HuntHrld - Build a fence?

The Huntington Herald had a letter to the Editor on it's Jan11 edition that needed a response.  Unfortunately, the physical paper has limitations for length, and my response needed to be shortened.  This letter from Ms. Wilson was the same as posted in the online news entity "Patch", and which I previously responded to in length and detail on 2011Dec22.


Below is the abridged version submitted to the Huntington Herald, but I encourage reading the more full version in the earlier blog entry.


***
EDITOR:


A recent Letter expressed dismay over lack of a fence between private property and City Open Space. I offer the following as Chairman of the Conservation Commission, a purely advisory body to the Alderman and Planning & Zoning on aspects such as property acquisition, maintenance or use; as well as subdivision applications and their impact on the environment.

The City Open Space referred to is two parcels totaling 42 acres purchased several years ago from the Klapik brothers and informally known as the “Klapik Open Space”. The brothers each retained a building lot carved out of it that fronted Long Hill Avenue. The property line between a building lot and the Open Space is the area of concern by Ms. Wilson.

A purchase agreement spelled out aspects of defining the property line between the public property (Open Space) and the retained private parcel (residential lot with building). The language of the purchase agreement was agreed to by the attorneys for both the buyer (City of Shelton) and the seller (the two Klapik brothers). Since the closing, the private parcel’s existing house was demolished and a new one rebuilt in its place, a failing barn structure on the City’s parcel was demolished and removed, and trees were planted along the perimeter of the public/private boundary line to give delineation and a sense of privacy.

The purchase contract states specifically that if the Open Space is used “actively”, the City would put in fencing. The character of this adjacent Open Space has remained unchanged from the time of purchase: a meadow mowed once during the growing season for hay. I am not a legal reference, so I don’t know the definition of “actively” using the property, but it has not been turned into sports fields or hiking trails and continues as before: a simple meadow.

The City has a long dedication to valuing the open land and character of our community, and preserving such through the acquisition of Open Space. Acquisitions are not done using “wily ways”, and the Mayor and Aldermen are not “master minds”. There is a process that starts with guidance from the Open Space Plan prepared by the Conservation Commission, includes referrals from Planning & Zoning, involves dialogue with the property owners, and in this case due to significant monies paid the landowners - preparation for funding.

Some Open Space acquisitions have been accomplished with willing partners (purchase), and some have not (back taxes, foreclosure, or eminent domain acquisition). Some willing partners look upon their actions with regret (I should have received more compensation), and some look upon their actions gratefully (I'm glad I sold it a couple of years ago rather in the current market). In this case, it appears that these aren't so much second thoughts, but rather misunderstandings by later owners as to what was agreed upon in years past by those that actually transacted their sale of their property.

The City residents are grateful to the Klapik family for having cared for the fields and kept the land undeveloped for so many years. The City purchasing the property as Open Space helped ensure that would continue. If a subsequent property owner is not satisfied with the agreement and covenants, then that is unfortunate. There is a difference between rights spelled in an agreement or otherwise by law, and something one feels they deserve. The City leadership, officers and representatives have a responsibility to administer affairs fairly that follow rules, regulations or agreements, not simply what someone feels they should have granted.

Space limits my response, thus a much more detailed reply is posted on my Chairman’s Blog: www.sheltoncc.blogspot.com