471 A.2d 355
The Borough of Bay Head borders the Atlantic Ocean along a narrow strip of land approximately one and one quarter miles long.1 Seventy-six parcels of land border the beach, with title to six vested in the Bay Head Improvement Association and the remainder owned by private individuals.2 The Association was founded in 1910 and incorporated as a nonprofit corporation in 1932.3
Its certificate of incorporation states its purposes include improving and beautifying the borough, cleaning and policing the bathing beaches, and doing acts necessary for the convenience and enjoyment of residents.4 The Association owns street-wide strips of dry sand at the end of seven public streets extending to the mean high water line, six additional shorefront properties, and holds revocable leases to approximately forty-two tracts of upland sand area from private owners.5 It controls and supervises the beach from the third week in June through Labor Day with about forty employees serving as lifeguards, beach police, and cleaners.6
Membership in the Association is generally limited to residents of Bay Head, with annual fees of sixty or ninety dollars depending on family size, and guest badges available for twelve dollars. Only members may use the beach between 10:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. during the summer season, while the public may use it after 5:30 p.m. or during the off-season.7 There is no public beach in Bay Head, and the Association's policy restricts access to provide the beach for local residents.8
The Borough of Point Pleasant initiated this suit against Bay Head and the Association asserting denial of access to inhabitants.9 Virginia Matthews, a Point Pleasant resident, and the Public Advocate joined as plaintiffs after the borough was dismissed from the case and later ceased pursuing the litigation.10 The complaint was amended to add over one hundred individual oceanfront property owners as defendants.11 Both sides moved for summary judgment, and after the plaintiff abandoned claims of implied dedication and prescriptive easement, the trial court entered judgment for the defendants.12 The Appellate Division affirmed with one judge dissenting, and the Supreme Court granted certification in 1982.13
Whether the public trust doctrine grants the public rights of access through and use of dry sand areas owned or leased by a quasi-public association?14
The public trust doctrine holds that the State owns tidal lands below the mean high water mark in trust for the public, encompassing rights of navigation, fishing, and recreational uses including bathing and swimming.15 This doctrine extends to municipally owned dry sand areas because full enjoyment of the foreshore is inseparable from reasonable use of the adjacent upland sand.16 The doctrine is not fixed but must be molded to accommodate changing public needs, requiring that the public receive reasonable access to the foreshore and suitable dry sand areas for recreation when such use is essential or reasonably necessary, subject to accommodation of private ownership interests.17
Yes. The established facts show that the Borough of Bay Head borders the Atlantic Ocean along a narrow strip of land approximately one and one quarter miles long with seventy-six parcels bordering the beach.18 Title to six parcels is vested in the Bay Head Improvement Association while the remainder are owned by private individuals.19 The Association owns street-wide strips of dry sand at the end of seven public streets extending to the mean high water line, six additional shorefront properties, and holds revocable leases to approximately forty-two tracts of upland sand area.20
The Association controls and supervises the beach from the third week in June through Labor Day with about forty employees serving as lifeguards, beach police, and cleaners.21 Membership is generally limited to Bay Head residents paying annual fees of sixty or ninety dollars, with only members permitted on the beach between 10:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. during the summer. There is no public beach in Bay Head.22 The public trust doctrine requires reasonable access to the foreshore and a suitable area for recreation on the dry sand because enjoyment of rights in the foreshore cannot be realized without some use of the upland area.23
The Association functions in a quasi-public capacity by operating the beachfront in a manner parallel to a municipality, maintaining a close relationship with the Borough through receipt of office space, tax benefits, insurance coverage, and appropriations, and holding a virtual monopoly over beach access for Bay Head residents.24 Its properties at the ends of public streets are particularly suited to provide the necessary access and incidental use.25 Therefore the doctrine requires that the Association's dry sand areas be opened to the public.26
The public trust doctrine grants the public rights of access through and use of the dry sand areas owned or leased by the quasi-public Association. This compels the Association to open membership to the public at large and to provide a reasonable number of daily and seasonal badges to nonresidents on nondiscriminatory terms.27
Whether a quasi-public nonprofit association operating beaches may restrict membership and access to municipal residents only?28
A nonprofit association that carries out purposes serving the general welfare and functions as a quasi-public institution holds its powers of exclusive control in trust for the public.29 It must exercise any power to exclude reasonably and in furtherance of the public welfare.30 Courts intervene when an association's exclusionary policies conflict with the general welfare or frustrate important public rights, particularly where the association enjoys a virtual monopoly over a vital public resource.31
No. The established facts demonstrate that the Association was founded in 1910 and incorporated as a nonprofit in 1932 with purposes including cleaning, policing, and making safe the bathing beaches for the greater convenience and enjoyment of residents. Its constitution directs it to own property, operate bathing beaches, hire lifeguards, beach cleaners, and policemen, and do all things in the best interests of the Borough.32 The Borough provided the Association with office space without charge, exempted certain parcels from taxation until 1975, extended blanket liability insurance coverage, and appropriated public funds for its benefit.33
The Association operates the beach with lifeguards stationed at five locations, daily cleaning crews, and police enforcing membership rules, servicing approximately five thousand members. By limiting membership to Bay Head residents and excluding the general public during peak hours, the Association prevents the public from exercising its rights under the public trust doctrine in a municipality that has no public beach of its own.34 This restrictive policy, in place since 1932, directly conflicts with the strong public policy favoring expanded public access to shoreline areas and frustrates the public's rights in the foreshore and incidental dry sand use.35 The Association therefore may not restrict membership and access to municipal residents only.36
A quasi-public nonprofit association operating beaches may not restrict membership and access to municipal residents only, and the Association must open its membership and badge system to the public at large while charging reasonable nondiscriminatory fees.37
Whether individual private owners of oceanfront dry sand property must open their beaches to the public under the public trust doctrine?38
Private land is not immune from a possible right of public access to the foreshore or from limited public use of dry sand incidental to bathing and swimming when such use is reasonably necessary, but the existence and extent of any such right depends upon the specific facts and circumstances of each case, including the location of the dry sand relative to the foreshore, the availability of publicly owned or quasi-public upland areas, the nature and extent of public demand, and the owner's actual usage of the land.39
No. The established facts reveal that the complaint was amended to add more than one hundred individual oceanfront property owners as defendants after the Borough of Point Pleasant ceased pursuing the litigation.40 The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants after the plaintiff abandoned claims of implied dedication and prescriptive easement, and the Appellate Division affirmed with one judge dissenting.41 The Supreme Court granted certification.42 On the record developed, nothing justifies requiring all privately owned beachfront property to be opened to the public at this time.43
The Association owns or controls sufficient dry sand areas at the ends of public streets and through leases that, once opened to the public, may reasonably satisfy the public need.44 The court therefore affirms the judgment of dismissal against the individual property owners without prejudice to future adjudication should leases terminate or other circumstances change.45 Resolution of any competing interests between private ownership and the public trust in such cases would depend upon the specific facts presented rather than a blanket requirement applicable to all private owners.46
Individual private owners of oceanfront dry sand property are not required on the present record to open their beaches to the public under the public trust doctrine. Private land remains subject to possible limited public rights depending on the particular circumstances.47