DEP ruling: Bye bye beach access

[finchaser]

Public access..changes are a-coming' and I'd bet disrespect for property in bunker snagging area speeded this process up

IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 15, 2010
Contact: Lawrence Ragonese (609) 292-2994
Lawrence Hajna (609) 984-1795


NEW COMMON SENSE PUBLIC ACCESS RULES PROPOSED FOR STATE’S BEACHES AND WATERWAYS

(10/P55) TRENTON - Commissioner Bob Martin today announced the DEP will create reasonable new rules on public access to the state’s tidal waters, which include the ocean and rivers, with the goal of enhancing access while eliminating burdensome and costly access rules for local governments, businesses and property owners.
Proposed changes would end unreasonable mandates for cities and towns, and some commercial establishments and private property owners who now must provide parking, restroom facilities and, in some cases, 24/7 access to beaches and waterways. Those rules would be replaced by reasonable access requirements that recognize local conditions and costs.
"We want a policy in place that works for everyone, that allows ample and easy access to our waters while removing onerous burdens on businesses and property owners,’’ said Commissioner Martin. "We are taking a common sense approach on public access.’’
"Cities and towns know best how to plan for their own needs,’’ said Commissioner Martin. "The DEP will ensure that certain standards are met, but local governments already are involved in land use planning _ both in creating master plans and adopting zoning regulations _ and they understand their communities better than regulatory agencies in Trenton.’’
In coming months, the DEP will work with municipalities across the state to craft access plans that make local sense and protect the rights and needs of residents and businesses, rather than impose state-dictated access rules. The DEP, however, still must approve any municipal access plans.
While a long-term, comprehensive policy on access will be developed through the normal regulatory and legislative process, the Commissioner did announced three immediate rules changes to be implemented by DEP. Public access will not be required for waterfront dredging activities, developments at existing port facilities, and any existing facility prohibited by federal law from providing public access because of homeland security concerns. These changes mostly would affect inner harbors in urban areas.
All proposed and immediate changes have come after a series of stakeholder meetings with residents, environmental and business groups, and local elected leaders. The DEP is continuing that dialogue with stakeholders, with a goal of moving forward with the regulatory adoption process in July.
The DEP in 2007 adopted expansive regulations essentially requiring all property owners along ocean and tidal waters to provide on-site public access or to pay for off-site public access to the waters. The top-down regulations left cities and towns out of the planning process, and proved to be too costly and unwieldy with little public benefit.
Opponents challenged the 2007 regulations, contending they harmed economic growth and imposed unnecessary burdens and costs on them. The courts subsequently struck down various provisions and questioned the legal underpinning of the access policy and DEP’s authority to implement those regulations.
Some of the public access changes to be proposed by the DEP this summer include:
• The DEP would allow cities and towns to develop their own, individual public access plans.
• Existing facilities that are expanding, rehabilitating or otherwise improving would not be obligated to provide public access. The only exceptions would be in cases of existing public access points that would be impacted by the new development.
• New facilities along tidal waters would be mandated to provide public access if they prevent the public from having direct access to the water and use of the upland, or the owners could be directed to contribute to a public access fund.
• Existing facilities with homeland security concerns would be exempt from providing public access, but must contribute to the state’s access fund.
• Single or two-family homes and small commercial developments would be exempt from public access rules.
• Commercial marinas would be required to provide "reasonable’’ public access, but would no longer need to offer access on a 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a week basis. Private marinas may have similar requirements but there should be consideration that these boat slips are in front of private property.
• Oceanfront municipalities would be required to provide reasonable access point to the beach and reasonable parking opportunities for visitors.
• All municipalities’ access hours and parking would be addressed primarily by municipal access plans, with access to be reasonable and recognize issues such as public safety and cost.
• There will be no changes to current rules regarding the Hudson River Walkway.
__________________
is it me or is there a cloud of ploution surrounding the turnpike

[Pebbles]

All they are doing is giving people a private beach. This is leaving the tax payers without access a debt to rebuild the homeowners' private hideaway after a storm.:eek:

[gjb1969]

just another slap in the face that what we get not cool :2flip::2flip::burn:thats how it how it is those who have get what they want eff the rest of us:beatin::burn:

[wish4fish]

