a. ( ) better than one would expect for this area b. ( ) public swimming beach b. ( ) about average for this area c. ( ) commercial establishments 0. ( ) below average for this area d. ( ) state forests or other public land d. ( ) poor condition and must be improved e. ( ) other 7. Are you satisfied with the services that the county (in 5. Type of commercial establishments on lake, if any: the area of your lake) provides for your taxes ? :fhfikgigze: 2:: g. ( ) public beaches 8. Are theregany particular traffic problems in your area of b. ( ) other retail store h ( ) entertainment areas the lake ' c. ( ) gas dock or station (night club, yacht d. ( ) motel or hotel club, etc.) 9. Do you have water weed problems? e. ( ) rented cottages i. ( ) boatyard or marina f. ( )boat rentals 1. ( )Other 10. Have you had any water level problems ? IV. Miscellaneous 1. Type of water supply: (check one only) 11. Do you consider the lake overcrowded? If so, a. ( ) well c. ( ) other when? (check one) b. ( ) municipal a. ( ) all the time 2. Type of sewage disposal system: (check one only) b' ( ) on weekends only c. ( ) on holidays only a. ( ) septic tank c. ( ) municipal d ) h b ( )out house d ( )Other ' ( m t e summer only ' ’ e. ( ) other (0 Has any Of the shoreline been dredged or filled? 12. Do you feel that the lake is in need of improvement? If so, please explain. 4. Have you filled or dredged any of the shoreline in front of your prOperty to improve the waterline? 5. How would you describe the local (county) roads in the 13. Are there any problems that you foresee that may force area of your property? (check one) you to relocate your cottage? If yes, please a. ( ) better than one would expect for this area explain. b. ( ) about average for this area c. ( ) below average for this area d. ( ) poor condition and must be improved The following space is provided for more detailed answers to any of the above questions. Please indicate the number of the question you wish to expand on before writing. Any comments will be appreciated. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION! ! APPENDIX B LAKEFRONT PROPERTY PLATTING CHARACTERISTICS, APPENDIX TABLES 1-8 134 135 Appendix Table 1. Pletting Characteristics of Camp Lake Assessed Front Frontage ‘Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. Low Camp Lake Plat 1 158 $ 600 X S 3. 80 2 100. 72 500 X 4. 96 3 99. 52 500 X 5. 02 4 98.02 1000 X 5 10.20 S 98. 77 200 X 2. 02 6 100.12 600 X 5. 99 7 97. 93 400 X 4. 09 8 98. 03 400 X 4. 08 9 101.55 1000 X 9.85 10 128. 72 500 X 3. 88 11 191.88 500 X 2.61 12 96. 90 500 X 5.16 13 State Owned - Exempt Plat Totals: 1785.95 3 6700 199.57’ 1170.69' 3 10.02 $ 4.02 Developed Assessed Valuation = $2000 3: Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $4700 i: Supervisor's l 100 $ 400 X S 4. 00 Plat of Camp 2 100 300 X 3. 00 Lake 3 100 200 X 2. 00 4 139 400 X 2. 88 S 100 400 X 4. 00 6 100 200 X 2. 00 7 101 200 X 1. 98 8 100. 68 300 X 2. 98 9 100 700 X S 7. 00 10 100. 64 200 X l. 99 11 100 600 X 6. 00 12 132 200 X l. 52 13 122. 44 300 X 2.45 14 100 200 X 2. 00 15 100 400 X 4. 00 16 100 200 X 2. 00 17 100 600 X 6. 00 18 100 200 X 2. 00 19 97. 19 200 X 2. 06 20 100 200 X 2. 00 21 100 500 X S. 00 22 100 600 X 6. 00 Plat Totals: 2292.95 3 7500 500' 1792.95' 5 6.00 $ 2.51 Developed Assessed Valuation = $3000 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $4500 South Shore 1 134. 36 $ 400 X S 2 98 Plat of Camp 2 120 1000 X 3 8. 33 Lake 3 100 200 X 2 00 4 110. 05 400 X 3 64 5 150 300 X 2 00 6 67. 86 300 X 4. 42 7 76. 89 300 X 3 90 8 100 300 X 3 00 9 100 200 X 2 00 10 100 400 X 4 00 11 100 400 X 4. 00 12 100 800 X 8. 00 13 99. 77 300 X 3. 01 14 99. 77 600 X 6. 00 15 100 200 X 2. 00 16 100 600 X 6. 00 17 100 600 X 6. 00 18 102. 77 200 X 1. 95 19 102. 78 400 X 3. 89 Plat Totals: 1964. 25 $ 7900 419. 77' 1544. 48' 3 7.15 $ 3.17 Developed Assessed Valuation = $3000 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation - $4900 Z... 136 Appendix Table l-—Continued Assessed Front Frontage 'Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. Second Mdl- 1 100 3 200 X 3 2. 