
A Montauk oceanfront hotelier has dropped a row of concrete cesspool rings along the beach to protect the already-damaged site from further erosion in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, but a local environmental advocate claims that the structures aren’t specified in a town emergency permit.
Steve Kalimnios, one of the owners of Double K Management, the company that owns the Royal Atlantic Beach Resort Motel on the beach along South Emerson Avenue, said the concrete rings were recommended by his engineers as “temporary protection”— with a nor’easter expected to hit the South Shore of Long Island on Wednesday—while the compromised foundation of the building gets repaired.
“All we’re trying to do is protect the structural integrity of the building itself,” Mr. Kalimnios said.
But Jeremy Samuelson, the executive director of the environmental group the Concerned Citizens of Montauk, said town and state emergency permits for the work don’t specify any concrete rings to be placed on the shoreline, according to his knowledge. Because town officials haven’t signed off on the rings, it raises the question of what impacts the structures could have on neighboring properties. Mr. Samuelson also argued that the hardened structures are not permitted on the beach in that area.
The business should “shoot straight” with the public and the town, he said.
“What would have been wrong with that?” Mr. Samuelson said. “Because they didn’t do that we now don’t have the assurance that this structure isn’t actually going to cause or even run the risk of harming the adjacent properties during the repair process while they fix their building.”
Mr. Samuelson said that the emergency town permit calls only for placement of beach-compatible sand. But Mr. Kalimnios said that could be interpreted broadly, and that something had to be done to prevent the building from falling into the ocean.
“You receive an emergency permit and the emergency permit is to take care of what is an emergency,” he said. “Is every nail, hammer or board specified in a permit? That’s not the way it works.”
Mr. Kalimnios also emphasized that he and other oceanfront business owners have long been behind a “soft solution” to address what’s become annual, or biennial erosion to beaches. He said no local organizations have approached these businesses to get the ball seriously rolling on a beach restoration solution.
East Hampton Town Supervisor Bill Wilkinson did not immediately return a call on Tuesday. Town Hall was closed for Election Day.
Seems as if a few aren't willing to see the larger picture here.
"Landowners often assume that a hard, barrier-type structure will be required to prevent loss of property and protect buildings. However, there are indirect costs
associated with mitigation options that armor the shoreline. Many of these are borne by the public rather than the landowner. For example, installation of a groin to trap sand can affect neighboring beaches while ...more a bulkhead built on an eroding beach will eventually become the shore edge, replacing the beach that provided public access and scenic amenities." -- Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
http://www.vims.edu/cbnerr/_docs/ctp_docs/ls_docs/06_LS_Intro.pdf
The use of these is damaging to adjacent properties and is not about "property rights" or protecting ones assessts, it's about not giving a ____ about anyone else and not understanding the risks involved in owning a land on a sandbar next to the ocean. All you have to do is take a stroll down to the lighthouse to see that George Washington ...more himself understood the dynamics of erosion and sandbars.
While the waves and sand to a certain extent can pass through the structures, their intended purpose is to reflect the waves, do you not agree?
Take a look at aerial imagery of coastlines ...more that feature bulkheaded properties jutting out into the ocean - or areas of groin fields. The rocks/bulkheading/sheathing etc. protects what's behind it but inevitably causes erosion to adjacent properties. This has been proven many times over.
I'm not against someone protecting their property - but it should not be done at the expense of others. Additionally, the property owner was well aware of the risks involved of owning a building located so close to the ocean and should have taken proper precautions to avoid such a situation. I do not wish to see his building crumble into the sea, but where do you draw the line? Should he be able to put in steel bulkheading even though the state doesn't allow it because he is trying to save a business?
This map also includes gas and recovery information for most of the coast from North Carolina to Montauk.
It is actually ...more mind-blowing how much information Google has assembled in two weeks.
Check it out.
Google for President?
if anybody cannot believe this scenario take a look at the devastation 80 miles west. That storm was predicted to come 50 miles more north. This conversation would be a lot different
Its tme for the Town and CCOM to work on solutions ...more and stop bashing local property owners who are footing the bill to save Montauk ALL ON THERE OWN!
Take a ride up the island - that could have been us.
Why arent those same nay sayers vocal about solutions. Better yet put your own money where your mouth is and help nourish our beach. It doesnt take a brain surgeon to understand that those few places cant keep paying to protect ...more our town center. (posted picture of last storm)
Do you think that if those buildings go away so will the problem - think again. Its like russiian rullete with our town - we need to BAND TOGETHER FOR SOLUTIONS!!