Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
September 14, 2009 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members Brown, Jolly, Merrill Verma; Counsel Shumejda; Assistant Village Engineer Pennella; Secretary Bellantoni
ABSENT: Member Maloney
APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – July 13, 2009
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of July 13, 2009, be approved as submitted. Motion carried.
CONTINUATION PUBLIC HEARINGS
28 Beech Lane – Halford Residence
Ms. Lawrence read the following two letters from neighbors who could not be present at the meeting:
From Evalyn and David St. Clair of 31 Suncliff Drive:
To the Zoning Board of Appeals:
re: Application of Mary Anne Halford for a use variance from zoning code of Tarrytown.
My husband and I have lived on Suncliff Drive for 41 years. I am a 70 year old native of the Tarrytowns (Sleepy Hollow Manor) and have lived 61 years in the villages when not in college and grad school and a brief time in Briarcliff Manor.
Like any river village, Tarrytown has always had its neighborhoods of typical dwelling types: some single family and some duplex or even multiple family or apartments. The zoning board has always thoughtfully kept the areas delineated so that apartments, duplexes and single family homes are, largely, not intermingled. While Tarrytown does not have neighborhoods of expensive single family homes (except the new development bordering the Rockefeller property) there are areas where homes are exclusively single family and have remained that way for generations. The property values reflect their status as, relatively speaking, "upscale".
My husband and I oppose Mary Anne Halford's petition for a variance from the single family residence use zoning of the area. I understand she seeks a duplex/two family use of this free standing house at 28 Beech Lane. Such use would devalue the character of the neighborhood. It would most certainly deflate the value of our home and others on Suncliff Drive, Beech Lane and other surrounding streets filled with single family homes. Unfortunately, our neighborhood has already lost some of its residential character and its value due to the doctor's office across the street from #28 Beech Lane. Parking problems will be confounded. We strongly urge you to deny this request that will downgrade our neighborhood and ultimately the value and character of the village.
If the variance is granted we and the neighbors are justified in seeking a reduction in the taxes on our homes. We would undoubtedly prevail and this would be detrimental to Tarrytown's tax base.
Sincerely,
Evalyn and David St. Clair
31 Suncliff Dr.
Tarrytown
From Karla and Linus Karlsson of 120 Cobb Lane:
Dear Village of Tarrytown Zoning Board of Appeals,
In our absence we are sending this email as petition of 'not in favor' of two-family residences in a single family residential district.
Karla and Linus Karlsson of 120 Cobb Lane, Tarrytown, NY 10591 are not in favor of two-family residences in our single family neighborhood. We are against any change in the zoning variance regarding a single family residential district being changed and or allowing two-family residences.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karla Karlsson
Linus Karlsson
120 Cobb Lane
Tarrytown, NY 10591
Copies of both letters are attached.
Ms. Lawrence reported that we received the Short Environmental Assessment Form.
Mr. Blancato stated that there have been several hearings on the case which has been questioned by the board and by the neighbors and that the situation is what it is. He explained that Ms. Halford is presently trying to sell her house. He understands the neighbors but feels there is no real merit to their objections since they would probably never even know that there was a tenant. He also state that there would be no traffic issues because there would probably only be one car. There was once a doctor’s office in the space; and if Ms. Halford were to sell to another doctor, the space could be used for his/her office, which would generate a considerable amount of traffic. Ms. Halford cannot afford the house without the extra income from an apartment; and if the variance is not granted, she will
be forced to either rent out the entire house or sell it. He respectfully requested that this board render a decision tonight.
Ms. Halford stated that she came before this board not to upset the neighbors or to cause any issues. She stated that she was told by Tarrytown almost two years ago that she had the legal ability to rent; and when she was advised otherwise, she came before the Zoning Board so that she could do the right thing. She understands and respects everyone’s concerns. Her intention was not to change the neighborhood, but to do the right thing; and she would respect the decision of this board.
Ms. Lawrence asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on this issue.
