Replatting two old lake houses at Wyandotte County Lake Park, 91st and Leavenworth Road, was approved on Monday night at the City Planning Commission meeting.
The subdivision replatting action has spurred some questions from residents, although Unified Government officials explained at the Jan. 13 meeting that there will be no new construction at the lake, and no existing structures removed.
UG officials told the CPC board that it was a choice of replatting the two old homes, evicting a current tenant or the UG paying property taxes on the entire Wyandotte County Lake acreage. The lake is a public property.
When the issue previously went to the City Planning Commission on Nov. 12, the CPC commissioners wanted a community meeting on the topic, which was held Dec. 17 at the James P. Davis Hall at the Lake, Emerick Cross, UG deputy administrator, said at the Jan. 13 CPC meeting.
“We’re simply asking the commission to replat two existing lake houses to keep the rest of the park tax-exempt,” Cross told the CPC Jan. 13.
Cross said if the houses are rented or leased, the UG could have a revenue stream providing funds to maintain and operate the houses.
One of the lake house properties was the subject of news stories last year when community activists alleged there was a problem with a hand-shake agreement between the former police chief and the UG administrator in the rental of a lake home. The police chief has since retired, and the house is empty, according to officials.
At the Nov. 12 CPC meeting, a brief history of the lake houses was presented, including the past practice of the chief park ranger living in a lake house as part of his job. The park ranger system was changed in the past several years, however, and lake patrols have been conducted by law enforcement officers.
CPC board members had previously asked what the UG’s parks board thought of the replatting issue, but they were told on Jan. 13 that the parks board received information about it and did not take a vote on it. CPC board member James Connelly said he wanted the parks board to provide input, and he wanted to know whether they liked the idea of replatting. Another CPC commissioner, Dr. Daniel Serda, also wanted to know why the parks board did not take it up.
Jeremy Rogers, UG director of parks, told the CPC on Jan. 13 that the parks board heard information about the replatting in October, but one member believed “this was above us” and the parks board chair believed “it was not his doing or his job to do that.”
The UG wanted the two old lake houses to be rented out and to be maintained so they didn’t deteriorate, according to officials at the Jan. 13 meeting. The CPC board had the choice of either evicting an existing tenant on West Drive, or paying property taxes on the entire lake property, according to Cross.
At the CPC’s Jan. 13 meeting, a resident asked several questions about the replatting, and said it was “too ambiguous.” The resident said it didn’t appear that they had thought about using the lake houses for public access. The resident asked if the property could be turned into a public community space. The properties are not open to the public currently, according to UG officials. The resident also had not heard about the previous December community meeting and wanted more opportunities for community input. The Dec. 17 meeting was on a Tuesday, following a weekend snowstorm, and about six persons attended.
UG Planning Director Rob Richardson said it was correct that if the entire lake property were to be assessed, it would be a large figure, and if the two houses can’t be replatted, it might be better to tear the lake houses down. He said there was a lot of discussion previously about what could be done with the lake houses.
Another resident was concerned that some other change could happen to the property in the future, and set a precedent for future decisions, and she asked about the intent of the UG.
The CPC board also discussed a reverter clause to be added to the replatting so that the properties would revert to the UG if changes were ever made in the properties. The clause could state that the two properties could not be sold outside of the lake, and would stay in UG ownership, according to officials.
If not otherwise specified, the revenue from rental of the lake homes would go to the county general fund, according to Richardson.
A UG attorney, James Bain, at the Jan. 13 meeting explained why the replatting was sought. He said this change comes about because of a 2007 state Supreme Court case involving the city of Atchison, where a park director lived in a home in the park and wanted his family to move in. The state said his family could not live there, but the director could, and the city sued the state.
The state Supreme Court said a family living in the park would be outside of park purposes, the UG attorney said. The ruling changed the ways parks and houses are looked at, he said.
The UG attorney said that the East Drive house at Wyandotte County Lake Park had been empty since then. Last year, the former police chief lived in and worked on a lake house as part of his employment, and his family was not living there, the attorney said. It was considered a park purpose, benefiting the park with security and renovations to the home, he said. The house is unoccupied currently.
At the other old house at the lake, the persons living there were operating concessions, helping at the boat marina and catering, the UG’s attorney said. The UG believes it was a legal use of that house, except now the concession contract is no longer in place and it may have fallen out of compliance, he said. Two persons are living in that house, he said.
“So if we don’t do anything, they’ll have to move,” Jeff Carson, CPC chairman, said.
“Yes, or we could tax the whole park,” UG attorney James Bain said.
“Or the house could sit empty,” Carson said.
Dr. Serda said a key factor to consider was what long-term protections are in place for the future, to prevent properties from being sold or parceled off separately from the park.
Bain said a reverter clause could be put in, and could be on the use or sale. It could be part of the deed.
There were already restrictions on the lake house leases regarding not allowing construction or changes without permission, and use only as a residence, according to the attorney.
Nathan Reasons, a CPC board member, was concerned that the park board was not asked again for an opinion, and also wondered why other uses, such as AirBNB, were not considered for the lake houses. He said he hears about instances where tenants moving out of rented residences have trashed them.
“It’s rented to UG employees. If they want to trash our house and our lease while they’re employed by us, that would probably not be a good thing to do,” Richardson responded.
Reasons said his concern is that if a tenant ruins a historical building, the UG would be stuck with a big bill to renovate it.
Bain said, in response to a question, that the UG could evict a UG employee if the lease is broken. It could be a stipulation of the lease that the person be employed by the UG, according to the officials.
Patrick Waters, a UG attorney, said the terms of the lease would be beyond the scope of the CPC board. “I trust our department is going to create a lease that is legal and enforceable,” he said.
“This is about dividing the property, yes or no, does it meet the standards for property division,” Richardson said. He said the answer was yes.
What the UG does with the money, finances, contracts and the lease terms are outside of the purview of the factors to be considered for the CPC, according to Waters.
Waters said only the CPC approves the plat, and the UG accepts the dedications on the plat.
In answer to a question from Dr. Serda, Richardson said when the plat is recorded, they could put the reverter clause on the face of the plat.
Connelly spoke about wanting the board to discuss various aspects of this change.
Dr. Serda said there are other policy concerns that have been voiced about this, and wanted to know if there was another opportunity for the concerns to be heard. Cross said there would be another opportunity at an upcoming full UG Commission meeting, if the item is taken off the consent agenda.
Richardson’s staff recommendation for approval did not include the reverter clause. Richardson said the full UG Commission could vote to remove the reverter clause and do whatever they want to in the future.
Three CPC board members, Connelly, Dr. Serda and Reasons voted against it, with Dr. Serda mentioning the lack of the reverter clause as his reason for voting against it.
The vote, originally 4-3 in favor of the replatting, was later changed to 5-3, adding chairman Jeff Carson’s vote, after Waters recommended that the chairman vote. He said the CPC needed five votes to pass the item. The vote was being taken after 10 p.m.
The issue is expected to go to the full UG Commission at a later date.
The houses are at 3450 East Drive and 4400 West Drive inside Wyandotte County Lake Park.
The meeting video is online, with the portion about the lake houses closer to the 11 p.m. end of the meeting, at https://youtu.be/4p_p6UwvHOQ?fbclid=IwAR2ykbeXGLNjMw0_I98dMrE8Z90_9wQjqQyD_CnqYIVUCO6gRuVX_ywKvB8