News Archives

Jan 26, 2008

• LBI beach project stalled by easements

With almost $9 million appropriated for beach replenishment in 2008 on Long Beach Island, the possibility of the project coming to local towns looks pretty grim based on the number of easements still needed.

While the push continues for oceanfront property owners to sign easements granting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state Department of Environmental Protection access to their property, the funding will not be lost, according to Jeff Sagnip Hollendonner, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Jim Saxton. Even if no work is done this year, the money will continue to be available, he said.

Last year at about this time, the corps pumped in tons of sand to widen the beaches in Surf City. But this year, it looks unlikely that the project will continue in any of the four remaining towns.

"The best-case scenario, if all easements are signed, we wouldn't be able to get on it before Memorial Day," said corps spokesman Khaalid Walls.

The corps would start work on a single municipality that gets its easements signed, as was the case in Surf City, but they will not do work in small sections, Walls said.

Harvey Cedars is the closest in the race for the replenishment project to come to its beaches. The total number of signed easements the borough needs is 82. To date, 65 have been signed, the last in August 2007, leaving 17 holdouts.

The borough held its second closed meeting in the last few months Friday. Mayor Jonathan Oldham said Friday evening that there are no plans for litigation involving easements at this point.

"We're interviewing appraisers to find out what the value of the easements is," Oldham said.

And is there a way to sway the 17 holdouts to sign?

"There are some people who you can't do anything with; there are some people that we continue to talk with, but there hasn't been a lot of activity in general because there was fighting over the budget. Now that there is federal money there will be more activity," he said.

In Ship Bottom, a neighboring borough to the newly replenished beaches of Surf City, borough Clerk Kathleen Wells said nothing has changed with the number of easements the borough has received since 2007 either.

Portions of Ship Bottom's beaches were closed last spring following the conclusion of the Surf City project when it was discovered that along with 500,000 cubic yards of sand more than 1,100 World War I-era military munitions were also pumped ashore.

"We have 16 easements including one from the land the borough owns, which represents quite a bit of property. We need about 54 easements, off the top of my head," said Wells.

Several oceanfront homeowners who are holdouts in Ship Bottom are also part of a lawsuit against the corps and the state Department of Environmental Protection that will resume next month.

The island's "Queen City," the borough of Beach Haven, is currently sitting on 60 signed easements with 90 more needed to meet its requirement of 150, according to borough Administrator Richard Crane.

"We're confident that we have enough commitments out there that if homeowners know it's going to happen down the road they will sign, but they are reluctant to sign and sit on it," Crane said.

Crane said that once the weather warms up, he and Mayor Thomas J. Stewart plan to go out and meet with residents who are not around at this time of year.

But perhaps the municipality with the longest stretch to go is Long Beach Township whose beaches make up 12 of the barrier island's 18 miles. The township is still waiting on 373 easements to be signed before the project can begin there.

To e-mail Donna Weaver at The Press:

DWeaver@pressofac.com... More

Changes mean fewer easements for LBI project

By ZACH PATBERG Staff Writer, (609) 978-2010
Published: Friday, October 6, 2006
A realignment of beachfill plans on the island would push the proposed new dunes farther east in certain sections, resulting in slightly more sand and fewer required easements.
The designs had to be revised from the original model after an examination revealed that some of the replenishment work would actually encroach on beachfront homeowners' property where items such as overhanging decks and bicycle sheds already exist, said Keith Watson, the project manager for the Army Corps of Engineers.
“As we looked closer we saw that our dunes were going over people's lawns,” he said.
To avoid the intrusion, the corps in March adjusted the project's boundary about 40 to 60 feet farther east from the bulkhead and past the property line in certain parts of Long Beach Township.
The beach property that oceanfront residents own can stretch to just beyond the bulkhead or all the way to the shoreline. The change has relieved the town of 10 to 20 easements from homeowners, particularly in Brant Beach.

