Village of Pelham Manor's Initiative to Annex No-Man's Land from New York City in 1931
Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."
No-man's land is a long strip of land made up today of about thirty-five properties that sit in the Bronx. Because they are separated from other Bronx residential areas by Pelham Bay Park, however, they derive many of the amenities of the suburban lifestyle offered by the lovely Village of Pelham Manor. For example, the children of homeowners located on the strip attend schools in Pelham Manor. Yet, the lucky homeowners who live on this strip pay modest New York City property taxes (at least when compared with property taxes in Pelham).
There is no shortage of explanations for the existence of no-man's land. Some say that a surveyor's error was responsible. Others claim that New York City originally intended the city boundary to end at the northern boundary of Pelham Bay Park but changed its mind and decided to annex slightly more land to the north to ensure that small islands located in Long Island Sound would be within the City's boundaries. Another account says that a road named "Park Drive" once was intended to be built along the northern boundary of Pelham Bay Park so that extra land was annexed to allow the road to be built. Plans for that roadway supposedly were abandoned due to opposition by Pelham residents, thereby freeing the area adjacent to the planned roadway for residential development.
I have written several times about Pelham's no-man's land. See:
Mon., Dec. 5, 2005: The Fabled "No-Man's Land" of Pelham Manor: A Tiny Strip of New York City.
Thu., Feb. 27, 2014: More About the Fabled "No-Man's Land" of Pelham Manor: A Tiny Strip of New York City.
Tue., Jun. 06, 2017: James Burnett of Pelham Manor: Chief Pooh-Bah and Jack of All Trades.
Whatever the reason for its creation, the result was 'no-man's land." By the early 1930s, no-man's land had become a headache for all concerned. New York City found it difficult to provide the area with basic services. The City did not maintain the roadways, did not provide transportation to New York City Schools for the children who lived there (who had to pay tuition to Pelham to attend its schools), and -- in effect -- relied on Pelham Manor to provide utility hookups and the like to residents in exchange for the payments of fees.
In about early March, 1931, there were seventeen residences built in no-man's land. (Today there are more than thirty.) Pelham Manor decided to do something about no-man's land. Petitions began circulating to have the entire area annexed by the Village of Pelham Manor to return the land to Pelham. Any such annexation would require approvals by New York City, the Village of Pelham Manor, and the Town of Pelham, followed by final legislation enacted by the State of New York.
Within a short time, every property owner in no-man's land except one signed the petitions in favor of annexation. The one dissenter was a local real estate developer named Arthur Cole who was using his property as a horse riding academy in violation of New York City zoning ordinances and planned, one day, to erect an apartment building on the property which, he believed, would likely not be permitted by the Village of Pelham Manor.
Then, a no-man's land resident filed a formal complaint with State authorities arguing that because a few feet of his property was in Pelham Manor (though most was in New York City as part of no-man's land), his daughter had the right to attend Pelham schools without having to pay tuition. State authorities ruled against the Pelham School Board and directed the Pelham Union Free School District to accept the student without requiring tuition payments, opening the door to the possibility that others might pursue similar claims.
The annexation initiative kicked into high gear. The Board of Trustees of the Village of Pelham Manor held hearings and fully supported the move. Everyone believed that New York City wanted to relieve itself of the headache of dealing with no-man's land.
The Pelham Manor Board of Trustees directed the Village Clerk to estimate what the assessed value of the property would be if annexed by Pelham. The Clerk estimated it to be worth about $496,000 although Arthur Cole disputed the figure claiming the value would be closer to $1,000,000. Whatever the value, it was clear that annexation would return a substantial amount of valuable real estate to the tax rolls of the Village of Pelham Manor.
The Village of Pelham Manor Village Attorney, Edgar Beecroft, prepared the necessary papers for submission to New York City to seek its approval for annexation. That is when things ground to a halt.
New York City raised an interesting legal issue. It indicated that it needed to calculate the amount of bonded debt that would have to be attributed to the property -- and dealt with -- before the property could be annexed.