Public access..changes are a-coming' and I'd bet disrespect for property in bunker snagging area speeded this process up



dude and wat about the spanish guys they put there bait boxes all over the place and they leave the beer bottles and all the other crap, why do we have to have bad things happen now because of all the pigs out there? we mite have a beer or 2 just the same but we always put it in the trash or bring the bag home and put in the dumpster in back of the wawa. the next person i see dumping a bottle or trash ima gonna make them eat it!:2flip:

[finchaser]

dude and wat about the spanish guys they put there bait boxes all over the place and they leave the beer bottles and all the other crap, why do we have to have bad things happen now because of all the pigs out there? we mite have a beer or 2 just the same but we always put it in the trash or bring the bag home and put in the dumpster in back of the wawa. the next person i see dumping a bottle or trash ima gonna make them eat it!:2flip:


that too, but trust me homeowners in jetty country have more pull with government than the people in RB area

[cowherder]

• New facilities along tidal waters would be mandated to provide public access if they prevent the public from having direct access to the water and use of the upland, or the owners could be directed to contribute to a public access fund.

• Single or two-family homes and small commercial developments would be exempt from public access rules.
__________________


Public access fund? They can just contribute money to some fund and keep the fishermen out? That sounds like an elitist position to me. How do they get to decide that?

[BassBuddah]

Public access fund, what happened to the public trust doctrine? I don't see how this could have come into law, there has to be a legal challenge somewhere down the road.

[surfstix1963]

Sounds like the beginning of a Dune rd. situation like we have in NY private cops,private beaches ah yes the lifestyles of the rich and obnoxious.:2flip:

[DarkSkies]

"Cities and towns know best how to plan for their own needs,’’ said Commissioner Martin. "The DEP will ensure that certain standards are met, but local governments already are involved in land use planning _ both in creating master plans and adopting zoning regulations _ and they understand their communities better than regulatory agencies in Trenton.’’
In coming months, the DEP will work with municipalities across the state to craft access plans that make local sense and protect the rights and needs of residents and businesses, rather than impose state-dictated access rules. The DEP, however, still must approve any municipal access plans.
While a long-term, comprehensive policy on access will be developed through the normal regulatory and legislative process, the Commissioner did announced three immediate rules changes to be implemented by DEP. Public access will not be required for waterfront dredging activities, developments at existing port facilities, and any existing facility prohibited by federal law from providing public access because of homeland security concerns. These changes mostly would affect inner harbors in urban areas.
All proposed and immediate changes have come after a series of stakeholder meetings with residents, environmental and business groups, and local elected leaders. The DEP is continuing that dialogue with stakeholders, with a goal of moving forward with the regulatory adoption process in July.

The DEP in 2007 adopted expansive regulations essentially requiring all property owners along ocean and tidal waters to provide on-site public access or to pay for off-site public access to the waters. The top-down regulations left cities and towns out of the planning process, and proved to be too costly and unwieldy with little public benefit.
Opponents challenged the 2007 regulations, contending they harmed economic growth and imposed unnecessary burdens and costs on them. The courts subsequently struck down various provisions and questioned the legal underpinning of the access policy and DEP’s authority to implement those regulations.
Some of the public access changes to be proposed by the DEP this summer include:
• The DEP would allow cities and towns to develop their own, individual public access plans.

• Existing facilities that are expanding, rehabilitating or otherwise improving would not be obligated to provide public access. The only exceptions would be in cases of existing public access points that would be impacted by the new development.
[OOPS - there goes our previously hard-won access at Lake Takanassee swim club while they are doing construction there] http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

• All municipalities’ access hours and parking would be addressed primarily by municipal access plans, with access to be reasonable and recognize issues such as public safety and cost.
__________________


The DEP threw fishermen and beachgoers under the bus here. They did an end run around the Public Trust Doctrine.

I imagine there will be court challenges, Bass Buddah, but it will be an expensive, uphill legal battle.

This will eventually impact every person who fishes the beach in any area where there is adjacent private property.

Finchaser's right, the homeowners got tired of all sorts of fishermen peeing on their property, leaving fish racks in their garbage, and parking in their driveways.

I still hold hope that the Public Trust will help in the event such lawsuits are filed. However, lawsuits require time, money, committment, and the "injured parties" (fishermen) working together for a common goal.

The extent I have seen people, especially surf fishermen, come together to fight something in the last few years, I don't see that shared vision and fighting this as having a chance.

I will still support any efforts to rectify this, although I'm resigned to the fact that most will just ***** about it.

