|
is customary or per�iissible. Thus, one whc
<br />builds a eta6le in which tu kee�. show hozses !�.�:
<br />not construc�ed an accesaory building (Pr�tt
<br />v. Buiidiny Inepector of Glouceater, 330 Mae-:,,
<br />3a�, -��, 113 N.E, �3�1�). So, a simple worF:
<br />shop may be exnanded beyond all reaeonable
<br />bounds. Similarly, maintenance of a cundy,
<br />tobacco and newspaper counter in an apartmenc
<br />house is not an accessory use of the premises
<br />(140 Riverside Drive v. Murdock, 276 App. Div.
<br />�5� 95 N.Y.S. 2a $��lj . �
<br />"In the present case, there was no auffi-
<br />cient showing �hat it was cuatomary to hav� a
<br />tower of the kind petitioner deaired to erect
<br />in 'A' residential areas of a suburb. While we
<br />are informed that the.re aza 146,000 licQnsed
<br />amateur radio operators in the United Statea,
<br />we are not tuld the number ueing antennae of the
<br />type petitioner seeks to erect, nor where ama-
<br />teur operatozfl having such towera reeide. In
<br />the xbaence of such evidence, and yet with due
<br />regard for the valuable aervicea rendered by
<br />amateur radio operatora, !t cannot be wai�3 an �, --
<br />matter of law that khe erection ���oot
<br />stee tower��a eub-urban commun ty, w-here
<br />dwe3f�s are rest-r�eted �n �e�qht to 35 feer_
<br />�ouiiaing coae vzainnnce, nit. iii, Sec. 8),
<br />is a customarllp indic�ntal use of reai<iential
<br />property, oi one N��ch migFk comm'onfy —be-_exgec-
<br />ted by neiqhbo�nq propertv owners.
<br />"In failing to draw a distinction between
<br />ozdinary television and radio antennae for recep-
<br />tion on the one hand, and an elaborate tower con-
<br />structed for the purpose of far-flung radic trans-
<br />miasion and rece�ption on the other, the courtain
<br />t e�cases �3te -by appellant merely considered
<br />the kind, but gave no consideration to the degree
<br />of use, in determining whether or n�t a given
<br />structure ia cuatomarily incl.dental td reaiden-
<br />tial property in � hig:�ly claeaified zone. More
<br />over, in Vi1lacLe of_St. Louis Park v. CasoY, 21f3
<br />Minn. 394, 16 N.ii. 2�459,-355 A.L.R. �128, ttie
<br />action was for an injunctiont Wri�ht v_ Voqt, 7
<br />N.J. 1, 80 A. 2d 108, invulved an �xception-to a
<br />haight restriction, and in A��eai o� Lord, 368
<br />Pa. 121, 81 A. 2d 533, no one opposed t�ie app:i
<br />cation, and the court conceded the question wz�,;
<br />a 'cloae' one."
<br />We submit that the reasoning of the Court 1,n Ci��, r��_,::,n;- �
<br />case ie cognant, valid and persuaeive authority. �
<br />Acceaeory uae cannot exceed height re�uiremente affectinsc;
<br />pz.inci�ul structures.
<br />A. 15.04.090 F, placee a reatriction oE 35 fe�t upon a
<br />building. The onlp exception !s chimneys and steepler. as re-
<br />ferred to in 15.04.030. ti. 22., which are attr�c'��.-:i ;tr;iccn:� •:
<br />9'herefore, thi.s peruit is lnvali.�: as I;: vin;,�t i r: ;i ;.Lr�
<br />-:3 'lnmrtrcnc3ilni
<br />��
<br />
|