6427 BEVERLY LN 2016-01-01 MF Import

I;vezett.. nssu;ning avery one oi these I1CL'(158C� livt�d i.n .i residential zone, the percentuge of uce for amateur rada.o is less than one per cent (.0193) oi the total numbor of. single-family homea in the City. Obvious].y, 3i�ch use is neither cuatomary, uaual nor normallp znci::iental co � single-family house. B. ThQ Board ehould be percuncled Uy reter.ence to a 1957 decision from the Court of Apr�f+�l:; cf r:e4- �!cr}:. t�reanell v. Lealie, 3. N.Y. 2d 389• In the Presnell case, ae in the Carpenter es3e, the petitioner was an amateur radio operator an� ueair.ed to construct a radio tower at his residence in ��Iestbury, Lonr Island, which was located in a ReFidence A Zone of that city. For a period of seven (7) years the petitioner ha�i operated his station by using an antenna on a ten-foot woodan pole. He eought permission from tlie buildiny in- apector to construct a 44-foot stew_1 to�ver. The buildin, inspector, confronted with similar code provi.aionss as the Gverett Building Inspector, denied the permit and refused to grant the eane on tlie grounda that the radio tower "is neither an accesnory building or use customary to a resi- dential dwellins and the eame does not belong in a zeai•• dential zone." The petitioner a�pealed ttiis decision and twenty (20) residents of the city opposed the grantinq of the pe nnit while three (3) city rosidenta favored the appl�estion. The board found that tl�e structure would be an eyesore in an exclusively residential crommunity occu- pied by prlvate homea situated closed to one another and further found it would be a menace to the aufety of chil-- dren and have an adveree effect upon the real estate value in the neighborhood. This decision was suetained on appea: oP the applicant on a trial court level and the trial �ourt. was su3tained by the appellate courC. In that decis±.or�, tt�e court seid, e+t puge 491: ... if the tower is not a permissibl� acceesory uae, the building pennit was properll denied; if it be a permitted one, the tower muat be considered an ac�essory building, ar.�� therefore limited in height by section 11 of Article III of the Villaye of Weati�ury Amended Building Zone Ordinances o£ 1937 to 20 ieet. Since we ure of. the view that the propoeed towar. is not an accessory ur�e. and tl�e ordin- ance when so co�zstrued and applied is conati- tutionul, we do not reacli the question as to whether restrictiny ita height to 20 feet woul�i be valid. "t;hile we ar? all faml.liar with antennae used in conjunction wirh television receivor5, and their appearance on rooftops is a pnrt of the national scene, there is an unmietakable difference between the ordinary televis�on an-- tenna and the 44-foot high structure petitiener aeeks to construct in his back yard, which ir: more akin to a commercial broadcasting towec. ;t is clear "that, in the conduct of a hobby, the scal� c�i' �tr, operation may wel] carry it beycm9 what J_ ,.�1':I.,lL37lCilli(I /