Another hurdle to cross for Jekyll Island development

January 13, 2008
By CAROLE HAWKINS | The Florida Times-Union

JEKYLL ISLAND - Sand dunes and short trees may alter a $352 million development planned for Jekyll Island's oceanfront.

Project leaders and environmental groups agree that portions of the 63-acre site where Jekyll's new town square center would be built likely fall within the jurisdiction of Georgia's Shore Protection Act. Among other things, the act restricts density in developments built closer to the dunes than the natural tree line.

The demarcation line is naturally occurring 20-foot trees. Dead and planted trees don't count and neither do palms. At the project site, it appears the closest trees 20 feet and taller are across Beachview Drive, on the side of the development farthest from the ocean.

The Jekyll Island Authority, the island's governing body, says it will ask the state Department of Natural Resources to survey the site to determine which portions of the new development will be affected. Critics of the town square center design say this latest gaffe shows the authority has not done things in the proper order.

All possible constraints on the project should have been defined before developers were even allowed to design and bid on the project, they said. Developer Linger Longer Communities had submitted a preliminary design that fills the ocean-side parcel with hotels, condominiums and shops when it was awarded the project in September. But project leaders say responding to Shore Protection requirements is no big deal and plans remain on schedule with a modified site plan to be presented in March.

"It's always been our intention to comply with the Shore Protection Act, as well as our own architectural design guidelines," said Jekyll Marketing Specialist Eric Garvey. "This plan is still very much in its concept phase." Dunes have state protection Dunes serve three important functions, said Susan Shipman, director of the DNR's Coastal Resources Division.

They produce beaches for recreation, provide habitat for protected shore birds and sea turtles, and protect inland areas from storm surges, she said. Georgia's Shore Protection Act is intended to reduce dune erosion by keeping construction off of sand dunes and placing limits on the land next to dunes - areas where back-and-forth wind flow replenishes sand.

"The important thing to note is the Shore Act jurisdiction area is not a no-build area," Shipman said. Construction on the landward side of the dunes could proceed with a DNR permit, she said. Buildings in the jurisdictional area would need to be hurricane resistant and a third of the land would have to remain in a natural topographical and vegetative state, Shipman said.

Linger Longer project executive Jim Langford withheld speculation on what impact Shore Protection guidelines would have to his project. "We still don't know because there's been no official survey yet," he said. "But the process is very straightforward." Langford said the requirement to leave one-third of the property in a natural state will not be difficult to accommodate, since Linger Longer already plans on setting that much area or more aside for green space.

Environmentalists ready Officials at one environmental group say a legal challenge to the development could be mounted if the DNR permits the project in a way that contradicts the intent of the law. It a lawsuit is filed, it would halt construction. Wesley Wolfe, an environmental lawyer for the Georgia Center for a Sustainable Coast, said his organization will keep an eye on the process. "We want to assume Linger Longer and the Jekyll Island Authority will pursue a project that complies with the law," he said.

"But, we've seen the DNR shun responsibility for protecting coastal marshlands and so we have to anticipate they may shun responsibility for protecting shores and beaches as well." David Kyler, executive director of the Center for a Sustainable Coast, said he believes the Shore Protection Act does not allow the DNR to grant a permit - even when the one-third rule is observed - if the project could alternatively be moved to an area outside the act's jurisdiction.

"I've seen hard-surface construction permitted that could have been built farther landward, but the developer, for increased profits, put it closer to the ocean," he said. "Even if you meet the requirement for leaving one-third of the area unused, an argument can be made that the structures are not in the best interests of the state because they interfere with the sand-sharing system," Kyler said.

Shipman, however, says Kyler has the Shore Protection Act confused with the Marshlands Protection Act. The Shore Act has clear language defining the jurisdiction line and what can be built within it, so she feels the possibility of a legal challenge is slight. "It's pretty much a factual determination," she said. "Either a tree is or isn't 20 feet tall.

The applicant will have to calculate the square footage in the parcel and tell us what will be affected and what will be retained. "There's a possibility they will fall within the act's jurisdiction," Shipman said, "but the Jekyll Island Authority is very familiar with the permitting process."