New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-08-22
HIGH WORDS ABOUT BAY WINDOWS.

SHALL THEY ENCROACH UPON STREETS
INSPECTOR EsTEnBRooK's oPINIoN-JoHS II. sHER-
WOOD DOES NOT AGREE WITH HIM.
Voices. pitched in high koy in the private Office
of Inspector Esterbrook, attracted the attention OF
persons 10 the outer room OF the Bureau OF Build
ngs yesterday. Clerks, who were at work upon
and said 'Some one is making 1t warm for the old
man, again. 1t was evident that dispute Of some
kind was in on pSS
streets" pronounced with distinctness, indicated
that the argument was upon some technical point
In the Building laws; John Ii; Sherwood, promi-
neut builder OF Sixth-ave. and Northumberland
ffteen.st., and one of the directors OF the Fifth
Avenue Bank, emerged from Mr.. Esterbrooks
AZ hia desk. writing Mr.. Sherwood on July 3 hled
plans for five dwelling houses which he intended TO
build in Sixth-aye., at One hundfed-and>twenty
cations were net approved by Inspector Esterbrook,
because the buildings were to have bay-windoWs
projecting three feet ard SIX inches beyond the
building line OF the lots Mr.. Esterbrook wrote on
the application that the situation OF the windows
must be outlined clearly. and that the windows
must not project more than twelve inches beyond
the building line. 1t was said that MIR. Sherwood
had threatened to abandon his building projects I'M
less he was permitted to have tho bay windows con-
structed according to the specifications Many
similar plans had been changed IL was SAID because
the Inspector would not sign specifications Tor bay
windows extending into the street.
Inspector Esterbrook spoke freely to TRIBUNE
those presented by Mr.. Sherwood Mayor Edison
aud the Counsel TO the Corporation, ne sad. had ad,
yIsed him that he ought not to permit the building II
bay. windows which would extend beyond the street
line and obstruct the from the windows OF other
houses The Board of Alderman recently decided
that such encroachments on the public streets were
Illegal Many owners of real estate have acted Tor
thelast twenty years If they owned aconsiderabe
portion OF the street on which their property fronts
In some instances. property-ownen have taken INTO
their houses nearly as much space IRON the puDnc
street as they owned surface Of land on which the
houses were built. Such houses were built on gore
OF narrow corner lots and the owners obtained
permits for the erection of bay-wlndows extending
lar over the line of the lots. such permits were
given, however, with the stipulation that the bay
windows should be allowed to remain only during
the pleasure of the Common Council. Ii 10 the
opinion of the Corporation Counsel that such
permits were illegal aud that the owners
of nouses can be compelled 10 remove the projecting
windows at any tins. A suit 10 compel such re-
moyals can be brought by any real estate owner
who thinks that the value of his own property y
injured by the bsy-windows OF his neRhoor'
house In a report, made to the Board of Aldermen
on May 20 by the Committee on Public Works, ap-
pears the following statement;
Those who have erected -windows and Other pro
ieolous TO their buildings, and In doing so nave cn-
upon thc public streets Will each have u take
the uis illegal act which mag no
e serious In their nature until purchaser refuses
TO take title TO structure by reason oil the In
ability OF the 10 establish an ownership TO the lapd
upon which such entertainments are built, or some In
Juted citizen may compel his neigabor to remove the
lille gal ttructure.