
A State Supreme Court justice last week dismissed a lawsuit challenging the use of the “Picnic Area” beach in Southampton Village, upholding the public’s right to drive onto the beach and park in summer.
Beach driving proponents had been closely watching the decision by Justice Joseph A. Santorelli, worried that it might set a precedent that would threaten beach driving regulations in Southampton Town and Southampton Village. The ruling ended up in the town’s and village’s favor—but an appeal of the March 12 decision is expected to be filed.
“The people of Southampton can continue to enjoy the beach as we have for years,” John Kosciusko, the president of the Southampton Association For Beach Access, said of the decision.
The lawsuit was filed in October 2015 by Southampton Village-based attorney Nica B. Strunk on behalf of Kathleen Araskog Thomas, Andrew S. Thomas, Rand V. Araskog and Jessie M. Araskog. Throughout the court proceedings, all plaintiffs except for Ms. Araskog Thomas dropped out.
The defendants were the Southampton Town Trustees, Village of Southampton and State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The lawsuit claimed that the village and Town Trustees unfairly and illegally allow SUVs and 4x4 vehicles to park on a 2,000-foot-long stretch of beach, known as the Picnic Area, during the day in the summertime, while excluding them from other beaches. The plaintiffs argued that the practice singles out nine property owners to be affected by the practice, which is otherwise restricted in the village, and created a “noxious and unsafe situation.”
The judge’s ruling had three parts, covering eight different arguments made by the plaintiffs. Most significantly, it upholds the village’s policy of allowing parking in the easement as constitutional, saying its use does not constitute a “taking” without compensation, as the plaintiffs maintained. Related claims that the use was a nuisance were rejected as well, because the plaintiffs did not show “unreasonable” action had been taken by the Town Trustees, he said.
Steven Stern, an attorney from Carle Place-based Sokoloff Stern LLP, who represents the Southampton Town Trustees, said a 90-day statute of limitations factored into the judge’s decision on whether damages resulted from any public nuisance, but noted it was not a major part of the decision. Mr. Stern explained that the Araskog family’s lawsuit was filed on October 21, 2015, so any claims prior to July 23, 2015 were not allowed to be acted on by the courts. In this case, the Araskog family and their representatives failed to prove that allowing people to drive on the beach was a public nuisance.
The part of the lawsuit targeting the DEC was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show that the DEC acted outside its right to grant permits on a discretionary basis, according to the judge’s ruling.
Southampton Village code does not allow people to drive on the beach between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. in the summer on the majority of beaches, but an exception lies with the Picnic Area, between the western boundary of the village and Road F, where residents of Southampton Town and Southampton Village are permitted to drive onto the beach and park for the day. Beach driving also is banned on town beaches during the day from June 15 to September 15.
Some of these claims accuse the town and village of taking private property without permission and allowing people to drive on the landward side of the debris line. The lawsuit also claimed the village allowed the beaches to become overcrowded, opening the door to uncontrolled public intoxication, urination, defecation and littering on the claimants’ private property.
“We disagree with the decision entirely,” Ms. Strunk said on Monday, noting she will be filing an appeal later this week.
Southampton Village Attorney Wayne Bruyn told Village Board members at a meeting on Tuesday that the village is not completely eliminated from the lawsuit. He explained that the court ruled in favor of the claims made by the village, but the village did not challenge the claims made regarding allegations of a nuisance use.
He added that the Town Trustees had made a motion to dismiss the claims of nuisance against them, and won. “It’s a very positive step for the village at this point,” he said.
“We are please with the outcome of the case,” said Ted Sklar, an attorney with the Smithtown-based Devitt Spellman Barrett, LLP, which represented the Village in the case. “The primary issue of the case was whether village regulation of the beach was constitutional, and we prevailed on those claims.”
Mr. Sklar said his firm chose not to challenge the nuisance claim because the constitutional claims were more important.
If an appeal is filed by Ms. Strunk, Mr. Sklar said his firm plans to continue representing the Village.
“As the primary defendant defending the village code, we will defend the appeal,” Ms. Sklar said.
