Future of Truck Beach in Court’s Hands
A lawsuit aimed at keeping vehicles off a 4,000-foot stretch of ocean beach on Napeague began on Monday with the presentation of an edited video showing a beach crowded with vehicles, people, and dogs on a summer weekend in 2014. Plaintiffs sharpened their line of attack Tuesday, seeking to frame the dispute in terms of public health and safety and blaming the beach-driving permits issued free of charge to residents for what they say is an out-of-control situation.
The plaintiffs are oceanfront property owners; East Hampton Town and the town trustees are the defendants.
Town Councilman Fred Overton and Ed Michels, the town’s chief harbormaster, were among those called to the witness stand on Tuesday. The plaintiffs also called a public health sanitarian and an aquatic safety consultant to advance their argument that some beachgoers congregating on the stretch of beach between the end of Napeague Lane and the border of Napeague State Park are defying the town’s beach regulations. Town beach-driving rules were amended in 1991 to allow vehicles on that stretch of beach on summer days.
Both sides have drawn a line in the sand, with the majority of homeowners claiming ownership of the beach above the high-tide line by virtue of an 1882 deed. The town board and trustees are adamant that public access in all forms as well as the traditional activities that accompany it are allowed. Should the plaintiffs prevail, the town will move to condemn the shorefront in dispute, as well as another stretch that is the subject of a similar lawsuit.
Representing the plaintiffs, Stephen Angel told Justice Ralph Gazzillo of State Supreme Court in Riverhead that because most of the other ocean beaches are off-limits to drivers on summer days, his clients bear a burdensome and hazardous situation on what is sometimes referred to as Truck Beach. The town, he further implied, makes no effort to encourage use of nonresidential oceanfront areas.
There are no restroom facilities at the beach in question. Interrogating Mr. Michels, Mr. Angel sought to portray a relaxed or even negligent attitude toward enforcement of the town code. “Do you know what people do when they need to use the restroom?” he asked. No, was the reply.
Mr. Michels conceded that the number of vehicles, and subsequent complaints, increased around 2001, after New York State required that cars and trucks entering Napeague State Park, east of the beach in question, display a paid state permit. Complaints involved vehicles exceeding the 15-miles-per-hour speed limit or having no beach-driving sticker, he said.
But since that peak period, he told James Catterson, representing one of the homeowners, “it’s backed off a bit, or a combination of people behaving better.” Families take four-wheel-drive vehicles to the beach particularly on Sundays, he said, because most adults work every other day of the week.
His department makes multiple daily patrols, Mr. Michels told Mr. Angel, and he estimated 50 to 100 vehicles congregating over a half-mile stretch.
Had he ever seen as many as 150? “I could have,” he said.
Mr. Catterson sought to portray lax enforcement, but Mr. Michels did not cooperate. “Just because someone says this is happening doesn’t mean it’s happening,” he said of a telephoned complaint. “We’ve gone down there on a hundred occasions for a complaint . . . and it’s not there when I arrived.”
Nor does a summons result from each of the tens of thousands of complaints called in to the East Hampton Town Police Department annually, he observed. “I can tell you, they don’t let anything go that they can write a summons for.” Michael Rikon, representing the town, asked Mr. Michels if his department enforced the town’s beach code prohibitions. Speeding, fires, litter — all would result in a summons, he answered.
Under questioning by Anthony Tohill, representing the trustees, the harbormaster said he has been familiar with the area in question since 1993, when he was first hired by the town. Now, as then, people swim, barbecue, picnic, and play volleyball — “whatever you do in normal beach activity.” He said he could not recall a single beach-code violation issued on the 4,000-foot stretch in dispute, nor any injuries, illnesses, or arrests there.
Mr. Overton, who supervised the issuance of beach permits during his 14 years as town clerk, said he has visited that beach sporadically since 1974, in a vehicle. Given there are no restroom facilities, Mr. Angel asked, what did people do? “I can’t tell you,” Mr. Overton said. “I know what I did: I didn’t.”
Mr. Angel continued to portray a situation spiraling out of control, citing a jump in town-issued resident beach driving permits from 151 in 2000 to 1,793 the following year, with well over 1,000 issued annually since then. The permits do not expire. With more than 21,000 issued since 1999, Mr. Catterson suggested that “there is a permit out there for every man, woman, and child, and, presumably, unleashed dog.”
That was incorrect, Mr. Overton said. Stickers fade over time, a vehicle’s bumper may be replaced, or a vehicle may be sold. There are various reasons why someone could obtain three or even more permits over a 10 or 15-year span. “I’ve never run a report for that information,” he testified.
Mr. Catterson then asked about the town board’s move to condemn the beach, which Mr. Overton said he supports. Why would he vote to appropriate taxpayer money for condemnation proceedings against land that is publicly owned, he was asked. “It was suggested to me that there was a title dispute,” Mr. Overton answered. “There’s other residents of the town that claim they own the beach. I believe the public owns the beach. If it takes a court action to prove the public owns the beach, I support that.”
Mr. Angel also called Robert Powitz, a public health sanitarian who lives in Connecticut. By request of the plaintiffs, he surveyed the beach in August 2013, arriving at 11:30 a.m. when, he said, “cars had started to gather.” When he left a few hours later, there were around 80, he said, as well as several dogs, trash, and a high concentration of people. He said it was “disturbing” that ingress and egress was often blocked. “Had there been an emergency of any kind, it would have been hard to enter or exit.”
The conditions, Mr. Powitz said, did not comply with standards for a recreational beach. “We noticed people go into the dunes. People defecate, urinate in water. We saw dogs doing it. People were there for the entire day — they have to go.” There should be control, he said, and state health regulations should apply.
On cross-examination by Mr. Rikon, Mr. Powitz admitted that he had not seen the chapter of town code pertaining to beaches. “You’re unaware, sir, that all of those conditions are specifically prohibited?” he was asked. And was that not a police matter? The police or Health Department, Mr. Powitz replied. Had he knowledge of any illness caused by bathing at that beach in the last 100 years? No, was the answer.
Mr. Rikon continued in an effort to discredit Mr. Powitz’s conclusions. If only the plaintiffs swim and enjoy other beach activities, should the beach be subject to state regulations, he asked. Yes, was the answer. So, if the plaintiffs prevail and vehicles are banned, would the property owners be required to place lifeguards and construct toilets? “Whoever does it, that’s what code requires, yes,” Mr. Powitz said. By that logic, Mr. Rikon implied, lifeguards and toilet facilities must be present at all of the town’s 22 miles of ocean beach. Moreover, nothing in state regulations pre-empt local governments from enacting their own regulations with respect to beaches, he said.
Thomas Griffiths, the aquatic safety consultant, had also been asked to visit the beach in August 2013. He told Mr. Angel that he had observed vehicles swerving and children playing between, behind, and in front of them. He called the scene “an accident waiting to happen.”
Mr. Rikon asked Mr. Griffiths if he had ascertained the number of accidents at the beach over the 20 years prior to the lawsuit, or obtained police reports. Mr. Griffiths said that he had not.
The trial continued yesterday. According to lawyers and other observers, it may take another week.