Editor’s Note:
Garden City Life first covered this ongoing issue back in its Oct. 22-28, 2014 issue (“Do Fences Make Good Neighbors?”) Look for updates regarding this situation in the upcoming weeks.
On Dec. 19, 2013, the Garden City Board of Trustees (“Board”) sold an acre of land to the Franklin Mews Group LLC (“Mews”) for $100,000 for use as a private park for its members. This land had been used by all residents in Franklin Court as a “park” for recreational purposes for over 80 years.
Negotiations of the terms and conditions of the sale were conducted by Village Counsel Fishberg. However, there are not minutes of any board meeting authorizing him to do this. No contract of sale was prepared. Nonetheless at the Dec. 19 board meeting, the agenda had a resolution setting forth the terms and condition of the sale, which the board unanimously adopted.
How did this happen? Village Counsel Bee claims that the board “informally” discussed the Mews proposal at a budget work session early 2013. Budget work sessions are held to determine the budget, not to discuss the sale of property. The public is not allowed to speak at work sessions. Bee, who was not present at these sessions, offers no basis for this claim or what the Mews proposal was. Bee then states, “We believe it was referenced informally at other public sessions” prior to the sale on Dec. 19. What does that mean? Bee, who was not present at these sessions, again offers no explanation, detail or basis for this belief. How then did the terms and conditions of the sale magically appear in the Resolution the board adopted on Dec. 19? Do you believe in the tooth fairy?
On Dec. 20, 2013, title to the property was transferred to the Mews in accordance with the resolution that the board adopted on Dec. 19, 2013, which provides, in part, as follows:
“WHEREAS, the Village is desirous of selling the premises with the caveat that it shall be used in perpetuity for recreational open space and that no building or structures shall be structured thereupon and failure to abide by this covenant and restriction shall result in a right of reverted to the Village.”
Simply put, if the Mews violates this covenant and restriction, the village has the right to reclaim the property.
The deed to the property contains this provision, “No…structures shall be constructed thereupon.”
In June 2014, the Mews installed a 6-foot fence across the property, locking out residents from their “park.” This fence is a structure which violates the Village Zoning Code which restricts the height of a fence to four feet and its location to 50 feet from the property line.
The Mews, by the installation of the fence, breached its “covenant and restriction” with the village. Accordingly, the property should be returned to the village. The board should immediately take the necessary legal action to reclaim the property. A failure of the board to do this would breach its fiduciary obligation to the residents.
Lastly, why did the board sell this “park” to a handful of residents for their private park? This question affects all residents as there are “parks” like this all over the village. If the Franklin Court residents can lose their “park,” residents can also lose their neighborhood “park” in secret negotiations.
The board needs to promptly answer these questions and state what action it will take to reclaim the Franklin Court “park.”
Thomas M. Lamberti
Thomas Lambert is a former trustee with the Village of Garden City
