Stone Harbor Considers Access Plan

STONE HARBOR – Stone Harbor introduced its municipal access plan ordinance April 16 while simultaneously asking the borough solicitor to look into the ramifications of not passing the ordinance on second reading.
Public access to tidal and oceanfront waterways has been an issue of contention in the state for decades.
In March, the state passed legislation that codified what it termed as the “public trust doctrine,” a principle that affirms everyone’s right to access and enjoy the state’s waterways. The bill also gives new authority to the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to ensure that local municipalities do not unreasonably block or close access.
The problem that has always been at issue is the claim by municipalities that the state takes a one-size-fits-all approach to mandate access, creating unnecessary burdens for municipalities and usurping the municipalities’ right to set rules for the use of its beaches and lagoons.
In 2007, a DEP attempt to define set rules for access included requirements that would have necessitated restroom facilities at half-mile intervals along the oceanfront. Avalon sued and Stone Harbor filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) in support of Avalon’s position. The court reversed the regulations.
Critics of too much municipal control over access plans say that rich beach towns and elite property owners often place barriers between the general public and the sand. They argue for greater state regulation.
Stone Harbor has been seeking approval for its access plan for several years. The public comment period ended in 2016.
The ordinance as introduced, and the plan behind it, would gain state approval if the borough adopts it May 21 following a required public hearing. Yet, some on the council are not sure adoption is the right course. 
Council member Raymond Parzych was concerned that the language of the ordinance, built around standard state language, gives the municipality insufficient flexibility to review and change the plan in the future.
The state took the position in 2007 that it would mandate specific amenities and access points, losing the position to legal challenges from municipalities. More recently, the state tried to provide for “reasonable access” while leaving many of the decisions to municipalities and found its position challenged by environmental groups.
The 2019 legislation provides additional power to DEP and instructs the agency to promote public access to the extent “practicable.” What that would mean and how the agency would interpret its role is unclear.
What is at stake in the Stone Harbor decision is a clear opportunity to adopt its own access plan for the state to approve. To do so, however, the borough may have to give up future flexibility in ways that worry some on the council.
The ramifications of not adopting the ordinance were also unclear. It could mean starting over in a more fluid environment. It also could carry certain disadvantages with respect to the DEP, an agency the borough must work with regularly.
Borough officials will be looking at the specific impact of not having an approved plan at this time. “We need to understand the ramifications before the ordinance comes up for second reading,” Mayor Judith Davies-Dunhour said. 
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.