Homeowners along the oceanfront in Southampton Village own the beach from their house to the mean high water mark, and the Town Trustees hold a public access easement along all ocean beaches within the town, which extends from the crest of the natural dunes to the high tide line. The Dongan Patent, from 1686, established that easement and allows the Town Trustees to regulate activities in that zone, such as fishing and collecting seaweed.
Mr. Stern said the court’s decision factored in arguments made by the Trustees. These arguments include that the Trustees’ actions were not unreasonable, that they hold an easement for the public, and that there was no nuisance at the beach.
“The Trustees are pleased that the court recognized the significant history and authority for public access to the beaches, and will continue to vigorously defend its rights through any appeals,” Mr. Stern said.
beach. Moreover, their false accusations of the Beach is being abused and
left untidy is just not true. Iv’e been a user and observer of our beautiful
beach for more than fifty years. The locals love and cherish their beach!
It's time fer some nasty old four wheelin' truck drivin' in front a that there manshun of theirs. Maybe they're just mad because they don't get to grill. Someone kindly invite them over - and tell em we serve Grey Poupon.
..our prayers have been answered!!!! Thank you to our trustees for not backing down and fighting for all us to keep our most cherished and beautiful natural resource. One to be shared with generations to come.
S & S
Long live the beach <3
F-U Araskogs!
I’m shocked that your comment hasn’t been removed
Ugh.
The nauseating sanctimony of a creeping Jesus & the revolting fawning of a craven sycophant of wealthy property owners (like the Araskogs) whose family service business hangs entirely on their patronage.
Salty language, by comparison, is SO untroubling.
Quote:
"The battle has been won ... "
------------------
- - - and that's ALL, as Kathleen Araskog Thomas's decision to appeal the verdict proclaims. The WAR goes on. She is still trying to steal our beach.
I don't want a rapprochement with this woman. The East End has suffered the predation of vipers like her from the city for decades. These solipsistic, anti-social arrivistes move into our community and promptly attempt to arrogate public ...more venues for their own use alone that the entire Southampton community has been enjoying for centuries. Rather then welcoming them, we should make it crystallinely clear that we do NOT, and should encourage them, as strongly and explicitly as we can, to sell-up and move on. It might discourage others of their ilk from following them here.
(Correction: A closer reading of the article reveals that all of the Araskogs, EXCEPT Kathleen Araskog Thomas, abandoned the litigation in its pendency. Accordingly, I would like to amend my original post to read:
"Welcome Andrew S. Thomas, Rand V. Araskog and Jessie M. Araskog - - - and F-U Kathleen Araskog Thomas.")
The level of sensitivity is amazing here. It's perfectly acceptable to spit on the names of greed driven aggressors.
Anyone who lives in Hampton Bays knows better than to drive to Southampton for a beach.
Please continue to enjoy the beach as we have done for many years and years to come
The Trustee roads are next and some permanent bathrooms at the Helipad parking lot..
Nobody should ever feel confident enough to come through here, overpay some blown out real estate agent for a beach house, hire a despicable anti-local attorney and attempt to threaten our community again.
Both you and bigfresh suffer from the delusion that Southamptonites have WON. You are mistaken. The fight will continue in the appellate court.
Relaxing our vigilance now, as you and he suggest, would be suicidal. It is residents' unified outrage that has propelled our political representatives' defense against Kathleen Araskog Thomas's predatory taking to this point. If these worthies sense that we have become disinterested, they will be much more likely ...more to follow their s.o.p. in protracted litigation and "settle" or CAVE. It is essential that we remain just as irately p.o.'d now as we were when the case was first filed - - - and that they KNOW it.
(Your suggestion that the Press censors "pick and choose" which comments containing visceral, Anglo-Saxon language to expunge is prejudicially ignorant. Every reader knows that if you employ allusion, as I have done, your text will remain untouched, political ideology notwithstanding. Indeed, were it otherwise, so many fewer true believers' opinions would remain available to us. [Alas!])