Barbara Mahoney of 34 Suncliff Drive stated that she was sorry to have to object, but she never heard that two family homes were allowed in her neighborhood. She stated that she circulated a petition in the neighborhood and presented to the board. She explained that the house on the corner of Beech Lane and Suncliff Drive once had an apartment, which still exists, for their son. Mrs. Mahoney was concerned now that it was recently sold that it could be used as an apartment. Ms. Lawrence explained that a title company would have discovered that there was an illegal apartment; and it would have to be taken out or would have to go through the process of obtaining a permit, regardless of who was to live in it. Mrs. Mahoney read the petition into the record (copy attached).
Dennis Mahoney (not related to Barbara Mahoney) helped with the petition and stated that most neighbors were against the change. He felt that granting this variance would open up a Pandora’s Box. Once one two-family was allowed, how could others be denied.
Eileen Mahoney, daughter of Barbara Mahoney of 34 Suncliff Drive, just wanted to reiterate what she said at the last meeting and stated that she obtained four more signatures on the petition of neighbors who were at this meeting.
Mike Zimmerman of 27 Suncliff Drive, who spoke at the July meeting, reiterated his concerns of possible loss of property value and the change of character of that community, since this would be a precedence-setting decision.
Dr. Michael Lusner of 22 Beech Lane was concerned about the traffic on Beech Lane, especially due to Mr. Mistry’s house which has a doctor’s office. He asked if a doctor were to buy Ms. Halford’s house, could that space be used as a doctor’s office again. Mr. Shumejda explained that the law was changed around 1998 and before that you could have a professional office in your home. Those existing office are grandfathered. Since the law was changed, a new owner would have to come back before this board for a variance in order to have a professional office in the home.
Richard Blancato explained that in the 1950’s-1960’s this house was a two-family house. Second level was an apartment and there was an apartment on the first floor. In 1983 to 2002 the doctor’s office was permitted and utilized for 20 years. There is no way to get to the office from the house; and without this variance, it’s worthless and can only be used for storage. This is a unique situation where the office is separated from the main house; and contrary to the neighbors’ concerns, this will not affect the neighborhood detrimentally. We respectfully request that the variance be granted.
Mr. Shumejda entered three items into the record: (#1) the property card, (#2 & #3) lists of various properties that are offered for rental on the issue of whether or not heat is included as part of the rent, an issued that was raised previously. The listing of single-family houses for rent in the Tarrytown area (#3) are 58 Fremont Road in Sleepy Hollow and the other is 143 Midland Avenue in Tarrytown and (#2) the list of 37 comparable properties all with Tarrytown postal addresses (copies attached).
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, to close the hearing.
Ms. Lawrence asked Mr. Shumejda to draft a resolution to either deny or approve this application for a Use Variance for the October 13, 2009 meeting, when a decision would be made.
24 Dixon Street – Bergman Residence
Ms. Lawrence read into the record the following letter from Donald McGee of 20 Dixon Street (copy attached).
“To: Tarrytown Zoning Board of appeals
I and my family have been in continuous residency at the above address for fifty three years. I have also been active in the area of the enforcement of quality of life issues in the Village, and have written, edited or proposed several additions to the Village code regarding noise that have been enacted.
I am writing to follow-up the request for a variance by my neighbors, Jeff and Lisa Bergman, of #24 Dixon Street. I cannot support their request to install a central air conditioning unit in their backyard on the property line of our two residences. The unit would be just eight (8) inches from the property line and less than ten feet from my house. It would be tucked in a corner of their yard bounded by their kitchen extension and the main portion of their house. Noise from the unit would reverberate from the exterior of their house directly towards our property. Since it would be located under our master bedroom windows, our living room windows and directly adjacent to our rear porch, back yard and patio, the noise would constitute unacceptable intrusion into the peace and repose of our property. We would be
the only neighbor’s directly affected.
