At the August 20 Monroe Town Council meeting, during a public hearing on the New York State Expropriation Procedures Act relating to the Township’s acquisition of 8 Reilly Road, residents from the Lake Mombasha area confronted the Town Council with their concerns about how the potential acquisition might affect their own properties and criticized the Town Council for attempting to expropriate the properties through expropriation.
Mayor Neil Dwyer explained to the public hearing that the property is adjacent to the village reservoir and provides additional protection to the village reservoir. He said the village’s acquisition of the property would help reduce treatment costs and limit the need for complex drinking water treatment.
More than 80% of the public water supply is drawn from Mombasha Lake, explained Kathleen Bennett, who is serving as special counsel to the Village of Monroe in connection with its expropriation proceedings. She pointed to a study that identified certain areas around the lake as critical to preventing contamination and claimed the property at 8 Reilly Road would provide an important buffer area around the water intake point and reduce potential impacts from fertilizer use and septic tank failure. She added that the property is adjacent to the village’s water intake point and treatment plant, and therefore there are no alternative sites or properties that would meet the village’s goal of protecting the water supply.
Bennett said the municipality sought to acquire the property through a voluntary transaction based on an estimate of its market value.
Lawrence O’Neill, owner of 8 Reilly Road, claimed the township made him an offer for his property that he considered a “low offer” that did not warrant a response. When the township asked why he did not make a counteroffer, O’Neill said his realtor told them the property’s value was the same as the house’s list price. He further claimed the township’s realtor said they would never appraise the house at that value, but later called to ask what it would cost to take the property off the market, which was $600,000. O’Neill claimed he attended the board meeting where the bond resolution to purchase the property was passed and did not know anything about the property’s status for two weeks. He also claimed his attorney found out that the township would add a condition to the contract requiring an appraisal of the property and that the township would not pay more than the appraised amount.
“I was willing to sell the property to the village then. I am still willing to sell the property commercially to the village. I want to put it on record that I am opposed to the use of the right of expropriation for the purposes you seek,” O’Neill said.
A commenter reading a letter from a lake community member representing the cooperative that manages the homes in the area questioned how the village could claim the right to expropriate when the property was located in the Town of Monroe. The letter also questioned why the right to expropriate was only asserted after the seller decided not to go through with the sale of his property. The Mombasha Lake resident also claimed in his letter that the actions of the Village of Monroe would have a negative impact on homeowners in the area. In another letter read to the board, a resident expressed fear that other lake properties, like his own, could be seized through expropriation.
The representative also read a letter from a prospective buyer of 8 Reilly Road, saying that his and his wife’s first bid on the home was rejected because they accepted a higher offer from the municipality. They then later learned that the home had come back on the market and their second bid was accepted on July 22. The prospective buyer claimed that the contract was signed and a deposit was wired to the seller’s attorney the next day. The letter went on to say that a few days later, the buyer was informed that the Town of Monroe was attempting to obtain title to the property through expropriation. The buyer expressed concern that the expropriation process was not initiated for a valid reason and that he had retained an attorney to determine whether he had any valid claims against individual trustees personally and the Town of Monroe.
Monroe City Councilman Tony Cardone, speaking on behalf of the city, said: “I hate going to meetings like this, but residents write to me all the time saying they don’t think it’s fair, they feel victimized and they’re afraid of what might happen if they own a lake house,” Cardone said.
Cardone also questioned how the village could proceed with the process since the wrong tax ID number was listed in the public notices. Cardone later commented on the lack of communication between the town and the village, claiming that no respect was shown to the town, its board, residents and employees.
Peter Proulx, who lives at 17 Scenic View Road, was one of the residents who questioned the role of municipalities in protecting the water supply. He said he saw many people blocked from entering the lake, cleaned up trash and reported violations to police. He wondered why the village was not more concerned about non-residents coming to the lake and causing problems instead of taking action against the property owners who are trying to protect it.
Dwyer said the village is not always informed when a problem arises. He pointed to an oil spill on a property near Lake Mombasha that the village was unaware of, and said some property owners take very good care of their property and understand the importance of protecting the nearby lake, but others do not.
Dwyer also mentioned the possibility of having a staff member on site to monitor the lake, citing the changing demographics of the community and the large number of people who rely on the lake as a source of drinking water. In addition, he addressed the village’s attempt to purchase the property from O’Neill. He said the village made an initial offer of $525,000 and, after receiving no response, made an offer at full price contingent on an appraisal. Dwyer explained the village is required by law to obtain that appraisal.
The public hearing on this issue was closed at the meeting, but the township accepted written comments until August 23 at 4:00 p.m.