Regarding my “pick and choose” comment, your absolutely correct. You took a moment to ensure you presented it properly where the Press wouldn’t remove it. Had u spelled out those 2 special choice words, it would have been removed. As for your logic on publicly using antagonizing ...more words to let the family know we are still here, this isn’t Discovery Land and a battle over a golf course! Swinging a baseball bat at a hornets nest is not the solution . Do u even visit the Picnic Area HH ?
They know we are still here and will continue to be
The family had another house in Southampton, farther from the ocean, as well as a duplex on Park Avenue and two houses in Florida, one in Palm Beach and another, used when they wanted to play golf, in Palm Beach Gardens. So Rand Araskog was dubious when Thomas suggested they look at another house in Southampton, just four years old and separated from the Atlantic by nothing but sand dunes and sea grass. "Why would I want to live on the ocean?" asked Rand Araskog. To which his daughter replied: "Why should we drive all the way to Southampton and not see the water? Why should we only see hedges?"
Her logic was compelling. The family trooped to the house, a traditional Long Island Shingle Style originally designed by architect Francis Fleetwood, and was instantly smitten. "My dad was over the moon about it," recalls Thomas. But her mother was not far behind him. "You look one way and see the ocean; you look the other and see the bay," remarks Jessie Araskog. Adding to its appeal for the close-knit group is an unusual upstairs arrangement that allows two families to live under the same roof, each with complete privacy. One wing is for Rand and Jessie Araskog. The other wing is for Kathy Thomas, her husband, Andrew, and their three young daughters. The Araskogs' other daughter, Julie Vosti, lives in Los Angeles; their son, Bill, has a house in nearby Westhampton.
Unlike most people who buy such a large house, the Araskogs did not have to go furniture hunting. They not only had the furnishings of their previous house in Southampton but the contents of two other residences—their apartment on Park Avenue, which they were in the process of selling, and their golf house in Palm Beach Gardens. They also had the services of Scott Snyder, the interior designer who had done all three interiors. "To do the new house, I had to go shopping in the residences I had already done," says Snyder. "I had to take this from here, that from there. The result is a merger of their lifestyles. It's like visiting all their other residences—all their old friends."
It's a fabulous summer house, but it's just as beautiful in fall," Jessie Araskog says of the Shingle Style residence in Southampton, New York, she shares with her husband, Rand, and their extended family. The main entrance is distinguished by a wide porch and an eyebrow roof. Marvin windows; Chadsworth columns.
Before he began, Snyder did a photographic inventory of the three other residences. The floor plan of the new house was then put on a computer, and the dimensions of each piece of furniture he was considering using were added, just to make sure everything would fit. "It was like doing a large jigsaw puzzle," says Snyder.
Or a game of mix and match. The 18th-century Italian mirror in the entrance hall, for instance, came from Park Avenue; the chairs and Dutch marquetry chest, from the Southampton house. A few rooms were transferred almost intact, however. Kathy Thomas had always admired her parents' Southampton bedroom; it's now the master bedroom in her side of the house. Snyder imported other pieces from Park Avenue and the golf house for the Araskogs' own bedroom, which, like all their personal bedrooms, is saturated in a light blue. "I call it Jessie blue," says Snyder. "It's her favorite color, and it's magnificent next to the ocean."
Because so few of the pieces are new, the designer's challenge was to create a residence that looked unlike any of the Araskogs' other houses. The dining room, for example, has a chandelier from Florida and a table and a breakfront from Manhattan. To make the room original, Snyder painted the floor cream with a green-stencil overlay and placed garden-like trellises on the walls. The result is informal formality—pure Southampton—and a new, illustrated chapter in the Araskog story.
The jigsaw puzzle is complete...or is it?
The world needs more understanding. I'm on my want to drop off brownies at the Araskogs to help them get through the temporary set back.
However, I doubt these comments will be entered into evidence, nor can I imagine what function they'd serve.
Also u made a recent post, suggesting “Anyone from Hampton Bays knows better than to drive to Southampton”. Is it safe ...more to say you may not be an avid beach go-er ? Cuz there’s lots of people from Hampton Bays who come to the Picinic Area. Riverhead, Flanders, Westhampton as well. So opening a section in Hampton Bays would be ideal for many.
By foodwhiner (117), Southampton on May 25, 16 10:51 AM