ZBA hears fence and driveway variance requests; both cases adjourned for decision

The Eastchester Zoning Board of Appeals on June 10 heard two new‑business variance requests — one seeking to legalize a six‑foot side fence at 72 Lockwood Avenue, and another seeking to legalize a side‑yard driveway at 155 Montgomery Avenue — and moved both items to be decided at the board’s next meeting on Sept. 9, 2025.

At the podium, Carlos Garcia, the owner of 72 Lockwood Avenue, said he and his wife installed a six‑foot fence along the side of the house because a two‑foot retaining wall on the neighbor’s property made a four‑foot fence effectively only two feet on the neighbor’s side. “We put up a six‑foot fence instead of the prescribed 4‑ft fence…we have three dogs and two of the dogs like to jump,” Garcia said, adding he tied the fence into his neighbor’s four‑foot fence for continuity and security.

Board members reviewed photographs included in the public packet and projected to the room. When asked about safety and aesthetics, Mr. Garcia explained the grade difference and the location of a neighbor’s doorway and cans behind the fence. The chair opened and closed the public hearing after no members of the public requested to speak. Board member Mr. Cahalen criticized the applicant for installing the fence before seeking a variance, saying, “You put up the fence because you wanted to put up the fence…you’re here asking for forgiveness.” Other members said the fence appeared in character with the neighborhood and moved to adjourn the matter for a written resolution at the next meeting.

Later the board heard John Yianceto, an architect representing owner Chris Perszan, who requested two area variances to legalize a side‑yard driveway at 155 Montgomery Avenue. Yianceto said the house is within an RTD (multifamily) zone and that neighboring properties have multiple curb cuts and zero setbacks; he described the driveway as providing required off‑street parking for a two‑family residence but constructed without permits. “The existing driveway…provides the additional required off‑street parking,” Yianceto said, noting pavers were used and, in his view, runoff was not increased.

Board members questioned precedent and parking impacts. The highway department review noted that if a variance were granted, a driveway permit would still be required and should be retroactively filed with that department. No members of the public addressed the board on this application; the board voted to adjourn the item for resolution at the next meeting.

Both applicants were told the board would consider the written resolutions at its Sept. 9, 2025 meeting; the town clerk was instructed to post resolutions and related materials to the town website once finalized.