SOUTHAMPTON TOWN FIGHTS FOR BEACH ACCESS

 

By Dan Rattiner

If Robert Simpson of East 61st Street in Manhattan thinks for one minute that the Town of Southampton is going to stand by and permit the closing off of vehicular traffic upon the land the Town owns beachfront in Bridgehampton, he’s got another thing coming. Last week, the Town sent a bulldozer down to the sand driveway of this property to remove some boulders Mr. Simpson placed on this town-owned land. Two years ago, the Town sent equipment out to remove some concrete posts that Mr. Simpson had placed there.

The 2.7-acre parcel owned by the town is of some interest to Mr. Simpson because townspeople keep trying to use it and he lives right next door. He bought the parcel next door six years ago, and although the prior owner and the town got along just fine for twenty years, Mr. Simpson felt that things would be much quieter for him and his friends and family if he simply blocked the ability of the townspeople to use their property. Twice now he has tried to do so. Twice the town has come down to the beach to remove his obstructions.

The property in question is a formerly private recreation area at the eastern end of a 23-lot subdivision that runs on the south side of Surfside Drive in Bridgehampton. Surfside is the last left off Ocean Road. On the south side of Surfside, the lots border the ocean. On the north side they are inland. The Simpson parcel is the last building lot on the ocean side of this dead end road. The town parcel is a recreation property originally owned in common by the 23.

The history of these properties is very straightforward. Until 1965, the property was owned by one individual. And there was no Surfside Drive.

In 1965, a developer (BRIDGEHAMPTON DUNES, INC., later known as SAGPOND ESTATES) presented the town with a plan to develop the site. A dead end private road would be built from Ocean Road. On the south of it there would be 23 building lots. The parcel beyond the 23 on the south side on the end, would be owned in common by the other 23 and would be a recreation area. A restriction said that there could be no vehicular access to the ocean on this lot, except for the launching of boats. As for the private Surfside Drive, it would only be for the use of the property owners in the development.

In 1987, the owners of the 23, believe it or not, lost control of this common recreation parcel by defaulting on the taxes. The County took it, and the Town bought it at auction. It could be a small beach park, with access from Surfside Drive. As for the restricted use of Surfside Drive — the Town’s ownership of this one parcel makes all town residents property owners within this development.

Mr. Simpson, after buying the lot next door six years ago, built a magnificent mansion of glass and wooden decks as a second home for himself and his family. He had a clear view of anyone driving out the road to the town beach park there.

In 2000, Mr. Simpson, uninvited, erected concrete posts to prevent town residents from having Surfside Drive access to their lot. The next day, the Town Highway Department received a call from some fishermen saying somebody had erected a barrier to the town owned beach property, and later that day Town Supervisor Cannuscio called Mr. Simpson “an icon of arrogance,” and ordered the Highway Department to go down there to tear it out, which they did, in the presence of the Town Supervisor and many members of the media.

Mr. Simpson, now looking out at fishermen’s beach buggies again, bided his time. Then, sometime last spring, Mr. Simpson quietly made application to State Supreme Court Judge John J. J. Jones Jr. demanding that the town be prevented from using vehicles on the sand road. He argued that 1. the use of the vehicles made excessive noise and at night bright headlights shone into his home creating a bother to him and his family and friends and 2. that there was a restriction that said none of the homeowners in the subdivision could take vehicles out to the beach on this common parcel, except for the purpose of the launching of boats.

According to the Town Attorney who is now handling the case, Mr. Simpson simply left out in his application that if and when this common recreation parcel were sold, these restrictions would cease to exist. The logic of this is actually quite ingenious. No such restriction exists on all the other lots, because each is owned privately and the private owner can decide who drives or doesn’t drive on his property. Thus, if this common lot gets sold, it too gets to not have this restriction. The dropping of the restriction occupies liber 5831, page 414, lines 8 to 13 of the covenant in the county ledger.

What happened after this was a bureaucratic foul-up by the town attorney’s office. At the time, the town attorney was Steve Brown. And he handed the demand from Simpson over to a special attorney. But the special attorney hired by the town thought that Steve Brown was handling this particular case. In the mix up, the town failed to reply to the demand. They got an extension, but then Steve Brown had a heart attack and had to resign his post. The date to reply then passed. And Simpson was awarded a victory by default. From the town’s perspective, the arrival of the boulders brought in by Simpson was a surprise. But they could not remove them because of the court order, and the boulders stayed for about a year.

The new town attorney, Garrett Swenson, applied to the judge to reopen the case and to void Mr. Simpson’s right to block the town from the use of its property. And last week, Judge Jones ruled that he would not reopen the case, but that his ruling did not give Mr. Simpson the right to put an obstruction on a neighbor’s property. And so the boulders have now been removed, but there is also a sign warning residents that they may still not use this sand road for vehicular access.

This partial victory does not satisfy the Town at this point. And so they are preparing an appeal to a higher court, arguing that where the interests of the residents of an entire town are at stake, the improper actions of the town attorney’s office should not be allowed to prevail.

Mr. Swenson told me today that just as soon as he can get this matter before a new judge, if ever, he will show how this restriction drops away. He urged me to read the actual wording of it. And so I got a copy and here it is. See it for yourself.

“……and said rights shall continue until but shall terminate if and when Declarant (Bridgehampton Dunes) conveys the above described premises in accordance with Declarant’s covenant, as hereinafter set forth, and upon such conveyance all of the rights hereby granted shall in all respects at once cease and determine (settle – ed.) without notice.”