Encroachment issue in Tenney Park

The City's response to on-going concerns about encroachments on Tenney Park . . .

July 26, 2006

Michael P. Druhan
1252 Sherman Avenue
Madison, WI 53703-1722

re: Encroachment in Tenney Park

Dear Mr. Druhan:

I apologize for a delayed response to your letter of May 15, 2006. I have recently been urged by the Council of the Tenney-Lapham Neighborhood Association to deal with this matter, which concerns them greatly. On July 5, they passed a resolution asking the Parks Division “to pursue all avenues in reclaiming the appropriated land including the removal of all hardscape and plants that the owners of 1252 put on park property” .

Thank you for your letter explaining your background knowledge of this issue. I will respond to several of the points that you raised. It seems clear that you have known from the time of your survey in 2004 (and possibly when you purchased the property earlier in 2004) exactly where the legal property line was. You removed the fence from City property in 2004, without asking us for permission. After receiving a variance from the Board of Review to build in your sideyard setback, you proceeded to install pavers, flagstones and landscaping on City property, and allowed your landscaper to store items on city property.

Sometime in 2005, your landscaper asked one of my staff landscape architects for permission (which was granted) to get access to your back yard across City property from the Tenney Beach parking lot. This did not allow material storage or any permission for improvements on park property.

You proceeded to landscape onto City property (with plants not on the historic Tenney Park Landscape Plan) without asking City permission. However, you now you think the City should have asked the Neighborhood Association, the DNR, the State Historical Society, and you as abutting landowner, for prior approval before planting on our own City property. We have a very good working relationship with the neighborhood and the Friends of the Yahara River Parkway, and we understand them quite well. They are being neighborly to you and they love the work you’ve done in restoring the house, but we have heard nothing but objection to your encroachment.

On April 19, 2006, I met with you to view the situation and explained that we would not allow any encroachments onto City property other than possibly the rain garden or other landscaping that might be compatible with plans for Tenney Park. Later it was reported by a neighbor that your landscaper was digging some kind of a utility pit in the park near the rain garden. The boat dock materials that you had stored on City property were quickly removed, but the encroaching flagstones in the driveway and walkway were not.

I visited the property again (May 8, I believe) and discussed the encroachment with your landscaper, who still had apparently not received any word about the encroachments being a problem. With his help, we easily located the property line shown on the survey. You were not home at the time, but the discussion with the landscaper did not lead to any removal of encroachments nor were any plantings.

I understand that your concerns are mainly about landscaping and the landscape interface and maintenance with the park. You are right to be concerned about the city’s ability to do maintenance. It is not difficult to observe the budget difficulties that we currently have. Certainly when you purchased the property it was obvious what level of maintenance we had provided. However, we are experiencing a rebirth of interest in our city parks, and more landscape and natural area maintenance has been done in Tenney in the last five years than in the previous 30. Much of this has been accomplished by the dedicated volunteers of the Friends of the Yahara River. We are also agreeable to volunteer maintenance by our abutting neighbors, as long as they do not claim our land or give the appearance that the land is private.

We have no desire to invite the public to your property line, but we also do not want it to be, or appear to be, private property. The historic landscape concept for Tenney Park is a natural landscape with primarily native plant materials. The maintenance that you propose would make it look more like private property. If you do not wish to view the park landscape, or the park level of maintenance, or the public park use, you are free to install a fence and landscaping of your choice on your property.

Regarding plan approvals, it is neither required nor common practice to have the extensive multi-agency review of the landscape plan that you have suggested. In retrospect, it would have been a good neighborly idea for us to involve you in our landscape planning for our city property adjacent to yours. Perhaps it also would have been appropriate for you to ask our approval for your landscape design before you installed it on our city property?

We are still open to your suggestions on how our plan can be more compatible and not interfere with your use and enjoyment of your property. Perhaps our park does need better drainage, and perhaps I should be insisting that you not direct your drainage into a rain garden that you have constructed on city property, and which I did not object to after the fact. We too want the bats to return, and we are confident that our natural landscaping plan for Tenney Park will benefit them and other wildlife.

At this point the cleanest and most permanent resolution of this issue would be to require you to remove all of your encroachment and reinstall the chain link fence that you removed from City property. Of course it should be installed correctly, on the property line. If it appears too time consuming to argue about who should pay for a fence, we may install it at City expense. A second alternative would be for you to install the fence of your choice on the property line. Installing a fence that encroaches on City property is not an option.

A third alternative, which I approach cautiously given the history so far, is to allow you to clearly mark the property line (a row of posts 20 feet apart?), then plant and maintain a landscape that meets our criteria for Tenney Park and does not allow any other encroachment. This will require a landscape design, installation and maintenance plan approved and signed off by the Park Superintendent.

I have offered several alternatives to resolve the problem. Please let me know which solution you wish to pursue and I will work out the details with you. You have 60 days from receipt of this notice to remove all of the encroachments from park property. Failure to do so will result in referral to the City Attorney’s office for appropriate action. If you fail to correct these encroachments within 60 days as specified, the city shall perform the work and charge it to you as a special assessment on your taxes. If you wish to appeal this directive, you may appeal to the Park Commission, which meets the second Wednesday of every month. To be included on the agenda, we must receive a request from you ten days in advance of the meeting.


Sincerely,


Simon Widstrand
Parks Development Manager

cc: Ald. Brenda Konkel
Michael May, City Attorney
James P. Morgan, Park Superintendent