I am sorry to have to take this position. I hope the Bergman’s find a solution to their air conditioning dilemma. I strongly feel that to grant this variance would adversely impact the quality of life on our property.
Please feel free to contact me if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Donald F. McGee
Jeff Bergman introduced into the record documents showing the decibel level, as requested (copy attached).
Mr. Bergman addressed a statement made by Mr. McGee at the July meeting regarding the acceptable decibel level, which he stated would be approximately 45. Mr. Bergman has since learned that the decibel level for normal conversation is around 60-70 decibels and the Village Code states that the maximum allowed decibel level for nighttime operation of equipment is 60 decibels. He and his wife performed tests on the same unit that they propose to install at a house in Sleepy Hollow with the following results:
At: 1’ away from unit: 56 decibels
At: 5’ away from unit: 51 ½ decibels
At: 10’ away from unit: 49 decibels
All levels fall within the code.
Their present window unit running, at a distance of 5’ away from unit, has a decibel level of 52. The 3 ton 13 seer condenser unit, running at full power, actually made less noise than the window unit, which is only three or four years old and is situation at approximately the same distance and almost in the exact same spot as the proposed condenser unit, is actually more quieter than the window units. Also, the condenser unit will be placed behind a fence which rises approximately 3’ above the unit and will provide a buffer for sound. He stated that they have the option of using window units, which do not require a variance; but they chose central air conditioning not only because it will increase the value of their home but also because is it a safe and valid addition to their property.
Ms. Lawrence questioned if anyone else has a similar unit, and if there is a smaller unit or was this one recommended. Mr. Bergman stated that he did not know if anyone else had a similar unit and the one they chose was recommended. He also stated that it is a very small unit, measuring approximately 3’ square, and it’s very quite.
Mr. Jolly asked how many window units they presently have.
Mr. Bergman stated that they have one on the first floor and recently added one to the second floor and will have to add one or two more if they are not able to install the central air conditioning.
Mr. Pennella asked if there was a higher efficiency unit they could install and Mr. Bergman said that there was one but it was twice the cost and not significantly quieter.
Ms. Brown asked Mr. Pennella if a more efficient unit would be quieter; and if so how much quieter. Mr. Pennella responded that the higher the efficiency (12 or 13 seer) the quieter the unit. He felt that it would be much quieter than a 15 seer unit, which is proposed by the Bergman’s. Mr. Bergman responded that a lower seer unit would be twice the cost and the 15 seer unit falls within the requirements of the Village Code.
Ms. Merrill Verma asked if they needed permission for a window unit and Ms. Lawrence responded that they did not. They could put in as many window units as they wished to.
Mr. Bergman stated that besides the fencing around the unit, there is a rather large bush in front of the unit, which will also serve as a sound buffer. He also said that they addressed the issue of placing it somewhere else in the yard, but found that there was no other place to put it.
Ms. Brown clarified that the variance in question was not because of sound but a variance because the unit is being put in the setback.
Ms. Lawrence said since she did not go to the property, she would like to schedule another site visit to hear the noise generated by the window units. She wants to do this as a courtesy to the neighbor, Mr. McGee.
Ms. Brown questioned whether the Board could consider the noise as a point since it is within the range of the Village requirements.
Mr. Shumejda explained that the state law allows zoning boards to attached reasonable conditions in granting a variance; and in this case, a reasonable condition would be a quieter unit because of its close proximity to the neighbor. The required set back is 12’ and what is provided is 8”, which is right on the property; and that’s the issue. It is a reasonable condition if you are going to grant the variance.
Mr. Bergman stated that one of his frustrations in this situation is that the noise at all hours of the day and night from their shared neighbor, the CVS parking lot, is far noisier than their proposed condenser unit.
It was agreed to continue the hearing to the November meeting because the Bergman’s will be unable to attend the October meeting, and another site visit will be schedule for November 8, 2009.
Ms. Merrill Verma moved, seconded by Ms. Lawrence to adjourned.
Meeting adjourned - 8:55 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