00 tion to South 2 100 200 X 2. 00 Shore Plat of 3 100 200 X 2. 00 Camp Lake 4 91. 45 200 X 2.19 5 100 200 X 2. 00 6 138. 99 200 X 1. 44 7 100 200 X 2. 00 8 100 200 X 2. 00 9 100 200 X 2. 00 10 100 200 X 2. 00 11 100 600 X 5 6. 00 12 108.93 200 X 1. 84 13 100 200 X 2. 00 14 100 200 X 2. 00 15 100 200 X 2. 00 16 100 200 X 2. 00 17 100 200 X 2. 00 18 100 200 X 2. 00 19 100 200 X 2. 00 20 100 200 X 2. 00 21 100 200 X 2. 00 22 100 200 X 2. 00 23 100 200 X 2. 00 24 130 200 X 1. 54 25 136. 72 200 X l. 46 26 100. 24 200 X 2. 00 27 96. 67 200 X 1. 91 28 100 200 X 2. 00 29 100 350 X 3. 50 30 100 250 X 2. 50 31 104.88 200 X 1.91 32 100 200 X 2. 00 33 159.92 500 X 3.13 34 100 200 X 2. 00 35 150 200 X 1. 33 36 108.97 200 X 1. 84 37 100 200 X 2. 00 Plat Totals: 3926.77 5 8300 100.00' 3826.77' 3 6.00 $ 2.01 Developed Assessed Valuation = $600 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation - $7700 LAKE TOTALS: Total Platted Frontage c 9969. 92' Total Assessed Valuation = $30400 Total Developed Feet - 1219. 34 Total Undeveloped Feet = 8334. 89 Total Developed Assessed Valuation 8 88600 Total Undeveloped Assessed Valuation - $21800 Assessed Front Foot Value (developed) = $7. 05 Assessed Front Foot Value (undeveloped) 8 $2. 62 *All assessed valuations are from 1964 tax rolls. Appendix Table 2. Platting Characteristics of Gulliver Lake Frontage 'Assessed Assessed Front Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. Moderate 01d Deerfield 1 97. 5 $ 300 X 3 3. 07 Plat (Block 1) 26:3 100 2725 X 5 27. 25 4 50 1175 X 23. 50 5&6 101.64 2700 X 26.56 7&8 101.64 400 X 3.94 9 50. 82 2325 X 45. 75 10 50. 82 400 X 5. 90 11-13 152.46 1750 X 11.48 \e l 1!.» 137 Appendix Table 2--Continued Assessed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. 14 51.27 $ 300 X 3 5.85 15 51.27 650 X 3 12.68 166117 100. 84 2625 X 26. 03 186119 100.84 1450 X 14. 38 20 52. 3 300 X 5.74 21-24 200 3325 X 16.63 25-34 500. 38 6650 X 13. 29 356136 100. 38 400 X 3.99 Plat Totals: 1862.16 $27375 1408. 25' 453.91' $ 18. 09 5 4.19 Developed Assessed Valuation s $25475 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation -= $1900 Old Deerfield 1&2 100 s 1850 X S 18 50 First Addition 3 50 275 X 3 5. 50 4&5 100 1650 X 16.50 6-8 150 3725 X 24.84 9 50 1900 X 38.00 10 50 1850 X 37 00 116112 100 1125 X 11 25 136114 100 2775 X 27 75 15&15 100 1525 X 15 25 176-18 100 1750 X 17.50 19 50 1700 X 34.00 206121 100 375 X 3.75 22 50 3100 X 62 00 23 50 275 X 5.50 24 50 1650 X 33.00 25 50 1700 X 34.00 25 so 1550 x _ 31.00 Plat Totals: 1300 $28275 1100' 200' S 24 86 $ 4.63 DevelOped Assessed Valuation = $27350 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $925 Bay-View 4 210 $ 9300 X 5 44 29 Subdivision 6 100 4550 X 45.50 7 50 1125 X 22.50 8 47 300 X 5 6. 38 9-12 200 5400 X 27 00 13 50 300 X 6. 00 14 50 300 X 6. 00 15-17 150 5150 X 34. 33 18-22 200 2300 X 11.50 236124 70 1350 X 19. 29 25-28 185 2050 x __ 11. 08 Plat Totals 1312 $32125 1165' 147' $ 26 80 $6.12 Developed Assessed Valuation = $31225 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $900 01d Deerfield 1 51. 6 $ 200 X S 3. 80 Third Addition 2 50.6 550 X S 10. 87 3&4 101.10 400 X 3.96 5-9 258.15 950 X 3.68 10—11 113.6 425 X 3.74 12 53.4 300 X 5. 62 13 51.5 300 X S. 83 14-16 154.5 2825 X 18. 29 17-19 154.2 4150 X 26.91 20 50.23 3150 X 62.71 21 50. 23 300 X 5.97 22 50.23 300 X 5.97 23-25 151.97 3100 X 20.40 266127 102 1725 X 16.91 28-30 153 600 X 3.92 31&32 198. 2 2050 X 10. 34 33 247.9 350 X 1.41 Plat Totals: 1992.56 $21675 1120' 872.56' $ 16. 52 $ 3. 64 Developed Assessed Valuation = $18500 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation 8 $3175 138 Appendix Table 2--Continued Assessed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. Old Deerfield 1 50 $ 300 X S 6. 00 Fourth Addition 2 50 300 X 6. 00 3 50 2100 X S 42. 00 4 50 300 X 6. 00 5 50 300 X 6. 00 6 50 300 X 6. 00 7&8 100 400 X 4. 00 9 50 300 X 6. 00 10-13 200 800 X 4. 00 14&15 100 3000 X 30. 00 166:1? 100 1900 X 19 00 186x19 100 1875 X 18. 