The island has a big problem along its southern coastline, where a number of oceanfront property owners are stubbornly blocking the beach renourishment others desperately seek along a stretch of shore deemed “critically eroded.”
Apparently, the naysayers would rather watch the beaches behind their homes disappear rather than temporarily tolerate the sight and sound of dump trucks filled with sand – or, heaven forbid, see people walking along the shore beyond their dune line.
Those property owners’ intransigence forced the County Commission to vote last week to postpone until next year its $9.9-million Sector 7 Beach and Dune Restoration Project, covering the stretch of beach between the Treasure Cove subdivision and Floralton Beach on the southern tier of the barrier island.
“We can’t justify going ahead with the project knowing the mission is going to fail,” Commission Chairman Joe Flesher said, “and right now, we don’t have the numbers.”
So far, only 59 of the 82 property owners in that sector – 72 percent – have signed agreements that provide the county with the easements necessary to access and repair their beaches.
The commissioners require at least 90 percent of property owners in a particular sector to agree to the easements before embarking on such projects, because replenishing the beaches behind some homes and not others is impractical.
The incoming tides would flow into the gaps created by the parcels that weren’t replenished and, as the tide ebbed, the water would redistribute or wash away the newly added sand, defeating the purpose of the project.
“These projects are a challenge when we don’t have everyone participating,” Flesher said.
“If a significant number of property owners say no, it’s a waste of time and money.”
The county needs another 14 property owners to grant easements if it hopes to replenish the southern section of beach for the first time since 2007, three years after Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne blew through Vero Beach.
Those signatures won’t be easy to get, however, even though the project will cost property owners nothing.
“It’s free sand,” County Public Works Director Rich Szpyrka said, explaining that the project’s costs will be covered entirely by Federal Emergency Management Agency funds, Florida Department of Environmental Protection grants, insurance payments and money from the county’s bed tax.
“Since 2013, we’ve been losing about 1½ feet of beach per year,” he added. “If the project doesn’t go forward, the beach will continue to deteriorate until there’s nothing left.”
FDEP, in fact, has described sector 7 beaches as “critically eroded.”
Yet, 14 property owners have already refused to grant easements, including five who gave no reason and one who stated he was against beach renourishment.
Six of the naysayers cited the county’s requirement that the easements be granted in perpetuity – a mandate that makes unnecessary the tedious and often-exasperating permission process every time the beaches need to be replenished.
Two embraced a wrongheaded and still-controversial Florida statute enacted in 2018, when the Legislature allowed beachfront property owners to restrict access to the dry sandy areas behind their homes – unless local governments can legally establish a history of the public’s “customary use” of those beaches.
In addition to the 14 denials, Szpyrka said there are four other responses pending the county’s review, including two from property owners who said they have enough sand on their beaches.
Five property owners still hadn’t responded to the county’s multiple requests, and officials aren’t overly optimistic that any of them will get on board.
“The bottom line is that 23 of the 82 properties have not given us permission,” Szpyrka said. “That’s a big chunk.”
Too big.
But the project is too important for county officials to abandon: Severely eroded beaches reduce the level of storm-surge protection and puts dunes – and possibly homes – in jeopardy.
Despite those facts, county officials say there is at least one Sector 7 property owner who is actively urging neighbors to join him in denying the easements.
“There’s a protagonist in the group,” Flesher said, echoing the sentiments he shared during last week’s County Commission meeting, where he told the audience, “It defies all logic that there would be a group of individuals churning the waters and ensuring that people say no.”
All of the commissioners appeared baffled by the resistance to the project.
“This is a problem I didn’t figure we would have,” Joe Earman said.
Peter O’Bryan noted that a majority of the property owners who denied easements were at the northern and southern ends of the sector, and he wondered aloud whether those people feared an intrusion – particularly of beach volleyball players – from public-access beaches to the north and south.
It’s possible such concerns contributed to the property owners’ decisions, but Szpyrka said South Beach Park is 1.4 miles north of Treasure Cove and Round Island Beach Park is 1.9 miles south of Floralton Beach – a long way for public beach users to trek to sunbathe or play volleyball.
The Atlantic hurricane season has begun, and named storms have already begun heading our way, prompting Flesher to warn that the project delay adds to the risk of severe weather further decimating sections of the sector’s beaches.
“If we wait too long,” he said, “eventually there will be nothing left but a seawall.”
Clearly, some of south island property owners are willing to chance it, preferring no beach to a wide stretch of sand where people might occasionally walk by.
But what about their neighbors – the ones who want to preserve their beaches and welcome the county’s efforts?
Aren’t property owners preventing the beach-restoration being selfish?
“They are,” Flesher said, “because the people who want the sand can’t get it. You’re going to have some people saying, ‘I’m paying my taxes for a nice beach. Now I can’t have it anymore?’ And I understand that.
“The property owners who don’t want the sand have a right to say no, but I see it as very shortsighted.”
Flesher said he doesn’t understand why any of the sector’s beachfront homeowners would resist the project. They’re “not forfeiting their personal property rights,” and there’s no reason for them to worry about their beaches drawing unwanted crowds.
“The areas we’re talking about, you’re not going to see a lot of people going there with their beach blankets and umbrellas,” Flesher said. “If this project were going to create a spring-break environment, I’d understand their concern. But that’s not the case.
“We don’t have that usage here, especially in that area,” he added. “This isn’t Daytona.”
Nor do we want to be.
Just as our picturesque beaches contribute mightily to the area’s seaside charm, our small-town sense of community – our civility and consideration for others – has long made Vero Beach special.
Let’s not lose either.
We need at least 14 more oceanfront property owners in Sector 7 to care about their neighbors, allow the county to save our beaches, and take pride in knowing they’re making this community a better place.
Otherwise, the project goes nowhere, the funding goes back to the state and federal governments, and a scenic stretch of our beach goes away.