The Village of Pelham Manor began to wait. As time began to pass, it became increasingly clear that annexation would not happen. Indeed, nearly eighteen months later the local newspaper, The Pelham Sun, speculated that perhaps the matter would be resolved in the year 1933. It was not.
In the meantime, as the years passed, when a Pelham child needed to attend a school for the hard-of-hearing in 1938, Pelham negotiated with New York City to allow such Pelham schoolchildren to attend a special school in New York City in exchange for allowing schoolchildren in no-man's land to attend Pelham schools without paying tuition fees.
With no approval from New York City, the annexation of no-man's land languished until World War II when the proposal seems to have died of old age. No-man's land continues as part of New York City to this day.
Detail of Map Published in 1929 with Portion of No-Man's Land Shown
at Bottom of Page. Source: G. M. Hopkins Co., Atlas of Westchester
County, Vol. 1, Pg. 03 (Philadelphia, PA: G. M. Hopkins Co., 1929).
NOTE: Click on Image to Enlarge.
* * * * *
"MANOR MAY GET BACK PROPERTY ANNEXED TO N. Y.-----
Residents of 225 Foot Strip Petition Village to Annex Property East of Park.
-----
If a plan advanced by a group of New York City residents who live just across the Manor boundary line, is approved by the state legislature, Pelham Manor will regain a section of the property which it lost when New York City annexed what is now Pelham Bay Park and City Island. Residents of the Park Drive section, recognized as Pelham Manor, but in reality within New York City, are circulating petitions urging the return to the village of a 225 foot strip of land several blocks long on the easterly border of Pelham Bay Park, in order that service connections, school facilities and other advantages of Pelham Manor may be gained without additional cost.
At the present time the residents of a half dozen houses in the strip which extends from Long Island Sound almost to the Boston road, are enjoying the advantage of local schools, sewer and service connections by paying certain fees to Pelham Manor and to the school district. The Pelham Manor police department has an agreement with the New York City police to provide protection.
It is impossible for New York City to provide for the section because it is divided from the rest of the city by the extensive Pelham Bay Park.
At the meeting of the Pelham Manor Board of Trustees on Monday night Village Attorney Edgar C. Beecroft reported: That the property had been taken by New York City early in the century when the park lands and City Island were annexed. The strip at the easterly end was not included in the park land as the city had intended to construct a highway around the park, but the plan was never realized. In the meantime, the property had been developed.
The petition which was received on Monday night was tabled pending the receipt of others."
Source: MANOR MAY GET BACK PROPERTY ANNEXED TO N. Y. -- Residents of 225 Foot Strip Petition Village to Annex Property East of Park, The Pelham Sun, Mar. 13, 1931, Vol. 21, No. 50, p. 1, col. 6.
"MORE PROPERTY OWNERS URGE ANNEXATION
-----
Six more property owners have signed the petition urging that the Village of Pelham Manor regain the strip of property lying between the village boundary and Pelham Bay Park, according to the announcement of Village Clerk Gervas H. Kerr.
The new signers were William B. Randall, Mrs. William B. Randall, the Robert C. Black Realty Company, the Skania Realty Company, Inc., Robert H. Crosby and Murray B. Parks.
At the meeting Monday, Gervas H. Kerr, village clerk, was instructed by Mayor Lawrence F. Sherman to determine the assessed valuations of the parcels of property for which annexation is sought."
Source: MORE PROPERTY OWNERS URGE ANNEXATION, The Pelham Sun, Apr. 10, 1931, Vol. 22, No. 2, p. 10, col. 2.
"PROPERTY VALUED AT $496,592 MAY RETURN TO ROLL
-----
Public Hearing on Annexation Of Strip at Village Boundary To Be Held May 25.
