Kalikow's Request to Extend 'Monster' Dock Comes Under Fire
Over 800 residents oppose the dock extension, but the applicant said there would be environmental benefits.
Members of a citizens group have vowed to rail against a prominent Montauk resident's application to extend what's is already the longest dock in East Hampton Town.
Attorney James Henry, representing the Concerned Citizens of Montauk, told the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday night that he spoke of the behalf of, “800 citizens who are opposed to this project who will fight it tooth and nail.”
Peter Kalikow, a former chairman of the Metropolitan Transit Authority and former publisher of The New York Post, has applied for a variance that would allow him to extend the length of his 145 foot dock by another 15 feet into Lake Montauk.
Eric Bregman, Kalikow's attorney, said his client needs a dock that extends further into the depths of the lake because his boat is causing a problem in the shallower end. “The whole purpose here is just to mitigate the effects of the use of the dock and the use of the boat," he said.
“It’s very difficult to operate the boat at low tide," Bregman told the ZBA in the over three hour long hearing. "As a result, the bow that’s closest to the shore at low tide is often on the bottom and the stern where the propeller is often close enough to the bottom to stir up the bottom.”
The proposed extension would provide about 18 inches of additional depth, according to Bregman.
Bregman argued the extension would be beneficial to all. “If he continues to use it, it’s just going to continue to cause more damage, or more damage than it would if it were extended. This will make it better."
He acknowledged a study by the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County which found that the reason there is currently no eelgrass around the dock is partly because of the construction of the original dock and the ongoing operation of the boat.
But, Henry argued that the siltation and turbidity of Lake Montauk is hugely detrimental to the health of the lake and that this extension project and ongoing use of the boat, a 40 foot, magnum, dual inboard according to Henry, would only further the problem.
Henry sait is already "the largest single private dock in all of East Hampton.” It is, he said, 250 percent of the length permitted by East Hampton Town code.
Jeremy Samuelson, an environmental advocate with the Group for the East End, agreed. “The code says 400 square feet. We’re at 1,600 sqaure feet,” he told the board.
He continued, “At four times the limit Mr. Kalikow is saying that if he could build a little bigger, it would be better for the environment.”
“Is bigger going to be better for the environment?,” he said. “Anyone who is being intellectually honest has to say that the answer is ‘no’.”
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service have studied Lake Montauk and concluded, according to Samuelson, the existing dock and operation of the boat was hugely detrimental to an acre surrounding that area.
While Bregman read from a letter written in support by Larry Penny, director of the town's Department of Natural Resources, Penny advised that Kalikow and the town should make an agreement to try to restore the eelgrass, fauna and epifauna that was once in the area.
Brian Frank, the chief environmental analyst for the town advised the board, “I don’t think that the answer is very black and white.” He acknowledged accuracies on both sides of the argument, adding, “There are benefits to eliminating the disturbances that are going on now.”
An extended dock would also be 10 feet closer to the channel, but would not impede navigation, Bregman said. Showing a map to the board he explained, “This very map was reviewed by the Coast Guard and they said it’s no problem to navigation.”
Kalikow would be willing to assume the cost of the addition and maintenance of six fixed navigation markers along the waterway adjacent to his property, Bregman told the ZBA. “I think the navigation is a non-issue and if anything it gets improved with the offer of the markers."
Richad Kahn, a member of Concerned Citizens of Montauk who opposed the extension, told the board, “If you approve this variance. Why can’t I have a dock?” He continued, “I’m 80 years old and I have to carry my kayak into the lake. How do you say ‘no’ to me if you approve this monster?”
val
8:12 am on Friday, April 1, 2011
So now we are worried about a single homeowner not being able to extend his dock for a pleasure boat when we have a fishing fleet hampered by a buildup of sand at the Montauk jetty? Really?
Where is the town leadership?
PATRIOT
8:46 am on Friday, April 1, 2011
Town leadership ... destroying fishing fleet one administration after the other ...recent firings prove the lack of concern for the industry .Emergency situation"
must be declared ! Force our "leaders" to do right!
Lawsuits wake sleeping " politicos" .. file now!
Concerned Suffolk Resident
8:46 am on Friday, April 1, 2011
Perhaps Sen. Ken LaValle could offer some assistance to local residents on this issue. Oh, wait: Mr. Kalikow, his family and businesses have given Sen. LaValle thousands upon thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to get him re-elected in recent years. Maybe we should keep our eyes on Albany for home-rule legislation that would let the poilitically connected build Monster Docks without hassle.
Katy Casey
9:36 am on Friday, April 1, 2011
quid pro quo: permit Kalikow to dredge the boat basin and inlet in exchange for a permit to extend his dock. Might as well, no one else has access to that side of the lake now anyway. : (
val
10:54 am on Friday, April 1, 2011
Problem with quid pro quo is that the town can end up "owing" a powerful, wealthy interest, who then has a stake simply by virtue of their wealth and power. I didn't vote for Kalikow.
The village of East Hampton is practically useless now for year-rounders thanks to the move toward deep-pocket national chains -- who can't wait for June store openings?