This is a sad moment in fishing access, and one where a previous ally, the DEP, has thrown us out with the garbage. :(

[jigfreak]

All they are doing is giving people a private beach. This is leaving the tax payers without access a debt to rebuild the homeowners' private hideaway after a storm.:eek:


just another slap in the face that what we get not cool :2flip::2flip::burn:thats how it how it is those who have get what they want eff the rest of us:beatin::burn:

I can't beleave this I have to say I think we are getting screwed big time.:2flip:

[finchaser]

IMO

It all has to do with respecting other peoples property. It's not just the Mexicans(like some one said) in the RB and urban area's where the rich don't live. It's the egotistical maniacs in jetty country triple parking on streets and blocking drive ways. Leaving garbage on the street and carcasses in garbage cans or on lawns. Whole fish left on jetties or beaches that went bad in the heat and only use was a picture or head count. Lets not forget culling fish so the tackle store hero gets a picture with his biggest fish for the paper or internet.

Back in the 70's and 80's there were issues. We respected people and there property, towns over ruled no parking because fisherman coming and going kept robberies down. Some towns even let us park in no parking are'a if we left a plug on the dash to let them know we were a fisherman.

Marina's joined in because of fish left dead after a picture smell up the place(most people do not eat big bass they like smaller ones for the table ).
Not signaling out any group but I can't fish on a dock of a marina where I fished for over 30 years because of the garbage left behind as they keep everything they catch to feed their illegal arsh's.

All the blame can't be put on the rich and government ,think about it the next time you smokers flip a cigerette butt in a street or on a lawn. Let's not forget people who releave themselves in someone's bushes,home owners know dogs don't wipe.

Now a days even the nicest of fisherman are refereed to as pond scum by towns and their taxpayers. Yes you know who you are,you put us in your category. It's ashamed the illegals can't read this, but I'm sure soon they will have free bilingual computers:burn: to protest on.:2flip:

[hookset]

IMO

Back in the 70's and 80's there were issues. We respected people and there property, towns over ruled no parking because fisherman coming and going kept robberies down. Some towns even let us park in no parking are'a if we left a plug on the dash to let them know we were a fisherman.

Marina's joined in because of fish left dead after a picture smell up the place(most people do not eat big bass they like smaller ones for the table ).
Not signaling out any group but I can't fish on a dock of a marina where I fished for over 30 years because of the garbage left behind as they keep everything they catch to feed their illegal arsh's.

All the blame can't be put on the rich and government ,think about it the next time you smokers flip a cigerette butt in a street or on a lawn. Let's not forget people who releave themselves in someone's bushes,home owners know dogs don't wipe.

Now a days even the nicest of fisherman are refereed to as pond scum by towns and their taxpayers. Yes you know who you are,you put us in your category. It's ashamed the illegals can't read this, but I'm sure soon they will have free bilingual computers:burn: to protest on.:2flip:


:thumbsup: Right on the money. There is a quote from a movie - "I have met the enemy, and he is us". I think you can totally apply those words here.

[finchaser]

From an attorney on another site

Just speaking as an attorney who reads legislation for a living, this is not good for shore-bound fishermen or guys looking to launch kayaks. Basically, it allows the municipalities to adopt whatever policies for access they like. Then, it's up to us to sue them in court for a determination of fact and law as to whether or not they have provided enough access. This is certainly a law designed to allow municipalities to limit public access. There are no provisions that municipalities "must" provide any particular amount. A rich man's property law if ever there was one.

[rip316]

I agree with Fin. People have ruined for us. I do not understand what is so effin hard about picking up your garbage. There was a lady the other day (her husband was my mugger) she brings bags with her to the beach and cleans up while her husband fishes. I gave her a hand because most times I will do the same. Just doesn't make sense to me at all.

[jigfreak]

IMO

It all has to do with respecting other peoples property. It's not just the Mexicans(like some one said) in the RB and urban area's where the rich don't live. It's the egotistical maniacs in jetty country triple parking on streets and blocking drive ways. Leaving garbage on the street and carcasses in garbage cans or on lawns. Whole fish left on jetties or beaches that went bad in the heat and only use was a picture or head count. Lets not forget culling fish so the tackle store hero gets a picture with his biggest fish for the paper or internet.



And the guys doing this stuff would be among the last to admit they are part of the problem when access gets shut down. Selfish idiots.:burn:

[lostatsea]

It always is about the people who have the cash to pull the rules their way. The rest of us are left outside looking in.

