Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999_09_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes 0 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 23, 1999, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Jillian A. Martin J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler Paul A. Winick Also Present:Judith M. Gallent, Esq., Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Michele DiEdwards. Public Stenographer Terranova, Ka7a7es & Associates, Ltd. 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER © The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:02 p.m. Mr. Gunther said the review of Minutes and setting the calendar date for the next meeting will be done at the end of the meeting. Mr. Gunther informed those present that counsel will be arriving momentarily Mr. Gunther informed those present that the new owners of 209 Hommocks Road, Mr. & Mrs. Hearst, have requested an adjournment to the October meeting; which was read into the record, for the following case: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2352 (adjourned 3/17/99;4/28/99;5/26/99;6/23/99;7/21/99;8/18/99) Application of Eugene Pressman requesting a variance to legalize an existing pillar. .The pillar as constructed has a height of 7 ft. 3.5 in. where 6 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52B for a pillar in an R-50 Zone District on the premises located at 209 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417 Lot 107. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2352 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the October, 1999 Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Gunther informed those present that the attorney representing the applicant, William S. Null, has requested an adjournment to the October meeting, which was read into the record, for the following ease: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2357 (adjourned 6/23/99;8/19/99 to 9/99) Appeal of Byron Place Associates/Hoffmann of a determination of the Building Inspector that the current use of the premises located at 10 Byron Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Zoning Board O September 23, 1999 Page 2 Mamaroneck as Block 132, Lot 410 is not a legal non-conforming use, or in the alternative, an application for a use variance to permit light industrial use in an R-7.5 Zone District. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2357 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the October, 1999 Zoning Board meeting. The Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2361(adjourned 8/18/99) Application of Ray Catena Lexus requesting a variance to erect a wood stockade fence. The stockade fence as proposed has a total height of 8 ft. 6 in. where a maximum 6.0 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240- 52C for a fence in a Business District: B Zone District on the premises located at 1435 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 411, Lots 249 and 280. Mr. Gunther informed those present that the application had been heard at the previous meeting. The Board was awaiting comments from the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC), which was received and is a part of the record. Mr. Gunther also read the Negative Declaration prepared by the Town Environmental Coordinator. Mr. Gunther asked if there was anyone present representing Ray Catena Lexus. No one was present. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Negative Declaration as prepared by James W. Athey, Environmental Coordinator, for the Public Hearing of case #2357 be, and hereby is, APPROVED. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. WHEREAS, this Zoning Board has previously determined that the proposed action is an unlisted action for purposes of SEQRA and, at the meeting held on September 23, 1999, adopted a Negative Declaration; and On motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Ray Catena Lexus has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to erect a wood stockade fence. The stockade fence as proposed has a total height of 8 ft. 6 in. where a maximum 6.0 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52C for a fence in a Business District: B Zone District on the premises located at 1435 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 411, Lots 249 and 280; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-52C; and WHEREAS, Ray Catena Lexus submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and Zoning Board September 23, 1999 O Page 3 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The property in question that is being enclosed by the fence is a commercial property that borders on a number of residential lots. Friction between the two different uses is created by their proximity. When comments were previously taken from the public, the surrounding community expressed its support for the application. Indeed, the solution was negotiated between Ray Catena Lexus and its neighbors. From those comments, comments from the neighbors' counsel, and inspection of the property, it is apparent that there will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties created. It will enhance the neighboring residential properties. B. Given the close proximity between the residential and commercial properties, there is not a reasonable alternative for the applicant to pursue to achieve the goal of both enclosing and screening that area from the neighboring residents. C. The 2 ft. variance is not substantial, under the circumstances, and in view of the absence of surrounding properties that will be affected by the additional height. D. For the reasons stated above, the variance will not have an adverse impact on either the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. It is not a self-created difficulty. It is a condition that Ray Catena Lexus inherited when it moved there. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application he and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. Zoning Board o September 23, 1999 Page 4 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2363 Application of Richard and Sara Abramson requesting a variance to construct an in-ground swimming pool. The in-ground pool as proposed has a rear yard setback of 15.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(b) for an in-ground swimming pool in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 84 Iselin Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 490. The Board reviewed pictures that were submitted with the application. Mr. Wexler asked what is on the other side of the property in the back. Mr. Abramson said there are garages from the New Rochelle apartments. He said he is applying for a pool permit. The back yard where he wants the pool put is on the corner of Iselin Terrace and Lundy Lane. He needs a 20 ft. setback, which he does not have, and is requesting a 5 ft. variance for that purpose. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Carpaneto about the 20 ft. setback in a rear yard. Mr. Carpaneto said that is what is needed for a swimming pool. He then commented on the fact that it is near the corner. CMr. Wexler asked if the applicant has the option of defining what is the rear yard. Mr. Carpaneto said yes, but at that point it can only go into the rear yard. Mr. Wexler asked if it is a 20 ft. setback in any zone, with which Mr. Carpaneto agreed. Ms. Martin asked if the pool will be the same size as currently exists above ground. Mr. Abramson said it will be a little bigger. Mr. Winick asked if there will be sufficient room to turn the car the way it is currently parked where the pool is. Mr. Abramson said the pool shape is going to be made to allow room for the car to turn. Mr. Abramson referred the Board to the pictures submitted with the application. Mr. Gunther asked if the existing trees are all Hemlock trees. Mr. Abramson said the existing foliage is going to stay. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from members of the Board. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. Mr. Hardee of 82 Iselin Terrace said he spoke to the other neighbors and he and they have no problem with the requested variance, as they had received a notice. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. A RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: Zoning Board September 23, 1999 o Page 5 WHEREAS, Richard and Sara Abramson have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct an in-ground swimming pool. The in ground pool as proposed has a rear yard setback of 15.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(b) for an in-ground swimming pool in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 84 Iselin Terrace and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 490; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 192-5A(1)(b); and WHEREAS, Richard and Sara Abramson submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the O neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties created. The in-ground pool will be an improvement over the existing above-ground pool that currently exists. The parcel of land that will be the most affected would be the parcel in the rear and it is heavily screened. In addition, that parcel has a series of garages facing the subject property. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance. The applicant has a house that is sited on an irregularly shaped piece of property with two front yards leaving the only accessible area for development to be an irregularly shaped rear yard with minimal dimensions. C. It is not a substantial variance given the location of the house, the proximity to the rear property line and the fact that the pool by code must be 20 ft. The 15 ft. sought is minimal and will only affect one of the possibly regular property lines to the rear of the property. D. It will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, as stated in the first criteria. E. The irregularity of the lot, which has caused the applicant to seek the variance, is not a self-created difficulty. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and ilMk the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. Zoning Board September 23. 1999 o Page 6 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be tiled with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2364 ® Application of Andrea Madori requesting a variance to construct an in-ground swimming pool and patio. The pool as proposed would be 10.0 ft. from the principal dwelling unit where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(a); and further, the pool and patio would increase the lot coverage to 39.5% of the lot area where a maximum of 35.0% lot coverage is allowed pursuant to Section 240-35F all for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 9 Carol Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 330, Lot 123. Andrea and Steve Madori, the owners of the property, were present. Mr. Madori said they applied for a variance in 1997 when the house was built and it was approved. The variance expired and was not renewed. He has reapplied, it is the exact same application and he would like to go forward. