SPECIAL MEETING
June 18, 1948
A special meeting of City Council was convened at 8:10 P.M., June 18, 1948, with Mayor Willis presiding. Members present were Mrs. Frear and Messrs. Carroll, Culver, Carson and Wilson.
The Garden Court Apartments, Inc., appealed from the decision of the Building Commission of the City of Dover denying their application for a permit to construct multi-family apartment units on a tract of land directly north of the present Dover School.
Mr. Herrmann, of the firm of Lynch and Herrmann, Attorneys, represented the Garden Court Apartments, Inc.
In his appeal, Mr. Herrmann reviewed the application of his client for a building permit, the petition signed by citizens of Dover objecting to granting the permit, and Section 8, Chapter XI of the Ordinances of the City of Dover, authorizing the Building Commission of the City of Dove to reject an application for a building permit.
Mr. Herrmann challenged the right of signers of the petition to object as not being residents within the same City block as the site of the proposed apartment units. He pointed out that in the signed petition no basis was given for objection. He stated that there was no zoning ordinance nor restrictive covenants against the apartment development and questioned whether the Building Commission had any grounds to deny a building permit. he asked Council to decide whether Section 8, Chapter 11 of the ordinances of the City of Dover provided grounds for the Building Commission to deny the application of Garden Court Apartments, Inc. for a building permit for the project in question. He further asked Council to consider the existing housing shortage and whether the wishes of a few should be upheld against the welfare of a greater number.
Max Terry, Attorney, represented citizens of Dover objecting to construction of apartment units on the site in question.
Mr. Terry stated that the ordinance of the City of Dover required no petition prior to the rejection of an application for a building permit. Any person can be heard by the Building Commission. His clients objected to the apartment units because the value of their properties would be depreciated and the apartment units would not be in conformity with the construction of their residences. They felt that new construction should be single unit residences to conform with present structures in the neighborhood. He expressed his client’s opinions that other areas are available for construction of the apartments.
Mr. William J. Storey, a petitioner, stated that he objected to the construction of any apartment, and specifically to this apartment unit in the area. Developed streets bounding the area are Hazel Road, Delaware Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. He purchased property in the area because of the type of residences constructed and required. The cost of erecting comparable houses at present day prices would far exceed the cost of the proposed apartment units. Fifty or more families would be crowded in an area where only a few houses equal to present homes could be placed. The apartment development would not conform to present residential construction and would depreciate the value of present properties. The laws of the land guarantee property rights of individuals and he questioned whether the proposed apartment can be constructed without interfering with property rights of present property owners.
Mr. J. Henry Hazel stated that he bought the area as a farm about 1924 with the idea of developing a substantial residential section with nice homes. Deeds to lots sold placed restrictions on homes to be built. He has attempted through the years to keep a high standard for the neighborhood. He stated he would carry his objections to the highest courts to prevent change in development of the area.
Mr. H. B. King stated that Keith Gardens referred to an area of 22 lots and not to a single block. He stated that buyers were limited to one lot each.
Mr. William Henry Jr. doubted whether 50 or more families could be found in this area who could afford to pay the amount of rent proposed to be charged for the apartments. He stated there are now two apartments in Dover which cannot be rented because of a $70.00 per month rental charge.
Mr. Hermann stated that if a building permit were refused, the appeal would be taken to a higher court. He asked whether any objectors could state wherein the plans for the proposed apartment unit differed in architecture from other structures in the area, calling attention to the Murphy School.
Mr. Hazel state that he would answer at the proper time.
Mr. Storey stated that multiple family type of construction is not in conformity with present type of construction.
The apartment until would house 52 families in an area now housing approximately 5 families.
Mr. Hermann stated that the appeal has come to be a hearing not on whether or not the building commission acted properly, but whether or not an apartment house shall be erected in this area.
Mr. Ernest V. Keith requested that no personal feeling enter into the considerations.
Upon motion of Mr. Carson, seconded by Mr. Carroll, the appeal of the Garden Court Apartments, Inc. to the decision of the Building Commission was denied, and the decision of the Building Commission upheld. The motion was approved by unanimous vote of Council.
Mr. Hermann asked whether the decision of Council was based on whether the type and nature of the composition, architecture and construction of the proposed building was in conformity with existing structures.
Mayor Willis replied that the decision was based on testimony heard by Council.
Council adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
City Clerk