Zoning Board of Appeals
Village of Tarrytown
Regular Meeting
November 9, 2009 8:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairwoman Lawrence; Members, Brown, Jolly, Merrill Verma (late); Counsel Shumejda; Assistant Village Engineer Pennella; Secretary Bellantoni
ABSENT: Members Maloney
APPROVAL OF THE MINTUES – October 13, 2009
Mr. Jolly moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the minutes of October 13, 2009, be approved as submitted. Motion carried
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING – BERGMAN – 24 DIXON STREET
Chairman Lawrence read the following two letters into the record:
“From DP Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., PO Box 123, North Salem, New York, dated November 6, 2009, addressed to Jeff Bergman, 24 Dixon Street, Tarrytown, New York 10591:
The following unit specified TRANE 4TTR3036A1000A 3 Ton 13 Seer (410A) condenser unit is the most efficient unit possible compatible with the existing furnace. A higher efficiency unit 14 Seer or higher would require a complete replacement of the furnace with one that is equipped with variable speed ability.
All condensers with these higher seer ratings require variable speed in order to achieve these rated efficiencies.
Additional cost for replacing the furnace with a TUD100R9V3K variable speed furnace and installing an upgraded 4TTX6036B1000Z 16 Seer (2 stage) unit. Cost $5,800.00.”
“From Donald F. McGee, 20 Dixon Street, Tarrytown, New York 10591, dated November 6, 2009, addressed to TZBA c/o D. Bellantoni, RE: Variance – Bergman - #24 Dixon Street.
I am writing this letter to refine my opposition to this request for variance.
I cannot support a plan to install a central AC unit eight inches from my property line and less than ten feet from my house. This unit is a mechanical structure with a concrete base, a motor, electricity, plumbing, heat exhaust and, decibel levels aside, noise. It will be immediately adjacent to a vegetable and flower garden in our rear yard. It will be visible from our backyard, patio, back porch, first floor living room windows and second floor bedroom windows. It will be an intrusion upon the aesthetics of our property.
The question of noise, outside of the realm of pressure readings, must also be considered. Window-mounted air conditioners by their nature must be installed within the structure itself. Much of the noise of operation is absorbed inside the building. There is no legal control over which window will be utilized. A central air unit stands outside the structure and all of its ambient noise radiates into the immediate surroundings. In this case placement is controlled by local ordinance. Ironically, central AC unit owners inside their dwelling are not bothered by the operational noises because their windows are closed to maintain cooler interior temperatures. Neighbors in close proximity to a central AC unit are subject to these operation noises whether inside or outside on their own property.
Both the visual and aural considerations are linked. To grant the variance requested here would seem to violate zoning protections against such intrusions afforded to neighbors in the original ordinance.
Sincerely,
Donald F. McGee”
Mr. Bergman, the homeowner, introduced himself. He addressed the decibel level issue for a higher efficiency unit, as requested and found that the cost of such a unit would be prohibitive. He said that the Village Code required that decibel levels between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. can be no higher than 62. The unit they propose to install, at the highest, is 54 decibels. He then addressed Mr. McGee’s claim that visually it would be unpleasant. The unit is 37” high and the fence where it would sit is just over 5’ high and there is a large bush in front of it. He felt there is no way that the unit can be seen from the first level of the McGee’s house or from their porch, which is approximately 10’ away. The only way the unit could be seen from the McGee’s
house would be from a second story window.
Mr. Bergman stated that the Village Code does not restrict the number of window units. This past summer they had three units; and if they are not allowed to install central air conditioning, next summer they will have four in the back of the house and one in the front. These window units are far noisier than the proposed condenser unit and aesthetically unpleasant.
He also reiterated that there is no other place to put the unit unless they take down their rear steps or put it in the middle of the backyard. He said that Mr. McGavey agreed during his site visit to the property.
Mr. Jolly asked if the McGee’s had any window a/c units on the side of his house nearest the Bergman’s. Mr. Bergman thought they had two units. Mr. Jolly stated that when the a/c is needed, the McGee’s would have their windows shut. Mr. Bergman agreed that that was probably true.
Ms. Brown asked if any of the shrubbery would be cleared. Mr. Bergman said one 5-year old hydrangea bush would be removed; but the very large one, which will help to absorb a good deal of the noise, will remain.
Ms. Lawrence asked about the wall along the property. Mr. Bergman explained that there is a small wall, more of a ledge, on which the wooden fence sits. He also stated that his house has wooden shingles; and since wood absorbs noise better than aluminum siding, the wooden house along with the wooden fence would also help to keep the noise level down.
Ms. Lawrence asked exactly where the unit would sit; to which Mr. Bergman responded, it would sit between the wooden fence and the basement hatch, which is further away from the lot line.
Ms. Lawrence stated that the houses on that block are very, very close together and that the window units from all the houses must create quite a bit of noise.
Mr. Bergman stated that they back up to a very busy parking lot, which creates a significant amount of noise.
Ms. Lawrence asked if any of the other houses on that block has condenser units, but Mr. Bergman did not know of any.
There was no one present who wished to speak.
Ms. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the Board determines there will be no significant adverse environmental impact as a result of granting the requested variances for 24 Dixon Street.
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Ms. Brown, and unanimously carried, that the hearing be closed and the Board having arrived at the Findings required by the ordinance:
1. That the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood.
2. That the proposed variance will not create an undesirable change to the neighborhood or detriment to the neighborhood.
3. That the benefit the applicant seeks to achieve cannot be achieved by any other feasible method.
4. That the variance is not substantial in the Board’s judgment.
5. That the variance would not have an adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood.
6. That the variance is the minimum one deemed necessary and will preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.
grants the following variances for 24 Dixon Street.
1. Obstructions in yards: (§305-47B)
a. Existing lot size is 3,937 sq. ft. where 10,000 sq. ft. is required.
b. One side yard: Required: 12 ft. / Existing: 8 in. / Proposed: 0 ft./in.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms. Lawrence moved, seconded by Mr. Jolly, and unanimously carried, that the meeting be adjourned – 8:20 p.m.
Dale Bellantoni
Secretary
| 
