Letters to the Editor: Beach Springs 06.23.16

Did the Trustees Sell?

Springs

June 19, 2016

Dear David,

Last week, I, along with some neighbors, attended a meeting of the town trustees (East Hampton Star, June 16). What prompted our going to the meeting was that some new neighbors have been complaining about our use of the Gardiner’s Bay beach at the end of our road in Springs, claiming it to be their private property.

Most people out here assume the beaches belong to the town and are therefore public. But this assumption is being disputed more and more by beachfront property owners who produce deeds and surveys showing that they own the beach in front of their homes — thus theoretically giving them the right to dictate others’ use of the beach. We learned at the meeting that such disputes have been occurring for some time all along Gardiner’s Bay.

Even the definition of public beach is up for grabs: Some of these title surveys claim the landowner’s private ownership extends down to the mean high water mark (whatever that is). However, the town code (#91-2, 91-3) defines a bay beach managed by the trustees as going up to the bulkhead or grasses, and says nothing about a mean high water mark.

We learned that it is unclear at this time whether such titles were always transferred in a legal way those many years ago, and that property lines were sometimes extended to make real estate more attractive when for sale. Thus in many cases, the trustees do not even know which beaches, or what portion of which beaches, are really in their jurisdiction. Telling us to try to work out the conflict with the new neighbors begs the question. We need to know:

1. Who has jurisdiction over the beach? 

2. Is the town code (#91-2, 91-3), which gives the trustees jurisdiction over the beach, still in effect? 

3. Did the trustees many years ago, legally or illegally, sell the beach to a landowner or developer? 

 a. If so, where is the documentation for this, and can we see it?

 b. If so, what if anything can be done about this?

We were pleased that the trustees listened intently to our concerns, and at the end said they would look into this matter — not just for the small portion of beach we are concerned about, but for beaches along Gardiner’s Bay from Clearwater to the end of Gerard Drive, where the public’s use of the beach is being challenged. It may be a costly effort, but a crucial one for East Hampton. I certainly hope that the trustees will follow through on their intention, find a way to do a thorough search in a timely manner, and, most important, find a way to protect and maintain our beaches for all of us, not just the few.

PEGGY BACKMAN

Reassert Ownership

 Springs

 June 18, 2016

Dear David,

Thank you for having The East Hampton Star feature an article by Christopher Walsh about the beach ownership issue on Driftwood Lane. While the article presented this issue as a neighborly squabble, we feel that this issue represents a major problem for all of the residents of East Hampton. If more and more waterfront homeowners are allowed to claim ownership of the beaches in front of their homes, there will be fewer and fewer beaches left for the rest of the residents to enjoy. 

The issue of ownership to the mean high water mark contravenes the original Dongan Patent of 1686, which granted the trustees ownership and stewardship for the “freeholders and inhabitants of the Town of East Hampton . . . and to their heirs, successors . . .” in perpetuity. We believe it is critical that the East Hampton Town Trustees make clear that they represent all the residents of East Hampton, and reassert their ownership and jurisdiction of these beaches as originally granted to them. 

As our neighbors have said, not only the Driftwood beach but many other beaches have been enjoyed without the restriction of private ownership for generations, which is one of many reasons our town is so special and wonderful. The Driftwood beach can boast of many generations of use and enjoyment — peacefully, until now.

TINA and MAX PLESSET

Under Attack

East Hampton

June 16, 2016

To the Editor,

Now there are two instances of beach use versus restrictions of beach use. The use of beaches surrounding the East End has been under attack by homeowners who have homes on those beaches. I read where one owner complained about watercraft being moored and used in front of their home. Another complained about people driving and congregating on the beach in front of their home.

Folks, you can’t have it only your way. You want to live on a body of water, you live with the laws in place at the time you purchased your home. You buy a home of your dreams by the airport, you have to realize you will get airport noise. And just because you have deep pockets, it doesn’t mean you have to put the town through the cost of defending your lawsuits.

Just enjoy the fact that you can afford to buy the home of your dreams, or sell and move on.

TOM FRIEDMAN

At Driftwood Shores

Springs

June 17, 2016

To the Editor:

Since the year 1962, my parents, siblings, and I have enjoyed our vacations at our parents’ home on Driftwood Lane in Springs. Access to the nearby beach on Gardiner’s Bay was (and is) important to us; it made our summers especially enjoyable. We took quiet and respectful care of the beach and respected the privacy of our neighbors as their numbers increased at Driftwood Shores. From my viewpoint growing up, the neighbors for the most part have acted likewise. Large noisy parties, littering, or crowds on this beach at Driftwood Shores rarely happened. 

 It’s written into my parents’ property deed that as residents of Driftwood Shores we are allowed access to the beach, from the access road to the bay and up to the “mean high water mark” on the beach. Regardless of whether there was a house overlooking the beach or not, we understood that we had a right to be anywhere along the beach below the mean high-water mark. Over the years, neighbors on Driftwood Lane who did not own waterfront properties have used the beach, usually abiding by this rule. If our rights to use the beach have been changed over the years by the township, we have not been informed of this. 

I would like to note also that at high tide, the “mean high water mark” is usually covered by water now, due to the beach erosion since 1962.

Although one lot overlooking the bay remained empty for many years, it is now developed and owned by the Reisses. Surely the neighbors can continue to use the beach as they have in the past. The Reisses’ residence is up on a bluff and hardly visible from the beach. There is a buffer of grass and trees and a pool with a deck between their house and the beach. To see people on the beach from their house, the Reisses would have to look out of their upper-story windows. 

I hope that the Reisses and the residents of Driftwood Shores can come to an agreement regarding this dispute. It would be a shame for one family to antagonize the entire neighborhood by laying claim to what has been a shared vacation space in our neighborhood for over 50 years.

FAITH KORTREY