Historic Pelham

Presenting the rich history of Pelham, NY in Westchester County: current historical research, descriptions of how to research Pelham history online and genealogy discussions of Pelham families.

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

Village of Pelham Manor's Initiative to Annex No-Man's Land from New York City in 1931


Sandwiched between the southern boundary of the Village of Pelham Manor in the Town of Pelham and the northern boundary of Pelham Bay Park is a tiny strip of land only 250 feet wide that long has been known as "no-man's land."  While the phrase may evoke images of a forsaken strip that no one wishes to frequent, nothing could be further from the truth.  

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: , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 27, 2014

More About the Fabled "No-Man's Land" of Pelham Manor: A Tiny Strip of New York City


I have written before of the strip of land in Pelham Manor known as "No-Man's Land," saying:  

"Sandwiched between the southern boundary of the Village of Pelham Manor in the Town of Pelham and the northern boundary of Pelham Bay Park is a tiny strip of land only 250 feet wide that long has been known as "no-man's land". While the phrase may evoke images of a forsaken strip that no one wishes to frequent, nothing could be further from the truth.

No-man's land is a long strip of land made up 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)."

For more about this interesting strip of land, see:  Mon., Dec. 5, 2005:  The Fabled "No-Man's Land" of Pelham Manor:  A Tiny Strip of New York City.  


1899 Map by John Fairchild Showing Beech Tree Lane
Section of Pelham. White Strip Extending from
Lower Left to Upper Right with Words "New York City"
Shows Portion of No-Man's Land That, Today,
Includes Elm Tree Lane.

Today's posting to the Historic Pelham Blog transcribes an article that appeared in The Pelham Sun published on May 3, 1945.  The article noted that there was alarm in Pelham Manor and among the members of the Village Board of Trustees after local developers acquired a portion of "No-Man's Land" on the New York City side of Elm Tree Lane and planned to develop it with "a number of small houses of 50-foot lots."  The Village Trustees "expressed concern at the loss of realty values that would follow the erection of any such proposed houses and the loss of tax revenue which would ensue."  Those concerns, with hindsight, certainly seem to have been exaggerated.

Below is a transcription of the text of the article, followed by a citation to its source.

"PROPOSED SMALL HOUSE BUILDING ALARMS TRUSTEES
-----
Have No Control Over Building on New York Side of Elm Tree Lane Where Unwelcome Development Threatens.
-----

The announcement last week that a group of investors headed by Chester Warm of the Warm Oil and Coal Co., of Pelham Manor, had purchased a tract of land on the New York City side of Elm Tree Lane and propose to develop it with a number of small houses of 50-foot lots, had a sequel this week.

Arthur Zerbey, who resides on Beach [sic] Tree lane in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development, sent to the Pelham Sun office a letter which he had received from Edward J. Hamberger a realty operator of Yonkers.  Mr. Hamberger is Mr. Warm's cousin.  The communication set forth that the purpose of the syndicate purchase of land on Elm Tree Lane is to develop it 'into small plots' and continued:  'We are, however, giving the people in the immediate vicinity . . . the opportunity of making first purchase.'  Other property owners in the highly restricted residential vicinity received similar letters.

The Pelham Sun is informed that village officials have been called into conference on the matter.  They have expressed concern at the loss of realty values that would follow the erection of any such proposed small houses and the loss of tax revenue which would ensue.  Two of the village officials have agreed to follow up the developments.  

The tract on which the proposed small houses are to be erected adjoins the property on which the coal company has its pockets."

Source:  Proposed Small House Building Alarms Trustees, The Pelham Sun, May 3, 1945, p. 1, col. 1.  

Labels: , , , ,

Monday, December 05, 2005

The Fabled "No-Man's Land" of Pelham Manor: A Tiny Strip of New York City


Sandwiched between the southern boundary of the Village of Pelham Manor in the Town of Pelham and the northern boundary of Pelham Bay Park is a tiny strip of land only 250 feet wide that long has been known as "no-man's land". While the phrase may evoke images of a forsaken strip that no one wishes to frequent, nothing could be further from the truth.