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Madori was ready to proceed, with which Mr. Madori agreed. After some discussion, Mr. Gunther asked if said all the elements shown on the original plan are still the same, with which Mr. Madori agreed. Mr. Gunther asked if the there will be a fence all around. Mr. Madori said there is an existing fence around the back. Mr. Gunther said there is a fence around the pool and asked if there will be a fence between the pool and the house. Mr. Madori said it is shown on the drawing. Mr. Wexler asked what is in the part of the house that faces the pool. Mr. Madori said it is a dining room. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Winick, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. i i Zoning Board September 23, 1999 0 Page 7 RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Andrea Madori has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct an in-ground swimming pool and patio. The pool as proposed would be 10.0 ft. from the principal dwelling unit where 15.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 192-5A(1)(a); and further, the pool and patio would increase the lot coverage to 39.5% of the lot area where a maximum of 35.0% lot coverage is allowed pursuant to Section 240-35F all for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 9 Carol Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 330, Lot 123; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 192-5A(1)(a), Section 240-35F; and WHEREAS, Andrea Madori submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as Crequired by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties as there are pools in similar positions on the adjoining lots. Thus, the variance will be consistent with the immediate character of the adjoining area. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance given the positioning and the shape of the lot and the position of the house, and a variance would most likely be required for a swimming pool in almost any portion of the rear of the lot. Given the shape of the lot, the small dimension on the front property line versus the large dimension, the house must be set further back from the cul-de-sac requiring a longer driveway, more paved area and the result of that being a greater lot coverage. The fact that there is a larger area of lot coverage is a product of the shape of the lot. C. The variance is not substantial. The difference between the as-of-right and variance separation between the pool and house is only 5 feet, with a fence separating the pool from the house In this case the pool is an in-ground structure not an above-ground structure, visually it will not be experienced at all from any part of the property other than by walking between the house and the pool. D. The variance will have no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, even though it is backed up to Saxon Woods Park. This type of development should have no negative impact on the Park. E. This is not a self-created difficulty, since it is the shape of the lot that makes a variance necessary. r Zoning Board September 23, 1999 o Page 8 F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. • G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. © 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Madori to start construction as stated on the certification. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2365 Application of Gibb and Christine Williams requesting a variance to legalize the erection of an existing air conditioning condensing unit. The central air conditioning condensing unit as erected has a side yard of 7.64 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(2)(a) for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 652. See attached court stenographer's transcript. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2365 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the October, 1999 Zoning Board meeting or until a report is received from an acoustical engineer giving the DB ratings of individual air conditioners that the Board can use as guidance. A referral will be made to the Town with regard to getting engineering support on some of the points that were discussed. At the same time, the Board will ask the Town Administrator for his recommendation for getting an engineer. The Board then picked the next meeting date for the Zoning Board, October 27, 1999. Oft, Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Williams that the Director of Building will not take any action on the Notice of Violation until this case is heard. He said that Mr. Williams should feel free to call the Building Department to inquire if any information has come in. After further discussion, a five minute recess was taken. Zoning Board September 23, 1999 Page 9 The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2366 Application of Bea and Frank Dinger requesting a variance to construct a one-story addition. The one-story addition as proposed has a front yard of 26.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1), a side yard of 7.16 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 7 Villa Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110, Lot 245. James Fleming, the architect for the applicant appeared, stating that the applicants are out of town. The application is for an area variance on this unusual lot, a through lot, to extend the kitchen area on the side and put a second floor addition with no terrace below and extend the master bath upstairs. It is a through lot and has two back yards and two front yards and a variance is needed for one side. The house was built approximately 7 ft. from the side line. It was shifted over to the side, and a variance is needed for the rest of it, as seen on the plans. There was some discussion about the rear yard and the fact that it is a through lot, Mr. Wexler asked about the proposed addition. Mr. Fleming said the new addition is shown as the second floor on the left-hand side and the first floor on the right-hand side. It is 26 ft. from the rear lot line. Mr. Gunther asked about the lot coverage. Mr. Fleming said it is 29% and then 32.5%. Mr. Wexler said that the owner's of the house to the right from Villa Lane applied for a variance. After some discussion, Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Fleming if the applicant's house will be much further out than that addition. Mr. Fleming demonstrated on the drawings before the Board, and said it is not really substantially further. Mr. Wexler said if it was more or less in keeping with the character. The house on the corner really has a much smaller yard than required. Mr. Fleming said it is also facing down Villa Lane out to Forest. Mr. Wexler said he is trying to get the character of the street. Mr. Wexler said this addition doesn't really disrupt what is happening on that street. After further discussion, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any further questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Winick, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Bea and Frank Dinger have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a one-story addition. The one-story addition as proposed has a front yard of 26.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1), a side yard of 7.16 ft. where 10.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B(2)(a); and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 7 Villa Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 110, Lot 245; and • Zoning Board September 23, 1999 QPage 10 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-38B(1), Section 240-38 B(2)(a), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Bea and Frank Dinger submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Based on review of the plans and personal observation of the property, there will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties created. The location of the property and construction in the neighborhood is consistent with the type of construction that the applicant is applying for. B. The applicant cannot achieve his goals via a reasonable alternative which does © not involve the necessity of an area variance given the fact that this is a through lot, is burdened by two front yards and does not meet the onerous setback requirements for that type of lot. C. The variance itself is not substantial, but only a few feet into the yard. D. There will not be an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It does not increase the lot coverage beyond the required amount. It is consistent with the type of construction in the neighborhood. E. It is not a self-created difficulty in this instance. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT C RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. Zoning Board © September 23, 1999 Page 11 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Wexler said in looking at the tax map most of the homes indicated on the tax map, block 110, have similar conditions; more than one front yard, a condition that is less than the required front yard in almost every instance and not out of character with the area. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 8 - CASE 2367 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Peter Vaughan requesting a variance to expand an existing foyer. The proposed foyer expansion has a front yard setback of 29.1 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); and further, the proposed foyer expansion increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located Q at 768 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223, Lot 76. Mike Csenge, the architect for the applicants, addressed the Board. The application is for a variance on the side yard on corner. Per instruction from the Building Inspector, the south exposure has been dedicated as the front yard. The front of the house, the entry, is on the corner side yard which requires a 30 ft. setback. The proposal is to expand the existing entry vestibule underneath the existing roof of the porch, the setback being 29.1 ft., a 10 in. variance. It is an existing condition. There is an existing covered porch, with a small entry vestibule a distance of less than 30 in., making it difficult to enter from the driveway side of the house through the side, up onto the porch, between the columns and into the vestibule to get into the house. There is a large rock outcropping in the front, which precludes going around and demonstrated on the photos submitted with the application. Mr. Csenge is looking to bring out the vestibule to the line, and bring the front door into the side to the walkway thereby creating a useable vestibule. Presently, the door cannot swing completely within the vestibule. It swings into the main living area of the house. It is in keeping with the neighborhood, as it is not adding any foundation, impervious surface or roof but working within the existing confines. