On Tuesday the Planning & Zoning commission denied an application from Zhongxian Tang, owner of 31 Prospect Street in the R-6 zone, to construct an addition that would connect an accessory structure to the main dwelling, converting it from a single-family to a two-family.
The house, built in 1908, was last advertised as a single family home with a 500+Sq ft detached studio in the back of the property.
Mr. Tang had previously appeared before the commission in February.
The commission noted that regulations required spaces in the front yard be adequately screened from the road by landscaping.
When Mr. Tang noted that other properties had paved their front yards for parking, P&Z commission chair Margarita Alban said they had done so without permission.
31 Prospect Street
31 Prospect Street
Sec. 6-155 states, “parking and parking aisles shall be prohibited in the required front yard unless the Commission finds that the parking and parking aisles are adequately screened by landscaping or substantial changes in topography.”
For screening, Mr. Tang proposed to install a wooden fence and grow ivy on it.
“Are you aware that the wooden fence would be compromised by having ivy grow on it, and the fence would not last too long?” commissioner Nick Macri asked.
Mr. Tang said he was aware of that.
Commissioner Peter Lowe was skeptical of the effectiveness of the proposed fence as it only was proposed to extend across about 40% of the front of the lot. He noted that Google Earth already showed one car in the driveway and two in the front yard. He noted there was a utility pole out front.
Ms Alban said, “The regulation specifies that the screening be landscaping. I don’t believe a fence is landscaping.”
While the commission talked about the screening coming further across the front of the yard, that created concerns about sight lines.
Commissioner Peter Levy suggested that instead of growing ivy on a fence, they instead plant a Privet hedge, which would be both durable and versatile, despite not being evergreen.
Mr. Lowe said that for a large portion of the year a Privet would have no leaves and not provide adequate screening.
Mr. Tang agreed with the idea of extending the ivy covered fence closer to the driveway.
Ms Alban said the question for the commission was whether the screening was adequate and how many cars could be parked in the front yard.
The applicant proposed three tandem spaces in the driveway and two in the front yard.
Greenwich building zone regs, Sec 6-155 allows tandem parking for two spaces, not three.
Once the application was closed, Mr. Macri proposed a motion to approve with adequate screening using landscaping in a two foot wide planting bed along the front of the property planted with Privet (no fence) left to grow to six feet and trimmed at least twice a year.
No votes were Mr. Yeskey and Mr. Lowe.
Yes votes were Mr. Levy, Mr. Macri and Ms Alban.
The motion failed to carry.
A second motion was to require a final review of landscaping by staff with a caveat that should there be concern by staff, the applicant would return to the commission.
“I don’t like the car in the front yard,” Yeskey said.
“The space is so small to begin with, and it’s just open,” commissioner Peter Lowe said. “I don’t know how you provide effective screening, and our regulations are clear about what we should do if we find there is insufficient screening. I don’t think this sight is going to work, irrespective of the plantings.”
No votes were Yeskey, Lowe. Yes votes were Ms Alban, Mr. Levy and Mr. Macri.
Again the vote was 3-2 and failed to carry.
Finally, there was a motion to deny based on the proposed parking in front yard not being adequately screened by vegetation.
The vote to deny was 4-1 with Mr. Lowe, Mr. Levy, Mr. Yeskey, and Mr. Macri voting to deny and Ms Alban voting against denial.
See also:
P&Z Feedback on Oak Ridge 8-30g: How is this good for the town?
Feb 24, 2024