Coast is development battlefield

February 4, 2007
BRANDON LARRABEE | The Times-Union

ATLANTA - When Tise Eyler stands on the southern end of Jekyll Island, near a youth development center that many of the island's residents treasure, he sees a "million-dollar view."

There is, currently, no cost for the view. And Eyler, president of the Jekyll Island Citizen's Association, would like to keep it that way. But he admits everyone might not share his enthusiasm for leaving the area untouched.

"If I were the developer, I'd really want to have that," he acknowledges.

Eyler and other coastal residents and the developers, too, find themselves in the middle of a swirl of events unfolding throughout state government, issues that have found their way to the General Assembly. Because Georgia has some of the least-developed coastline, property owners interested in development are clashing with other property owners allied with environmentalists in disputes that are showing up in many branches of government hundreds of miles away.

The Board of Natural Resources is considering new rules spelling out how the department it oversees will evaluate the placement of buildings and parking lots when it reviews applications for marinas, community docks and boat ramps on the state's coastal marshlands.

At the same time, the Jekyll Island Authority is considering how to redevelop parts of the island with the hopes ofreversing a trend of sliding attendance at the state park.

Lawmakers have begun to jump into the fray on both issues, introducing resolutions and bills that could affect the outcome of the coastal battles.

Getting involved

Legislation in this article:

House Resolution 51, on the marsh rules: www.legis.ga.gov/legis/2007_08/fulltext/hr51.htm
House Bill 214, extending the lease for Jekyll Island: www.legis.ga.gov/legis/ 2007_08/fulltext/hb214.htm

Some lawmakers mentioned in this article:
Rep. Terry Barnard, R-Glennville, (404) 656-5138, terry.barnard@house.ga.gov
Sen. Jeff Chapman, R-Brunswick, (404) 656-0045, jeff.chapman@senate.ga.gov
Sen. Eric Johnson, R-Savannah, (404) 656-5109, eric.johnson@senate.ga.gov
Rep. Jerry Keen, R-St. Simons Island, (404) 656-5052, jerry.keen@house.ga.gov
Rep. Brian Thomas, D-Lilburn, (404) 656-0325, brian.thomas@house.ga.gov
Rep. Al Williams, D-Midway, (404) 656-6372, caw@coastalnow.net

To contact the Department of Natural Resources Coastal Resources Division, call (912) 264-7218 To contact the Jekyll Island Authority, call (912) 635-2236

Protecting the marsh

Of the two issues, the one where the legislature might have the smallest chance of making an immediate impact is on the rules for protecting coastal marshes, which are being hashed out at the Department of Natural Resources.

"I don't know that there's, at this point, any attempt to go around the DNR," said Senate President Pro Tem Eric Johnson, R-Savannah.

The conflict arose because the department's board sought to systematize how it grants permits to commercial property owners wanting to disturb the marsh to erect a dock, walkway, boat ramp or such. A draft of the rules would have required "upland facilities," such as buildings and parking lots, to be built at least 25 feet away from the marsh.

Scientists say that buffer of undisturbed vegetation would filter pollutants from pavement and roofs that rainwater would otherwise wash into the fragile marsh ecosystem.

But the board committee that oversees the coastal marsh regulations rejected the draft, asking the department's staff to recast the rules with a 50-foot buffer.

Critics note the rules won't apply to private property owners or where a permit isn't needed for commercial construction that doesn't extend into the marsh. Local zoning rules and existing state laws are sufficient to protect the environment in those cases, they say, and can also handle the projects that require permits.

House Democrats have offered a resolution calling for the Board of Natural Resources to reject the first draft as its committee has done.

"People have got to realize the reason the [property] values are so high on the coast is because we have something special," said House Minority Leader DuBose Porter, D-Dublin, a cosponsor of the resolution.

Critics of the rules are also prepared to act.

Sen. Jeff Chapman, R-Brunswick, said he doesn't believe any buffer should be demanded of property owners as long as they take other required steps to control potentially contaminant-filled runoff.

Chapman said the legislature should revise the Erosion and Sedimentation Act, a separate law that DNR used as the rationale for the 25-foot barrier.

To Chapman, any buffer could run afoul of the U.S. Constitution because it would take away the rights of property owners to use their land, just like condemning the property, unless the state gives them compensation.

Property-rights advocates often call those kinds of rules "regulatory takings."

"It's always disturbing to see that kind of taking," Chapman said. "Now, here we are talking about expanding that to 50 feet."

But Rep. Brian Thomas, a Lilburn Democrat and lead sponsor of the marsh rule resolution, said buffers are necessary because the entire state benefits from the marshes, nicknamed the nursery of the sea because of the numbers of fish that begin their lives there.

"What happens when there's no buffer and the marshlands are destroyed? That's a taking," Thomas said. "That's taking a valuable resource away from every citizen of Georgia."

Developing the island

Meanwhile, attention is also focusing on the fate of Jekyll Island, a state park in Glynn County.

"In the '50s, we had some decent properties put there, and Jekyll really was a thriving island," said Terry Barnard, R-Glennville, chairman of the House committee that oversees the island and other state properties. "No one really is looking at investing in Jekyll anymore."

The state leased Jekyll Island to the authority in 1950, granting the agency a 99-year agreement. A bill introduced this past week by Barnard would extend that lease another 99 years, to 2148, with the hope of stimulating more interest in the island by providing assurance of long-term stability.

There is little debate over the lease extension, which includes both commercial and residential property. Even residents worried about development on the island need a lease to remain, so they have no qualms about the extension.

But Chapman, who represents Glynn County in the Senate, has concerns about extending the residential leases.

"I'm not comfortable with the idea that residents are living on a state park. I don't know that that was a good idea to start with," he said. "To make the same mistake over, I don't think is wise."

Unquestioned is a long-standing state standard that only 35 percent of the island can be developed. The other 65 percent of the island should remain pristine.

"I will defend to the death the 65 percent," said Rep. Joe Wilkinson, R-Sandy Springs, a member of the board of the Jekyll Island Foundation, which raises money for island projects. "We will never let that be developed."

The redevelopment of the island is focused on how to revitalize the creaking hotels and infrastructure that many say is a key reason the island hasn't been as successful in recent years. Any plan also has to balance state laws requiring that Jekyll be "available to people of average income."

"I don't know what average Georgian means, and I don't know what's affordable," said House Majority Leader Jerry Keen, R-St. Simons Island. "I know that [with] the prices they're charging now, people are not coming. ... I think what you see for average Georgians is not that they're looking for five stars, in terms of their accommodations, but they're looking for value."

But, in adding that value, residents hope the state doesn't tinker with what makes the island almost unique along the East Coast shore.

"You can overdevelop the 35 percent to the point that it affects the 65 percent that, quote, remains undeveloped," Eyler said.

Rep. Al Williams, D-Midway, introduced a nonbinding resolution Friday urging the authority to be careful with any plans to redevelop the available portion of the island.

"We're never going to have another Jekyll Island," Williams said. "This is it. We're either going to ruin it or preserve it. ... We can improve it without ruining it."