The New Jersey Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving a controversial 295-foot dock in Lavallette’s West Point Island section – a decision that a local environmental advocacy group celebrated as a “major step forward for coastal protections and community rights” on Monday.
The structure, which has been approved by the state’s Tidelands Resource Council (TRC), has sparked widespread concern from residents and environmental advocates over its “unprecedented length, navigation hazards, and disregard for legal planning requirements,” the organization Save Barnegat Bay said in a statement.
Lavallette officials have long had concerns about the proliferation of particularly long docks stretching out from properties on the north shore of West Point Island, and litigation in the matter even drew a response from former celebrity neighbor Joe Pesci. On several occasions, officials have floated the idea of requiring some type of hazard lighting or navigational aids in the area to alert boaters to the existence of the elongated docks at night, but legal counsel for the borough has consistently held that municipal government does not hold jurisdiction over the issue.
According to information previously provided to Shorebeat by officials with the state Department of Environmental Protection, the unusually-long docks were not favored by the property owners, but were required because docks must extend out to a minimum-prescribed depth in order to protect submerged aquatic vegetation – colloquially known as sea grass.
As the litigation moved through the court system, Save Barnegat Bay filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the dock’s approval violates New Jersey’s riparian law because the structure extends well beyond the pierhead line established by state law in 1891, codified within N.J.S.A. 12:3-19. The pierhead lines are the legal boundary beyond which no permanent obstruction is permitted be constructed. The boundary “protects public waters by prohibiting development that interferes with safe navigation and ecological balance,” Save Barnegat Bay argued.
The Tidelands Resource Council is required to fix these marine property lines through comprehensive surveys, in consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the DEP, before approving licenses. The environmental group contends the line was unilaterally re-established by the council to accommodate the dock. The appeal before the Supreme Court challenges the council’s authority to do so on an ad-hoc basis.
While the West Point Island docks – especially the 295-foot dock in question – have raised the most visible concerns, Save Barnegat Bay has said the issue is one that is beginning to pop up coast-wide in New Jersey.
“This dock is not just an outlier—it’s a symptom of a dangerous pattern,” said Britta Forsberg, Executive Director of Save Barnegat Bay. “State agencies are issuing approvals for private structures on public waters without following the law. The result? A chaotic, piecemeal approach that threatens the safety of boaters, damages our fragile ecosystem, and ignores the voices of coastal communities.”
The structure at issue was built at 83 Pershing Boulevard, jutting nearly 300 feet into Barnegat Bay — more than double the length of surrounding docks. According to state officials, the dock’s length was necessary to reach four feet of water depth, a policy meant to protect submerged aquatic vegetation. But residents and SBB have both held that rationale is “deeply flawed.”
“Barnegat Bay is a naturally shallow estuary having an average depth of 5-feet,” said Forsberg. “You don’t protect the bay by encouraging bigger boats and longer docks. You protect it by planning carefully, following the law, and adapting to its natural conditions—not forcing it to adapt to us.”
Environmental and boating safety advocates have compared pierhead lines to development zones for the water — they are designed to keep public waterways navigable, scenic, and safe. Changing them can lead to “chaos,” according to neighbors such as Janine Morris and the Hazard family, who own the neighboring property at 85 Pershing Boulevard.
“This has nothing to do with personalities — it’s a moral issue,” said Morris. “This dock sticks out so far, someone is going to get decapitated. If we all built docks this long, the bay would be a maze of obstructions. It’s unsafe and completely out of character for this neighborhood.”
The hazards are amplified by inexperienced boaters and jet-skiers who may be operating on the bay during the summer, said Diane Kwitnicki, another neighbor who fears a deadly crash is all but inevitable with the unlit docks extending so far into the open bay.
“Knowing the irresponsibility of jet-skiers, in particular, children, I have an immense fear that some will be going on a fast joy ride near the shore and come upon this dock without time to self-correct,” Kwitnicki said. “This is an accident waiting to happen.”
Save Barnegat Bay holds that beyond the immediate safety issue in Lavallette, keeping the policy as-is exposes surrounding properties to lasting economic harm and regulatory uncertainty, and sets a bad precedent for other coastal towns statewide.
“This is not just about one dock—it’s about who controls our public waters,” said Forsberg. “This has been in the courts now for many years and there have been other long docks that have been approved but not built pending this ruling which will set a precedent statewide. Do we let state agencies sidestep their obligations and give away public resources on an ad hoc basis? Or do we demand transparency, planning, and respect for the law?”
Before retiring to California, Pesci – then a resident of Pershing Boulevard – sent his own comments to the state.
“More than doubling these docks undoubtedly would block views of the Bay currently enjoyed by other homeowners. More importantly, these extensions also force boaters, kayakers, and paddlers—including children—to operate in waters farther from land, in the wakes of larger watercraft,” the actor wrote.
The case is expected to be heard later this year.