Watson added that the preliminary drawings from 2003 were made before the surveys from local engineers and verifications from real estate lawyers came in.
“We've received better data since then to come up with a more refined plan,” he said.
But some critics are wary of the corps' quiet decision to alter the plans.
“When we went to them asking that they change the beach profile they told us the plans were fixed since we're dealing with congressional funding,” said John Weber, East Coast regional manager of the Surfrider Foundation. “Now we see that they can change the plans — when they want to.”
Watson countered that these new plans built the beach up more — adding about 2 percent to 3 percent more sand — whereas Surfrider's alternative profile called for less sand.
“Our ground rule was we'll help you as long as it adds to our profile,” he said.
Watson expressed surprise about the criticism over the realignment since fewer easements would mean less of a burden on all involved.
“Here's my confusion,” he said. “Everywhere I've gone when we meet homeowners, they're in support of the project as long as they don't have to sign an easement. Now people are mad that they don't have to sign them?”
Paul Petrone, for one, would almost rather have the option — so he could refuse it.
His back deck crowds a dune off 37th Street, which falls in one section where the corps' new plans propose a dune about 60 feet east of where it was originally slated for. The shift will create a double dune that Petrone says will make the trek to the sea all that much more difficult.
Instead, he wants the corps to remove the existing front dune from his property so he could put the area to better use with a couple beach chairs and a picnic table.
“I'll sign any papers that'll take the sand forward so I can enjoy my land,” he said. “One dune is enough.”

Contract for LBI beach-replenish project now official

From Press staff reports
(Published: September 26, 2006)

Federal funding for the project in coming years, however, remains uncertain.

Beach project meeting gives area leaders some answers
Others may have to wait a week for the information
By ZACH PATBERG Staff Writer, (609) 978-2010
Published: Thursday, August 10, 2006

LONG BEACH TOWNSHIP — A closed-door meeting was held here Wednesday at which state and federal officials addressed concerns from leaders of the area taxpayers associations regarding the long-anticipated beach replenishment project.

Questions were raised — 33 in all, printed and handed out, on topics including how the new beach will affect surfing and whether the new sand will be tested for contaminants — yet for those not invited to the two-hour session the answers may not be available for another week.

“This was a private meeting for specific individuals to get some answers,” said township Mayor Dianne Gove, who requested the meeting but did not attend due to a family commitment. “If I had wanted the press there I would've called and asked them to come.”

She added: “I wanted something where people expressed themselves without playing for the press.”

Gove said she invited the presidents of the dozen taxpayers associations on the island with the expectation that they would then report back to their members.
Those fielding the questions included officials from the Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the two agencies overseeing a project that has created much confusion and divisiveness on the island.
Some of those who attended, however, said afterward that the officials allayed many of their concerns and, in some cases, raised their opinions of the replenishment.
“The difference between the way the project is designed and what they expect for reality is not as drastic as people think it is,” said Bob Knabe, president of the North Beach Taxpayers Association, who conceded being somewhat of a naysayer himself.
“I wouldn't say I'm OK with it, but now I understand where they're coming from,” he added.
Dave Rosenblatt, the DEP's administrator of construction and engineering, said much of the focus was on explaining how the project — which will dump sand dredged from the sea bottom onto the beach and build up the dunes — will affect sandbars and jetties as well as whether the quality of the sand will match that already on the beach.
“Most people present didn't understand how the effects on the current profile and underwater slope will come back eventually to very much how it was only farther from shore,” Rosenblatt said.
Wendy Mae Chambers, a Harvey Cedars resident, said her main concern was in the harvesting of the sand.
“I had read in the past that canyons have been created on the ocean floor because of this,” she said.
But, Chambers, a project supporter who has been campaigning for oceanfront homeowners to sign over easements, said the officials convinced her that any deep scars would be avoided by scraping only 10 feet of sand off a much broader area.
Joan Dixon, president of the Joint Council of Taxpayers, said her biggest questions centered on safety, such as the threat of an offshore drop-off and stronger riptides.
“The next thing we're going to work on is answers to costs,” she said. “We want to know how much our taxpayers will be paying.”
The Army Corps of Engineers is expected to release answers to Wednesday's 33 questions in a week.
Meanwhile, the project's clock is ticking. Advertisements for bids to replenish Surf City, Harvey Cedars and Ship Bottom have been sent out and responses are expected within about a week, according to Benjamin Keiser, DEP's supervising engineer for the project.
He said construction should begin in Surf City from the Ship Bottom border to 18th Street before Sept. 30. Work on the second portion in the borough, from 18th to 25th street, is dependent on collecting 11 more easements.
Harvey Cedars is still waiting on 20 easements and Ship Bottom is about 40 shy. All but Surf City are slated to be replenished next year.

Corzine intervenes for LBI easements

Long Beach Island's beach-replenishment project, which had hit a snag with some of the residents affected by the project, will move forward after Gov. Jon S. Corzine intervened with New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection on Friday.