75 20-22 150 575 X 3.83 236124 150 400 X 2. 67 256-26 100 400 X 4. 00 27-28 100. 08 2500 X 24.98 29 50 1950 X 39. 00 30-32 164.15 2400 X 14. 62 33 328.09 500 X 1.52 34 345. 37 500 X 1.45 Plat Total: 2292. 69 $21100 664. 23' 1628.46' 5 23. 67 $ 3 30 Developed Assessed Valuation = $15725 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $5375 Old Deerfield 35 100 $ 375 X 3 3. 75 #5 36 100 375 X 3.75 37 100 375 X 3.75 38 100 1600 X S 16. 00 1/2-39 so 500 x 10.00 1/2-39 50 200 X 4. 00 40 100 1300 X 13.00 41 100 1550 X 15. 50 42 100 375 X 3.75 43 100 375 X 3.75 44 100 375 X 3.75 45 100 1225 X 12. 25 46 100 375 X 3.75 47&48 200 750 X 3.75 49 100 400 X 4. 00 50 100 1550 X 15. 50 51 100 375 X 3.75 52 100 1550 X 15. 50 53 100 375 X 3.75 54 100 1725 X 17. 25 55 100 1750 X 17. 50 56 100 350 X 3. 50 57 100 350 X 3. 50 58 100 350 X 3.50 59 100 350 X 3.50 60 100 350 X 3. 50 61 100 350 X 3. 50 62 100 350 X 3. SO 63 95.95 350 _ x 3. 61 Plat Totals: 2896. 95 $20225 ' 800' 2096. 95' $ 15.25 $ 3. 83 Developed Assessed Valuation = $12200 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $8025 LAKE TOTALS: x ‘All assessed valuations are from 1964 tax rolls. Total Platted Frontage = 11656. 36’ Total Assessed Valuation = $150775 Total Developed Feet = 6257. 48 Total UndeveIOped Feet = 5398. 88 Total Developed Assessed Valuation = $130475 Total Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $20300 Assessed Front Foot Value (developed) = $20. 85 Assessed Front Foot Value (undeveloped) = $3. 76 139 Table 3. Platting Characteristics of lake Esau As ses sed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. Low Esau Park 1 100 $ 800 X S 8. 00 2 100 200 X S 2.00 3 100 100 X 1.00 4 100 1500 X 15.00 5 111.1 100 X .90 6 101.5 1000 X 9.85 7 102.7 500 X 4.87 8 53.8 1300 X 22.16 9 100 1500 X 15.00 10&11 202.8 200 X .99 1/2-12 51.25 500 X 9.75 1/2-12 51.25 500 X 9.75 13 101 100 X .99 14 58.6 100 X 1.71 15-17 308.4 2000 X 6.49 PlatTtnals: 1642.40 $10400 968.9' 673.5' 5 9.91 $ 1.19 Developed Assessed Valuation = $9600 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $800 Esau Heights 1 Exempt 2 Exempt 3 Exempt 4 100.19 $ 100 X 5 1.00 5 100.19 100 X 1.00 6 100.19 100 X 1.00 7 100.19 100 X 1.00 8 100.19 100 X 1.00 9 105.25 100 X .95 10 127.74 100 X .78 11 146.38 200 X 1.37 12 123.88 200 x 1.61 13 130.39 200 X 1.53 14 142.21 200 X 1.41 15 99.65 1500 X 5 15.05 16 92.68 100 X 1.08 17 100.97 100 X .99 18 101.11 100 X .99 19 95.44 200 X 2.10 20 74.17 100 X 1.35 21 80.47 100 X 1.24 22 80.07 100 X 1.25 23 105.39 200 X 1.90 24 105.54 200 X 1.90 25 134 48 100 X .74 26 140 100 X .71 27 132.74 100 X 75 28 138.69 100 X .72 29 107.91 100 X .93 30 126.60 100 X .79 31 109.51 100 X .91 32 87.15 100 X 1.15 33 87.55 100 X 1.14 34 89.08 100 X 1.12 35 92.52 100 X 1.08 36 90.41 100 X 1.11 37 87.30 100 X 1.15 38 84.89 100 X 1.18 39 98.43 100 X 1.02 40 100.09 100 X .99 41 100.09 200 X 2.00 42 100.09 200 X 2.00 43 100.09 100 X 1.00 44 100.16 100 X 1.00 45 100.16 100 X 1.00 46 100.90 100 X .99 47 100.90 100 X .99 48 100.90 100 X .99 gee- . 140 Appendix Table 3--Continued DevelOpment Plat Na me Assessed Front Plat Totals: Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. 49 101.83 $ 100 X S .98 50 100 100 X 1 00 51 100 100 X 1 00 52 100 100 X 1. 00 53 100 100 X 1.00 54 100 100 X 1 00 $672.22 $ 7700 99.65' 5572.57' 5 15.05 $ 1.11 Developed Assessed Valuation 8 $1500 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $6200 LAKE TOTALS: Total Platted Frontage =- 7314. 62' Total Assessed Valuation 8 518100 Total Developed Feet 8 1068. 55 Total Undeveloped Feet = 6246. 07 Total Developed Assessed Valuation = $11100 Total Undeveloped Assessed Valuation 8 $7000 Assessed Front Foot Value (developed) = $10. 39 Assessed Front Foot Value (undeveloped) = $1. 