By DOTTY NIST
Addressing the private property/no trespassing signs, property marker poles, chains and ropes that have become widespread and on the increase on the beach in south Walton County, the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) recently approved ordinance changes.
The action took place at the June 14 BCC regular meeting at the South Walton Annex.
Presenting the proposed changes, which would affect the Walton County Waterways and Beach Activities Ordinance, Walton County Attorney Mark Davis noted that the revisions had been per the direction of the commissioners at a previous meeting and were essentially aimed at making all obstructions on the beach such as signs, poles, chains, ropes, and fences, subject to the ordinance, with the exception of sand fences.
“This is not a vote on customary use,” he clarified.
The revision ordinance, Davis continued, would apply to the area south of the coastal construction control line to the wet sand portion of the beach.
Asking for clarification, Walton County District 5 Commissioner Cindy Meadows asked if the revision ordinance would mean that obstructions would not be permitted on the beach “at any time.” Davis confirmed that this was correct.
Proposed revisions
As proposed, the revisions would prohibit any person from putting or leaving any obstruction on the beach at any time of day, with ropes, chains, signs and fences given as examples, and with an exemption for properly-constructed sand fences with required state and federal permits.
The proposed revisions also provided a reworking of provisions related to personal property left on the beach during the evening, stating that leaving such items would be unlawful without a county permit plus all necessary state and federal permits. It was further stated that the county would not issue permits for the following items to remain on the beach in the evening: obstructions, and items prohibited by federal law, state law, or county ordinance. As previously provided for in the Waterways and Beach Activities Ordinance, no county permit would be issued for items preventing emergency and maintenance vehicles from traversing the beach, or items easily removed from the beach, even if removal might be inconvenient.
Walton County District 2 Commissioner Cecilia Jones commented that after getting many emails from citizens objecting to obstructions on the beach she had travelled the beach with a code enforcement officer, seeing the obstructions for herself and witnessing the officer having to cut a volleyball net so that the vehicle could traverse the beach. She recalled the beauty of the beaches in former years when they had been free of obstructions.
“One is too many for me,” Jones said. She explained that this was her reason for taking the lead to get rid of obstructions on the beach.
Public comment
Nineteen citizens, along with three attorneys representing citizens in opposition, addressed the commissioners about the proposed revisions. with sentiment close to equally balanced pro versus con among the speakers.
Blue Mountain Beach property owner Emmett Hildreth argued that homeowners whose property extends to the high water mark have the right to place signs as they choose, even though county commissioners may not like how the signs look or what they say.
“It’s the same as free speech,” he said.
Asserting that Blue Mountain Beach is a private beach, Hildreth told the commissioners that the issue before them is, “do you respect private property or not?”
Leonard Anderson, another Blue Mountain Beach property owner and a veteran, countered that, although he lives on the beach, anyone is free to sit on the beach south of his home. “The beach should belong to the American citizen,” he said.
Robert Kauffman, an attorney representing a number of condominium associations, warned that courts look upon absolute prohibitions with scrutiny. Signs are not obstructions except when placed in certain places, he continued. He urged for property owners to retain the right to use signage to indicate that their property is private and that people can be excluded.
While saying that she has always been a proponent of private property rights, Santa Rosa Beach resident Bonnie McQuiston, commented, “The beach is why we’re here.”
She pointed out that the beaches are not only for tourists but for the residents as well. She said of obstructions on the beach, “it’s a bad way for south Walton to look.”
Beach Highlands resident Celeste Cobena told the commissioners that it doesn’t make sense to spend millions of dollars inviting people to the beach when there are signs telling them to stay off the beach. The no trespassing signs and chains work against the relaxation that people are seeking when they visit, she added.
Beachfront property owner Mark Walker agreed on the latter point, supporting the proposal to ban sign, chains and other obstructions on the beach.
“I support this and commend you,” said Rick Everitt, president of the homeowners’ association for Edgewater Terrace.
Garner Chandler also went on record in support of the ban, calling the no trespassing signs “hateful.” She also called them “DUH” for short, meaning “dangerous, unslightly, and hostile.”
“I am for removing items from the beach,” said Brenda Rees, warning that anything left on the beach can become a projectile when a storm arrives.
Beachfront property owner Dave Bennett was not in favor of chains or fences on the beach but did speak in favor of removable signs within set size limits that could be taken down at night. Richard Bryan, a 35-year resident, also spoke in favor of beachfront property owners being allowed “a sign,” with provisions on what should be done with the sign when there is a storm.
Inlet Beach beachfront property owner Temple Hager asked the commissioners, “Where is our advocate?”
He brought up the guidelines or standard operating procedures (SOP) put in place by the Walton County Sheriff”s Office (WCSO) requiring beachfront property owners to obtain a survey and mark their property boundaries in order for the WCSO to enforce violations for trespassing on their lots. (No criminal action is taken for trespass in wet sand areas, areas renourished in the large-scale beach nourishment project, or areas south of the mean high tide mark.)
Hager warned that, for beachfront property owners, approval of the ordinance would be “taking another right away from us.”
Calling obstructions on the beach “visual blight,” Jimmy Kuhn of the Surfrider Foundation warned of danger posed by the objects to beachgoers, emergency vehicles and wildlife.
“Leave No Trace is Leave No Trace,” Nancy Meehan told the commissioners, referring to the provisions of the Waterways and Beach Activities Ordinance devoted to items left on the beach. Signs, ropes and chains should not be on the beach, she said.
Suzanne Harris of Edgewater Beach Condominium brought up the WCSO’s SOP again, saying that her condo had paid $3,800 for the initial required survey. The survey stakes had been removed twice, with the homeowners having to pay for two additional surveys, she noted.
