By Mallory Simon
Remnants of what might have been the first semi-favorable plan since the farm's sale in November remain on the back part of the property. Painted in several colors, the words “Day Care” adorn the white exterior of the back structure on the property.
Since it was the last family-owned farm left in Queens and an integral part of the Fresh Meadows neighborhood, activists in the area have a vested interest in what happens next to the property. The farm has been a permanent fixture in the area since 1930. Zoning laws permit development on only 20 percent of the land.
Community members had expressed concerns that in order to maximize the development on such a small plot of land developers would demolish the property to make way for several apartment buildings.
The day-care/after-school center was believed to be only a temporary solution for the problems that developers have faced since the 2.2-acre site was sold for $4.3 million to Audrey Realty.
Weprin has led the charge for preserving the farmland since sale talks began in 2001. The land, previously owned by John Klein, became the object of community outrage when Klein wanted to sell the property to developer Tommy Huang, notorious for his damaging of the landmarked RKO Keith's Theater in Flushing. Plans to develop multi-family housing on the property incensed the community.
When the farmland was eventually sold to Audrey Realty, headed by John Huang, believed to be a relative of Tommy Huang, Weprin's office and community leaders vowed to do all they could to preserve the land. The 103-year-old farm has a zoning designation of R-4, meaning that eventually apartment buildings could be built on the land.
Any plans to change or alter the land are subject to community board approval, and intensive development would require a Uniform Land Use Review Procedure.
Weprin's chief of staff, Jack Friedman, said the councilman's office has closely monitored activity at the site.
“When we saw the sign for the day care center, we called the Board of Health to find out if there was a permit and if there was any activity inside the property,” Friedman said. “The only problem with that day care facility is that I don't think anybody believes it'd be a financially long-term solution given the price of the property.”
The land's market price is valued at approximately $2.5 million, according to the Department of Finance Web site, and with the sale price at $4.3 million, Friedman speculated that a day care center would not bring enough money to cause someone to pay an additional $2 million more.
“Although we did not think it would be economically feasible, I would love to bring that to the community to see their reaction,” Friedman said, “as long as it doesn't involve a ton of buses, parking issues and hundreds of students. It certainly would be better than what we would have with multi-family housing.”
The Department of Finance Web site lists a “fixture filing” – or something added to the property of value – as collateral on June 2, around the same time the day care center was supposed to open. The listing shows Audrey Realty as one party and the Los Angeles National Bank in California bank as the second party in the transaction.
“They absolutely could not make any additions to the property whatsoever without some type of approval,” Friedman said. “I can really only speculate about what it all means, though, or if it's connected to the day care center. However, it could just be something from the original sale that is just coming up now. We just don't know.”
The connection among the California bank, Audrey Realty and the day care center remains unknown, Friedman said.
Audrey Realty did not return phone calls regarding the day care center, the collateral posted or any planned development to the farm property.
While preservationists and political activists would rather not see development on the land, Community Board 8 District Manager Diane Cohen said the board can only step in if there is illegal building taking place.
“As long as it's legal, then we don't get involved,” Cohen said. “We get involved if they want to do any type of renovations or build anything new. Other than that, it's out of our hands if it's all legal.”
Friedman said at this point condemning the property is an extremely tedious process that he is not sure can be won.
“We have to have a really good reason to take away someone's right to own property,” he said. “Saying we want to just keep it as a farm probably won't sway a judge. However, we do have tremendous authority because nobody can build there without the community's authority.”
While no activity is evident on the property, Friedman pledged the councilman's office would continue to do all it could to preserve the land in one form or another.
“Hopefully, with all of the public outcry this guy will just get frustrated with it,” Friedman said. “Otherwise he can face reality and realize he has to face this community and do something we feel is acceptable.”
Reach intern Mallory Simon by e-mail at news@timesledger.com or by phone at 718 229-0300, Ext. 155.