The new agreement will allow the municipalities involved, including Surf City, Ship Bottom, Long Beach, Harvey Cedars and Beach Haven, to have easement agreements from 66 percent of the residents directly affected by the project.

Surf City, which was initially first on the list of beaches to improve, will continue as such because 14 of its 25 residents have signed and another three have promised to sign an agreement to allow the project to commence.

“This is just what the doctor ordered,” Surf City Mayor Leonard Connors said in an interview Friday.

However, it's not all smooth sailing from here.

Ship Bottom, which was scheduled for construction after Surf City, has garnered the support of only one out of the town's 120 affected homeowners because of concern about what the project entails.

William Huelsenbeck, the mayor of Ship Bottom, says the residents' support has been hampered by misinformation that has been circulating throughout the area.

“Letters have been sent to some residents that are very misleading,” he said Friday. “People are saying the project is a ploy to take their land, that we're building a boardwalk and that the mayors know what's really going on and are not saying anything about it. These are all lies.”

Huelsenbeck, who has been given more time under the new agreement to convince his reluctant residents, plans to go door-to-door to inform them “properly.”

Although Connors is for the project, he said he understands why some property owners are concerned about signing off on permanent easement.

“I think they have a valid point,” he said. “They are signing off their property in perpetuity. But they think people are going to be picnicking on their property, and its just not true.”

So far, the actual plan is to fill in the eroded beaches with more sand and make additional public access areas across the island.

Those opposing “are saying we're putting in parking lots. That is not the case at all,” said Huelsenbeck, who is confident that work in Ship Bottom should begin between September and October.

If the residents continued to refuse to cooperate, Connors said he doesn't believe they would employ the eminent-domain law.

The initial June 15 deadline for easement agreements, which passed without the required number of easements Thursday, will be re-evaluated for each town as the project moves forward.

Time is running out for the Long Beach Island beach replenishment project — at least this year.

State Department of Environmental Protection officials have said they still need beach- access easements from oceanfront homeowners in Ship Bottom and Surf City, the two towns where work would start, by Thursday. The easements have been a controversial issue throughout the island, and oceanfront owners have been slow in granting them.

But if the Army Corps of Engineers is to get the necessary contracts in place for work to begin this year, the easements have to be signed soon, officials say.

“Right now, all we know is the money we have for this fiscal year. … If we don't have the easements by the 15th, there's just no way we could put that money to use,” said John Romano, an Army Corps spokesman.

DEP officials have suggested there is slightly more leeway on the easement issue. Dave Rosenblatt, administrator of DEP's office of construction and engineering, called Thursday “the beginning of a timeframe” in which easements need to be received, “not a drop-dead deadline.”

Still, state, federal and local officials agree the delay can't go on forever.

“There's not going to be another deadline. It's not going to be like if we don't make June, it's going to be September. That's going to be it,” said Ship Bottom Mayor William Huelsenbeck.

Congress approved $5 million in the 2006 federal budget for the project, but additional funding must be approved each year.

However, while pessimism seems to be growing among island officials on whether the project will ever get off the ground, a spokesman for the local congressman said if work doesn't start this year, it wouldn't kill the project.

Although new money has to be appropriated each year, Jeff Sagnip Hollendonner, spokesman for U.S. Rep. Jim Saxton, R-3rd, said the federal government has committed to the project for the long term.

“Congress authorized this project for the indefinite future — 50 years. … This is big picture,” Hollendonner said.

LBI access rule may change

By BERNARD VAUGHAN Staff Writer, (609) 978-2012
(Published: March 11, 2006)

DEP off on beach access, LBT says

By BERNARD VAUGHANStaff Writer, (609) 978-2012
(Published: February 3, 2006)

â€œThe DEP has never really explained that part of it,â€ said Jeff Sagnip Hollendonner, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Jim Saxton, R-3d. â€œThe DEP's goal is worthwhile. But the reality is it's twice the amount that the Army Corps recommends. It's also the reality that the cost of acquiring the land, paying the architects, etc., is a significant additional burden to island taxpayers.â€

— U.S. Rep. Jim Saxton had unusually stern words Friday for the state Department of Environmental Protection, accusing it of jeopardizing the Long Beach Island beach-replenishment project and urging it to loosen its requirements so the project can proceed.

