Fight over Henderson building flares again

HENDERSON — A new battle has erupted in the ongoing dispute over the fate of the Mark Hopkins Performing Arts Building.

Police were summoned to the property Friday morning after Town Supervisor Clyde E. Moore, some of his family members and Zoning Enforcement Officer Francis N. Sibrava clashed with members of the Henderson Harbor Performing Arts Association, which holds title to the property.

Mr. Moore's group was trying to cordon off the building to protect public safety, the supervisor said, when association members protested and told them to leave. Both sides in the conflict called police.

"Clyde told me this morning that if I went past that line it would be a $1,000 fine," said the arts group's president, Eunice J. Wescott, who lives two doors down from the building on County Route 123.

State police declined to comment on the matter, but confirmed a trooper responded and no arrests were made. Both sides in the conflict said police told town officials they couldn't be on the property since they lacked any formal documentation justifying the action.

"We didn't have proper paperwork to act," Mr. Moore said Friday, after the incident. "I will get it and I will be back."

Ms. Wescott said the association's attorney, Mark G. Gebo, advised her that town officials couldn't legally rope off the property without written authorization from the town health officer. She said Mr. Moore told her he was acting as the town health officer because there isn't one.

It remains unclear whether the town officials needed any formal documents with them in order to legally cordon off the building, and if so, what those would be.

The Town Council, acting as the Board of Health, passed a resolution 3-1 at its Thursday meeting to cordon off an area within 65 feet of the building or to the edge of the roadway, whichever comes first, to protect public safety. Deputy Supervisor David E. Perry proposed the measure and he, Mr. Moore and Councilwoman Carol A. Hall voted in favor of it. Councilman Raymond A. Walker voted against the resolution. Councilman Stephen C. Cote was not at the meeting.

The building is more than 100 years old and in disrepair, all sides agree. Ms. Wescott said it's locked and only she has a key. But at the council meeting, Mr. Moore said he'd seen children playing nearby and was concerned the building would simply collapse.

Both the town and the performing arts group claim they are the property's rightful owners, and two lawsuits are pending to prove each side's case. The ownership dispute stems from a 1996 Town Council decision to turn the deed for the building and the 18-acre parcel it sits on over to the association, with the condition that it invest at least $100,000 in improving the structure within three years.

In May 2008, the Town Council resolved in a 3-2 vote to have its attorney, David A. Renzi, work to recover the deed, charging that the requirements had not been met.

The association filed a suit in state Supreme Court in October in an effort to keep the property, claiming it did spend at least the required amount on the property through grants, donations and in-kind services.

The town filed a counterclaim in December asking that the association's suit be dismissed.

"I don't know what that's about; I'm flabbergasted," said Ms. Wescott. "In November, the two lawyers had a discussion. Renzi said the town board was willing to drop the lawsuit and give us the title, if we agreed that if we ceased to exist as an organization, the property goes back to the town. We agreed to that proposal."

That deal required approval from the state Attorney General's office because the office supervises the distribution of assets in the event a nonprofit organization dissolves. Ms. Wescott said the group received that approval verbally, but had no written documentation in support of the plan.

At the Town Council meeting Thursday, Mr. Perry said the town shouldn't simply take the group's word for it that the plan had the necessary state approval. Neither the town nor the performing arts association has tried to obtain such written approval from the Attorney General's office, Ms. Wescott said.

Meanwhile, at least one town official has plans for the property.

"I propose, in the interest of the town, that if the decision goes our way in court, we tear down the building and create a big complex in stages," Mr. Perry announced during Thursday's council meeting.

The complex could hold a new town hall, a justice court, a welcome center, as well as retail and recreational space, he said. That seems to contradict Mr. Perry's previous assertion that a desire to use the land for town purposes was not motivating the council's fight to retrieve the deed.

"Everybody thinks we wanted the property," Mr. Perry said in May 2008, when the council voted to initiate the legal fight to get the property back. "We just wanted to resolve the deed because they could do nothing with the property."

The only thing all parties agree on is that they want the ownership issue resolved.

"Now the two cases are sitting on a judge's desk somewhere waiting for a date," Ms. Wescott said.

"I just wish something would hurry up and happen," Mr. Moore said, "so someone can own it, and we can move on."