-----
Property assessed at $496,592.00 will be annexed to [the] village of Pelham Manor if the plan to regain part of the property which was taken from the village in the early days of this century, is carried through by legislative act. Owners of property in this strip of land which borders Pelham Bay Park on the north will attend a public hearing at the Village Hall in Pelham Manor on Monday, May 25. The trustees will plan their campaign to regain this property on the testimony offered by these property owners.
The property in question which was formerly in Pelham Manor, measures approximately one hundred feet across the northerly border of the park. It was included in the land taken by the city and included in the plan of Pelham Bay Park for the construction of a highway around the park, but the program was never carried out, and the property has since been developed by private enterprise. Residents of the strip although virtually living in Pelham Manor are unable to secure the privileges of Pelham Manor residents without payment of fees, and their homes are separated from the city services by the park which measures several miles.
The Board of Trustees of Pelham Manor has received a petition from seventeen property owners arguing that the village take over this strip of property by legislative act.
Village Engineer Julius Dworshak has reported that it will cost the village $58,637.50 to install street improvements in the strip that is proposed to be annexed to the village. William B. Randall, chairman of the village planning committee, has approved the program and estimates that the property is worth a million dollars."
Source: PROPERTY VALUED AT $496,592 MAY RETURN TO ROLL -- Public Hearing on Annexation Of Strip at Village Boundary To Be Held May 25, The Pelham Sun, May 1, 1931, Vol. 21, No. 5, Section 2, p. 9, col. 1.
"STREET REPAIRS IN NEW STRIP TO COST $22,507.50
-----
Village Engineer Estimates Improvement Work To Be Done Should Property Be Annexed by Village.
According to the estimate of Village Engineer Jules Dworschak, it will cost the village $22,507.50 to make street improvements in the strip of property that is proposed to be annexed to Pelham Manor. Eighteen property owners residing in the half mile strip at the northerly boundary of Pelham Bay Park are ready to secede from New York City and become residents of the village, which has catered to their needs for several years. On Monday, May 25, a public hearing will be held at the Village Hall, to discuss the submission of a bill to the legislature to permit the annexation of the property by the village.
History repeats itself. Early in the 20th century [sic] the City of New York effected legislation which took from the Town of Pelham all that property which is now Pelham Bay Park and City Island. The bulk of that property was developed for park, but a strip measuring 250 feet wide along the northerly boundary of the land was left out of the park in anticipation of the construction of a highway around the tract. The property has since been developed and eighteen residences constructed thereon. If the legislature will permit it the village will re-annex some of the land which it lost almost thirty years ago."
Source: STREET REPAIRS IN NEW STRIP TO COST $22,507.50 -- Village Engineer Estimates Improvement Work To Be Done Should Property Be Annexed by Village, The Pelham Sun, May 15, 1931, Vol. 22, No. 6, Section 2, p. 10, col. 5.
"ZONING CHANGES AND ANNEXATION UNDER DISCUSSION
-----
Two important issues will bring out several hundred residents of Pelham Manor to the public hearing to be held at the Village Hall on Monday. The application of Arthur W. Cole for a change in zone restrictions to permit the construction of a two-and-one-half story block of stores and offices at the Red Church Corner will be opposed by property owners who desire to retain the strict residential character of the village to annex a 250 foot strip of New York City property at the southwesterly boundary of the village will be favored generally."
Source: ZONING CHANGES AND ANNEXATION UNDER DISCUSSION, The Pelham Sun, May 22, 1931, Vol. 22, No. 8, p. 1, col. 6.
"LAND BETWEEN PARK AND VILLAGE IS CALLED 'NO MAN'S LAND'; ONLY ONE DISSENTING VOTE AT PUBLIC HEARING
-----
William B. Randall Formally Presents Petition for Annexation of 250 Foot Strip to Village of Pelham Manor; Arthur W. Cole Voices His Objections; Trustees Prepare To Submit Plan to Legislature.
-----
Eighteen residents of the 'No Man's Land' between Pelham Manor and Pelham Bay Park made their formal application to join the village on Monday night when William B. Randall, former president of Pelham Manor urged that the village annex a strip of property one mile and a quarter long and 250 feet wide. He was supported by all but one owner of property in the strip in question. That was Arthur W. Cole, who entered his protest saying that annexation would cut the value of the property in half.