12 'All assessed valuations are from 1964 tax rolls. Appendix Table 4. Platting Characteristics of Gaylanta lake Assessed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. Moderate Gaylanta Hills 31 50.97 $ 300 X S S. 89 32 50.97 300 X 5.89 33 76.97 300 X 3.90 34 50.80 300 X 5.91 35 80.80 300 X 3.71 36 80.80 300 X 3.71 37 70.67 300 X 4.25 38 43.78 1000 X $ 22.84 39 59.78 300 X 5.02 40 50 300 X 6.00 41 50 1000 X 20.00 42 67.75 300 X 4 43 43 84.85 300 X 3 S4 44 71.24 150 X 2 ll 45 42 300 X 7 14 46 53 200 X 3 77 47 100 State Owned - Exempt 47 158.53 1500 X 9.46 48 40 200 X 5.00 49 46.3 800 X 17.28 50 40 200 X 5.00 51 40.33 200 X 4.96 52 76.38 200 X 2.62 53 100.22 200 X 2 00 54 73.83 200 X 2.71 55 148.4 200 X 1.35 56 124.96 200 X 1 60 57 93.71 900 X 9.60 58 65 200 X 3.08 59 83.43 300 X 3.60 60 50 300 X 6.00 61 50 900 X 18 00 62 107 20 300 X 2.80 53 93 18 300 X 3.22 64 41 95 200 X 4.77 65 40 200 X 5.00 66 38 45 900 X 23 41 67 60 33 300 X 4 97 68 64 9 800 X 12 33 \ E7 19‘ .7? mu Appendix Table 4--Continued 141 Assessed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. 69 86.42 $ 900 X 5 10.41 70 91.68 300 X 3.27 71 44.6 300 X 6.73 72 38.10 1100 X 28.87 73 55.16 300 X 5.44 74 229.77 300 X 1.31 75 72.11 300 X 4.16 76 72.11 300 X 4.16 77 72.11 300 X 4.16 78 62.71 300 X 4.78 79 62.71 300 X 4.78 80 65.44 300 X 4.58 81 93.84 300 X 3.20 82 51.76 900 X 17.39 83 51.76 300 X 5.80 84 51.76 800 X 15.46 85 50 800 X 16.00 86 50 300 X 6.00 87 50 1000 X 20.00 88 50 300 X 6.00 89 31.98 1000 X 31.27 90 50.33 300 X 5.96 91 60.82 1000 X 16.44 92 30 300 X 10.00 93 29.20 1000 X 34.25 Plat Totals: 4325. 85 $28750 1025. 71' 3200.14' 3 16.18 $ 3. 80 Developed Assessed Valuation - $16600 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $12150 Gaylanta Hills *1 130 58 $ 200 X 3 3.45 131 58.27 200 X 3.43 132 50 200 X 4.00 133 50 200 X 4.00 134 59 1000 X 5 16.95 135 59.58 200 X 3.36 136 66 1000 X 15.15 137 66 1200 X 18.18 138 66 1200 X 18.18 139 50 1000 X 20.00 140 40 300 X 7.50 141 65 300 X 4.62 142 50 300 X 4.62 143 113.5 300 X 2.64 144 68.55 300 X 4.38 145 80 300 X 3.75 146 80 1000 X 12.50 147 74.65 300 X 4.02 148 95 1000 X 10.53 149 95.5 300 X 3.14 150 116.37 300 X 2.58 151 117.17 200 X 1.71 152 150.25 200 X 1.33 153 100 200 X 2.00 154 100 300 X 3.00 155 98.44 1000 X 10.16 156 80 200 X 2.50 157 80 200 X 2.50 158 60 300 X 5.00 159 65 300 X 4.62 160 65 300 X 4.62 161 80 1200 X 15.00 1/2-162 53. 28 400 x 7. 51 1/2-162 53.28 200 X 3.43 163 55 1000 X 18.18 164 65 1200 X 18.47 165 70 200 X 2.86 Appendix Table 4—-Continued 142 Assessed Front Frontage “Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. 166 100 $ 1000 X $ 10.00 167 95.53 300 X S 3.14 168 50 1000 X 20.00 169 50 1000 X 20.00 170 70 500 X 7.14 171 108.05 1000 X 9.25 172 209.07 400 X 1.91 173 80 1000 X 12.50 174 110 300 X 2.73 175 97.86 300 X 3.07 176 75 1000 X 13.33 177 75 300 X 4.00 178 75 300 X 4.00 179 75 300 X 4.00 180 75 1000 X 13.33 181 60 300 X 5.00 182 105 300 X 2.86 183 90 300 X 3.33 184 90 300 X 3.33 185 139 1000 X 7.19 186 75 400 X 5.33 187 75 1200 X 16.00 188 73.5 300 X 4.08 189 60 300 X 5.00 190 102.65 300 X 2.92 1/2-191 147.33 200 X 1.36 1/2-191 147.33 200 X 1.36 192 75 200 X 2.67 193 80 200 X 2.50 194 90 200 X 2.22 195 86.95 700 X 8.05 196 75 500 X 6.67 197 80 1000 X 12.50 198 65 1000 X 15.39 199 82.42 300 X 3.64 200 90 1200 X 13.33 201 70 300 X 4.29 202 60 300 X 5.00 203 60 300 X 5.00 204 282.78 400 X 1.41 205 150 300 X 2.00 206 194.63 300 X 1.54 207 100 300 X 3.00 209 136.63 1200 X 8.78 210 85 300 X 3.53 211 60 300 X 5.00 212 60 200 X 3.33 213 100 300 X 3.00 214 63 200 X 3.18 215 100 300 X 3.00 216 100 300 X 3.00 217 100 300 X 3.00 218 66.1 300 X 4.54 219 100 300 X 3.00 220 60 300 X 5.00 221 50.75 300 X 5.91 222 107.02 300 X 2.80 223 187.85 1000 X 5.32 Plat Totals: 8387. 28 $47000 2261. 20' 6126. 08’ $ 11. 63 $ 3. 38 Developed Assessed Valuation = $26300 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $20700 LAKETNDTALS: Total Platted Frontage = 12713.13' Total Assessed Valuation = $75750 Total Developed Feet = 3286. 91 Total Undeveloped Feet = 9326. 22 Total Developed Assessed Valuation = $42900 Total Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $32850 Assessed Front Foot Value (developed) = $13. 05 Assessed Front Foot Value (undevelOped) = $3. $2 *All assessed valuations are from 1964 tax rolls. 