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Winick, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Peter Vaughan have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to expand an existing foyer. The proposed foyer expansion has a front yard setback of 29.1 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1); and further, the proposed foyer expansion increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a Zoning Board September 23, 1999 OPage 12 residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 768 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223, Lot 76; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Peter Vaughan submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Based on the evidence presented and upon inspection of the property, it is apparent that there will be no impact on the surrounding community. There will not be any undesirable change, there is no change to the footprint of the building or impervious surface, simply a joining of existing spaces within the building. B. Given the rock outcropping on the property and the current construction, there is no reasonable alternative to solve the design problem in the existing house. C. The variance is insubstantial. There is no change in the footprint, just a shuffling around of space. D. For the above reasons stated, the variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. The condition is not a self-created difficulty, as it came with the house. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. Zoning Board September 23, 1999 OPage 13 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 9 - CASE 2368 Application of Francesco Pia and Christine Pecora requesting a variance to legalize an existing wood catwalk. The catwalk to be legalized has a front yard setback of 30.4 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(1); a side yard of 15.3 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 34B(2)(a); a total side yard of 28.9 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(2)(b); and further, the catwalk increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 3 Boulder Brae Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313, Lot 258. Frank Pia, the owner of the property, of 3 Boulder Brae Lane, appeared before the Zoning Board. Mr. Pia said at a previous time he had appeared before the Zoning Board to request enclosing the porch, and © a variance was granted. The enclosed sun room has a set of double french doors and a single french door. One of the problems is determining how to get access to the single front door and also the double french door. He said that Jim Fleming, the architect, suggested that rather than putting steps in to access the lower deck, it would be much better to create a continuity located on the side of the house to exit down to the lower deck facing Fenimore Road. Mr. Pia presented pictures to the Board, marked exhibit 1. After further discussion regarding the pictures submitted, Mr. Carpaneto said he went to see the structure, because the applicant had requested a Certificate of Occupancy (C.0). He suggested Mr. Pia, rather than remove what had been constructed, which would have been more detrimental to the site, to seek a variance. Mr. Pia said he went to refinance, needed all the C.O's first, and it was confirmed that because of the catwalk a variance was needed. Mr. Carpaneto said that Mr. Pia was willing to take down the entire catwalk. In doing so, it would have done more damage. After further discussion, Mr. Wexler said it is beautifully done. Ms. Martin asked for clarification regarding the variance that was previously granted and the current request. Mr. Pia said at the time the variance was applied for, no thought was given for entrance and egress. When the catwalk was constructed the interpretation at that time was that it was not part of the structure which was not true. Ms. Martin asked if it was the Building Department's determination that it was a structure. Mr. Pia said that is correct. It has been a learning experience. Ms. Gallent informed those present that the matter was referred to the Westchester County Department of Planning which had no response. They had 30 days to comment. • Mr. Gunther asked if there were any further questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none, on motion of Mr. Zoning Board September 23, 1999 Page 14 Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Francesco Pia and Christine Pecora have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing wood catwalk. The catwalk to be legalized has a front yard setback of 30.4 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(1); a side yard of 15.3 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(2)(a); a total side yard of 28.9 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(2)(b); and further, the catwalk increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 3 Boulder Brae Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313, Lot 258; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-34B(1), Section 240-34B(2)(a), Section 240-34B(2)(b), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Francesco Pia and Christine Pecora submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing NW thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created, given the fact this is a 3 ft. wide catwalk. It is used as an means of egress from the house and is in a character and style that is complimentary to the house. B. There is no feasible alternative which does not involve the necessity of an area variance, due to the fact that the house itself violates the side yard requirement, and the catwalk is a necessary egress from the house to make a safe egress to the grade adjoining the house. C. The variance requested might appear to be substantial given the dimensions, scope and size of the catwalk and its relationship to the house. It is not substantial in the context of the community or on the piece of property. D. As stated in number 1, it will not have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, as it is a small catwalk that is well integrated into the environment and the house. E. In this case, the condition that existed required some sort of safe egress from the house to the grade, and this is the most probable solution. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. Zoning Board O September 23, 1999 Page 15 G. The variance is the minimum necPgvlry to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 10 - CASE 2369 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Levine requesting a variance to extend front of garage. The garage to be extended has a front yard setback of 35.4 ft. where 40.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 35B(1) for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 1 Marboume Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Lot 324. Bena Loughren, appeared along with Mr. & Mrs. Levine. Ms. Loughren said the proposal is to extend the garage 5 ft. to connect the garage to the house. Mr. Winick asked if the first floor addition is as-of-right, other than the bump in the driveway. Mr. Loughren said it is as-of-right. She needs to make a connection to the house through the garage. A Certificate of Occupancy is existing, but there is no access to the room in the back except from the garage. There is an existing overhang in the front and the proposal is to extend it out and around using the same material as existing. Ms. Loughren said there are letters from neighbors in support of the application. A discussion ensued regarding the location of Stonewall Lane and Marbourne Lane. Mr. Gunther read the letters submitted from Edward Hoornagle, 34 Stonewall Lane, Hassan, 4 Marboume Drive, and Frushtick, 3 Marbourne Drive, marked exhibit 1t1. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked __ if there were any questions from the public on this application. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. Zoning Board © September 23, 1999 Page 16 On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Andrew Levine have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to extend front of garage. The garage to be extended has a front yard setback of 35.4 ft. where 40.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(1) for a residence in an R-20 Zone District on the premises located at 1 Marboume Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 333, Lot 324; and r WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-35B(1); and WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Levine submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from the granting of the variance outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. Based on review of the application and personal observation of the property, there is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties created. The applicant desires simply to extend the garages a few feet. The visual impact is minimal and the neighbors have expressed no concern regarding the proposed construction. B. There is not a reasonable alternative to achieve the goal of the applicant,because it is also to provide access to the first floor addition which is not the subject of a variance application. C. The variance is not substantial. It is a few feet into the setback of the property. D. There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district as they will be using the same building material on the property which is in keeping with the rest of the house. E. There is no self-created difficulty. F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions: Zoning Board September 23, 1999 Co) Page 17 1. This variance authorizes the construction as shown on the plans presented and no other. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Carpaneto for clarification on the address of the building. Is it Marbourne, Continental or Stonewall? Mr. Carpaneto said it is Marboume. Mr. Levine said it used to be 29 Stonewall. When they were going to purchase they checked the files. There was a letter in the file that the Building Department and the Post Office said that the address was 1 Marboume. The entrance is on Marbourne. Mr. Gunther said to make sure that the resolution has the correct address on it to avoid any legal problems that may arise in the future. NEXT MEETING ic) The next meeting of this Board will be held on October 27, 1999. A discussion ensued regarding the starting time of the meeting. That meeting begin at 7:45 p.m., the regular starting time. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Winick, seconded by Simon, the Minutes of the August 18, 1999 Zoning Board meeting were unanimously approved, 5-0. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded by, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ,1/7X-X- MarOerite Roma, Recording Secretary 0111* ✓ v C X Y.. PUBLIC MEETING OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK ZONNING BOARD X Mamaroneck Town Hall 740 West Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, New York 10543 September 23, 1999 7 : 00 p .m. 4 eI t\N1c.