The petition was accepted by the Board of Trustees, and the matter held over for consideration. It is expected that Village Attorney Edgar C. Beecroft will be instructed to prepare the annexation bill which will be submitted to the legislature at its next session. The plan must be approved by the City of New York, but inasmuch as the property is marooned from the rest of the city, and may at some future date become an economic 'sore toe' it is expected that there will be no official opposition.
Although the hearing on Monday night was attended by officials of the Bronx, Mr. Cole's opposition was the only dissenting vote. At the present time a riding academy operated by Cole on a section of the property in question is under fire in New York City as a zoning violation. If this property is taken into the village, it will be included in the residential district and Cole will have another zoning fight on his hands.
Mr. Randall in presenting the petition said as follows:
'The petitioners wish to express their thanks to the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Pelham Manor, for the interest which they have taken in helping them secure action in reference to having the narrow strip of land, 250 feet by 6600 feet, lying between Pelham Manor and Pelham Bay Park, now belonging to New York City, incorporated into our Village.
'We do not know how this strip came to be left between Pelham Manor and the Park, but it may be that the Park Commission in 1886 expected to use this strip as a Boulevard. That reason no longer exists, as the cost of condemning the land, now considerably improved, would be too great. Major Fairchild states that it was an engineering mistake. Very few of the property owners have declined to sign the petition. One reason given was the fear of increased taxes in Pelham Manor, that they might be more than those levied now by the City of New York.
Comparison between the taxes assessed in Pelham Manor, on improved property, and those assessed in New York, does not justify this opinion, and even if they were higher, the advantages of living in a beautiful residential suburb like Pelham Manor, would offset such increase. Another reason for declining to sign this petition, given by one property owner, was, that some time he might wish to build an apartment house on the property. This is a good reason for the Village taking over this strip, if possible, as the residents of Pelham Manor do not wish for apartments, which would lower the value of residential property in the vicinity.
'As an actuality, the citizens residing within the debatable territory really belong to Pelham Manor. Their friends and neighbors live in Pelham Manor, and they desire their children to use our Public Schools. They are virtually citizens of our Village, but are not entitled to its advantages. These people pay taxes to New York, but receive no service in return. New York City is unable to give them Schools. Police. Fire Protection. Garbage removal and other utilities. In order to remedy this uncomfortable and unfair condition, it will be necessary to introduce in the State Senate and Assembly, a bill covering this matter, after approval by the Governor. It requires the approval of the New York City Authorities.
'It is believed that the city of New York regards this strip as of little value to the City, and as more or less of a nuisance, on account of the difficulty in giving utilities to this territory. If a demand should be made by the people of this section, who are entitled to vote, the City under the election law would be obliged to constitute a separate election district -- with all the expenses attached, for only a handful of votes. Again, if a demand should be made for school privileges, New York would have to arrange transportation several miles to the Bronx.
'It seems practically impossible for the City to give this section Water, Gas, Fire and Police Protection, or Public Schools. We hope that Pelham Manor is willing to do so. It has already been most helpful on many occasions.
'We, therefore, ask you to give favorable consideration to our petition, as providing a just and fair treatment of the property owners on our border who now live in a sort of 'No Man's Land.' If Pelham Manor is willing to accept them, we feel confident that New York will be glad to be relieved of the problems of giving this section necessary services.'
Mayor Sherman informed the petitioners that the village board would lose no time in considering their petition."
Source: LAND BETWEEN PARK AND VILLAGE IS CALLED 'NO MAN'S LAND'; ONLY ONE DISSENTING VOTE AT PUBLIC HEARING, The Pelham Sun, May 28, 1931, Vol. 22, No. 9, Section 2, p. 9, cols. 1-2.