143 Appendix Table 5. Platting Characteristics of Sapphire lake Assessed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. Full Sapphire Lake 1&2 99.78 $ 1800 X S 18. 04 Plat 3 51.47 1500 X 29.14 4 51.47 1500 X 29.14 5 51. 47 400 X S 7 . 77 6 51.47 2200 X 42. 74 7 51.47 1700 X 33. 03 8 51. 47 1700 X 33. 03 9 50 400 X 8 00 10 50 2200 X 44. 00 11 50 2200 X 44. 00 12 50 2200 X 44. 00 13 50 1300 X 26. 00 14 50 2400 X 48. 00 15 50 2500 X 50. 00 16 50 1500 X 30. 00 17 50 2400 X 48. 00 18 50 400 X 8 00 19 50 2700 X 54. 00 20 50 1800 X 36. 00 21 50 2400 X 48. 00 22 50 1700 X 34. 00 24 50 1800 X 36. 00 256126 100 3500 X 35. 00 Plat Totals: 1258.60 $43400 1107.13' 151.47' $ 38.11 $ 7.92 Developed Assessed Valuation - $42200 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation - $1200 Sapphire Lake 1 88. 95 $ 700 X S 7. 87 Acres 2 60 400 X S 6.67 3 65 400 X 6.15 4 65 1000 X 16. 67 5&6 96.53 600 X 6. 22 7 38 10 200 X 5.25 8 60 1500 X 25. 00 9 60 1200 X 20.00 10 50 300 X 6. 00 11 you __1_1£9 _ _ x 6.47 Plat Totals: 753.64 $ 7400 293.95' 459.69' $ 14.97 $ 6.53 Developed Assessed Valuation = $4400 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $3000 Duck Point Plat 1 50. 54 $ 400 X S 7. 92 2 50.54 400 X 7.92 3&4 109. 86 800 X 7. 28 5&6 122.2 3000 X $ 24.55 7 66. 25 400 X 6. 04 8 50. 25 400 X 7. 96 9 50. 25 1400 X 27.86 10 50. 25 400 X 7. 96 116-12 100.50 800 X 7.96 13 50. 25 2500 X 49.75 14 50.03 1300 X 25.98 15&16 100.06 1000 X 9.99 17 50. 03 2400 X 47.97 186119 100. 06 2600 X 25.98 20 50. O3 1600 X 31.98 218122 100. 06 2600 X 25.98 23 50. 03 400 X 8. 00 24 50.03 1100 X 21.99 256126 61.02 4000 X 65. 55 276128 80. 66 2000 X 24. 80 29 50. 64 1400 X 27. 65 30 50. 64 400 X 7. 90 31&32 101. 28 2600 X 25.67 1/2-33 107.83 1200 X 11. 13 34 64.82 700 X 10. 80 144 Appendix Table 5-—Continued Assessed Front Frontage ‘Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. 35 60. 39 $ 1600 X $ 26.50 36 48. 41 1600 X 33. 05 37 45. 57 700 X 15. 36 38 42.25 400 X S 9.47 39&40 65. 62 700 X 10. 67 416142 75.27 400 X 5.31 43&44 85.05 400 X 4.70 Plat Totals 2298.50 $42000 1394.16' 904.34' $ 25.61 $ 6.97 Developed Assessed Valuation 8 $35700 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation . $6300 Sapphire lake Plat NO. 2 99 50 $ 2000 X S 40. 00 100 50 1500 X 30.00 101&102 100 800 X S 8.00 103 50 1500 X 30.00 104 50 400 X 8.00 105 50 400 X 8.00 106 50 400 X 8.00 107-109 150 1200 X 8.00 110 50 400 X 8.00 111&112 100.55 400 X 3.98 113 60.90 1000 X 16.42 114 60 400 X 6.67 115 64.4 400 X 6.21 116&117 115 3800 X 33.04 118 50 4500 X 90.00 119 20 400 X 20.00 120 44.6 2000 X 44.84 121 49.6 2000 X 40.32 122 49.6 1500 X 30.24 123&124 110.14 2300 X 20.88 125 55.07 400 X 7.26 126 55.07 1700 X 30.87 127 55.07 400 X 7.26 128 53.66 400 X 7.45 129&l30 107.32 2100 X 19.57 131 53.66 400 X 7.45 132 53.66 400 X 7.45 133 50 400 X 8.00 134-136 150 3500 X 23.33 137 50 400 X 8.00 138 50 400 X 8.00 139 50 1900 X 38.00 140 50 400 X 8.00 141 40 400 X 10.00 142 39.29 400 X 10.18 143 50.66 2000 X 39.48 144 50.66 2700 X 53.30 145 50.66 400 X 7.90 146 51.48 2500 X 48.56 147 51.85 400 X 7.72 148 51.85 400 X 7.72 149 51.85 400 X 7.72 150 51.85 2000 X 38.57 151&152 103.74 2200 X 21.21 153 51.85 2300 X 44.36 154 51.85 2200 X 42.43 Plat Totals 2855. 85 $58400 1526.13' 1329. 12' $ 31. 45 $ 7. 83 Developed Assessed Valuation = $48000 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $10400 LAKE TOTALS: Total Platted Frontage - 7166. 59' Total Assessed Valuation = $151200 Total Developed Feet - 4321. 17 Total Undeveloped Feet = 2845. 22 Total Developed Assessed Valuation =3 $130300 Total Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $20900 Assessed Front Foot Value (developed) 8 $30. 15 Assessed Front Foot Value (undeveloped) = $7. 35 *Ail assessed Valuations are from 1964 tax rolls. 145 Appendix Table 6. Platting Characteristics of Big Brower Lake Assessed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. Hines Park 1&2 95 $ 4000 X 5 42.11 3 47 3500 X 74. 47 4 50 2700 X 54. 00 5 50 2000 X 40. 00 6-8 156 6350 X 40.71 96:10 92 4000 X 43.48 11 50 600 X $12. 