No-man's land is a long strip of land made up 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).





1899 Map by John Fairchild Showing Beech Tree Lane
Section of Pelham. White Strip Extending from
Lower Left to Upper Right with Words "New York City"
Shows Portion of No-Man's Land That, Today,
Includes Elm Tree Lane.

Those who live within this strip meet the rigid residency requirements for various political and judicial positions in New York City. It is this latter fact that has led many in Pelham to refer to the tract not as "no-man's land" but, rather, as "politician's row".

How this geographical oddity came about remains today a rather perplexing mystery yet to be solved despite the efforts of many. There are many accounts regarding how the strip came to be and the general facts of its creation are not in dispute. It is not really the "how" it came to be that is so perplexing, but the "why". Today's Blog posting will try to shed some light on the topic.

The Legends

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" was intended to be built along the northern boundary of Pelham Bay Park. Plans for the roadway supposedly were abandoned due to opposition by Pelham residents thereby freeing the area adjacent to the planned roadway for residential development.

Historical Background

Analysis of each of these traditions suggests that none is true. First we can analyze the historical background.

During the 1880s, New York City was working feverishly to create a series of parks for the benefit of the City's growing population. By 1885, plans were well underway to include, among these parks, a park to be named "Pelham Bay Park". One report summarized early efforts to create such parks:

"Mr. John T. Nagle, Chairman of the subcommittee appointed to consider the location, number of acres, cost of construction, &c, of the proposed new parks to the annexed district, has submitted his report to the Committee on Legislation of the Real Estate Exchange and Auction Room, Limited. The proposed parks selected by the Commissioners are named as follows: Van Cortlandt, Bronx, Pelham Bay, Crotons, St. Mary's, Claremont, Moshulo Parkway, Bronx and Pelham Parkway, and Croton Parkway. They embrace 3,808.39 acres, and, including railways and roadways, a total of 3,944.25 acres. . . . The argument used in favor of the purchase of Pelham Bay Park was that New-York wants and should immediately have a grand park with a water front on Long Island Sound."

Very Expensive Luxuries, N.Y. Times, Mar. 8, 1885, p. 2, col. 6.

In the next few years, New York City acquired huge tracts of land within the Town of Pelham which, at that time, including much of today's Pelham Bay Park and City Island. Of the 1,728 acres acquired for development of Pelham Bay Park, "[s]ome 1,481 acres of this was in Westchester County, east of the Hutchinson River, farms on the Mainland, and also Hunter's Island, The Twins, etc., then in the Town of Pelham". Barr, Lockwood Anderson, A Brief, But Most Complete & True Account of the Settlement of the Ancient Town of Pelham Westchester County, State of New York Known One Time Well & Favourably as the Lordshipp & Manour of Pelham Also The Story of the Three Modern Villages Called The Pelhams, pp. 63-64 (Richmond, VA: The Dietz Press, Inc. 1946).

The Town of Pelham suffered for a time after the City's acquisition of the acreage. Before annexation into the City, the lands remained within the Town of Pelham. The Town remained responsible for maintaining roads and bridges and for providing police and fire protection in the area. Because the property belonged to New York City for future park development, however, the lands could not be included on the Town's tax assessment rolls and no taxes were paid. Id., p. 64.

Lockwood Barr notes in his popular history of the Town of Pelham published in 1946 that the Legislature moved to correct this situation by passing a statute in 1895 which became effective on June 6, 1896 establishing a new boundary between Westchester County and what has since become Bronx County. It read in part:

"All that territory comprised within the limits of the towns of Westchester, Eastchester and Pelham, which has not been annexed to the city and county of New York at the time of the passage of this act, which lies southerly of a straight line drawn from the point where the northerly line of the city of New York meets the center line of the Bronx river, to the middle of the channel between Hunter's and Glen islands, in Long Island Sound, and all that territory lying within the incorporated limits of the village of Wakefield, which lies northerly of said line, with the inhabitants and estates therein, is hereby set off from the county of Westehester and annexed to, merged in and made part of the city and county of New York, and of the twenty-fourth ward of the said city and county, and shall hereafter constitute a part of the city and county of New York and of the twenty-fourth ward of said city and county, eto. etc. . ."

