The Village of Kensington is taking a cold, hard look at property owners who do not shovel sidewalks during the winter.
A law introduced at last Wednesday’s board meeting would require owners, renters and occupants to clear public walkways adjacent to their buildings within 24 hours of icing or snowfall.
“We just want to have something in place where our residents have to shovel sidewalks,” Village of Kensington Mayor Susan Lopatkin said.
The village has received complaints in the past from residents, Lopatkin said, and considers the issue a matter of public safety.
“Some [streets] are narrow, some of them are dark,” Lopatkin said. “When you have to step off the sidewalk and walk in the streets it’s dangerous.”
The proposed law would also require owners to keep sidewalks in good repair and free of other obstructions.
Violators could be subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and imprisonment of up to six months. The law would also allow the village to charge adjacent owners for the costs of any repairs or clearing, plus an additional 10 percent for supervisory and administrative expenses.
The village has also filed a notice of appeal in the case of two residents who won a court judgment against the village’s zoning board, a move that Lopatkin said reserves for six months the village’s right to challenge the decision.
A June decision by state Supreme Court Judge Dana Winslow overturned a ruling by the zoning board, ordering the village to grant residents Noah Leibowitz and Susannah Malen a variance to renovate their home.
Last year the zoning board rejected Leibowitz’s and Malen’s petition to exceed the village’s density limits in their plan to renovate their home, which would have expanded their kitchen and bedroom in addition to other changes.
But the court found a lack of “rational support” in the board’s reasoning, which included the argument that the planned addition of 111 square feet in floor area would create a “crowded appearance” in the neighborhood.
The court ruled that while zoning boards have wide latitude in approving or denying variances, the board’s ruling was not supported by the record.
According to the court decision, the board did not specifically identify how the renovation would cause crowding or harm the neighborhood. The court also cited neighbors’ testimony in favor of the variance as evidence that the renovation would not burden the community.
Should Leibowitz and Malen obtain the variance – an uncertainty, given that the village could still pursue an appeal – the plan would go before the village’s architectural review board.