[finchaser]

ttt

[bababooey]

IMO

It all has to do with respecting other peoples property. It's not just the Mexicans(like some one said) in the RB and urban area's where the rich don't live. It's the egotistical maniacs in jetty country triple parking on streets and blocking drive ways. Leaving garbage on the street and carcasses in garbage cans or on lawns. Whole fish left on jetties or beaches that went bad in the heat and only use was a picture or head count. Lets not forget culling fish so the tackle store hero gets a picture with his biggest fish for the paper or internet.








Score one for the elite in this state. A small amount of people ruined it for everyone else. I realize I wouldn't want traspassers on my property as well, but if anyone takes federal money they should be held to the standards of the Public Trust. This is just and end run around those standards.http://stripersandanglers.com/Forum/images/icons/icon13.gif





Shore towns in N.J. go to great lengths to keep outsiders away
Associated Press
Published: Sunday, June 20, 2010, 11:20 AM Updated: Sunday, June 20, 2010, 4:21 PM



MANTOLOKING -- Some shore beach towns have plenty of ways to keep outsiders off their sand: Limit on-street parking, prohibit food and drink, and have no public bathrooms.



One town literally walls off the public from much of the ocean with a protective stone seawall, and offers virtually no parking for miles along it.



Beach access has become a long drawn-out court battle in many coastal states. And now in New Jersey, the state Department of Environmental Protection is bowing to complaints from some local governments and private property owners that state access rules are too strict.



The department is letting each shore town decide for itself what level of public access is appropriate, though the state agency will still have to sign off on each plan. The new policy has some beach advocates fearing towns will become even more restrictive.



"This is extremely frustrating," said Ralph Coscia, who co-founded Citizens Right to Access Beaches, or CRAB, after the beloved Point Pleasant Beach was bulldozed to make way for oceanfront luxury homes about a decade ago. "This sets us back 15 years. Everything we've tried to do all these years is falling apart."



The department says its goal is to maintain public access while applying common sense to beach access rules and giving towns and property owners latitude to take local conditions into account.



"We believe the Jersey shore and the coastline should be open to everyone," said department spokesman Larry Ragonese. "But there can't be carte blanche to go anywhere, on anyone's property you want."



Under the Public Trust Doctrine, a legal concept adopted by New Jersey that dates back to the Roman Emperor Justinian, the public has the right to swim in coastal waters and walk along their shores. Courts have held that the public has the right to walk or sit on the sand up to the mean high water mark even on beaches where most of the sand is privately owned.



But many oceanfront homeowners either don't know or don't care, and routinely call the police when someone sets up a beach chair or a towel too close for their liking.
Battles over who rules the sand are being fought all over the country. It's not just about unbroken ocean views, either. In New Jersey, tourism is a nearly $40 billion industry and its beaches are a primary draw.



The U.S. Supreme Court last week ruled that Florida can undertake beach-widening projects without compensating beach-front property owners who lose exclusive access to the water.



California fought for years to mediate public demands for access to some prime beaches when wealthy homeowners tried to block them. The city of Dana Point disagrees with the state on who should control beach access through a large gated community of multimillion-dollar homes.



In Hawaii, a new law prohibits property owners from using vegetation to block beach access. In North Carolina, state officials are trying to balance competing demands over the use of a popular Outer Banks beach between fishermen and outdoor enthusiasts who want to drive their vehicles on the sand, and environmentalists who want to protect coastal wildlife.



Texas voters in November decided that the right to public beach access should be part of the state constitution, even as homeowners feared erosion of their property rights.



Under the previous administration of Gov. Jon Corzine, New Jersey required public access points every quarter-mile and bathrooms every half-mile on any beach that received public money for beach replenishment.



But an appeals court overturned those rules in 2008, deciding that the state had no right to order towns to allow 24-hour access to their beaches or to require bathrooms there. Stone Harbor Mayor Suzanne Walters said her town already provides plenty of access, bathrooms and ample parking to beach-goers.



"The biggest change with the DEP seems to be their willingness to listen," she said.
Stone Harbor and nearby Avalon fought the rules, particularly the 24-hour access requirement, on the grounds that it exposed the borough to lawsuits from people who might enter the water after drinking, and drown.



Robert Dinerman owns a summer house in Bay Head, a town that legally restricted its beaches to residents only, until a landmark 1984 court decision said public beaches must be open to anyone. The 73-year-old Cincinnati resident acknowledges many Jersey shore towns have tricks to keep outsiders away. Bay Head offers no public restrooms and bans food from the beach.