"COUNTY AND TOWN MUST APPROVE OF ANNEXATION
-----
Village Attorney Preparing Legal Portfolio in Response To Petition of New York City Residents.
-----
Legal matters incumbent on the proposed annexation by the Village of Pelham Manor of a 250 foot wide strip of land across the southerly boundary of the village, are in preparation by Village Attorney Edgar C. Beecroft [illegible] regarded as residents of Pelham Manor, they are unable to enjoy the privileges of civic improvements here without paying fees. They contend that New York City has neglected their section and that they will be benefited by joining Pelham Manor.
Village Attorney Beecroft reported to the Board of Trustees on Monday night that it will be necessary to gain the approval of the County Board of Supervisors, the Town Board and of the state legislature."
Source: COUNTY AND TOWN MUST APPROVE OF ANNEXATION -- Village Attorney Preparing Legal Portfolio in Response To Petition of New York City Residents, The Pelham Sun, Jul. 2, 1931, Vol. 21, No. 14, p. 1, col. 2.
"PREPARE LEGAL WORK BEFORE LAND CAN BE ANNEXED
-----
The Pelham Manor Board of Trustees is expected to announce a definite plan on Monday for the annexation of a 250 foot strip of New York City property to the village. Village Attorney Edgar C. Beecroft has been preparing the necessary legal papers. The strip in which there are seventeen residences lies along the southerly boundary of the village between the village line and Pelham Bay Park.
Of the seventeen property owners only one has expressed opposition to the plan to annex the strip to Pelham Manor. Arthur W. Cole, who maintains a riding school at one end of the 250 strip [sic] is experiencing legal difficulties with the New York City authorities relative to zoning. It is believed that he can expect even more rigid zoning restrictions if the property is taken into Pelham Manor."
Source: PREPARE LEGAL WORK BEFORE LAND CAN BE ANNEXED, The Pelham Sun, Jul. 10, 1931, Vol. 22, No. 15, p. 1, col. 1.
"SCHOOL BOARD LOSES TUITION CASE; BOUNDARY LINE RESIDENCE OWNERS CAN SEND CHILDREN TO LOCAL SCHOOLS
-----
Deputy Commissioner of Education Decides that Parent Can Select Pelham Manor as His Residence When House Is Located on Boundary Line; Property Included in Strip Proposed To Be Annexed to Village.
-----
Reserving the decision of the Board of Education of the Pelhams, Deputy and Acting Commissioner of Education Ernest E. Cole, has declared that tenants of houses on the Pelham Manor village line can send their children to the Pelham schools without payment of tuition. The decision was handed down at Albany on Saturday. William L. Ransom was attorney for the appellant Melville T. Chandler, of No. 11 Monroe street. Tuition fees charged for seven-year-old Adelaide Chandler, daughter of the appellant, were responsible for the suit.
The action has a bearing on the status of some of the school children residing in the 250 foot strip of property on the northerly boundary of Pelham Bay Park, just across the Pelham Manor village line. An action is pending to have this property annexed to the village of Pelham Manor. It was taken into New York City late in the nineteenth century.
Chandler is the owner of a 50 x 125 foot parcel of land which is partially in Peham Manor and partially in New York City. Inasmuch as an eight foot frontage of his property is within Pelham Manor, and 16% of the house, also, he objected to being charged tuition fees for the attendance of his child at Prospect Hill School. The Board of Education contended that Chandler paid the greater percentage of school taxes to New York City, he was not properly a resident of the Pelham school district and should not therefore be entitled to free educational privileges.
Commissioner Cole in his decision dated as follows:
'It has long been held that to acquire a domicile or residence, two things are necessary -- the family residence in a place and the family to make it a home. Both conditions are present in this case. The appellant resides in a house that is located partly in said Union Free School District. We should not indulge in too great refinements in determining just what proportion of the house is located on each side of the line. The house is a home for residential purposes. It would not be a dwelling house with the Pelham side eliminated. Under these circumstances I think that the appellant had the right to choose the place of residence, at least for school purposes, and he has clearly indicated such choice. Therefore, I find his daughter a legal resident of said Union Free School District for the purpose of school attendance and must be received and instructed in the public schools maintained in said district with no tuition charge.'"
