Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1962_07_24 Town Board Minutes MINUTES OF HEARING ON PETITION BY GEORGE E. BALDWIN INC. , HELD JULY 24th, 1962 AT 7.30 P. M. AT 307 ROCKLAND AVENUE, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK. CALL TO ORDER The Supervisor called the meeting to order at 7.30 p.m. , ex- plaining that in accordance with law, it was held on the site -- of the petitioner's property for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the petition as presented, ROLL CALL Present. Supervisor Burchell Councilman Kane Councilman Brush Councilwoman Helwig Councilman Cook Absent. None Also Present. Mr. Gronberg, Town Clerk Mr. Delius, Town Attorney Mrs, Brewer, Secretary HEARING On motion by Councilman Brush and seconded by Councilman Kane, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the hearing be and it hereby is declared open. The Clerk then presented the petition as submitted together with the affidavit of posting pursuant to law, and the Su- pervisor, for the information of all attending the meeting, outlined the petition which requested annexation of that property commonly known as "The Baldwin Property" and described in said petition to the Village of Mamaroneck. He reviewed briefly the legal procedure governing the handling of such petition, pointing out that under existing law, a Town Board had no jurisdiction in the matter except to determine the sufficiency of the petition, and if sufficient, to present it to the Board of Trustees of the Village con- cerned; if found insufficient under law, the Town Board had the right to reject such petition. He further spoke of the Legislative Commission which had been appointed by the State to study Town and Village legis- lation, asserting that the Commission had been appointed for one reason due to the many such controversies which had arisen on Long Island between Towns and Villages. The Commission, which had existed for five years and on which Mr. Delius, the Town Attorney, had served, had submitted recommendations proposing that towns be given power to act on the merits of such annexation petitions. Such legisla- tion, however, had failed to pass in the legislature, thus -1- leaving towns without any power other than that of determination of the sufficiency of annexation petitions. The zoning of the subject property under Town zoning, he stated, was R-15, while that of the contiguous property lying in the Vil- lage was R-5. However, he called to attention the fact that if the property in question were to be annexed to the Village, it would not have any zoning status at the time of annexation and would have to be zoned by the village following its annexation thereto. The tax situation was also briefly reviewed, with the Town Attorney pointing out that the property, even if annexed to the Village, would still be subject to certain Town Districttaxes, The Supervisor then inquired whether anyone wished to address the Board on the question of the sufficiency of the petition here- with presented, and the following persons, all residents of the Town, were heard- Mr. David Easton, 4 Lancia Lane Mr. Easton stated that he was an attorney residing on property contiguous to that of the petitioner and presented, for the Board's consideration, a written brief of objection to the form of the petition, which was hereto ordered received and filed and referred to the Town Attorney, Mr, Easton further stated that it was his opinion as an attorney that the petitioner was not qualified to file this petition under law since he did not represent the majority of the assessed value of property in a "territory", contending that a "territory" was a tract of ground having definitive boundaries and naming as an example of such a tract of ground or "territory", the Murray Avenue School District, He further stated that the brief cited court rulings upholding this contention together with a list of ob- jecting residents within such a said "territory" having an as- sessed valuation far in excess of that of the petitioner, and stat- ing that in accordance with law, the majority of the residents of a "territory" or owners of the majority value of the property within such "territory" on the assessment roll must favor such petition or proposal. This, then, he stated, in his belief con- stituted the basis for the Town's rejection of the petition, Mr, Samuel Kalmanash, 206 Mulberry Lane Mr, Kalmanash, also an attorney residing at the above address urged the Board to reject the petition on the ground that the statute under which the petition was applied was "unconstitu- tional", adding that he believed this would necessitate the ap- plicant's going to court to prove the validity of said statute and thus provide an opportunity for testing the law in court, Mr, M. P. Medwick, 1000 Fenimore Road Mr, Medwick spoke as representative of the Northern Larch- mont Mamaroneck Civic Association, stating that this group was opposed to anything that would deteriorate the area. He also pointed out that the granting of this petition would set a dan- gerous precedent, contending that any property owner whose land was contiguous to that of another community could request annexation, which would result in a chaotic condition of the sub- ject area, _z_ Mr, Delius, Town Attorney Mr, Delius stated that the constitutionality of the statute involved had been tested and upheld by the courts in several cases con- cerning Long Island towns and villages, and again declared that the Town Board was following the procedure required by law in reference to the petition at hand. However, he further stated that he would research the court ruling referred to by Mr. Easton with reference to a "territory" since the Council, under law, was permitted ten days to make a decision and as the next regular meeting of the Board fell within this period, decision could be de- ferred until such date. Other persons heard and speaking in the main to the points al- ready raised were; Mr, Barry Golden, 12 Avon Road Mrs, Ruth Easton, 4 Lancia Lane Dr, Maurice E. Serling, Poccia Circle Mrs, Betty Kaufmann, 41 Eton Road Mr, Raymond Ehrenberg, 3 Poccia Circle Mr, L. E. Levinthal, 199 Hickory Grove Drive East Mr, Jack E. Robbins, 3 Lancia Lane Mr, Samuel L. Apter, 20 Avon Road Mr, Mortimer L. Taylor, 6 High Ridge Road Dr. Emanuel Dickler, 25 Mohegan Road Mr, G. H. Kuehnert, 4 Beresford Lane At this time, the Supervisor recognized Mr, Burton C. Meighan who was present as attorney for the applicant and who spoke on his client's position in the matter. He stressed the fact thatthis -- was not a land speculation move but rather an endeavor to find a solution to his client's problem, and that it was his feeling that if it were to be advantageous, he was certain his client would be more than glad to discuss the aspects of the situation applying to the petition. In concluding the discussion since no one else wished to be heard, the Supervisor remarked that this was a matter of apply- ing the "good neighbor policy" between Town and Village, citing as an illustration of same by the Town on behalf of the Village his work with regard to the sewer plant controversary earlier this year, and assurring those present that the Town Board's feeling, upon the initial presentation of this petition, had been to oppose the annexation, and that if the petition were found to be sufficient and presented to the Village Board, if and when the Village Board held a hearing, the Town Board, or its represen- tative or representatives, would be present, as he imagined many of those here this evening would be, to voice objection to the proposed annexation on the merits, The Supervisor then thanked all those who were present for their interest and for taking the time and trouble to appear this evening and voice their views in the matter. In answer to inquiry, the Supervisor stated that if and when the Board of Trustees held a public hearing on the subject petition, notice of same would have to be given in accordance with law and that he presumed such hearing would be open to all who wished to be heard at that time, -3- And, thereupon, since no one else wished to be heard and since there was no further question, on motion by Councilman Kane and seconded by Councilman Brush, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the hearing be and it hereby is de- clared closed and decision reserved, ADJOURNMENT Whereupon, on motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was declared adjourned at 8:15 p.m. a To Clerk A � l -4-