In neighboring Mantoloking, where Dinerman was enjoying the surf view from atop a wooden staircase, police zealously enforce a two-hour parking limit on most streets so beach-goers can't park in one spot for two hours, then move their car. This makes it impractical for anyone but residents to use the beaches, some of which charge hundreds of dollars for a seasonal badge.



"All these towns have their little idiosyncrasies to try to keep people off the beach," Dinerman said. "I have no objection to making it more public."



The DEP said it will consider arrangements like Bay Head's ban on toilets and food, Mantoloking's restrictive parking and lack of an affordable daily badge, and miles of inaccessible beaches on Long Beach Island blocked off by private homes, when it considers what to approve under the new rules.


http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201..._to_great.html (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/06/shore_towns_in_nj_go_to_great.html)

[DarkSkies]

Some may not be aware of or even feel anything in common with the NJ Baykeeper. However, I think they hit the nail on the head with this statement from their most recent newsletter:



Message from the Baykeeper


New Jersey DEP's new "Common Sense" public access policy makes no sense at all. Just as the summer season was underway, NJDEP Commissioner Martin announced a rollback of public access rules. While a rulemaking is in the works to weaken beach public access requirements for municipalities, immediate steps are being taken to rollback public access requirements along our urban waterfronts.

Under the current rule, when development occurs at a new or existing facility, including industrial and port sites, access to the waterfront is required. Generally, because of safety and security concerns access cannot be provided on-site and the rule then requires that access be provided at a nearby off-site location, which can include a contribution.

Off-site contributions have helped towards the creation of waterfront parks and walkways within our urban communities like Newark and Elizabeth - cities that have historically been cut off from the waterfront because of industrial development or pollution. The new policy harms our urban communities and is the wrong direction for the NJDEP.


Deborah A. Mans
Executive Director
Baykeeper

[clamchucker]

It was only a matter of time, as more folks are fishing now than did 40 years ago.

[storminsteve]

IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Aug. 17, 2010

Contact: Lawrence Ragonese (609) 292-2994
Lawrence Hajna (609) 984-1795



DEP UNVEILS DRAFT PROPOSED PUBLIC ACCESS RULES


(10/P81)TRENTON- The Department of Environmental Protection today unveiled draft proposed rules for enhanced public access to the state's coastal and other tidal waters, suggesting reasonable regulations but also employing additional, common sense measures to enhance public access.

Making the draft proposed rules publicly available for discussion prior to the official public comment period is one component of the DEP's comprehensive efforts to go above and beyond the normal rulemaking process to ensure the most effective rules that best serve all of the residents of New Jersey.

"We are guided in our efforts by the standards set forth in Gov. Chris Christie's Executive Order No. 2,'' said Commissioner Martin, referring to an order that directs state agencies to establish rules based on common sense principles and in consultation with stakeholders.

Throughout development of these rules, the DEP has sought and continues to seek the engagement of the public, elected officials, environmental advocates, property owners and businesses.

"We believe we can significantly enhance public enjoyment and use of the ocean, bays, and other tidal waters by applying common sense principles of governing; by working with local governments, which best understand local circumstances and by eliminating unnecessary burdens on residents, businesses, and government entities,'' Commissioner Martin said.

The public discussion on the draft rules precedes the normal rulemaking process; it does not replace, shorten, or otherwise change the normal 60-day comment period and any public hearings.

The Department earlier this year undertook its review of the public access rules, in part, because the courts have struck down provisions of existing rules, the Legislature has put a moratorium on implementation of provisions requiring marina access, and the DEP recognized that a more common sense approach to the rules could enhance access.

The New Jersey Shore and riverfront communities annually draw millions of tourists, who walk the boardwalks, enjoy our piers, and eat and drink along our waterways, fish in our waterways and navigate our waters for recreation. The environmental health and public accessibility of the ocean, shore and tidal waterways also are inextricably tied to New Jersey's economic health. Tourism, mostly tied to Shore communities, is a $38 billion per year industry in New Jersey.

Draft proposed rules: http://www.state.nj.us/dep/cmp/acces...aft_100816.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/cmp/access/pa_rule_draft_100816.pdf)

DEP public access page: www.state.nj.us/dep/cmp/access/ (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/cmp/access/)

Governor's Executive Order No. 2: www.state.nj.us/infobank/circular/eocc2.pdf (http://www.state.nj.us/infobank/circular/eocc2.pdf)