Source: SCHOOL BOARD LOSES TUITION CASE; BOUNDARY LINE RESIDENCE OWNERS CAN SEND CHILDREN TO LOCAL SCHOOLS, The Pelham Sun, Jul. 31, 1931, Vol. 22, No. 18, p. 1, cols. 7-8.
"SCHOOL PROBLEM FOR PARENTS IN BORDER STRIP
-----
New York City Refuses To Provide Transportation for Pupils in 250 Foot Strip.
-----
Problems of residents of the 250 foot wide 'no man's land' strip between Pelham Manor and Pelham Bay Park were increased last week when the new York City School authorities refused to provide school transportation to children living there because their parents own automobiles. Thus the parents are forced to take their children to schools several miles across Pelham Bay Park or pay tuition fees in the Pelham schools. Many have adopted the latter policy, hoping for an adjustment under recent legislation which requires New York City to reimburse the Pelham school district according to the school tax paid on the property.
At the meeting of the Board of Education last Thursday night the case of one parent was cited. School Trustee William B. Shaw urged that the Pelham Board of Education be lenient with the parent because of financial difficulties. The father is a native of Pelham was educated in Pelham schools and has been engaged in building construction for several years. Trustee Shaw recommended that because this man has materially added to the school district income by building several houses, he should be granted an extension of time in paying tuition fees. The board agreed to accept a note.
A year ago it was proposed by property owners in the strip that the village of Pelham Manor take steps to acquire the property, in order that the residents of this section could gain the benefits of village improvements without paying fees.
The property was formerly part of Pelham Manor, but it was annexed by New York City about thirty years ago when Pelham Bay Park was planned. A section 250 feet wide along the easterly border of the Park was to have been purchased by the city and a highway around the park constructed thereon. The city, however, did not follow this plan and a developing company subsequently sold the property in lots.
The re-annexation plan has not progressed very rapidly. An investigation was started several months ago to determine how much of the bonded indebtedness of the City of New York was chargeable to the border strip. However, no report has been made."
Source: SCHOOL PROBLEM FOR PARENTS IN BORDER STRIP -- New York City Refuses To Provide Transportation for Pupils in 250 Foot Strip, The Pelham Sun, Oct. 21, 1932, Vol. 23, No. 31, p. 13, col. 3.
"PERHAPS IN 1933 WE SHALL SEE . . .
The annexation to Pelham Manor of the 'No Man's Land strip' across the northerly boundary of Pelham Bay Park so that the residents of this section may gain the benefits of village improvements without the payment of fees. . . ."
Source: PERHAPS IN 1933 WE SHALL SEE, The Pelham Sun, Dec. 22, 1932, Vol. 23, No. 40, p. 12, cols. 5-6.
"No Official Approval Of Agreement With N.Y. City On School Pupils
-----
Although press report from New York City has stated that official approval has been given by the City Board of Education to the proposal for an exchange of pupils between Pelham and New York City, President William L. Chenery of the local Board of Education stated last night that he had not received any notification. The plan for the exchange provides that Pelham schools will accept, without fee, the children residing in the 250 foot 'no man's land' strip across the northerly border of Pelham Bay Park within New York City in exchange for New York City accepting hard-of-hearing pupils at the Elementary School for the Deaf conducted by the City Board of Education."
Source: No Official Approval Of Agreement With N.Y. City On School Pupils, The Pelham Sun, Dec. 9, 1938, Vol. 28, No. 36, p. 1, col. 6.
Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "The Haunted History of Pelham, New York"
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."
Labels: 1931, 1932, 1933, 1938, Annexation, Arthur Cole, Edgar C. Beecroft, Elm Tree Lane, No-Man's Land, Real Estate, Village of Pelham Manor
posted by Blake A. Bell @ 4:33 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home