Residents speak out against Monroe’s use of eminent domain

At the August 20 Monroe Village Board meeting Residents of the Lake Mombasha area, during a public hearing regarding New York State Eminent Domain Procedure Law related to the village’s acquisition of 8 Reilly Road, confronted the board with their concerns about how the potential acquisition could impact their own properties and criticized the board for attempting to take the property via eminent domain.

Mayor Neil Dwyer, ahead of public comment, explained that the property is located adjacent to the Village reservoir and would provide additional protection to the village water reservoir. He said that bringing the property under village control would help reduce treatment costs and limit the need for the complex treatment of drinking water.

More than 80% of the public water supply is drawn from Mombasha Lake, explained Kathleen Bennett, who is serving as special counsel for the village of Monroe in connection with its eminent domain proceedings. She referenced a study that found certain areas around the lake crucial for preventing contamination and claimed the property at 8 Reilly Road would provide an important buffer area around the water intake and decrease potential impacts from fertilizer usage and septic system failure. She added that because the property is adjacent to the village’s water supply intake and treatment facility, no alternative locations or properties exist that would meet the village’s objective of protecting the water supply.

Bennett said the village attempted to acquire the property through a voluntary transaction based on appraisal of its fair market value.

Lawrence O’Neill, owner of 8 Reilly Road, claimed the village gave him an offer on his property, which he considered a “lowball offer” that didn’t warrant a response. When the village asked why he didn’t give a counteroffer, O’Neill said his agent informed them that the value of the property was the list price of the home. He further claimed that the agent for the village said that it would never appraise the home at that value, but later called to ask what it would take to get the property off the market, which was $600,000. O’Neill claimed that he attended the board meeting where the bond resolution was passed to purchase the property and for two weeks was unaware of the status of the property. He also claimed that his lawyer found out that the village was going to add a condition to the contract that requires an appraisal of the property and that the village would not pay more than the appraised amount.

“I was willing to sell the property to the village then. I’m still willing to sell a commercial sale of the property to the village. I want on the record that I object to the use of eminent domain for the purposes you’re trying to achieve,” said O’Neill.

Reading a letter from a member of the lake community, one commenter, representing the cooperative that manages homes in the area, asked how the village could claim eminent domain if the property was located within the town of Monroe. The letter also asked why eminent domain was evoked only after the seller decided not to proceed with the sale of his property. The Mombasha Lake resident, in his letter, also claimed that the actions by the village of Monroe will have a negative impact on homeowners in the area. In another letter read to the board, a resident expressed his fear that other lake properties, such as his own, could be seized via eminent domain.

The representative also read a letter from a prospective buyer of 8 Reilly Road, who said that he and his wife had their initial bid on the home rejected due to an acceptance of a higher offer from the village, only to later find that the house was put back on the market and their second offer was accepted on July 22. The potential buyer claimed the contract was signed and a deposit was sent to the seller’s attorney the following day. The letter further stated that the buyer was informed a few days later that the village of Monroe sought to obtain title to the property through eminent domain. The buyer expressed his concern that the eminent domain proceeding was not brought for a valid purpose and that he has retained counsel to determine whether he has viable claims against individual trustees personally and the village of Monroe.

Monroe Town Supervisor Tony Cardone, speaking on behalf of the town, said, “I hate to come to meetings like this but when residents are constantly contacting me that they don’t think this is fair, that they feel they’re being bullied, and they’re in fear of what’s going to happen if they own a house on the lake,” Cardone said.

Cardone also questioned how the village could move forward with the process, given that the wrong tax number was included in public notices. Later, Cardone commented on the lack of communication between the town and village, claiming a lack of respect shown toward the town, its board, its residents, and employees.

Peter Proulx, who resides at 17 Scenic View Road, was among the residents who questioned the role of municipalities in protecting the water supply. He said he has stopped many people from entering the lake, cleaned up garbage, and reported violators to the police. He wondered why the village wasn’t more concerned with non-residents coming to the lake and causing issues instead of going after the property owners who try to protect it.

Dwyer said the village is not always informed when a problem occurs. He cited an oil spill at a property near Lake Mombasha that the village knew nothing about, and said that, while some owners take great care of their property and understand the importance of protecting the nearby lake, others do not.

Dwyer also mentioned the possibility of having an employee on site at the property to monitor the lake, noting the changing demographics of the community and the large number of people who rely on the lake for drinking water. In addition, he addressed the village’s attempt to purchase the property from O’Neill. He said that the village made an initial offer of $525,000 and, after not hearing back, went ahead and put in a full price offer with the appraisal caveat. Dwyer explained that the village is required by law to seek this appraisal.

The public hearing for the matter was closed at the meeting, however the village accepted written comments until 4 p.m. on August 23.