According to Lockwood Barr, "[s]omething quite unexpected happened. . . . When the actual new line was established it did not coincide with the northern boundary line of the farm tracts on the mainland, held by New York City for future park development." Id., p. 65. Barr notes that:

"The new line was approximately parallel to, but some 250 feet more or less north of the northern line of these tracts of farmlands. From the Sound to the River is about 6,600 feet, so that this tract contains 24 acres, more or less. That land, which had been in that part of the Town--now Pelham Manor--was placed in the City of New York. That 24. acres remains today in the hands of private owners and is not part of the Pelham Bay Park." Id.

The "Why"

We may never know precisely why the boundary line between Westchester County and what we know today as Bronx County was drawn about 250 feet north of the end of the lands acquired by New York City for inclusion in Pelham Bay Park. The most likely explanation is not a surveyor's "error" but, instead, a surveyor's good faith effort to establish a line from "the point where the northerly line of the city of New York meets the center line of the Bronx river, to the middle of the channel between Hunter's and Glen islands, in Long Island Sound". The line described by the legislature in the statute establishing the boundary likely did not exactly match the northern boundary of the lands acquired in the years preceding the enactment of the statute.

But, What About Park Drive?

Of the three traditional explanations for why no-man's land was created, the only one that, at first blush, seems to have plausible basis is the reference to Park Drive as a possible drive along the northern boundary of the Park that was never built. Proponents of this theory point to the fact that a number of old maps show portions of a "Park Drive" within the Park running along parts of No Man's Land in the Beech Tree Lane section of Pelham Manor. There seems, however, to be an entirely different explanation for such references.

As early as 1889, the flourishing Branch Line of the New Haven prompted a pair of local citizens to imagine a new residential subdivision immediately east of the branch line conveniently near Pelham Manor Depot for easy commuting to New York City. The two men, Robert C. Black and Silas H. Witherbee, owned land in the area that we know today as the Beech Tree Lane section of Pelham Manor.

On February 5, 1889, the men filed a subdivision map with the Westchester County Register’s office entitled “Land of R. C. Black & S. H. Witherbee, Pelham Manor, N.Y. Showing Proposed Roadways and General Plan by Subdivision. Scale: 100 ft. to one inch.”

The map showed a general plan to develop the area that is remarkably similar to the development that was completed nearly forty years later. There was one important difference however. There originally was a plan to make what is known today as Park Lane a circle like Manor Circle with a portion of the roadway running parallel to the boundary with Pelham Bay Park. An image of the 1889 development map appears below and has an arrow pointing to that portion of the roadway, marked "Park Ave." intended to run parallel to the Pelham Bay Park boundary. The image shows essentiallly the same area as the image above and has red lines to denote the location of today's 20 Beech Tree Lane to provide context.






Over time, a rough pathway / roadway developed in this area and extended directly to the Shore Road where the entry point can still be seen today with a cable across it to preclude vehicles from entering. A tiny portion of it was paved to create the beginning of the bike path in Pelham Bay Park where it begins at the end of today's Park Lane. More likely than not, these factors combined to cause early references to a Park Drive, although at this point that is merely a hypothesis.

An Interesting "Footnote"

As an interesting footnote to the whole matter, in 1931 a group with financial interests in various of the "no-man's land" properties -- many of which were developed with residential housing in the 1950s and 1960s -- petitioned the Village of Pelham Manor Board of Trustees to take steps to seek special legislation to make the properties part of Pelham Manor rather than New York City. According to Lockwood Barr, "it appeared that '. . . due to the bonded indebtedness of New York City, which would be a lien of all this land, the Legislature could not release the land from its share of bonded debts . . . ' if transferred back into the Village of Pelham Manor. Therefore the matter was dropped." Barr, pp. 65-66.


Labels: , , , , ,