St. Pete Beach officials are restricting where beachfront property owners can place “no trespassing” signs after approving an emergency ordinance aimed at protecting public beach access and improving safety.
The ordinance, passed April 28 in a 4-1 vote, prohibits signs, posts and poles within 50 feet of the mean high-water line (MHWL). City leaders said the measure follows mounting complaints over signage placed in wet sand that appeared to blur the line between public and private property.
“We have received significant concern from the community over the various poles being erected within the sand close to the waterline,” City Manager Frances Robustelli said during the meeting. “We have concerns this presents a safety issue.”
Under Florida law, the MHWL generally marks the boundary between state-owned land and privately owned beachfront property. The line is calculated using tidal data collected over an 18.6-year period and rarely aligns with the visible shoreline on any given day.
That shifting boundary became a central point of debate during public comment.
Resident Dominic Isgro questioned how the city plans to enforce the ordinance, noting that the MHWL constantly changes and can be difficult to identify in practice. He argued the line is often closer to the western edge of the dunes than the visible waterline.
Beachfront property owner Jacques Martino echoed those concerns and urged city officials to create a clearly defined standard so “enforcement can be fair and consistent for everyone.”
Martino also noted that local law enforcement has previously encouraged property owners to clearly mark private property boundaries when addressing trespassing concerns.
The ordinance includes several exemptions. Government agencies and organizations serving a public function, such as sea turtle monitoring groups protecting nests, may continue posting signage. Existing beachfront watercraft operators, including jet ski rental companies, are also permitted one sign within 40 feet of the visible waterline.
However, some residents and attorneys argued the ordinance could create legal challenges.
Alyssa Gagnon, an attorney with Webber, Crab and Wein, told commissioners the measure may infringe on constitutional protections involving free speech and private property rights.
“At its core, the ordinance is just plainly viewpoint discriminatory,” Gagnon said. “It’s justified on the premise that signs can pose a risk to public safety and health, yet creates an exception for government signs without explaining how they would be safer … it allows the government to speak in a space but restricts everyone else.”
Gagnon also warned that ambiguity surrounding what qualifies as prohibited signage could extend beyond property markers and affect protest signs or other forms of expression.
The debate also highlighted longstanding tensions over beachfront property rights in Florida.
In many cases, public-private boundaries shift naturally through erosion and accretion. However, beach renourishment projects can establish a fixed Erosion Control Line (ECL), which legally locks in the boundary even as storms and shoreline changes alter the beach itself.
Property owners have argued that renourishment projects, dunes, public-access easements and storm-driven shoreline migration have expanded public use into areas they once considered private.
Despite those concerns, commissioners approved the ordinance and gave beachfront property owners seven days to remove prohibited signs.
The measure also establishes a 60-day moratorium while city officials work with residents and stakeholders to evaluate whether the ordinance effectively balances public access, safety and private property rights.
This content provided in partnership with StPeteCatalyst.com