I didn't vote for Kalikow. Not settling for "might as well" when it comes to the town's best option for a healthy Lake Montauk. Don't give up the good fight.
BooBa
11:57 am on Saturday, April 2, 2011
Dredge the shoal at the end of the inlet and put the sand at the end of his new dock!
Steve
4:58 pm on Saturday, April 2, 2011
SAVE THE LAKE!
I only wish that those that have taken the time to respond, would focus on reality.
If you are a true environmentalist, truly interested in protecting this natural resource, our lake, You must look at the root cause of the damage that’s occurring and not these tit for tat little issues.
Damages to sub-aquatic life is occurring due to the lack of the natural flush that the lake should be receiving.
Plain and simple; while trying to restrict our residents under the heading of “environmentally sound” we are chocking the supply of water needed to flush the stagnant waters of our lake thru natural shoaling.
Let’s try some common sense for once; how about we give Kalicow permission to extend the dock with the proviso that he deepen the channel or install /fix the clean-out that once was between the lake and Snug harbor marina.
The town is broke - we don’t have the money to do this.
Sometimes you need to give something to get something needed in return. Let’s do the right thing.
I know this would probably never happen, and Ill get flooded with death threats - but bottom line, the lake needs to be flushed more to stay healthy!
BooBa
7:20 pm on Saturday, April 2, 2011
Does anyone realize that Lake Montauk was once a fresh water lake! Why don't we put it back the way it was and shut everybody up!
Steve
11:13 am on Sunday, April 3, 2011
Sorry Robert, I will not bite.
Like the old saying:
One foot on the past and one foot on the future only leaves us @$@@! On today.
We have a lake that needs care, let's come together on real fixes.
The divide is what some want us to have so that nothing is done, and that's not what the lake needs
val
12:12 pm on Sunday, April 3, 2011
Counting on the well-heeled to provide for a town that we all live in smacks of returning to a lord-tenant time of the past. We elected a town government to do what is right--maintain our environment for all, not just a chosen few. And once you go hat in hand to powerful interests, your goose is cooked.
Amending the quote of Roy Scheider's character in "Jaws," I might add -- "Mr. Kalikow, you are going to need a SMALLER boat."
Steve
2:13 pm on Sunday, April 3, 2011
Thanks pat for restating your previous comment.
However, in life few things are as black and white as one may think. You are clearly an intelligent person, I’m sure you agree there are at least some valid points on both sides of the discussion.
Remember, while in deadlock debate nothing gets done; our plants, organisms and wild life are dying every day due to the lack of flush the lake receives.
Should we really continue to let that happen or try to meet in the middle to actually accomplish something right?
As well intentioned as it is, the town is broke and does not have the money to address the health of our lake.
"Sometimes a bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush"
Katy Casey
8:46 am on Monday, April 4, 2011
This Lake Montauk debate is starting to sound like the national agenda. Ironically, both the Tea Partyists and the Liberal Left are chanting the same mantra. I believe we are actually headed back to a feudalistic state (Pat), I am not advocating for it, I am seeing the pattern. Capitalist/ Laissez-faire types want government to take a step back and allow free market conditions, and I use the term loosely, to make corrections. Left-leaning organizers want the government to govern thoroughly, and that requires tax revenue, the top 5% (like Kalikow) expected the pay more proportionally. My quid pro quo comment was a little sarcastic, but I believe it is viable a solution at the same time. If a deal was negotiated in good faith, by open process, executed fairly with no residual obligation on either side, Kalikow could supresize his yacht and the eel grass could get some much needed oxygen. To quote Willmott," Why Not?"
val
8:59 am on Monday, April 4, 2011
One important, practical reason for why not is that you are putting in place a mindset for an eventual breakdown in policy -- rich donors don't live forever, you are forever searching for one when one passes on, and government becomes nothing more than a beggar of favors. The public good should set precedent, not what is right-now convenient. Bow once, you bow forever.
There is no "deal in good faith" in this situation. I am sure that the first time the longest dock in East Hampton was negotiated, we thought THAT was the end of that, right?
Steve
12:36 pm on Monday, April 4, 2011
Katy, I certainly hope its not sounding that way, and also hope not to be lumped into either category "hard -left/right".
I only wish the dialog could stand on its own (without labels), and an outcome reached that actually sees benefit to our environment. *what a novel idea
As you most eloquently stated;
"If a deal was negotiated in good faith, by open process, executed fairly with no residual obligation on either side"
I too am not advocating subjugating rules, policy or review - if it’s a viable option it should be explored we owe it to the environment.
Healthy discussions specific to this topic is good. Comments of new docks have no bearing on this matter and only derail any hope that the health of the lake can be improved.
New docks / structures require a new permit application however law states that existing structures have the right to be maintained. If shoaling is occurring at or around his dock that impedes on safe navigational use options must be explored and allowed.
I would like to see an out come that makes sense environmentally and financially - if Kats original suggestion doesn’t work with the dock, open the clean-out, that existed at snug harbor.
Which ever you chose lets “save the lake”