® 1 .444 TERRANOVA, KAZAZES & ASSOCIATES, LTD . Michele Nieto, Reporter 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 ( 914 ) 576-7431 SEP 281999 Proceedings 1 MR . GUNTHER : Application number • 2 six, the application of Gibbs and 3 Christine Williams requesting a 4 variance to legalize the erection of 5 an existing air conditioning 6 condensing unit . The central air 7 conditioning condensing unit as 8 erected has a side yard of 7 . 64 feet 9 where 10 feet is required pursuant to 10 Section 240-38B ( 2 ) (a) for a residence 11 in an R-7 . 5 Zone District on the 12 premises located at 11 Lundy Lane and C13 known on the Tax Assessment Map of the 14 Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503, Lot 15 652 . Do you have pictures here? 16 MS . ROMA: Would you just identify 17 yourselves, please . 18 MRS . WILLIAMS : Christine 19 Williams . 20 MR . WILLIAMS : Gibbs Williams . I 21 want to say that I wish to hop and 22 skip and jump like the five people 23 just before you, but unfortunately I C24 don ' t think we can because this 25 variance is not a simple small area A Proceedings 1 variance . Because this variance is ® 2 not a simple request for a small area 3 variance as it involves a very sticky 4 neighborhood problem I have a prepared 5 a statement that is factually all the 6 facts that are relevant . I ask your 7 indulgence, it ' s about seven minutes I 8 want to do justice by this Board. 9 My name is Gibbs Williams, my wife 10 Christine . My family moved to 11 11 Lundy lane in September of 1997 , two 12 years ago . Before taking possession 0 13 our engineer indicated in his 14 inspection report that the compressor 15 that had been installed when the house 16 was built 30 years ago was now broken, 17 adding that if we wanted to have 18 central air conditioning we best buy a replacement unit . The day we moved to Larchmont, the 21 neighbors told us in a hostile manner, 22 stated that they had been bothered -- 23 THE AUDIENCE : That ' s not true, 24 that ' s -- 25 MR . GUNTHER : If you would like to Proceedings 1 stay please abide by my rules, please, • 2 just beer with me . Everyone will 3 have an opportunity . If you notice, 4 sir, everyone interested in the 5 application will have an opportunity 6 to say what they wish when I open it 7 the public . 8 THE AUDIENCE : I will abide by the 9 rules, I lust thought I ' d express 10 myself . 11 MR . WILLIAMS : As a matter of a 12 parenthetical , instead of hello, Q13 welcome to Larchmont , the neighbors in 14 a hostile manner stated that they had 15 been bothered by the sound coming from 16 the compressor when it had been 17 working . Being sensitive to their 18 concerns we researched and purchased 19 the most efficient and quietest state 20 of the art compressor on the market . 21 We installed the replacement 22 compressor on June 17th, 1999 . 23 This past June we were shocked to 24 receive two notices from the Town of 25 Mamaroneck on June 26th, 1999 Ili 9 1 Proceedings 4 1 indicating that the compressor was it O2 violation of the revised setback law 3 and that we would have five days to 4 correct the violation or possibly go 5 to jail . 6 We had no prior information either 7 from the inspector, nor from the 8 company that sold us the replacement 9 compressor, nor from the real estate 10 agent . In fact, to the best of our 11 knowledge, the first official word of 12 the change in the zoning law, re, the C13 revision of the setback laws occurred 14 only last week in the On the Town 15 newsletter from the Town of 16 Mamaroneck, Volume 1 , Issue 1 , 17 September 1999, page five . "As a 18 special note of information, please be 19 advised that central air conditioning 20 systems now require an application for 21 a building permit, which can be 22 obtained at the Building Department 23 located in the Town Center . " 24 We first composed a detailed 25 response to the violation notice that } Proceedings 1 we read at a Town Board meeting in 0 2 July of this year 1999 . At the end of 3 our presentation the Board Members 4 indicated they felt that they needed 5 to reconsider altering the law to meet 6 some of the objections we raised, such 7 a fact that our unit was a replacement 8 unit . They also indicated that we 9 should apply for a permit . We did 10 apply for a that was rejected which we 11 followed up by making an application 12 for a small area variance . This � 3 brings us to the present moment . 14 To the best of our knowledge the 15 following five criteria are those the 16 Zoning Board will use to determine the 17 validity of our requested variance . I 18 will state those five criteria 19 followed by our response to each one . 20 This in turn will be followed by a 21 summary of the main points of our 22 variance request . Additionally, we 23 will submit two letters of evidence 24 for the Zoning Board ' s consideration . 25 The first is a letter from the Proceedings 1 compressor dealer, Amhac, indicating 2 we have a state of art model 3 positively commenting on our 4 replacement compressor ' s low sound 5 emission . The second letter is from 6 another neighbor commenting on what he 7 considers to be the hypersensitivity 8 to sound of the neighbors who 9 initiated the complaint responsible 10 for our having to apply for a 11 variance . 12 In the first place, we believe the Q13 facts of our case objectively merit a 14 positive response from the Zoning 15 Board taking the form of granting us a 16 small area variance . 17 The Board shall also consider : 18 one, whether an undesirable change 19 will be produced in the character of 20 the neighborhood or a detriment to 21 nearby properties will be created by 22 the granting of the area variance . 23 Our response, A, our compressor is a C24 replacement of the original unit that 25 was there for 30 years since the house Proceedings 1 was built . B, the replacement unit is 2 the least noisy unit on the market . 3 C, the distance between the neighbor ' s 4 porch and our property line is 12 1/2 5 feet . When added to our 7 1/2 feet, 6 the total distance is 20 feet from 7 their porch to our compressor . I have 8 a letter from Amhac, the compressor 9 dealership, indicating the following 10 from the dealer it says, Dear Dr . and 11 Mrs . William, 11 Lundy Lane, 12 Larchmont, New York . Please find CI) 13 enclosed noise data sheets on the two 14 Carrier outdoor condensing units . 15 Your Carrier 38TRA042 condensing unit 16 is the quietest unit available . If 17 you review the data sheets, your unit 18 is 10 decibels quieter, which is 72 19 decibels, which is compared to the 20 Carrier unit of an identical capacity. 21 This unit in your home is $600 more 22 expensive than the standard unit . It 23 is also important to not that the 24 sound levels decrease exponentially as 25 you move away from the source . If you Proceedings 1 require any further information please • 2 feel free to call . Very truly yours, 3 Mark Verman . D, the replacement unit 4 is larger than the original unit, 5 considerably larger, as it is built 6 larger to aide in muffling the sound . 7 This means that if we had repaired the 8 original unit, although it would have 9 sounded much louder than the 10 replacement it nevertheless would have 11 been in compliance due to the smaller 12 size . ® 13 Whether the benefit sought by the 14 applicant can be acheived by some 15 method feasible for the applicant to 16 pursue . Our response is, no, it ' s not 17 feasible to move the unit . 18 Whether the requested area 19 variance is substantial . Our response 20 is the requested variance is a small 21 one . If the chimney which sticks out 22 from the same side as is the location 23 of the compressor is taken into 24 account, the requested area of the 25 variance would be no less than one Proceedings 1 foot . If the chimney is not taken - into account the requested area variance we asked for is 2 . 7 feet . 4 This is the approximately a 27 percent 5 small area variance request . 6 Three, whether the requested area 7 variance is substantial , our answer is 8 this is a small one . 9 Four, whether the proposed 10 variance will have an adverse affect 11 or impact on the physical or 12 environmental conditions of the 4.7.) 13 neighborhood . Our response is, as all 14 of the homes on our street were 15 constructed with central air 16 conditioning, our replacement unit is 17 not a detriment physical or 18 environmental conditions of the 19 neighborhood . We have no more than 20 and no less than and we have the 21 quietest unit in Larchmont . 22 Five, whether the alleged 23 difficulty was self-created, our 24 answer no . A, this alleged difficulty 25 was the result of replacing a broken Proceedings • 1 compressor that was considerably C2 louder than the present replacement 3 unit . B, plus there was no prior 4 knowledge that this unit was or would 5 be in violation of the existing laws . 6 We have three certificates of 7 occupancy, the first one is dated 8 November 15th, 1968 , indicating there 9 were no violations when the house was 10 built ; the second dated June 21st, 11 1991 indicated a variance was granted 12 to replace a wooden deck and there 13 were no other violations; and the 14 third C of 0 was dated 7/10/1997 two 15 before we took possession indicating 16 no pending violations were found on 17 file as per a search . Had there been 18 a violation I believe we would not 19 have gotten the C of 0; therefore, 20 combined with no official notice and passing inspector ' s report and the 22 company Amhac having no knowledge or 23 the realtors having no knowledge of © 24 the the setback law change, we had no 25 reason to believe that we were in Proceedings violation of the cone . Therefore, we 41) _ thought it appropriate to replace, 3 taking the neighbors sensitivities 4 into consideration, our broken 5 compressor with a considerably more 6 efficient and quieter unit . 7 Further, we believe that in 8 addition to the five criteria referred 9 to above there should be additional 10 criteria used to objectively determine 11 the merits of granting an area 12 variance in this specific case of © 13 central air compressors . These are, 14 one, a known reasonable prior notice 15 factor; two, a replacement unit 16 factor; and three, a reasonable 17 compromise factor . 18 One, a reasonable prior notice 19 factor . A, as stated before there was 20 no official prior notice that 21 newcomers into the community could 22 reasonably be expected to know about - 23 which also extends to professionals S24 who do live and work in the community . 