Last week's issue of Garden City Life, contained the story about the chain link fence installed at the Garden City Middle School around the playing fields leased by the district, which became the subject of discussion at the Feb. 19 Village Board of Trustees meeting. The fence, as was explained by Trustee Collins on behalf of School Board President Morano, was installed with the intention of preventing an accident stemming from a possible attempt to retrieve a ball that might roll into the street. The problem with the fence, according to the Village's administration and counsel, is its current location. The fence is currently located within the right-of-way of the roadway. Village Counsel Fishberg had suggested that the school had "misunderstood the law" which prevents schools from having to be subject to municipal zoning codes on their property, and thought that this law applied to the leased property as well. According to Superintendent of Schools Dr. Lee Wilson, in a telephone interview this week, it was not that the district had "misunderstood" as Counsel Fishberg had suggested, rather the legal advisors for the district had a differing view of the rules that govern the use of property by a school and that their counsel argued that the law governing the zoning exemptions for schools governed leased property as well.

Three suggestions had been made at the Board of Trustees meeting to resolve the situation. One was for the fence to be moved back within a permitted distance per Village zoning, which Mike Filipon of the Village explained in a telephone conversation last week, is not the eight feet as was initially reported, but in fact is 80 feet. If the fence were removed and re-installed 80 feet back from its current location it would then be within the Village's zoning regulations; however, it would then be located in the midst of the playing fields. Another option for the school presented by the Village was to seek a variance. Filipon also clarified that if the school were to seek to place the fence anywhere between the property line and that acceptable line 80 feet back from the property line, the school would need a variance from the Village's Board of Appeals. The third option was to remove the fence entirely, but as Dr. Wilson explained, the fence was installed to "address a safety issue" and thus the fence is desired by the district.

Dr. Wilson stated that the district is "looking to bring a satisfacory resolution" to the situation and they hope to work in "cooperation with the Village." It is the opinion of the district's legal advisors that the variance scenario would not be necessary as the rules governing the school's exemptions from Village ordinances applies also to leased property, but the Village's counsel has argued otherwise, thus the two sides will need to meet and discuss this difference in opinion over the legal aspects of the issue. Dr. Wilson expressed the desire to bring "closure to that discussion" so that the district could focus on their "primary concern" which is "preventing youngsters from injury from chasing a ball and running into traffic." The fence, intended to dissuade that will, as Dr. Wilson commented, "not necessarily stop a ball from rolling into the street," but will serve as "a warning to the individual running after the ball" that they have reached the end of the property, are approaching traffic, and need to exercise caution.

The district, legal advisors for both the Village and the district, Village administrators, and the trustees will certainly be engaged in dialogue to bring a resolution satifactory to the parents of the middle school children, the Village, and the district.