Bonnett Avenue Residents Sue the Village Over Converting Park to Parking: 1954

by Ned Benton, Gazette History Editor

(April 15, 2004) History has a way of repeating itself, especially in Larchmont. Try to swap a park and a parking lot, move a park, or otherwise impact the relationship between a park and its neighbors, and Larchmonters stand up and pay attention.

Locals Speak Out About Their Parks: Today

There are plenty of current examples. Ask the Larchmonters on both sides of the Park Swap Proposal on Parkway Avenue, or ask the residents of Bonnett Avenue about landscaping of the buffer between their properties and the CVS parking lot. (See Bonnett Avenue & Board Tempers Boil Over Park and Parking Lot.) Or ask the the Mamaroneck School Board and the Kemper family about the Kemper Park Plans. Or ask some of the Flint Park neighbors about their concerns.

Grand Union's Park Swap Proposal in 1953

Back in the 1950s Larchmont was experiencing some of the same angst over a park. It all began in 1953, when the Chatsworth Avenue Grand Union perceived it needed more parking space, and they approached the Village Board with a proposal to lease part of Addison Park for a parking lot.

1953 Map shows Addison park between a 35 car lot and a vacant lot.

In return, the Grand Union would pay an annual fee and would also deed back to the Village a buffer strip along Chatsworth Avenue. In addition, there would be landscaped ground between the parking lot and the rear of residences along Bonnett Avenue.

Proposed expansion of the Grand Union parking lot and creation of Addison Park in a new location.

When the Village Board considered the idea in November 1953, the public hearing included a spirited debate, as revealed in the Board minutes.

The Public Hearing

The first speaker on behalf of the Grand Union Company was Thomas Reynolds, of the Owen A. Mandeville Real Estate Office. He explained that traffic conditions warranted the additional parking, and that 18 other merchants along Chatsworth Avenue had signed a petition in favor of the proposal. He assured the Board that "proper landscaping would be provided to protect the neighbors surrounding the parking area, as well as the parking lot."

Gus Sansone of 12 Bonnett Avenue spoke in opposition. "The Grand Union created their own problem," he explained, by not providing for the entrance and exit of their trucks in the beginning. He asserted that only "out-of-towners" needed the additional spaces in the lot. He then pointed out that the company's claim that it would provide a 10-foot buffer zone in the rear was incorrect. There was only 14 feet between the store building and the rear of the property, at least 10 feet of which was already in use for trucks during unloading. So much for the buffer zone...

Mr. Sansone recommended that, if the Board were to approve the lot, that it should at the same time ban street parking on Chatsworth Avenue from Addison to Forest Park Avenue, because it was being used by Grand Union employees. "When mothers pick up their children, there is double parking on both sides of the street."

Mr. Reynolds replied that the 10-foot buffer strip to be landscaped would be at the rear of the present site of the park, not behind the building.

Unethical and Immoral

Irving Bloomberg of 18 Bonnett Avenue turned up the heat. He called the proposal "unethical and immoral." He contested references to the lot as a "public parking lot" because it would really be a private parking lot - owned by the Grand Union Company. He declared, "A few years ago when the Grand Union was given the special privilege of building a business building in a residential area, the neighbors were told at the time that this would be the last encroachment on residential property in that area."

He protested that the action would be illegal. "It's customary, when a block is zoned, that the entire block is zoned, and it's against the law to zone one lot and then another lot."

Finally, he argued that the additional spaces were not needed. He explained that a neighbor had recently observed that, before the market had opened for business, eleven employees had already parked in the lot -- amounting to half of the spaces that Grand Union seeks to develop.

Joseph Strauss of the Fair Trade Association spoke in favor of the project, explaining that people were avoiding shopping on Chatsworth Avenue because of the poor parking conditions.

Harold Bozell, Chairman of the Traffic and Parking Committee, explained that the Village is "95% built-up. The Traffic and Parking Committee, in looking at the situation, has tried to look at it from the standpoint of the Village as a whole."

Was that a Bribe?

Mr. Bloomberg then told the Board that the Grand Union Company had sent a man "to ask what he would take as an individual to withdraw his opposition." Mr. Bloomberg declared that there wasn't enough money in any of the Grand Union's bank acounts to buy him off.

Jack O'Connell of the Grand Union Company immediately took the floor to demand that Mr. Bloomberg "retract the inference of bribery from the minutes of this meeting."

Bribe? He did not use that word, Mr. Bloomberg responded. The Grand Union agent had made him an offer to withdraw his opposition. "That was what he said."

Following the hearing, the board voted 3-1 in favor the the law authorizing the lease.

The Petition

The Board's vote was not the end of the matter for Mr. Bloomberg and his neighbors. On December 8, they presented the Village Board with a petition signed by 130 voters calling for the matter to be brought to a public referendum. Village law at the time provided that a 100-signature petition could force a vote.

Two months later, Bloomberg filed a lawsuit. He contended that the lease and the law were illegal, and that therefore the referendum was also illegal. The lawsuit attempted to block the referendum and the lease, but the strategy proved unsuccessful. (Read: Suit Challenges Park Lease Law, from the 1954 Larchmont Times article.)

The Vote

On March 16, 1954, Larchmont voters went to the polls to decide: to lease or not to lease the lot to the Grand Union. The Village prepared a brochure explaining the proposition to the voters. (Read the Official Village Election Brochure.)

Anyone who ever shopped at the old Grand Union, or who today stops by the new CVS can guess the outcome: the voters supported the lease law - with 328 voting "yes" and 50 "no." The rest is history.

Print This Article--For best results, highlight text, print selection
Email this article