25 Neither the inspector of the house, Proceedings 1 the compressor company representative, c2 nor our realtor had any knowledge of 3 the changes in the law. B, as 4 newcomers we would have no reason to 5 look for such notice . C, the first 6 time we saw the official announcement 7 about the need for a permit was seen 8 in the recent Town of Mamaroneck 9 bulletin I said to you which was last 10 week and interestingly enough just 11 today I call Mr . Carpaneto and I said 12 I want to know prior to this 13 announcement of last week was there 14 anything written any place that 15 indicates to me and my wife, you, 16 anyone who owns a compressor that the 17 law has changed and his answer was not ln to my knowledge . My response was may '19 I quote you and he said it ' s the truth 20 of course you can . D, further, that 21 there was no prior reasonable official 22 publication of the change in the 23 setback rules, we believe last weeks 24 publication to be the first official 25 word to the general public of said Proceedings 1 changes . It ' s unreasonable that we 2 would be held in violation of 3 something we would not been expected 4 to know anything about and had no 5 prior official notification of the 6 changes in the setback law. 7 Therefore, it is reasonable to 8 conclude that the official word was 9 either too narrowly publicized or 10 there was no word or there was no 11 prior publications subsequent to last 12 week ' s announcement in the bulletin . 13 Two, a replacement units factor . 14 As the house was originally designed 15 to have central air and was done so 16 lust the way it is , means a compressor 17 would naturally be more than the 10 18 feet allowable in the new law. It 19 seems reasonable, then, to grandfather 20 in replacement units . There may be a 21 qualification that the new machines 22 conform to some appropriate decibel 23 count . You choose what it is . You ' re C 24 not going to get a quieter unit than 25 ours so we feel that we would have no Proceedings 14 1 problem. 2 Three, a reasonable compromise 3 factor . In the recently distributed 4 announcement of the new compressor 5 law, the Town Board unambiguously 6 states that neighbor should be 7 expected to compromise concerning this 8 issue . In this connection, we have 9 evidence that the neighbors who 10 initiated this complaint have had a 11 30-year pattern of hypersensitivity to 12 reasonable environmental sounds . An 13 apt example of this is frequently 14 scolding the neighborhood children who would play near, but not on this 16 neighbor ' s property. From this 17 perspective my family is the latest 18 one to be on the neighbor ' s bad list . 19 I was given -- I submit another letter 20 from our other neighbors to the Zoning 21 Board from Robert and Marjorie Cohen, 22 9 Lundy Lane . We have been residents C 23 of Lundy Lane for the past 18 years . 24 During this time we raised children 25 that made noise while playing sports MW Proceedings 15 1 and dogs that barked . The only ® 2 complaints ever made were from the 3 residents of 82 Iselin Terrace 4 Evidently they must suffer from a 5 condition of hypersensitivity to 6 noise . No one else has ever raised 7 the issue of noise on Lundy Lane 8 contributing to the poor quality of 9 life . Very truly yours Bob and 10 Mar-i orie Cohen . 11 MS . GALLENT : There was another 12 letter . 13 MR . GUNTHER : I ask you to just 14 hold on for a second. 15 MR. WILLIAMS : I 'm near finished . 16 From this perspective my family is the 17 latest one to be on the neighbor ' s bad 19 list . 19 Supporting this idea it is 20 interesting to note there have been no 21 complaints that were noted on previousP 22 file with respect to intrusive noise 23 coming from our compressor over the 24 last 30 years . Therefore, we find it 25 odd that only recently there have been Proceedings : r 1 complaints lodged by these neighbors j (:) 2 to the Building Department to this 3 effect . This is so, particularly in 4 light of the fact that our replacement 5 unit is considerably quieter than the 6 one that was originally installed 7 when the house was first built . 8 We have attempted to be reasonably 9 accommodating, indeed, we bent over 10 backwards to have a reasonable 11 problem solving dialogue, but have 12 encountered nothing from these • 13 neighbors but lecturing . In this 14 light, we believe the existing law as 15 presently stated is subject to misuse 16 and even prejudice in that it appears 17 to be super responsive to the 18 compliantant ' s rights, but grossly 19 unresponsive to the rights of those 20 complained about . 21 In summary, and please bear with 22 me I have a lot of whereas in here, 23 whereas the house was constructed in Q 24 1968 with central air conditioning 25 already in place and the original Proceedings compressor was located on same spot as 2 the present replacement unit . 3 Whereas , the new compressor - a 4 Carrier Tech 2000 Silencer System - 5 High efficiency - state of the art - 6 is deemed the most quiet unit 7 currently available . Whereas, we were 8 sensitive to the neighbor ' s concerns 9 for intrusive noise translated into 10 our buying the top of the line model 11 for $3 , 700, which is $600 more than we 12 would have paid for an adequate, but 13 less silent model . Whereas , the house 14 inspector and the salesman from Amhac 15 gave us no indication that we were not 16 in compliance with the change in the 17 setback ordinance, or the realtor in 18 addition to our engineer . Whereas, 19 there was no widely disseminated 20 publication of the change in the 21 setback criterion, I really think 22 there was no publication until last 23 week . Whereas , notice of similar 24 changes in ordinance criteria have 25 been well publicized in advance giving Proceedings _ 1 homeowners reasonable time to plan 2 ahead . The garbage pickup is noticed 3 months ahead and needing a permit to 4 change the water heater, but not in 5 the case of this variance . Whereas , 6 the variance we ask for is less than 7 one to 2 1/2 out of the 10 feet 8 allowable . Please take our chimney 9 into consideration . Whereas , the 10 perceived sound level from the new 11 unit drops exponentially to a near 12 whisper at a distance of only 20 feet O13 from the location on which it sits, 14 see the letter from the Ammack . 15 Whereas , the neighbor ' s porch is 20 16 feet from the location of the new 17 compressor . Whereas , in between the 18 compressor and the neighbor ' s property 19 is a stone wall lined with trees that 20 are at least 10 to 20 feet tall, note 21 the submitted photographs . Whereas, 22 there is more din coming from I-95 2i than there is from our compressor . 24 Whereas, there is more noise coming 25 from an air conditioner from a Proceedings 1 neighbor who is located approximately ® 2 50 to 60 feet behind both ours and the 3 aggrieved neighbor ' s house than there 4 is coming from our compressor . 5 Whereas , if we had repaired the 6 original unit it would have been 7 extraordinarily intrusive, but would 8 have met the size requirement . 9 Whereas, a neighbor should be entitled 10 to be exposed only to a reasonable 11 amount of compressor decibels , by the 12 same token, the other neighbor should • 13 be entitled to utilize a compressor 14 that emits a reasonable amount of 15 decibels . Whereas, there is an 16 evident pattern of unreasonable 17 harassment to other neighbors over 18 many years attributed to the neighbor 19 who initiated this complaint . And 20 finally, whereas , there are some 21 estimated 1, 500 to 2 , 000 existing 22 compressors units which are likely to 23 be in violation in the Town of 24 Mamaroneck, meaning that any neighbor 25 with any motive whatsoever may milmimmimmommir Proceedings 1 initiate a grievance irrespective of • 2 equity of the matter likely stirring 3 hornet ' s nest of unreasonable trouble 4 for everybody . 5 In light of all of the above 6 assertions we believe and we hope that 7 you, the Zoning Board, concurs with us 8 that we objectively merit a small area 9 variance on the preponderance of the 10 facts of the this issue . Thank you . 11 MR. GUNTHER : You ' re welcome . 12 MS . GALLENT : I just want to make • 13 this clear because some of the 14 statements that you made are not 15 germane, but I want you to know this 6 Board doesn ' t make the law, the Town 17 Board does . The Zoning Board 18 interprets the zoning law and the 19 Building Department enforces it . 20 Therefore, if someone objects to this 21 interpretation they can appeal to the 2 Town Board . This is what happened and 23 Mr . Hamlet was first situation of the C24 interpretation that an air 25 conditioning compressor unit was a Proceedings 21 1 structure and the Building Inspector ® 2 disagreed, and the person claiming it 3 was a structure came to our Board and 4 said what do you think . This Board 5 decided that pursuant to the 6 definition that has always been the 7 law that air conditioner units fell 8 within that definition, and that ' s all 9 it was . It was an interpretation of 10 the law, it wasn ' t a new law. Because 11 this was an interpretation and they 12 did not make a new law, with new laws • 13 they are required to give notice, but 14 this is an interpretation . So just to 15 clarify, we didn ' t make a law we 16 interpreted the law. And the way 17 courts view interpretation since we ' re 18 making an interpretation of a law that 19 has existed since whenever it existed 20 that the interpretation is 21 retroactive, so that ' s how it happens . 22 So that the record is clear they 23 didn ' t make a new law. 24 MR. WILLIAMS : There is nothing to 25 prevent you from advertising that Imr Proceedings 1 interpretation . MS . GALLENT : There is no 3 mechanism for us to do that and that ' s 4 something the Town did advertise . 5 MR . WILLIAMS : It can cost me a 6 lot of money . 7 MS . GALLENT : This is just the way 8 the Board works . You have to have 9 knowledge of the law and know the law, 10 that ' s how the legal system works . 11 Ignorance of the law is not an excuse . 12 MR . WEXLER: I think that since 13 your house barley passed the minimum 14 sideyard requirement with the existing 1F compressor when you bought the house, 16 because of the interpretation this 17 Board made that that ' s a violation. 18 There is nothing that you could put in 19 that sideyard as a compressor, unless 20 it ' s one inch thick, not even to 21 satisfy not needing a variance . 22 MR . WILLIAMS : That ' s why we ' re 23 here . 24 MR . WEXLER: You say it ' s costing 25 you a lot of money . The fact of the Proceedings 23 1 matter is that was in violation once C2 this Board made that decision, not 3 because you replaced it . The one that 4 you replaced was in violation . 5 MRS . WILLIAMS : But if it was in 6 violation why wouldn ' t have our 7 inspector have told us that? 8 MR. WEXLER : When did you buy this 9 house? 10 MRS . WILLIAMS : Two years ago . 11 MS . GALLENT : We just made this 12 interpretation . IC) 13 MR . HAMLET : February 24th . 14 MR . WEXLER : That ' s when we did 15 this? 16 MR . HAMLET : February 24th . 17 MR . WINICK : August was when we 18 did it, which was six months after we 19 made the ruling of the legal 20 interpretation . 21 MR . HAMLET : No . 22 MR . WINICK: Relax, Mr . Hamlet, 23 I 'm agreeing with you . Not to steal 24 Judy Gallent ' s thunder, you quoted 25 five criteria that are in the State Nimmmir Proceedings 24 1 law and you proposed other criterias , 2 I think they are very responsive to 3 the problem which you are approaching 4 in the wrong way . The State 5 legislature gives us all of those 6 considerations which may or may not be 7 very germane to the air conditioner 8 problem, but we ' re constrained to 9 those . The Town Board may not be 10 constrained in that legislative way, 11 in that capacity, but we as a Board, 12 we ' re kind of stuck with what the Town 13 Board has done . 