00 12 50 2000 X 40. 00 13 52. 25 2000 X 38. 28 14 50 2000 X 40. 00 15 so 2100 x _ 42. 00 Flat Totals: 750. 5 $31250 692. 5' 58' $ 44. 26 $10. 35 Developed Assessed Valuation = $30650 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation - $600 Point 1' 269 s 2800 x s 10. 41 IE-NE-BE 2 83. 5 4000 X 47. 90 3 75 2800 X 37. 33 4-6 225 2500 X 11.11 106111 56. 7 3200 X 56. 43 12&13 Exempt _ Plat Totals: 724. 20 $15300 724. 20' 0' $ 21.13 3 0. 00 Developed Assessed Valuation = $15300 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $000 Vlnkemulder 316132 120 $ 4500 X 3 37. 50 Flat 33 60 2000 X 33. 33 34 60 400 X $ 6. 67 35 60 1900 X 31. 67 36 130 600 X 4. 62 37 144. 70 1800 __ x 12. 44 Plat Totals: 574.70 $11200 240' 334.70' $ 35.00 $ 8.37 DevelOped Assessed Valuation = $8400 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $2400 E. A. Smith's 1 45 $ 3200 X 3 71.11 Plat of 2 45 4000 X 89. 89 Brower Lake 3 45 2800 X 62. 22 4-6 120 2500 X 20. 83 7 40 2500 X 62. 50 8 40 1200 X 30. 00 9 40 550 X 513. 75 10-11 65 3200 X 49. 23 12-13 85 2000 X 23. 53 14 40 2000 X 50. 00 15 40 1600 X 40. 00 16 35 2500 X 71. 43 17 45 3050 X 75. 00 18-19 80 4500 X 56. 25 20-21 80 2700 X 33.75 22-23 60 1800 X 30. 00 24 55 2200 X 40. 00 25 40 500 X S. 50 26&1/2-27 60 1800 X 30. 00 1/2-27&28 55 600 X 10. 91 29-30 70 2200 X 31. 43 31 40 500 X 12. 50 32 40 500 X 12. 50 33 40 700 x _ 17. so Plat Totals: 1305 $49100 1085' 220' 3 42. 77 $12. 27 Developed Assessed Valuation . $46400 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $2700 E. A. Smith's 34-35 110 $ 2400 X S 21. 82 Plat of Brower 36 60 1900 X 31,67 Lake NO. l 37 50 600 X 5 2.00 146 Appendix Table 6--Continued Assessed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. 38 60 $ 3500 X S 58. 33 39 60 1100 X 18. 33 40 60 1600 X 26. 67 41 60 675 X $11. 25 42 60 3500 X 58. 33 43 70 3500 X 50. 00 44-45 146 4000 X 27.40 46 60 3200 X 53. 33 47&l/2-48 90 1800 X 20 00 1/2—48&49 90 2000 X 22. 22 50 60 1850 X 30. 83 51 50 2500 X 41. 67 52 60 675 X 11. 25 53 60 2000 X 33.33 54 60 675 X 11. 25 55 55 2800 X 50. 91 56-57 Exempt 58-59 123. 20 3400 X _ 27. 60 Plat Totals: . 1619. 20 $43675 1274. 20‘ 230' $ 32. 22 $11. 41 Developed Assessed Valuation = $41050 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation - $2625 Brower Lake 1 50 s 1400 x 3 28.00 Park 2 50 2000 x 40.00 3 so 1200 x 24.00 4—5 100 2250 x 22 so 6 so 1800 x 36.00 7 so 1800 x 36.00 8-9 110 3800 x 34.55 1061/2-11 75 4500 x 60.00 l/2—ll&1/2-12 50 2650 x 53.00 1/2-12&13 75 4200 x 56.00 14 so 1400 x 28.00 15—16 100 2000 x 20.00 17 50 2050 x 41.00 18 50 200 x s 4.00 19 47.6 200 x 4.20 20 50 200 x 4.00 21 so 1400 x 28.00 22 50 3800 x 76.00 23 50 500 x 10.00 24 so 1600 x 32.00 25 50 2100 x 42.00 26 50 1400 x 28.00 27 so 1600 x 32.00 28-29 100 2700 x 27.00 30 so 1800 x 36.00 31 so 2800 x 56.00 32 so 2800 x 56.00 33 so 2150 x 43.00 34 so 2150 x 43.00 35 80 2000 x 25.00 36 Exempt 37 60 500 x 8.33 38 Exempt 39 so 1600 x 32.00 40 so 3800 x 76.00 41 so 2500 x 50.00 42 60 4800 x 80.00 43 40 2200 x 55.00 44 62 3200 x 51.61 45-46 88 3200 x 36.86 47 so 1400 x 28.00 4861/2-49 75 3250 x 43.33 1/2-4961/2-50 so 3000 x 60.00 1/2—50&51 75 2900 x 38.67 52 45 1600 x 35.55 147 Appendix Table 6--§ontinued As ses sed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. 53 55 $ 2000 X S 36. 36 54 50 5000 X 100. 00 55 50 3500 X 70. 00 56 62 3500 X 56. 45 Plat Totals: 2799. 60 $108700 2492' 307. 6‘ $ 42. 98 $ 5. 20 Developed Assessed Valuation = $107100 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $1600 LAKE TOTALS: Total Platted Frontage - 7773. 20' Total Assessed Valuation = $259225 Total Developed Feet ‘ 6507. 90 Total Undeveloped Feet = 1150. 30 Total Developed Assessed Valuation = $248900 Total Undeveloped Assessed Valuation - $10325 Assessed Front Foot Value (developed) = $38. 25 Assessed Front Foot Value (undeveloped) = $8. 98 *Assessed valuations are from 1964 tax rolls. Appendix Table 7. Platting Characteristics of Silver Lake Assessed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. Full Silver Lake Sub- 1/2—21 20 $ 1100 X S 55. 