Court to DEP- how much beach?
Judge rejects beach clubs' motion to dismiss access suit
BY LIZ SHEEHAN
Correspondent

SEA BRIGHT - - A judge has ordered the state Department of Environmental (DEP) Protection to provide more information to the nine Sea Bright beach clubs it is suing to force them to provide more public access to their beaches.

Superior Court Judge Alexander Lehrer last week turned down, without prejudice, a motion in which the club owners sought to dismiss the suit filed by the DEP.

Lee Moore, a spokesperson for the state Attorney General's Office, which joined in the suit with the DEP, said that the judge wanted more specific details than were contained in the complaint filed, about the area of the beach that the DEP wanted to be made available to the public.

The suit named Ann Milgram, acting Attorney General of New Jersey, and the DEP as the plaintiffs, and Surf Rider Beach Club, Donovan's Reef Beach Club, Chapel Beach Club, Sands Beach Club, Water's Edge Beach Club, Sea Bright Beach Club, Driftwood Beach Club, Ship Ahoy Beach Club, Trade Winds Beach Club, formerly Kara Homes, and the borough of Sea Bright as defendants.

The suit said that "due to coastal erosion caused by a variety of weather-related factors," there was a need for certain beaches "to be replenished to defend against significant loss of human life, injury and property damage and protect the public health, safety, and economies of shore communities."

The suit also said that after the completion of the initial nourishment project of the beaches in Sea Bright and subsequent replenishments, all of which were funded by a combination of federal, state and local funds, "the beach lying seaward of the defendant beach clubs was expanded by the government from a narrow strip of dry sand to a dry sand beach extending approximately 250 feet above the mean high water line."

The original agreement between the beach clubs and the DEP in 1993 prior to the beach replenishment project provided for "only a 15-foot-wide strip of dry sand along the water's edge in front of the defendant beach clubs to walk in a north-south direction ..." or to "fish during the nonswimming hours."

Under that agreement, the use of the "transit corridor is limited to pedestrian right of transit and fishing only, and beach clubs otherwise retain the right to control, prohibit, or limit the use of the replenished beach," the suit said.

However, the suit said that since the 1993 agreement was signed, several court decisions have given the public broader rights to the beach.

In one, the state Supreme Court said that "the Public Trust Doctrine requires unrestricted public access to, and the use of both the ocean and the beach up to the mean high water line, as well as a reasonable area of dry land above the mean high water line, on privately owned land bordering tidal waterways such as the Atlantic Ocean."

Another court held that "publicly funded replenished beach did not belong to beachfront property owners because the 'new beach' resulted from avulsion, not accretion."

A third court decision, the suit said, held the "public has rights of access to, and use of, formerly tidal land that is now filled, despite the fact that these lands had been conveyed in the past to private entities."

The DEP suit goes on to say that the beach clubs say they "need not provide public access to the ocean or beach beyond that referenced in the original agreements, and may receive additional sand replenishment at public expense, over the remaining forty (40) years" of the federal and state beach renourishment project.

Another part of the suit refers to the Borough of Sea Bright, stating that public access to the beach owned by the borough "is further limited by insufficient parking facilities, restrooms and perpendicular access areas."

Jo-Ann Kalaka-Adams said Tuesday she could not comment on the litigation.