I am an attorney representing the Doris Moffitt Dailey 2001 Revocable Trust, the owner of real property that is the subject of an application for land subdivision now before the Munsey Park Board.
I am writing to request that your coverage of this application be accurate, fair, and complete. This is most important because of the way in which the owners of the property, as well as the applicant for the subdivision, are being inaccurately portrayed and attacked.
The application for subdivision should be a simple matter. The property exceeds all requirements and codes, a fact already established by the village. The right and fair thing would be for the application to be approved without further delay.
First, some history:
William Dailey, a mayor of Munsey Park, his wife Doris, and their six children and thirteen grandchildren resided in the village for 65 years. They were pillars of the community who worked to make Manhasset the place that it is.
One of the Dailey children, Wendy Bennett, still lives here with her family. The Daileys all love Manhasset and continue to have a vested interest in this community.
The Dailey family has owned, maintained, and paid taxes on this property tor 57 years.
Following the death of Doris Dailey in 2011, it was necessary for the trustees of her estate to sell the property in order to make distributions as directed to her beneficiaries. Every possible attempt was made to sell the house, located at 80 Bellows Lane, together with the adjacent vacant property. There were no buyers for the package and, eventually, the house alone was sold.
When it became apparent that the entire property might not be sold as a unit, the trustees of the estate asked the Village of Munsey Park to confirm that the remaining vacant property was sub-divisible. On August 12, 2012, the village building inspector issued a letter that remains in the village file confirming that the lot can be subdivided.
In 2013, the Trust sold the Lot and, as permitted by the contract, the buyer applied to have it subdivided. The Daileys have gone above and beyond to be good stewards of the land. They have painstakingly found the perfect buyer. The applicant is a similarly lifelong Manhasset resident from a large, multi-generation Manhasset family. All parties care deeply about the community.
The zoning requirements for the lot(s) have not changed since the August 2012 letter, nor has the piece of land for which the Application has been filed.
Some residents of the Village are understandably concerned about the future of the property.
Each lot, should the current lot be subdivided, exceeds the zoning requirement of the Village by 74 percent in area and 33 percent in frontage and requires no variances.
Multiple tests have been completed by the applicant for subdivision that prove the lot(s) to be buildable according to every appropriate measurement. There have been sureys, engineering studies, topography analyses including grading and elevation, and soil tests, and drainage plans drawn up, none of which should have been required for a simple subdivision but all of which support the buildabilitv of this property with no detrimental impact on adjoining properties.
While the village code and the lot have not changed, what has changed is the village administration.
This administration ran on a platform of being kinder and more cooperative with residents, of being transparent, of not denying any reasonable permit requests, of saving time and money in the manner in which business is conducted, of conducting all business in the open. Our experience has been that the village has actually become an impediment to openness, fairness, and equal treatment of all taxpayers.
Prior to the November meeting, four Munsey Park residents, Kelly and John Towers and Brian and Kimberly Griffith wrote and orchestrated the circulation of an inaccurate petition opposing the subdivision.
While they claim that they are concerned about a subdivision changing “the look and feel of the community,” any homes that might eventually be built would be totally in keeping with surrounding properties.
Thus, it seems, the Towers’ and Griffith’s motivation is more self-serving: to simply continue enjoying an open view from their homes at the Dailey’s expense by depriving them of their right to utilize the land that they have maintained for so long.
This would be comparable to theft and is outrageous. You cannot just take something because you want it. That is not how things are done in this country. Further, they might be attempting to leverage their close connections to the mayor and board members to accomplish this.
The mayor’s first response, before the November meeting was called to order but directed at all attendees, was that this “opposition and petition must be given great weight.”’
Why? The petition was nominally directed to the subdivision but its actual intent was what might happen to the Towers’ and Griffith’s views if two houses of a certain size were built on these lots.
The author of the petition said granting the application would “forever change the look and feel of Manhasset Woods Road and the community’”
Wrong. lf approved, it simply becomes two vacant lots, equal in size to the existing vacant lot. Since they live next to or close to the lots, that was obviously their concern.
When the mayor read the petition, he must have recognized immediately the misstatements in it that make it meaningless for any purpose. He would also have seen that the wives of two board members, including his own using her maiden name, signed it.
At the November board of trustees meeting, it sounded like the purchaser, in response to Village requirements, was applying for two building permits instead of a simple land subdivision. A decision was not made on the simple issue of whether the plot is big enough to be two lots.
Instead the applicant was asked to submit more information, which he has the soil’ etc. That is not relevant to the application. But consideration of the application was put off.
Because subdividing this lot is totally within the code of the Village of Munsey Park and because this is strictly a subdivision application, a quick and clear-cut decision is called for. lt is incomprehensible that village trustees could yield to pressure from neighbors who supported their election. Hopefully, we are all better than that.
The effort to stop the subdivision, and consequently the sale of this property, is nothing short of theft. What these people are doing is unjust. Any reasonable person should be outraged rather than swayed by two self-dealing families who have had every opportunity to purchase the land that they prefer to steal. Consider how you would feel if this was being done to your family.
Likewise the village has had ample opportunity to purchase the land if the residents of Munsey Park called for it. But, the residents don’t want to pay for it either. They want the Dailey family to provide green space at their expense ad infinitum. That is not possible.
And for those who argue against the subdivision by saying build one house, think how incongruous one large house on a double lot would be on that block on that road.
ln December, the Board considered a letter that John Towers submitted prior to the November meeting and determined that they had to conduct an investigation into a conflict of interest allegation Towers made against Trustee Patrick Hance. Never mind that what constitutes a conflict of interest is spelled out in the town code and the allegations fail to meet the requirements. And why this wasn’t considered in the November meeting is subject to speculation.
But reaction to the letter put off again the consideration of the application. Instead an ethics committee was appointed in December and a resident who had signed the petition against the subdivision was named the ethics chairperson. And, although he has been asked to disqualify himself, he has decided to proceed to judge conflicts of interest in others.
Transparency? No telling when this side-show will be over.
In an effort to dissuade the Towers and Griffith families from further conduct as well as to hold them accountable for what they were attempting to accomplish, the
Trust has brought suit in Supreme Court, Nassau County (lndex Number 600049/2014). Eventually it will be determined if they went too far in their zeal to prevent the subdivision.
Now I learn through the press that the application will be again “discussed” in February.
I remind everyone that this is simply an application to divide one vacant lot into two vacant lots, each of which comfortably exceeds the Village’s requirements. No variance is requested or required. What happens to these lots is not before the board and what might happen on those lots need not and should not be discussed or considered. That is for another day.
But apparently Trustee Haggerty is confused as he has made public statements that the village will never permit building on the lots.
The present application is simply to divide the lot into two full size lots.
The Dailey Family, who must now sell the land after 57 years of ownership, maintenance and taxes, is entitled to utilize their land in accordance with the code.
Attempts to deprive them of that basic right would be unconscionable.
Certainly, if your family was simply requesting a subdivision of one lot into two lots, each lot well exceeding the requirements for a lot, you would be outraged that it has been seven months and counting and still no approval.
The board of trustees/planning board should approve the subdivision without further delay.
Edward J. Boyle
Manhasset