00 division 1/2-21&22 70 1100 x 15.71 23 Exempt 24 60 1500 X 25.00 25 50 1400 X 28. 00 266127 100 2200 X 22. 00 28 50 1200 X 24.00 29 50 400 X S 8.00 30 50 1000 X 20.00 31 50 700 X 14. 00 32 50 1000 X 20.00 33-35 160 1600 X 10.00 36 50 130 X 2.60 37 50 1200 X 24.00 38 45 400 X 8.88 39 40 1600 X 40.00 40 40 2200 X 55.00 41 45 1600 X 35.56 42 35 1750 X 50. 00 43 55 1750 X 31. 82 44 45 1000 X 22.22 69 50 1600 X 32.00 70 50 1200 X 24.00 71 50 1400 X 28.00 72 50 1400 X 28.00 73 50 1300 X 26.00 74 50 1300 X 26. 00 75 50 1200 X 24.00 76 50 1500 X 30.00 77 50 2200 X 44.00 78 50 500 X 10.00 79 50 1200 X 24.00 80 50 2000 X 40.00 81 50 1400 X 28.00 82 50 1200 X 24.00 83 50 1200 X 24.00 84 50 1400 X 28.00 85 50 2400 X 48.00 86 50 1400 X 28.00 87 50 1400 X 28.00 88&l/2-100 75 200 X 2.67 148 Appendix Table 7—-Continued As ses sed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. 1/2—100 25 $ 200 X S 8.00 101 50 2000 X $ 40.00 102 35 1600 X 45.71 103 50 1600 X 32.00 104 50 2500 X 50.00 122 50 2000 X 40.00 ' 123 50 3000 X 60.00 124 50 2000 X 40.00 125 60 2500 X 41.67 126&127 100 1000 X 10.00 128 50 600 X 12.00 129 50 1600 X 32.00 130 50 2500 X 50.00 131 50 3500 X 70.00 132 50 3500 X 70.00 133 50 3500 X 70.00 134 50 1000 X 20.00 135 65 1600 X 24.62 1366137 85 1600 X 18.82 138 50 1600 X 32.00 139 50 2500 X 50.00 140 50 1600 X 32.00 141 50 1800 X 36.00 142 50 3500 X 70.00 143 50 1500 X 30.00 144 50 2000 X 40.00 145&146 110 3000 X 27.27 147 70 2000 X 28.57 148 60 1500 X 25.00 149 70 1500 X 21.43 150 75 1600 X 21.33 151 M PlatTtnals: 4170.0 $114130 3464.0' 706.0' 3 29.89 $15.06 Developed Assessed Valuation = $103500 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $10630 Peaches Sub- 1 50 S 1100 X $ 22.00 division 2 50 1100 X 22.00 3&4 100 1100 X 11.00 5 50 1200 X 24.00 6 50 1300 X 26.00 7 50 200 X S 4.00 8 50 1000 X 20.00 9&10 418 2000 X 4.79 11&12 100 1200 X ___ 12.00 Plat Totals: 918.0 $10200 868.0' 50' $ 11.52 $ 4.00 Developed Assessed Valuation = $10000 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $200 Peaches Sub- 546-55 23. 30 $ 1600 X S 68. 67 division No. 2 56 210. 5 1200 X 3 5. 70 57-60 Assessed in acreage 61 50 200 X 4.00 62 50 200 X 4.00 63 50 1300 X 26.00 64 50 250 X 5.00 65 50 800 X 16.00 66 50 250 X 5.00 67 '50 1000 X 20. 00 68 50 1400 X 28.00 69 50 1200 X 24.00 70 50 1200 X 24.00 71 50 800 X 16.00 72 50 1300 X 26.00 73&1/2—74 75 1200 X 16.00 1/2-7461/2-75 50 1400 x 28. 00 1/2-75&1/2-76 50 1400 X 28.00 149 Appendix Table 7--Continued Assessed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. l/2-76&1/2-77 50 $ 2000 X $ 40.00 1/2—77678 75 2000 x 26.67 79 50 1600 X 32. 00 80 50 1600 X 32. 00 81 50 1500 X 30. 00 82 50 1600 X 32. 00 83 50 1400 X 28. 00 84 50 1400 X 28. 00 85 50 1200 X 24. 00 86 50 1400 X 28. 00 87 50 1400 X 28. 00 88 50 1600 X 32. 00 89 50 500 X $10. 00 90 50 1400 X 28. 00 91 50 1500 X 30. 00 92 50 2500 X 50. 00 93 50 2500 X 50. 00 94 50 1800 X 36. 00 95 50 2000 X 40. 00 96 50 100 X 2. 00 Flat Totals: 2245.8 $47700 1423.3' 610.5“ 5 30.49 $ 7.04 Developed Assessed Valuation = $43400 UndeveIOped Assessed Valuation = $4300 LAKE TOTALS: Total Platted Frontage = 7333. 80' Total Assessed Valuation = $172032 Total Developed Feet = 5755. 30 Total Undeveloped Feet = 1366. 50 Total Developed Assessed Valuation = $156900 Total UndeveIOped Assessed Valuation = $15130 Assessed Front Foot Value (developed) = $27. 26 Assessed Front Foot Value (undeveloped) = $11. 07 *Assessed valuations are from 1964 tax rolls. Appendix Table 8. Platting Characteristics of Cooley Lake As se 5 sed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. Intensive Twin Shores 1 57 $ 1000 X $ 17.54 2 57 2400 X 42.11 3 S7 2200 X 38. 60 4 57 2300 X 40. 35 5 50 2700 X 54. 00 6 50 2100 X 42. 00 7 100 2100 X 21. 00 8 35 800 X 22. 86 9 35 2700 X 77.14 10 35 3100 X 88. 57 ll 50 3400 X 68. 00 12 50 3350 X 67. 00 13 50 3250 X 65. 00 14-16 378 5600 X 14.81 17 Community lot - exempt 18-24 405 11500 X 27.41 25 60 1100 X 18. 33 26-27 120 2600 X 16. 67 28 50 5400 X 108. 