“It has taken us more than a decade to get this far, working with Republican and Democrat administrations in both Trenton and Washington,” Saxton, R-3rd, said in a statement. “Now I'm afraid N.J. DEP is adding such stringent requirements that it could put the project in jeopardy. I encourage DEP to work with the towns, not against them, to ensure reasonable public access and find ways to improve public access, not impose harsh conditions and financial hardships on LBI residents.”

The DEP requires the six island towns to provide access points to the beach every quarter-mile — the federal requirement is every half-mile — and construct parking lots with restroom facilities. Saxton wrote in his letter to the DEP that the cost of the every-quarter-mile requirement would be “astronomical” for island taxpayers and could stop the project. The requirements are particularly troublesome in the North Beach and Loveladies sections of Long Beach Township, where large homes abound and public access is minimal.

Acting DEP Commissioner Lisa Jackson, however, said the DEP stands by its requirements.

“I certainly respect (Saxton's) position and intend to follow up with him,” Jackson said. “But we remain committed to public access, especially when there's considerable public funding for those beaches.”

The federal government is funding most of the ambitious project, which calls for the strengthening and cyclical replenishment of the storm-rattled barrier island's shoreline for 50 years. Most island residents agree that the beaches need help, but many, particularly beachfront homeowners, disagree with state prerequisites for the project.

Asked why the state can implement its restrictions when it is funding less than the federal government, Jackson said, “I pay federal taxes and I pay state taxes. It's public money and they're public beaches. ... Our position remains unchanged.”

Only a very small fraction of beachfront landowners on the island have signed an easement granting state and federal authorities access to their land to implement the project. One of them is Joe Barrett, a homeowner in Ship Bottom since 1973 who said he sympathizes with both sides in the dispute. But he said he fears funding for the project could be diverted to immediate emergencies — like Hurricane Katrina rebuilding efforts — if residents and authorities delay.

“There's two monsters that can get you: one out in the ocean and one in Trenton,” Barrett said. “Today is a beautiful day. It's quiet, it's calm; but all you need is the right moons and you've got (the storm of) 1962 all over again, or a storm from down South with a name we'll never forget. Then everybody will ask where the help was.”

Saxton spokesman Jeff Sagnip Hollendonner said the parking lots and restrooms, which the DEP and Army Corps of Engineers discussed briefly during public meetings in December, are new requirements. He also said the DEP suggested the quarter-mile access rule throughout the planning of the project, but never made it a requirement until recent months.

“It's one thing to say that it's a goal, but it's another thing to let it stall the project,” Hollendonner said of the access points. Of the parking lots and bathrooms, he said, “Let's face it: it's a skinny barrier island. If they want to put parking lots in they're going to have to have space, and they need plumbing facilities. For a small town to absorb that kind of cost in their budget is a considerable hurdle.”

Opposition from residents and local politicians to the state requirements has accelerated since a pair of highly contentious public meetings that state and federal authorities held with apprehensive island residents Dec. 13 in Brant Beach and Surf City.

Ship Bottom Mayor William Huelsenbeck last week accused the DEP of holding the island hostage. Mayor DiAnne Gove said Friday she is preparing a letter for whoever takes over as DEP commissioner in Gov. Jon Corzine's administration expressing the concerns of the township, which is the island's largest municipality. Authorities seek 600 of about 800 easements from beachfront landowners in the township.

“We still have differences,” said Gove, who would not discuss details of the letter. “The DEP changes the rules every two seconds.”

The initial cost of the project is estimated to be about $71 million. The total cost estimate, including repair of the beaches every seven years for 50 years, is about $118 million. The federal government is funding 65 percent. The DEP will pay three-quarters of the remaining 35 percent. The municipalities will cover the rest.

The project began last year with the dumping of 16 tons of sand along a short stretch of beach in Harvey Cedars. Officials plan to start the project in Surf City and Ship Bottom in the spring.

Project will change profile of Long Beach Island beaches

By MIKE JACCARINO Staff Writer, (609) 978-2010
(Published: January 21, 2006)

Owners balking at beach-project easements Connors says eminent domain will be used

By MIKE JACCARINO Staff Writer, (609) 978-2010
(Published: January 19, 2006)

LBI sand project hangs on DEP order

By MIKE JACCARINO Staff Writer, (609) 978-2010
(Published: January 19, 2006)

Corzine intervenes for LBI easements

LBI's needed easements may delay replenishment this year

Saxton: DEP rules jeopardize beach fill