The New York herald., 1922-06-11

Two applications for variations Of the
coming law which seriously threatened
the structure of the entire ordinance
were denied by the Board OF Appeals
on Tuesday June 6. in response TO
the protest Of property owners affected
by the petitions in question. One was
by Russell Huffman. attorney. on oehalr
of Lofty Cantor. owner, to permit In a
residence district the maintenance OF
premises at Ga West Fifty-second street,
Manhattan. for business use. The ap-
plication was opposed by large ma
jority of the property owners in that
street. represented by counsel and the
Fifth Avenue Association, Inc. The ap-
plication was denied on the ground that
this street had been restricted to resi-
dence use under the zoning law since
1915 and that the use OF the premises
for business purposes was illegal, as 1t
had not been used for that purpose pre-
vious to 1916. In commenting ON this
case Chairman Walsh OF the Board OF
Appeals said that the city should have
maintained a larger residential district
in that section and characterized It as
shame to allow business to crowd out
the homes in what was once New York's
finest residential section.
The second application covered the re-
quest Of the Rexton Realty Company
for an extension of time in which to
complete a building TO a height OF 191
feet at 80 West Twenty-fifth street.
where the height of buildings is re-
stricted under the law TO 120 feet. In
1916. when the law became effective,
this building had not been completed
and a five year extension was granted.
The five years expired July 25, 1921.
and the owner petitioned for a further
extension of a year. When II was seen
that the united opposition OF the sur
rounding property owners and tho In
terest OF the Fifth Avenue Association.
Inc. had built a wall OF opposing argu-
ment that could not be surmounted the
application was withdrawn.
William ]. Pedrick, general manager
of the Fifth Avenue Association, Inc. in
discussing these cases said THE appli-
cation of the Rexton Realty Company is
beyond the Jurisdiction OF the Board of
Appeals. since the time limit fixed by
the Board of Estimate from July 25.
1916, already has elapsed. II such appli-
cations were entertained and granted Il
would be the rankest sort of injustice to
adjoining property owners, who would
then be penalized for the failure OF the
petitioner to live up TO the legal and
ample time limit which was granted. II
would be possible for one obstinate owner
to hold n club over the light and air OF
surrounding properties and hold up the
development OF an entire street pending
his own sweet will.
Unless the height limits are strictly
enforced in this section. we will eventu-
ally have an entire city OF dark. canyon
like. health destroying streets. in which
the workers on the lower floors will be
a .f ha aH ~ a GA of fro
and air. The disadvantages and un-
healthfulness OF working in this city
have been rendered great enough by our
civic sins Of the past. We are glad 20
see that the Board OF Appeals Is opposed
TO such civic sin being laid attheir doors
to the detriment Of the future genera
tions
The application of Lofty Cantor is
the old story of n property owner buying
in a residential district. knowing that i
is restricted against business. and hop
ing that the lack OF unity on the part
of adjoining property owners VIII per-
NIT an application for business use Of
the premises to slip through unopposed.
We have no sympathy with such tactics
and are unalterably opposed to- the con-
dltions that would result were one such
application to be granted. II would mean
stagnation In the realty values OF the
street affected. Property would have nc
value for home purposes while the
danger existed OF further Invasion by
business, and on the other hand, busi-
ness occupancy would involve the dues-
tion OF illegallty and the uncertainty Of
the granting OF an application for It's
continuance. We are glad to say that
the Fire Department and the Board OF
Appeals are both militant in their sup
port Of the law and active in the sup
preston OF violations.
Property owners and business mer
in the Fifth avenue section are aroused
20 the necessity for concerted action II
defense OF the dignity and attractive.
ness Of our district. and any attempt x