14 MR . WILLIAMS : By that you mean 15 you ' re stuck with whatever they give 16 you . MR . WINICK: Just so you know we 18 can only base the criteria on those 19 factors because that ' s the hand we 20 have been dealt basically . 21 MR . WILLIAMS : Fine . 22 MR . GUNTHER : Are there any 23 questions from any of the Board © 24 Members for this applicant? 25 MR. WINICK: I actually have a Proceedings __ 1 couple of questions for the Williams ' . C2 You said in your statement that the 3 unit cannot be moved . 4 MR . WILLIAMS : It ' s not feasible 5 to move it . 6 MR. WINICK: Why is it not 7 feasible to move it? 8 MR . WILLIAMS : It was set up in 9 exactly that place because that ' s 10 relative to where the piping goes 11 right into the garage, where the 12 heating unit is in the basement in C13 that area . We are aware that the 14 moving of these things involves quite 15 a lot of labor and there is a 16 possibility for messing up the piping, 17 it happens . That means that it would 18 be a considerable hardship expense . 19 We already paid to put it in, I can ' t 20 see paying hundreds more dollars to 21 move it, which would also mean I 'm will moving a tree which cost a lot, 23 you know the way trees are and so on . „ (:) 24 And since the whole thingis really Y 25 because of the sound and they don ' t 4 Proceedings 1 care what the setback is this is `�✓1 2 basically for sound intrusion and moving this to satisfy them 2 1/2 feet 4 relative to where it is is not going 5 to accomplish anything in terms of 6 sound perception, that ' s why it seems 7 unfeasible . 8 MR . WINICK: This is not a sound 9 ordinance, this is simply a sideyard 10 rule which applies to everything . My 11 question was why isn ' t it feasible, I 12 heard what you said and is there -- I 13 you gathercertainlydon ' t want to 14 move the thing, perhaps it is 15 expensive to move it . Have you gotten 16 a estimate? 17 MR . WILLIAMS : $800 to a $1 , 000 . 18 MR . WINICK: To move it where? 19 MR . WILLIAMS : Around the corner . 2 MR . WINICK: But it would cost $800 -- 22 MR . WILLIAMS : That was a low 23 estimate and that didn ' t include 24 removing the tree 25 MR . WINICK : You mean -- Proceedings 27 1 MR . WILLIAMS : Plus -- © 2 MS . GALLENT : What would be the 3 position of the unit in relation to 4 where the unit is now? 5 MR . WILLIAMS : Exactly the same 6 position on the other side . 7 MS . GALLENT : How far from house 8 would it be then? 9 MR . WILLIAMS : 22 1/2 feet, maybe 10 23 feet . 11 MR . WINICK: The leading edge 12 would then be 10 feet, the other 13 difference would be that there would 14 be no wall facing the neighbors house, 15 I don ' t know what affect that would 16 have . 17 MR . WEXLER : That would be -- 18 MR . HAMLET : It will still be against the wall . 20 MR . WINICK: Two feet -- 21 MR . HAMLET : Your house in the 22 back comes out, doesn ' t it? 23 MR . GUNTHER : Mr . Hamlet, may I 24 ask that you not speak out of turn, 25 there will be time for other Proceedings individuals to voice their concerns . (:) 2 MR. WEXLER : Are there any 3 photographs? 4 MR . CARPANETO: Ye s . 5 MR . WINICK : I looked at your 6 backyard, what is on the back side of 7 the wooden staircase on the side 8 closest to the neighbors, who are here 9 tonight? 10 MR. WILLIAMS : It ' s staircase that 1 leads to the porch . 12 MR . WINICK: That starts at about (17: 13 the middle . 14 MR . WILLIAMS : It ' s a little bit 15 more than mid point, it ' s about two 16 feet over . 17 MRS . WILLIAMS : I wouldn ' t say 18 that, it ' s just about a quarter . 19 MR. WEXLER : The thing that I 20 would like to have here is to know 21 that even if that house was two and a 22 half feet further away from the 23 property line -- © 24 MS . MARTIN: Whose house? 25 MR. WEXLER: -- and the air Proceedings 1 conditioner unit is there would there ® 2 be a difference in the sound that 3 comes from the neighbor ' s house . I 4 don ' t think so because the 5 ingredients -- 6 MR . CARPANETO : I think that the 7 Building Inspector -- 8 MR . WEXLER : Can I finish, then 9 after that you can say whatever you 10 want . I would like some guidance from 11 an acoustical engineer to this Board 12 given the DB rating of individual air • 13 conditioner compressors and the impact 14 of those DB ratings to a specific 15 distance and let ' s -- 16 MS . GALLENT : When you say 17 individual compressor -- 18 MR . WEXLER : The compressor is 19 what we ' re talking about, I want a 20 guide as to the acceptable level of 21 sound, irregardless of the air 22 conditioner, that we can then use as a 23 guide to say here the unit is 72 DB 24 and that it falls in the criteria that 25 is acceptable or not in the criteria-- • Proceedings MS . GALLENT : How it dissipates © 2 by-- 3 MR . WEXLER : And I would have use 4 of -- for example, in an R7 . 5 district 5 at a distance of 20 feet because that 6 is the sideyard whether there are 7 preexisting nonconformities in the 8 R7 . 5 that the five foot sideyard are 9 burdened with and anyone putting in a 10 air conditioner compressor must make 11 it accessible in case of a fire 12 emergency to that one you have to have C13 the compressor away from the wall for 14 air flow, the depth leaves very little 15 space given this house which just 16 meets the criteria and just meets the 17 sideyard setback . 18 MR . WILLIAMS : Excuse me, there is 19 a 10 . 14 setback . 20 MR . WEXLER : Point 14 is this 21 much, it ' s a little bit over an inch . 22 MR. WILLIAMS : We ' re not talking 23 about many inches . 24 MR . WEXLER : This much you can ' t 25 get -- you can ' t even get your tubing Proceedings 31 1 in there . I would like to have C 2 guidance . We have -- I can ' t listen 3 to a neighbor who complains about 4 sound until we know what the level is 5 that the air conditioner compressor 6 unit gave out . Whether it ' s 150 DB or 7 whatever, then we would be able to say 8 that ' s to close or it broke down, 9 whatever it is we say to show that 10 this does not meet the criteria . But 11 if there is a threshold of acceptable 12 impact of this compressor here, also C 13 the fact that there is a line of 14 abervidian (ph) that deadens the sound 15 we have to take that into 16 consideration in this instance . It 17 will be better for us going on to 18 further cases in front of us to make 19 those judgements . 20 MS . GALLENT : Has anyone on the 21 Board or the staff listened to this 22 compressor? I agree that your idea to 23 get an expert on the record is a good 401) 24 one . 25 MR . WINICK: I went, it was not Proceedings 32 1 running . 2 MR. WEXLER: This is not just to 3 do with the Williams, but what would 4 be an acceptable sound level given 20 5 feet away in the real world. 6 MS . GALLENT : No, I understand . I 7 also think that the Board Members 8 pursuant to the law are allowed to use 9 their own observations as members of 10 the community and I want to know if 11 you heard the sound it makes? 12 MR. WEXLER: It was not on, it was 13 a cold day. 14 MR . WILLIAMS : We would like to 15 have it be 40, 20 feet away. 16 MR. CARPANETO : I can say I did 17 witness it and it ' s a very quiet unit . 18 I probably have never heard one 19 quieter . 20 THE AUDIENCE : Did you come to my 21 bedroom? 22 MR . CARPANETO: Just to point out 23 a fact that it ' s certainly a very (:) 24 quiet unit, the noise that you hear 25 right now from that is probably what Proceedings 33 1 you here 25 feet away from that unit . © 2 MR. WINICK: I think with these 3 comments we ' re getting away from the 4 subject . I want to point out the need 5 for an objective form of measurement . 6 I think right now -- I don ' t know if 7 you want a sense of the Board, I don ' t 8 think, feel I could vote based on what 9 we ' re getting here . I feel we need a 10 considerable more amount of 11 information about sound levels and at 12 least what we had with the Hamlet ' s ® 13 application and with the opposition, I 14 don ' t think I could rule based on this 15 information . 16 MR . GUNTHER : Has the Town Board 17 taken any action? 18 MR . HAMLET : They' re working on 19 it . 20 MR. GUNTHER: You raise a 21 reasonable point that may cause us to 22 want to postpone this case . 23 THE AUDIENCE : Are we allowed to 24 speak now? 25 MR. GUNTHER: You will have a Proceedings 34 1 chance to speak in a minute . 2 THE AUDIENCE : Okay, good because `�► 3 I have a lot to say. 4 MR . GUNTHER : Has the Town 5 Engineer -- does the Town Engineer 6haveexpertise the to do that? 7 MR . CARPANETO : No, they would 8 have to hire a special engineer . 9 MR. WEXLER: It ' s really a study, 10 a good acoustical mechanical engineer 11 certainly will know this information 12 and survey this area . Cm; 13 MS . GALLENT : So you want to get 14 general information, not about this 15 particular unit? 16 MR. WEXLER : I want to have -- 17 yes , because ratings mean nothing . 18 For example, if the engineering report 19 comes back and states and I 'm using an 20 example, but don ' t quote me, 21 hypothetical , really hypothetical, it 22 says that at 20 feet an acceptable 23 sound level is 50 DB decibels, the 24 impact of the pooling within that 20 25 feet is a fence and so forth will Proceedings 35 1 reduce it by for example -- C 2 MS . GALLENT : But this is almost 3 impossible to do . I understand that 4 there is a need for some expert 5 opinion here -- 6 MR . WEXLER: Not an opinion, I 7 want to have a guide . 8 MR. WINICK: But that is opinion . 9 MR . WEXLER: Yes and no . 10 MS . GALLENT : I think the best we 11 can hope to get for this is objective 12 measurements that add 20 feet to the C13 72 DB amount and says it sounds like 14 X, at 20 feet it sounds like X, I mean 15 that ' s all we ' re going to get . 16 MR. WINICK: There are two things 17 that are at issue and a lot of 18 examples, what is the sound given the 19 equivalent if there is a space shuttle 20 and whole lot of other examples . I 21 think that ' s not going to tell us what 22 the decibel level is and I think we 23 need the information of what an R75 �✓, 24 district is measuring it at 20 feet 25 because that ' s two sideyards . We ' re Proceedings 36 1 not going to measure what is not on C 2 site and get additional value of that . 3 We need the actual, we ' re addressing 4 whatever shubbery, whatever sound, 5 whatever has been done to try to 6 mitigate or whatever local 7 transporting of sound is around, from 8 that we will know what that is . 9 MS . GALLENT : So you want an 10 actual on site test? 11 MR . WILLIAMS : If I may, the 12 problem you ' re going to, obviously I 13 will anticipate this in our case, come 14 up against from our neighbors is that 15 if it ' s one decibel over it ' s to damn 16 loud. 17 MS . GALLENT : That ' s the Board' s 18 decision . They will say what the 19 number is so that there is an 20 objective . They won ' t just have 21 someone saying it ' s to loud and then 22 they will decide that . 23 MR . WINICK: I think Judy is (:) 24 right, there is a way that we can be 25 objective and I think we have to face Proceedings 37 1 that fact with this application . 