Back-Yard Dispute : Family Seeks to Use Land That Turns Out to Be Part of Park Near Simi Valley

Two years ago, Gary Moss decided to fix his back-yard fence. That’s when he found out that he didn’t own the fence--or his back yard.

Instead, the land, right up to his and his wife’s bedroom window, is part of Santa Susana Park, owned by the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District. Shocked and somewhat dismayed, Moss asked if maybe he could buy the property or perhaps lease it.

Park officials said no, and now Moss is appealing that decision. But he does not seem to be winning over anyone with his arguments.

“Our legal counsel is pretty firm on this,” park district spokesman Rick Johnson said. “He doesn’t really see any gray areas and is recommending the (district) board deny any reconsideration.”

Selling the land to Moss would require an expensive survey of the district’s parks and could set a precedent for other landowners encroaching on parkland, he said. The district’s board will discuss issue again Thursday night, but rejected his request a year ago.

The previous owners of Moss’ home on Casa Grande Road near Simi Valley used the land in question since the early 1950s, building a play area for their children. An old playhouse still stands on the land, and remnants of a tree fort can be seen in one of the huge trees there. When Moss moved into the home in 1992, he fenced off the area for his German shepherd, Frazier, to play in.

“If it’s such an important piece of property, why didn’t (the park district) do something about it years ago?” he said.

Moss said he could probably sue his realtor for not notifying him, but the effort would be expensive and, in the end, he wouldn’t get what he really wants--a back yard.

“We’d just like to work this out somehow,” he said. “If they decide to take the property back, I think we’d just put up a ‘For Sale’ sign and move out.”

The property, roughly 1,500 square feet, is shaded by three huge oak trees and bordered by a chain-link fence on three sides. An old wooden fence, the one Moss wanted to replace, still stands on the side next to the park.

When he decided to do repair work, he did the courteous thing and notified the managers of the park. A few months later, Moss received a note from the park district informing him that he didn’t need to build a new fence because he didn’t own the property.

*

The land is separated from the rest of the park by an arroyo littered with old tires and concrete. The rustic park is dotted with dramatic rock formations and sprawling old oak trees. At the beginning of the year, the Mosses received a letter notifying them that they had 90 days to clear the land so that the park district could take it over and plant new vegetation.

Although they expressed some sympathy for Moss and his wife, park district officials and board members said the couple should have known it was not their land.

“I can understand where they’re coming from,” said board member Bonnie Carpenter, who voted against the couple last year. “(But) we cannot make a gift of public land, and any encroachment needs to be eliminated.”

Before the couple could buy the land, the district would have to conduct a detailed and expensive survey of all of its 50 parks, and the land in question would have to be deemed surplus.

“In these financial tough times, we just don’t have the resources to do that,” Carpenter said. “And why should we do an expensive appraisal of land that we don’t want to sell in the first place?”

But board member Gene Hostetler said the park district shares some responsibility for the mix-up.

“They’ve used the property since they bought it, and the previous owners used it for well over 20 years with nobody bothering them,” he said. “Both the realtors should have known about the property, but the park district should have done something about it years ago.”

*

This is not the first encroachment on parkland by a private landowner. Park district officials said that over the years, everything from chicken coops to television antennas have been put up on parkland as neighboring property owners try to nip off a few extra feet of space.

Recently, district officials discovered several property owners encroaching on the district-owned Simi Hills Golf Course. Most of the encroachments were minor, but one landowner had built a pool that extended onto park property.

“That, of course, is a very serious case,” Hostetler said. “And I think it points out the need to deal with these on a case-by-case basis. We have to be fair, of course, but I don’t think . . . allowing the Mosses to lease parkland will set a precedent.”

Other park officials disagree and worry about neighboring landowners complaining of unfair treatment if they grant the Mosses’ request. They said the park district has an obligation to protect the land it holds in the public trust.