Jump to content

“Practical Guide to Beach Access and the Public Trust Doctrine in New Jersey”

Rate this topic


Sudsy

Recommended Posts

The question is - "Will these rules be enforced?" Many is the time I've been denied unpaid access to fish, even to the point of the police illegally stepping in to tell me I had to pay to access the beach. Safe to say that this will be an issue in Deal and other towns.

 

------------------------

 

FAQ: PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE/PUBLIC ACCESS

Excerpts from the Urban Coast Institute, “Practical Guide to Beach Access and the Public Trust Doctrine in New Jersey” (2017).

 

Can a town charge me for a beach badge to access public trust land?
a. YES. A town can charge beach fees to produce revenues necessary to offset legitimate beachfront related expenditures. However, if you are simply walking along the wet sand area below the mean high water line you should not be charged a fee.

Do fishermen need to pay to access public trust lands and waters to fish?
a. NO. In acknowledgment and consideration of the most ancient public trust right of fishing, citizens are not charged to access and remain on or adjacent to public trust lands to fish. However, they may be subject to restrictions designed to protect the public health and welfare, such as a restriction against fishing at a bathing beach during bathing hours and/or fishing in designated areas only.

Do surfers need to pay to access public trust lands and waters to surf?
a. NO. In acknowledgment and consideration of the most ancient public trust right of navigation, citizens are not charged to access and remain on or adjacent to public trust lands to surf. However, like fishermen, surfers may be subject to restrictions designed to protect the public health and welfare, such as a restriction against surfing at a bathing beach during bathing hours and/or surfing in designated areas only

Are there any circumstances under which the public can be denied access to public trust lands or where such access may be restricted?
a. YES. There are circumstances under which public access may be restricted or denied. These include restrictions that are necessary to protect public health and safety, and for which municipalities, through the exercise of their police powers, can adopt ordinances to address such circumstances. For example, an ordinance could designate certain areas for bathing as distinct from those where surfing and fishing is allowed, or prevent swimming and other activities during rough seas, such as during or after a hurricane, when the lives of swimmers and surfers would be endangered.

Can a shore town restrict parking at or near beaches to residents only?
a. NO. When it comes to public access to and use of the waterfront, municipalities cannot discriminate against non-residents. Borough of Neptune v. Avon by the Sea, 61 N.J. 296 (1972); Van Ness v. Borough of Deal, 78 N.J. 174 (1978); Hyland v Borough of Allenhurst, 78 N.J. 190 (1978). Moreover, actions by a town that would “seriously impinge on, if not effectively eliminate, the rights of the Public Trust Doctrine” have been characterized by the New Jersey Supreme Court as efforts to render those rights meaningless and determined to be in violation of the Public Trust Doctrine.

If every ocean-front lot in a shore town is designated as “private property” are the rights of the public to access and use the waterfront precluded?
a. NO. The New Jersey Supreme Court considered this scenario several times and found that, in such cases, the public must be given access to as much privately-owned beach as was “reasonably necessary” to allow it to gain access to public trust lands (e.g., the wet beach or foreshore) as well as a reasonable amount of dry upland sand to fully enjoy its rights. Both the Matthews v Bayhead and Raleigh Avenue Beach Association v. Atlantis cases involved circumstances where towns (Bay Head, Lower Township) provided no public beaches.

Does the Public Trust Doctrine require that a municipality provide restrooms for the citizens that access and use its public beaches?
a. NO. Public access must be reasonable and meaningful but, to date, this has not been interpreted to require that a municipality provide public restrooms at its public beaches. However, where such facilities already exist adjacent to a public beach area, the New Jersey Supreme Court determined that it would be an abuse of municipal police power and authority to bar the users of the public beach from access to this basic accommodation. Hyland v. Borough of Allenhurst, 78 N.J. 190, 196 (1978).

Does the Public Trust Doctrine allow citizens to access private property?
a. YES, but only as “reasonably necessary” to gain access to and enjoy public trust lands and waters.

Does the Public Trust Doctrine give citizens the right to access private beaches that are enhanced by government/taxpayer-funded beach nourishment projects?
a. YES. When a beach nourishment project, or some other manmade or natural occurrence, suddenly and obviously adds sand to an existing shoreline, the newly added beach does not belong to or increase the size of the land owned by the upland private property owner. Instead, the newly-added beach is considered to be public trust lands and title to any land seaward of the former high tide line, meaning the high tide line before the beach nourishment project commenced, belongs to the State in trust for the citizens. This sudden and obvious addition of beach is known as “avulsion” and is the opposite of “accretion” which is the slow imperceptible addition of sand that only becomes apparent over many years. In the case of accretion, the newly-added beach does belong to the upland property owner. City of Long Branch v. Liu, 203 N.J. 474 (2010).

Are there any additional public access requirements for beaches that benefit from beach nourishment projects?
a. YES. The federal policies that govern funding for beach nourishment projects prohibit federal funding for privately-owned shores where the use of such shores is limited to private interests. Engineer Regulation (ER) 1165-2-130, section 9 e (3). Specifically, the federal cost-share is 65% for projects benefitting publicly owned property and for privately-owned property with adequate public benefits. The federal cost share for projects benefitting privately owned property only and where public access is restricted is 0%. ER 1165-2- 130, section 6, Table 2. The significance of public access to this cost share formula is clear when the overall cost of these projects is considered. For example, a post-Sandy nourishment project for Deal, Allenhurst and Loch Arbour, a relatively small stretch of beach in Monmouth County, cost $38.2 million. Projected costs for re-nourishment of northern Ocean County through 2065 are $513.9 million.7

Edited by Sudsy

I just wanta play everyday despite small nagging injuries --

and go home to a woman who appreciates how full of crap I truly am. ~ Crash Davis

 

Social Distancing since 1962

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone read these out loud at any of the town hall meetings where the press was attending? Where is gill and chapman?

He did attend the May 10 Deal Borough Meeting where he unveiled the ethics complaint against two Commissioners.

Rather be diving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cobra and learn what ? rofl . How to lose free access, free parking , and totally piss off a town . Which is why I asked you originally what was YOUR  agenda ?  That  bs ethics angle pushed the town over the cliff and now they retaliate. Right now as it stands they plan on closing 95 percent of Deal to surf. WTF /

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Luckily I'm a local government employee and don't have much trouble but when it arises please do feel free to call the public Freeholders. They come down on the chief of police and then $hi+ rolls down hill. Recently had a problem doing work In front of business and and that's what it came down too. Please share this information provided by suds and take pictures or find the document yourself to have on hand. It may be annoying but we are the ONLY ones fighting for ourselves tells our side of the story.

Edited by FlounderWetspot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So does this make that popular white fence in long branch legally illegal and crossable?

If you are referring to the Garfield Road "access point", that is an easement set up by the local neighborhood association for their benefit not the general public's. They have traditionally allowed the passage of fishermen but like all tolerances, any abuse will result in tighter enforcement.

Rather be diving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cobra and learn what ? rofl . How to lose free access, free parking , and totally piss off a town . Which is why I asked you originally what was YOUR  agenda ?  That  bs ethics angle pushed the town over the cliff and now they retaliate. Right now as it stands they plan on closing 95 percent of Deal to surf. WTF /

Conover Pavilion, Deal Casino and the proposed bathing beach at Hathaway do not comprise "95 percent of Deal". When Elected Officials violate ethics rules, a blind eye risks further corruption. The situation in Deal was brought about when one of their part time residents created an online petition to remove all public parking and access to their beaches. My agenda is to preserve and expand public access to our tidelands. Have you attended any meetings to express your agenda?

Rather be diving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • TimS unpinned this topic

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...