2 I don ' t know whether the Town 3 Board is going to act, but we need to 4 be able to deal with the applications 5 in the future . I think the other 6 piece of this is the Town Board has to 7 go hear this unit when it is running 8 from about a distance of 20 feet so we 9 have pertinent observations along with 10 whatever engineering information we 11 get . 12 MS . GALLENT : You mean the Zoning C 13 Board . 14 MR. WINICK: Yes, all of us . 15 MS . GALLENT : Yes . 16 MR . WINICK: With both neighbors , 17 but I think we should do that . 18 MS . GALLENT : So it seems what is 19 needed is to get an actual measurement 20 and someone to tell us what that means 21 in terms of equivalents, just things 22 that we ' re familiar . I think that ' s 23 all we can hope for . I don ' t think 24 it ' s possible to get something 25 generalized and apply it in all Proceedings 38 1 situations, but I 'm not sure . 2 MR. WEXLER: Let me give you an 3 example whatever is mitigating between 4 this compressor and the 20 feet from 5 house, 20 feet away from -- 6 MS . GALLENT : Let ' s not try -- 7 MR . WEXLER: There is no 8 mitigating -- when I say mitigating I 9 mean measurements, anything that stops 10 sound and I get a report that, a chart 11 or whatever you want to say, that says 12 at this point a 90 decibel reading C13 compressor at 20 feet will sound like 14 60 decibels, a 72 decibel compressor 15 will sound like 48 decibels with 16 nothing in between to soften or deaden 17 the noise . 18 MR . HAMLET : It ' s called the 19 drop-off rate . 20 MR. WEXLER: I want to have 21 figures -- let me finish please, 22 gentlemen . At this point let me use 23 this example, I look at this side, 24 this side has dense vegetation between 25 the AC unit and -- Proceedings 39 1 THE AUDIENCE : If I 'm not 2 permitted to speak how come he is . 3 MR . WEXLER: He ' s not permitted to 4 speak either . 5 MR. GUNTHER: The other option I . 6 have is to adjourn the meeting and you 7 can come back next month . 8 THE AUDIENCE : Mr . Gunther, but 9 you silenced me . 10 MR . GUNTHER : I am asking you, 11 including you Mr . Hamlet, to carry on 12 your discussions out of this room C 13 while the hearing is going on, is that 14 clear? 15 MR . WEXLER: Let me finish, this 16 application comes in with X DB rating 17 and the next comes in with two -- 18 MS . GALLENT : So if the expert 19 does the decibels he should rate them 20 at 20 feet? 21 MR . WEXLER : Right . 22 MS . GALLENT : I will ask for that . 23 MR . WEXLER : It has to meet the 24 criteria . 25 MS . GALLENT : I understand. Proceedings 40 1 MR. WEXLER: Not only that, but 2 also the mitigating things, so to say 3 what will soften this 105 decibels . 4 MS . GALLENT : I understand and 5 Paul wants the actual . 6 MR. WEXLER : And really what could 7 happen if there is no change in the 8 law we ' re going to be seeing a lot of 9 these things . 10 MR. WINICK: Okay. 11 MR . WEXLER: We will need to have 12 some kind of a criteria in line with �J 13 how to solve problems with different 14 lighting, candles, the environment can 15 change a lot . 16 MS . GALLENT : So are we going to 17 get the actual measurement? 18 MR . WINICK: I don ' t know how we 19 can put in all of this knowledge even 20 if we are to establish some kind of 21 drop-off without having some 22 indication that it actually works . 23 MS . GALLENT : But you can go 0 24 there . 25 MR. CARPANETO : That ' s a problem. Proceedings 41 1 MR . WINICK: The problem is it 4111, 2 doesn ' t necessarily mean that the 3 field conditions are the same because 4 you ' ll have different walls, and 5 different decks, you ' ll have different 6 angles of reflection . 7 MS . GALLENT : You ' re not going -- 8 are you suggesting that they take a 9 measurement from every point of these 10 peoples ' s houses? 11 MR. WINICK: No . I just don ' t 12 think that a table of drop-off rates 1101 13 from the decibel -- I don ' t know if I 14 am exponentially assuming some program 15 rate of drop-off, but if we have an 16 expert who will tell us that or who 17 does tell us that that is uniform no 18 matter what the local conditions are 19 between the sound, around the sound 20 source and between the sound source 21 and listening -- 22 MS . GALLENT : That there can ' t be 23 a tree -- 24 MR . WINICK: I ' ve worked with the 25 experts and I don ' t think a table like IF Proceedings 42 1 that is going to be accurate . I think 2 we can know by a measurement what 3 actually is 20 feet away if we 4 measure, but I don ' t know. 5 MS . GALLENT : You can also note 6 the way it sounds, like, you can ' t 7 have a number, but you will have -- 8 MR. CARPANETO : This is not the 9 time of year to hear an air 10 conditioning unit being run because 11 that unit is not under full load and 12 it will bring back a rattle and ® 13 banging and shaking . Without that 14 freon coming back in the vapor the 15 compressor will not run smoothly so 16 it ' s going to be very noisy. 17 MR . WEXLER : In that broad range 18 of conditions you ' re going to get 19 those vibrations and banging . 20 MR. CARPANETO : I don ' t think most 21 people are running their air 22 conditioners . 23 MR. WINICK: I 'm not running mine . © 24 MR . WEXLER : Most people don ' t run 25 them when the temperature is under 80 Proceedings 43 1 degrees, that ' s a point of fact . That 2 machine will be much noisier if it ' s 3 run on day like today, it will 4 absolutely make a racket . 5 MRS . WILLIAMS : Our compressor 6 goes on after -- we set it for 76 . We 7 don ' t live with the air conditioner on 8 all the time, I have two young 9 children it ' s not even used at night . 10 MR . WINICK: I don ' t think that 11 matters right now. What Mr . Carpaneto 12 is saying is the fact that under the C 13 kind of load you ' ll get now that ' s not 14 a representative measurement of the 15 typical use of the air conditioner and 16 will probably be to your detriment . 17 The alternative is if you think that 18 there is a cooling season that you ' re 19 talking about, what power do we have 20 to adjourn this thing until we can 21 deal with it at the appropriate time, 22 but I think I would let Tom be my 23 guide on that whether we have the 24 authority to do that . 25 MR . GUNTHER: We can always Proceedings 44 1 adjourn . 111 2 MR. WINICK: To next summer? 3 MR. GUNTHER: Well, no . 4 MS . GALLENT : That would be what 5 is required. 6 MR. CARPANETO : I think any sound 7 engineer would -- 8 MR. WINICK: One constructive step 9 would be to go -- 10 MS . GALLENT : No, it ' s off -- 11 MR. WINICK: We can go there and 12 we can listen if it ' s on, or maybe if 13 there is a sound engineer there that 14 we can speak to to confirm that at the 15 site . 16 MR. CARPANETO: Talk to an air 17 conditioner technician they ' ll tell 18 you . 19 MR . WINICK: If we can measure we 20 can measure . 21 MR. WEXLER: What guide do we have 22 in listening to and measuring, I don ' t 23 quite understand. I 'm looking at what ICI24 is the acceptable normal . I hate to 25 use the industry acceptable level of Proceedings 45 1 sound . This is not intrinsic to the 2 general public . 3 MR . WINICK: Well -- 4 MS . GALLENT : I think one thing we 5 could do is get everything we can get 6 as to the rating of this unit and if 7 there is a new one in place we can 8 assume it ' s operating properly. 9 MR . WEXLER : And it ' s set 10 properly. 11 MS . GALLENT : We can find out what 12 is the DBA 20 feet away is and get © 13 acoustical bench marks so that you can 14 say it ' s 75 DBA at 25 feet and that 15 sounds like a car or whatever . That 16 can be done because that ' s a matter of 17 theory it doesn ' t require that we 18 rate the unit, we know what the 19 decibel is and all we have to do is 20 the mathematics or whatever it ' s to 21 understand how it drops off over a 22 distance . We can do that without 23 having it have to run . And then we 24 can compare what that number is of the 25 dropped off DBA to other types of Proceedings 46 1 noises there are and also other 2 standards of laws, there are federal 3 laws about how much noise airplanes 4 can make and things like that . So we 5 can try to find other bench marks to 6 what that drop-off rate is, I don ' t 7 think we can do an actual measurement 8 because of the conditions . So how 9 about if we do that, that ' s sort of 10 Arthur ' s idea? 11 MR . WINICK: I think if -- I think 12 that my hope was to have an actual 41) 13 decibel rating so that when we apply 14 that table we ' re using a real number . 15 MS . GALLENT : But it sounds like 16 because the unit isn ' t running right, 17 if Ron is right, it ' s not an accurate 18 representation of what the unit sounds 19 like in the season when it runs . 20 MR. WEXLER : I think we have 21 criteria to make, a decision that is 22 irrespective of whether you have a 23 decibel rating up there or not . And 24 if you are writing a law addressing 25 sound you would do it exactly like Proceedings 47 1 that . 2 MS . GALLENT : Right . 3 MR. WEXLER : It ' s the criteria to 4 solve a condition and that ' s all I 'm 5 asking for . 6 MR . GUNTHER : Part of the problem 7 is once you grant a variance for 8 something it goes with the property P P Y 9 and the unit, that ' s the thing in one 10 manner and 10 years from now or 20 11 years or 30 years in won ' t be in the 12 same mode, so hence, we will have the C 13 impact similarly with that unit that 14 it comes off the house and sounds like 15 a rocket going to the moon . 16 MR. WINICK: The Town Board is 17 considering a noise based ordinance, 18 if they enact that kind of law then 19 the future of maintenance of air 20 conditioners or the future status is 21 going to depend on what the law is . 22 The irony is we can grant all the 23 variances we want and if they pass a 24 55 decibel Town law and we granted you 25 a variance and your unit is larger Proceedings 48 1 than it -- C 2 MS . GALLENT : You can ' t run it . 3 MR. WINICK: Ultimately one handy 4 way to solve this problem is if we 5 adjourn . I think we have general 6 information and certainly we may not 7 know exactly how we ' re going to deal 8 with this, but we need to communicate 9 to the Town Board and tell them that 10 and urge them to get off the stick and 11 do something . Ultimately everything 12 we do here may not matter and we may C13 impact something that may occur as has 14 happened with the Town because the 15 violation may end up being the problem 16 for a lot of people . 17 MR. WEXLER: You ' re addressing the 18 sound issue of these compressors, but 19 that is only if the compressors are 20 set on the sideyard where the sideyard 21 is already way below the minimum 22 sideyard and accessible, this one 23 along that sideyard is not accessible . 24 MR. WINICK: Okay. 25 MR. WEXLER : There are other Proceedings 49 1 aspects, one, is the impact on the O2 neighbors of sound, two, is the 3 ability to service this house without 4 having to go onto someone else ' s 5 property, so it ' s not just sound. 