Editor’s Note: It’s not often that Mid Bay News, which has a small reporting staff of three, gets the opportunity to go to a code compliance meeting.
After all, there is a lot of news being made around the Emerald Coast.
But this committee, the Walton County Code Compliance Committee, has an outsized effect on whether or not you will be able to use, or not use, parts of Walton County’s beaches with their rulings.
In a surprising display of civility amid heated social media debates over beach access, Walton County’s Code Compliance Committee hosted two productive workshops on Sept. 17, where residents, vendors, and officials collaboratively reviewed every one of the county’s 29 pages in their Beach Activities Ordinance, tackling contentious issues from bonfire permits to vendor encroachments.
These committee meetings, held to encourage people to speak that might otherwise be at work, highlighted citizens’ frustrations with unclear boundaries between public “wet sand” and private “dry sand.”
Additionally, the committee heard from residents and other people with a stake in the committee’s decision about issues on the beach, like fire pit regulations, beach vendors and more.
(Editor’s Note:Ultimately, the updates to the County Ordinances surrounding the beaches will be brought to the County Commission for a decision in one of their November Commission meetings.)
As the workshop began, Walton County Code Compliance Director Tony Cornman suggested that the ordinance would be reviewed page by page.
The first few pages of the large document contain definitions of terms and phrases that help the reader understand with more clarity the intention of the ordinance. Lisa Boushy, a citizen, recommended the inclusion of the phrase “wet sand” as a term to be defined and how it could be helpful in determining and better defining the use of public and private beaches in Walton County.
She indicated that our current use of the term ‘wet sand’ appears too vague and is not clear to many people.
For anyone who has followed social media during this past summer, there has been a large number of posts from visitors to the beach regarding the confrontations that have occurred due to where the ‘privately owned beach’ ends and where the ‘public beach’ or state-owned property is marked.
The morning meeting, unfortunately, did not bring greater clarity to that thought-provoking issue. One point that was made clear was that the public “may traverse” in the wet sand on the beach anywhere on the 26 miles of Walton County beaches.
Another topic of discussion was the permitting of fire pits (campfires and bonfires) on the beach.
Regarding fire and fireworks, the ordinance currently states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to ignite or maintain, or participate in the maintenance of, a bonfire, campfire, or other activity that results in an open flame on the beach of the Gulf, without a permit as provided herein.”
Fire Marshal Sammy Sanchez spoke about the popularity of ‘bonfires’ at the beach and expressed the great demand for permits on both public and private beach property.
Last year, he indicated that there were over 8,000 permits obtained for public beaches in Walton County and another 3,162 permits given for private beach owners. He added that there is a maximum limit of 50 permits granted per day for public beaches.
Sanchez stated that “50 [permits] is manageable, but it will not increase,” and added that due to the debris left on the beaches by the residue of the fires, the Walton County Board of County Commissioners may want to eventually decrease the number of permits given per day.
Sanchez also stated that the website currently used to obtain permits for bonfires is not working as it should, and stated that the “current program system is on life support.”
One interesting change recommended for the remediation of debris caused by wood burning is the move from wood to propane fueled fires. Propane is considered to be “cleaner and safer,” and Sanchez emphasized that the beaches will stay cleaner [by using this new source for bonfires]… and we will leave a cleaner footprint.”
On a lighter note, questions were asked about those attending campfires/bonfires and the continued creation of s’mores (graham crackers, marshmallows, and Hershey’s chocolate). The Code Compliance Committee replied that S’mores and the use of tiki torches would remain approved for bonfire use.
Added to the conversation was the discussion about tents being used on county beaches. The greatest concern was attributed to the size of some tents and the placement of the tents on the beach. Cornman explained that tents typically are required to move back or further away from the water (closer to the dunes).
Cornman added that the difficulty that Code Compliance faces is when the depth of the beach from the dune to the water’s edge is very narrow. Cornman continued by saying the space for the tents (especially larger tents) is very consuming on our public beaches.
Several citizens spoke about tents and shared that they would readily be in favor of saying “no” to tents, removing access to tents altogether. One citizen who works in tourism said there are already so many rules to follow on our beaches, and if we choose to remove access to tents in a few places, we should be consistent throughout all public beaches. In other words, keep it simple and consistent.
Another citizen said that tents serve a very important purpose for families who bring smaller children to the beach for the day. Having the tents provides a place for families to stay cooler in the heat of summer.
One additional discussion of interest circumvented the tactic used by chair vendors around private beach access.
Over the summer months, it was common to see chairs lined up at the water’s edge (below the ‘Mean High Water Line’.) But the same vendors also used chairs as a “physical boundary” from the dune to the water’s edge. This acted as a boundary that conveys the message – “Do not enter.”
Citizens asked about this vendor tactic today and asked Code Compliance if that [behavior by the vendors] was in violation of the ordinance. From the discussion, it appears that the vendor should not use the chairs as an active boundary/fence.
The afternoon workshop was much more active with a greater amount of participation from the community.
Some of the concerns were the same as the morning session, but there was far greater interest in several areas. The first was the proposed change from wood-burning bonfires to propane-fueled (meaning ‘smokeless’) bonfires. Several vendors expressed their dissatisfaction with the proposal for several reasons.
First, the idea of hauling a tank (or tanks of propane) to the permitted location is not appealing, but the idea of a bonfire fueled by a propane tank and not “crackling hard wood” is counter to the ambiance of an authentic beach bonfire.
A vendor named Jessica specifically addressed the hazards associated with propane tanks and the specific risks related to the required length of the hose connected to the propane tank. She shared that the numerous tragedies resulting from the use of propane tanks in single-family dwellings are very concerning. Her support was then given to a ‘smokeless option’ that also prevents debris left on the beach – a “solo stove.”
The resident also indicated that it is the best option because the bonfire feels real, but the cleanup is easy, complete, and quick and asked the Committee if they knew how many new vendors (over the last year) have begun this service on the beach, and she wondered aloud how many have had training that seeks to instruct vendors on the rules and regulations for beach bonfires. She added that, to her knowledge, there isn’t even a video to watch.
The greatest hypothetical bonfire, however, set at the South Walton Annex for this workshop, was regarding the vendors who, according to Sara Day, are impeding the use of public lands.
There was a much stronger disdain for the power that vendors are allotted on public beaches. Linda Frakes, citizen and current Beach Ambassador for Walton County, challenged, once again, that vendors (those providing company chairs and umbrellas on the beach) in Walton County are in violation of Florida statutes because they are permitted to “set up” seaward or south of the Erosion Control Line (ECL).
Frakes provided a document that was in disagreement with the current practices of Walton County.
After the vendor encroachment issue was shared with the Code Compliance Committee, a number of citizens (one after the other) began to ‘step up’ to be heard by the Director.
Cornman said several times, “Vendors can ‘vend’ [perform their business and set up chairs] below the ECL.”
Day replied, “A county ordinance does not usurp the U.S. Constitution. You cannot take that away,” referring to the implied power and authority that the vendors appear to have below the ECL on the beach.
This portion of the afternoon workshop seemed to imply that it [beach access] is not just about ‘wet sand’ and ‘dry sand.’ There seems to be issues with the power imposed by vendors over visitors who are spending money to vacation in Walton County.
Cornman closed the workshop after indicating the comments presented would be taken into consideration, and a final draft would be presented to the BCC in October or November. He encouraged the citizens present to be in attendance when the Ordinance is presented to the Commissioners so that they can continue to give voice to Code Compliance for the county.
Pro Communi Bono
St. Francis De Sales, Ora Pro Nobis!
Register or login with Mid Bay News and never get another pop up on our site!
