The St. Pete Beach City Commission approved new restrictions on beach signs Tuesday, following a lengthy debate that revealed a much larger conflict over public beach access and private property rights.
Residents argued the signs discourage the public’s longstanding use of the dry sand, while hotel owners said they are simply trying to identify private property, protect guests and give law enforcement the tools to address trespassing.
Commissioners ultimately approved Ordinance 2026-11, creating a 50-foot buffer that prohibits permanent stakes, poles and similar sign structures near the Gulf while still allowing removable A-frame signs outside the restricted area under specific conditions.
The broader dispute, however, is far from settled.
The debate centers on Florida’s customary use doctrine, which recognizes that the public may establish the right to continue using privately owned dry sand beaches if that use has historically been ancient, reasonable, uninterrupted and free from dispute.
In a phone interview with the Catalyst, Commissioner Karen Marriott said the ordinance reflects growing pressure on a beach that has changed significantly in recent years.
“For decades,” Marriott said, “people were pretty good at getting along.”
Today, she said, “more people are shoved into the same amount of space. There starts to be a little bit of friction.”
Supporters of the ordinance argued private beach signs have become an attempt to discourage those historic rights.
“Government can regulate them, but cannot revoke them,” St. Pete Beach resident Dominic Isgro told commissioners. “We have those rights, and we insist on them.”
Isgro argued the ordinance should go even further. “The sign ordinance, frankly, doesn’t go far enough.”
Photographs included in the commission’s agenda packet show large sign assemblies near the shoreline. One stack begins with “Private Beach” and “Private Property – No Trespassing” before listing additional restrictions, including “No Alcohol, No Coolers,” “No Tents, No Umbrellas, No Chairs,” “All Bags Subject to Search” and “No Pets.”
Other images show standalone “No Trespassing – Private Beach” signs alongside hotel beach furniture, as well as rebar survey stakes capped with orange flags protruding from the sand.
To some residents, the signs represented far more than property markers.
“The sign that started all of this was egregious,” resident Deborah Schechtman said. “It was uncomfortable. It was threatening.”
Schechtman said language stating “All Bags Subject to Search” suggested authority private property owners do not possess.
“What we have here,” she said, “are hotels trying to take over our right to walk on the beach.”
Property owners offered a sharply different perspective.
Plaza Beach Hotel owner Rob Czyszczon rejected the notion that beachfront businesses are attempting to keep people off the shoreline.
“We are not telling anybody they cannot walk the beach,” Czyszczon said. “We just don’t want you parking on the beach and staying on private property.”
Czyszczon said clearly marking private property is essential because law enforcement relies on those boundaries when responding to trespassing complaints. He warned commissioners the ordinance could ultimately end up in court.
“If you pass this ordinance, there will be consequences,” he said. “There most likely will be a lawsuit.”
Attorney Alyssa Gagnon, representing beachfront property owners, argued the ordinance is “vague and overbroad” and raises First Amendment concerns.
Melanie Vandergrift, representing Islands End Resort, said beachfront property owners also worry about liability. “If anybody gets hurt,” she said, “they’re going to sue the property owner.”
Marriott said the issue escalated after a beachfront property owner was advised that clearly marking property boundaries was necessary before law enforcement could effectively address trespassing complaints. That led to a survey company installing rebar stakes topped with orange flags to mark property corners along the shoreline.
Marriott said she understood why the owner wanted “to mark his property line. But maybe this isn’t really the best option.”
That search for an alternative ultimately led commissioners to allow removable A-frame signs while prohibiting permanent sign structures closest to the water.
Environmental concerns also factored into the discussion.
During Tuesday’s meeting, St. Pete Beach City Attorney Ralf Brookes cited research suggesting exposed posts can interfere with sea turtle nesting. A study included in the commission’s agenda packet found nesting activity declined by about 41% in a test section of Melbourne Beach where researchers installed exposed pilings designed to simulate shoreline stabilization structures.
Marriott acknowledged the ordinance is unlikely to satisfy everyone.
“I don’t think any of us feel like we really got to the right answer,” she said. “But it’s kind of a start.”
This content provided in partnership with StPeteCatalyst.com