Harris warned that if the ordinance were approved, the result would be private security guards all over the beach with guns. She clarified that she did not mind people walking on the beach. She invited any beachfront property owners who would like a beach security guard to contact her.
Representing Fort Panic beachfront property owners Ed and Delanie Goodwin, attorney Will Dunaway urged the commissioners to expand the public beach accesses rather than using the beaches south of private homes “for tourist development.”
Camp Creek Lake area resident Bob Brooke commented that it appeared that, with beachfront property owners unable to use signage, it would not be possible for the WCSO to honor those owners’ rights to have trespass violations enforced.
Jim Bagby, former TDC director, commented that everything should come off the beach at night. He recalled that at one time there had been no signs on the beach—but that beachfront property owners had wanted to put out signs to combat bad behavior by residents, tourists and vendors.
Conversations with the state had resulted in property owners being allowed to put monopole signs on the beach without a state permit, he recalled, and the WCSO then put out the SOP for trespass violations. Bagby said it was possible to enforce trespass violations by use of global positioning system (GPS). He expressed disappointment that Walton County had not decided to go that route.
“Use technology to solve this problem,” Bagby urged.
Tommy Bowden, an Eastern Lake-area beachfront property owner, said he had owned property in south Walton County for 18 years and had lived here for four years permanently. Nobody helps him pay his taxes, he told the commissioners. Bowden said he goes to the beach every day but is not able to get on the beach at his own property due to crowding, while he sees almost no one on the beach at Deer Lake State Park immediately adjacent to the east.
“I like to sit on the property that I’m paying taxes on,” he said.
Bowden spoke in favor of the public using the approximately six miles of state park beachfront that exists in Walton County.
He spoke in opposition to the proposal to disallow property owners’ signage on the beach.
“We all know what’s going on here,” said Bruce Anderson, an attorney representing citizens in opposition. He described the proposed ordinance as a “precursor” to the BCC approving a customary use ordinance for the beaches. Anderson warned that many lawyers would be contesting such an ordinance if that were to occur.
Beachfront property owner Lisa Boushy said she had heard a lot of comment about safety concerns with items left on the beach. As a way of solving problems, she urged for addressing the issue of chairs, umbrellas and tents being set up to “reserve space” on the beach and being left attended.
County commission discussion
Commissioner Meadows spoke to the need for stepping up code enforcement on the beach, similar to the way the WCSO operates on the beach during spring break, and increasing attention to dealing with trash on the beach.
District 1 Commissioner Bill Chapman voiced opposition to fences, ropes and chains on the beach— but spoke in favor of allowing monopole signs to mark the two sides of a beachfront owner’s lot in order for the WCSO to be able to enforce trespass violations. He agreed that items left on the beach at night posed problems for people walking on the beach and sea turtles.
Chapman agreed with Meadows on the need to enhance management of the beaches.
He proposed standardizing the size and message for monopole signs and continuing to allow property owners to put them on the beach. “As for the rest of the stuff, it needs to come off,” Chapman said.
County Commission Chair Sara Comander agreed on the need for more code enforcement on the beach and was in favor of hiring more people to patrol the beach. She suggested that the BCC plan on taking a look in the fall at tents and vendors on the beach and dogs on the beach. “All of these need to be addressed at some point,” she said.
Comander also agreed that ropes, chains and other obstructions did not belong on the beach. She warned that Walton County would run into trouble with the federal government soon if this issue was not dealt with. However, she was willing to consider signs marking the edge of beachfront lots.
Meadows responded that the problem with the latter is that the property marker signs would need to be taken in at night and some property owners do not want to do that.
Meadows said she had seen a lot of cities in which the city closes off access to lakes and other bodies of water and puts them off limits to everyone but those living on the water. “I don’t want to see this for Walton County,” she said, reminding the other commissioners that the local economy “is the beach.”
Motions, voting and BCC decision
District 3 Commissioner Bill Imfeld motioned for approval of the proposed revisions with regard to chains, ropes, fences, and other obstructions, with the exception of signs. He suggested that signs be removed from the language in order to support property rights.
He was asked by Meadows if he would consider specifying that signs must be removed at night. “I can go there,” Imfeld responded, amending his motion.
Imfeld’s motion was seconded for discussion by Chapman, who brought up the issue of possible trespass at night while property marker signs were down.
Meadows commented that she would favor approving the proposed revisions as written and then taking a comprehensive look at management of the beach which would include the various issues that had been brought up in the BCC discussion.
A vote was taken on Imfeld’s motion, which failed 2-3 with Comander, Jones and Meadows opposed.
Jones then moved for approval of the proposal “as written,” prohibiting all obstructions, including signs, on the beach. She also called for future discussion on additional code enforcement personnel on the beach and beach ambassadors.
The motion was seconded by Meadows, and Chapman repeated his concern that approval would eliminate what the WCSO needed to enforce trespass violation on the beach.
Jones’ motion was approved 3-2, with Imfeld and Chapman voting no.
Enforcement of the ordinance
The revision ordinance was considered to take effect on June 16, following an acknowledgement of receipt from the Florida Department of State.
Asked about enforcement of the ordinance, Walton County Public Information Manager Louis Svehla responded in a June 17 email that information was being prepared to be sent by certified mail to all beachfront property owners.
“The information will include a copy of the new ordinance and it will explain what it means and what is expected. It will include a date (yet to be determined) (by) which they will be responsible for having all prohibited obstructions removed from the beach,” Svehla wrote.
“During this time period, the County will be developing future enforcement efforts, and at the time that the to be determined date arrives, if there are prohibited obstructions that still remain, the appropriate enforcement will be conducted,” he concluded.