00 29 50 3700 X 74. 00 30 45 3800 X 84. 44 31-32 80 3100 X 38.75 33 75 3500 X 46. 67 34 50 3800 X 76. 00 35-36 100 3100 X 31. 00 37 Community lot - exempt _ Plat Totals: 2096.00 $78200 2096.0' 0' $ 34.84 $ 0.00 Developed Assessed Valuation = $78200 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $000 150 Appendix Table 8—-Continued As se 8 8 ed Front Frontage *Assessed Foot Value Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. Switzerland 12-14 118. 8 $ 2400 X 5 20. 20 Flat 15 39. 6 2000 X 50. 51 16 39.6 2000 X 50.51 17 39. 6 300 X s 7 . 58 18-20 118.8 4600 X 38.72 Plat Totals: 356.4 $11300 316.8' 39.6' 5 34.79 5 7.58 Developed Assessed Valuation - $11000 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $300 Bertram's Log 1 41 $ 3000 X 5 73.17 Cabin Park 2 41 2950 X 71.95 3 41 3100 X 75.61 4 41 2850 X 69.51 5 41 2500 X 60.98 6 41 3400 X 82.93 7 41 2750 X 67.07 8 42 5 3250 X 76.47 9 33.4 3350 X 100.30 10 34.5 3350 X 97.10 11 36.9 3700 X 100. 27 12 37.5 3350 X 89. 33 1/2—13 State owned - exempt 1/2—13&1/2-14 35.25 400 x $11.35 1/2—1451/2-15 53. 25 600 x 11.27 16 State owned - exempt 1/2-17 State owned - exempt 1/2-17-19 124.3 1000 x 8. 05 20 State owned - exempt 2161/2-22 67.6 500 X 7.40 1/2-2261/2-23 43. 25 3500 X 80.93 1/2-23 20.75 2400 X 115.66 24 42.1 2900 X 68.88 25 43.4 2500 X 57.60 26 46.1 4600 X 99.78 27 46.5 2950 X 63.44 28 42.5 2950 X 69.41 29 42.5 3880 X 89.41 30 41.9 3400 X 81.50 31 41.05 3100 X 75.52 32 90. 25 2600 X 28.81 Plat Totals: 1252.50 $74830 972.10' 280.40' $ 74.41 $ 8.92 Developed Assessed Valuation = $72330 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $2500 Cooley Beach 1 70 $ 3000 X S 42. 86 Subdivision 2 70 2800 X 40. 00 3 70 3100 X 44. 29 4 70 2450 X 35.00 5 56 2500 X 44.64 6 50 750 X $15.00 7 50 2800 X 56. 00 8&9 100 4900 X 49.00 10 50 2300 X 46. 00 ll 50 3650 X 73. 00 12 65 4500 X 69. 23 136114 110 5200 X 47.27 15 50 3100 X 62.00 16 50 4000 X 80. 00 17 50 1950 X 39.00 18 40 3600 X 90. 00 19 40 4100 X 102.50 20 50 3400 X 68.00 21 50 4300 X 86.00 22 60 2500 X 41.67 23624 120 2900 X 24.17 25-45 Replatted - see Supervisors Plat No. l 46 50 500 X 10. 00 47 50 5000 X 100. 00 48 60 1550 X 25. 83 49 70 1900 X 27.14 151 Appendix Table 8--Continued Assessed Front Frontage *Assessed Footvalue Development Plat Name Lot Number (feet) Valuation Dev. Undev. Dev. Undev. 50651 152 $ 3200 X $ 61.54 1/2-52 50 600 X $12.00 1/2—52 50 600 X 12.00 53 70 8100 X 115.71 54 60 2700 X 45 00 55 70 2100 X 30.00 56 70 4600 X 65.71 57 75 2450 X 32.67 1/2-85 24 350 X 14.58 1/2-85&86 84 4550 X 54.17 87 51 4200 X 82.35 88 53 5850 X 100.38 89 57 4400 X 77 19 90 70 4400 X 62.86 91 105 5900 X 56.19 92 70 1200 X 17.14 93 57 1000 X 17.54 94 Exempt 95 55 6700 X 121.81 ’ 96 51 5500 X 107.84 97 51 3600 X 70.59 98&99 101 7600 X 75 25 100 Exempt - 101&102 152 9600 X 63.16 103&104 173.6 6500 X 37.44 105 111 5000 X 45.05 Platlknals: 3413.60 $177450 3062.60’ 351.0' 3 56.31 $14.25 Developed Assessed Valuation = $172450 Undeve10ped Assessed Valuation = $5000 Bergsma's 1 80.68 $ 900 X $ 11.16 Subdivision 2 148.52 7200 X __ 48.48 Plat Totals: 229. 2 3 8100 229. 2' 0' 3 35. 34 5000 Developed Assessed Valuation = $8100 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $000 Supervisors 1 73.37 $ 1700 X $ 23.17 Plat No. 1 2&3 100.84 4100 X 40.66 4 21.91 2800 X 127.80 5-7 94.67 7400 X 78.17 8-13 120.99 4950 X 40.91 14-1/2-18 174.76 1750 X $10.01 1/2-18 33.36 800 X 23.98 196120 117.69 2900 X 24.64 21 64.76 3150 X 48.64 Plat Totals: 802.35 $ 29550 627.59' 174.76' $ 44.30 $10.01 Developed Assessed Valuation = $27800 Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $1750 Russell Beach Data not available LAKE TOTALS: Total Platted Frontage = 8150. 05' Total Assessed Valuation = $379430 Total Developed Feet = 7304. 29 Total Undeveloped Feet = 845. 76 Total Developed Assessed Valuation = $369880 Total Undeveloped Assessed Valuation = $9550 Assessed Front Foot Value (developed) = $50. 64 Assessed Front Foot Value (undeveloped) = $11. 29 *Assessed valuations are from 1964 tax rolls. “111111111111111“