6 MR . WINICK: But no matter what 7 our law is going to remain the same 8 and we will have to rule individually 9 on the variance . So if somebody has a 10 sideyard that is 32 or 33 feet wide 11 and an air conditioner unit that may 12 be something where the distance itself 13 becomes a factor, that justifies the 14 noise . I don ' t think this is a noise 15 problem and if this is a noise problem 16 the next one may not be and we will 17 deal with the next case when it gets 18 here, but certainly I would think what 19 I would like to do is get whatever 20 information we can get from the 21 expert . I think the immediate 22 measurement is a problem and we may 23 not really be able to deal with it 24 quite yet and we may never deal with 25 it if they take this issue away from mmimmmimmmimmmmr Proceedings SC 1 us . I realize we ' re entering the • 2 winter season and the Town has to do 3 something about this before another 4 cooling season . 5 MS . GALLENT : I think that is 6 certain . 7 MR . WEXLER : Can I give a 8 criteria, what should be given to a 9 consultant to factor in his report? 10 MS . GALLENT : Sure . 11 MR. WEXLER : I want to give the 12 criteria for a consultant who would 4C) 13 look at this, one, is the air 14 conditioner compressor next to the 15 house and not in the sideyard, that ' s 16 were the house is not behind it? 17 Where it is is the sound baffled and 18 reflected as opposed to it sitting 10 19 feet off that house? 20 MS . GALLENT : I think -- 21 MR . WEXLER : Let me finish please . 22 I do this all the time, I do this crap 23 you do law, I do this crap . • 24 MS . GALLENT : Go ahead. 25 MR. WEXLER : I would like to know Proceedings 51 1 what can mitigate the sound . 2 MR. CARPANETO: What can mitigate 3 the sound? 4 MR . WEXLER : Will a fence there 5 mitigate the sound? 6 MS . GALLENT : Everything you ' re 7 saying -- 8 MR . WEXLER : What can mitigate the 9 sound period . 10 MS . GALLENT : I think your problem 11 is you ' re asking for very specific 12 information and your giving very 13 general conditions . I don ' t think 14 it ' s possible, but I will certainly 15 ask. 16 MR. WEXLER: You can start to 17 interpret that to what it means, maybe 18 you can ' t, I can . 19 MS . GALLENT : I ' ve worked on sound 20 cases where you need to know what kind 21 of deck it is, are there spaces in 22 between the wood -- 23 MR . WEXLER : Fine . C 24 MS . GALLENT : We don ' t have any 25 specifics we can give them. Proceedings 52 1 MR . WINICK: In the interest of 2 getting out of here before breakfast, 3 why don ' t we pose that question to the 4 expert . Let ' s pose the question to 5 the expert and let ' s stop being 6 experts in which we have no expertise . 7 Let ' s pose the questions and get the 8 answers from him. You know I ' ve had 9 the same experience and I know enough 10 to know I don ' t know what I 'm talking 11 about . I use an expert, so let ' s get 12 one and ask him some questions and if ® 13 the answers come back that every kind 14 of unit is same we have that as a 15 fact, as an opinion . If it doesn ' t 16 come back that way then it doesn ' t, 17 but let ' s ask the expert the question . 18 MR. WEXLER: How do you tonight 19 anticipate what were the options of 20 mitigation of the sound prior to 21 moving it? 22 MR. GUNTHER : Did you have another 23 question? 24 MR . WINICK: I 'm just saying -- 25 MR . WEXLER : I 'm assuming he ' s Proceedings 53 1 going to do all the other stuff that 2 was discussed. 3 MR . WINICK: Can I suggest as a 4 matter of the neighbors I don ' t want 5 to hear anything about their problems 6 with each other, I just want the 7 facts . 8 MR. GUNTHER: Without a doubt . 9 Unless the board has any other 10 questions at the moment I will open 11 comments to the public. Are there any 12 questions or comments from the public? (:) 13 THE AUDIENCE : Yes, I ' d love to 14 speak . 15 MS . ROMA: Please identify 16 yourself . 17 MRS . HARRIS : Katherine Theo 18 Harris of 82 Islin Terrace . I 'm glad 19 we ' re recording this defamation of 20 character, that ' s what we have to deal 21 with with our neighbors . I was 22 impressed with the beginning of our 23 neighbor ' s statement and shocked by 1111 24 the fact of our supposed hostility. 25 They were invited into our home for Proceedings 54 1 drinks, they couldn ' t make it . She iC 2 was given a tour of my home, so there 3 was no hostility and we were happy to 4 see them move in . Yes, we did 5 immediately mention the air 6 conditioner because in 1984 Steve 7 Altieri, the Town Administrator at 8 that time, and I discussed the noise 9 of the 1984 air conditioner that was a 10 problem then . 11 The present problem is that air 12 condition sits and bounces off the C 13 building and hits our deck and our 14 bedroom. At night, as you know, when 15 the wind blows in different directions 16 the noise is really quite big, I hate 17 it . Mr . Carpaneto, it sounds great 18 from what you ' re saying, but at night 19 it ' s very noisy and we have been 20 forced to close our windows and put on 21 our air condition, but we like to 22 sleep with our windows open . We are 23 assaulted on our deck and we have not (:) 24 enjoyed the quality of life on our 25 deck. Their air conditioner goes on Proceedings 55 1 every 20 to 25 minutes , when that air 2 conditioner goes on it goes boom like Ci 3 that . And then it goes on and off and 4 turns itself on and goes boom and then 5 we hear a boom again . My feeling is 6 that our quality of life has suffered, 7 it suffered all those years when it 8 was there before at that time we 9 didn ' t know any better . 10 Then what happened in ' 84 is just 11 like that it broke and the owner was 12 kind enough not to replace it for all 13 those years, but to put in little 14 units in the windows and it was fine . 15 When the new owners came we did say if 16 you ' re going to replace it would you 17 be so kind as to put it on the other 18 side of the house . One of the 19 statements made by our neighbors was, 20 so you want me to annoy the other 21 neighbors . Well, if they have 22 listened and we had a plan here and 23 if he had put it underneath their deck 24 further away they would have close 50 25 feet away from the other neighbors Proceedings 56 1 which would not bother the other 2 neighbors . 3 We told them they were not 4 compliance because we knew they 5 weren ' t in compliance we had it from 6 the Town a 1 1/2, 2 years ago that it 7 was too close to the house . We said 8 if you put the piping there you could 9 move it and it could have been done 10 without all the expense to these 11 neighbors . It could have been done 12 when they first ordered it or 13 immediately before it was placed in . 14 It was conveniently put in while we 15 were on vacation . I personally if I ' d 16 seen it coming I would have called the 17 Town immediately, but we were gone and 18 when we got back from vacation low and 19 behold it was there and the noise was 20 on . 21 And we did complain to this owner 22 before we put in our complaint . In 23 fact Mr . Carpaneto we called him S24 personally and he asked do you want me 25 to put in a complaint and we said w Proceedings 57 1 let ' s discuss it with our neighbors 2 first . Am I right, Mr . Carpaneto? C 3 MR. CARPANETO : That ' s probably 4 possible . 5 MRS . HARRIS : We called him to 6 come and listen to this air 7 conditioner and he never came . He 8 came to the home and we told him we 9 were putting in a complaint and we did 10 the following day. 11 As far as the famous letter from 12 the Cohens nobody wants to tell you • 13 that the noise we complained about 14 from the children were not children 15 right across the street, but right in 16 front of our house playing basketball 17 going on for hours at a time and 18 filthy language from the teenagers 19 playing . We complained, I 'm sorry . 20 As far as the dogs are concerned they 21 let there dog bark for hours at a 22 time . Yes, it ' s a complaint about the 23 noise . So that ' s it and all these 411 24 things are like a defamation of 25 character and we really to have them Proceedings 58 1 make us sound as if we ' re crazy. 411 2 MR . HARRIS : We have served, my 3 wife and myself, has served in the 4 Board for six years on the School 5 Board. I was a cub master for a 6 period of time . 7 MRS . HARRIS : Please let me 8 finish . 31 years we have lived in 9 that house and we ' ve had good 10 relationships with our neighbors . I 11 am very, very upset that we don ' t have 12 that kind of relationship with these • 13 neighbors . 14 MR. HARRIS : We don ' t believe it ' s 15 our fault . 16 MRS . HARRIS : I just want to tell 17 you that our quality of life has 18 lessened . You can say it ' s less 19 decibels, but when you ' re living there 20 and you ' re sleeping and you ' re 21 listening to this noise and you ' re 22 sitting on your deck and your sitting 23 with guests and suddenly when it goes C 24 off it ' s like the Chinese water 25 torture, it ' s so peaceful and then Proceedings 59 1 with that boom it ' s on again . 2 We ' re here to say that it doesn ' t 3 belong there and if they had put it 4 where they should have put it around 5 the side of the house -- if in fact 6 they had even bothered to look it 7 over and as we explained they should 8 have put it to the side and then put a 9 little fence around to it stop the 10 noise . This would not have happened 11 if they had originally put it there . 12 At this point it now has to be (:) 13 corrected . Now, we were told by the 14 neighbors you don ' t like the noise pay 15 to move it . That ' s what we are told. 16 All this could have been solved if 17 it was done with our suggestion and 18 they just put it a little bit around 19 the side of the house, the new machine 20 around the house . It wasn ' t done and 21 now we ' re here, and it ' s costing them 22 whatever it ' s costing to hire whoever 23 they' re hiring to do this . 24 I think it ' s very sad and I hope 25 whatever you decide is that you decide Proceedings 60 1 for the quality of life and not (:: 2 because we ' re some kind of nuts . 3 We ' re not sensitive to noise it ' s just 4 not fair to do whatever you want . I 5 plead to the not to put it there, it 6 should have been put in the right 7 place . Don ' t replace the old 8 compressor and put a new one in in an 9 that doesn ' t work out for everyone and 10 waste however much of your time . 11 MR. WILLIAMS : Can I make a 12 clarification? 13 MR . GUNTHER : Wait for the other 14 comments ublic p and then certainly we 15 will come back to you . Is there 16 anyone else in the audience who has a 17 comment on this application? 18 THE AUDIENCE : Becky Shier, 7 19 Lundy Lane . I 'm also neighbor and 20 homeowner and I understand that you 21 have some objective criteria and that 22 you have to go by that, but since I 'm 23 here I ' d just like to say for Chris `• ' 24 and Gibbs Williams I think that they 25 are lovely neighbors, very curtious Proceedings 61 1 and friendly and they' ve done ® 2 tremendous things for our property 3 value . They really made the home 4 which was kind of a wreck when they 5 moved in lovely and I have no doubt 6 that they really improved our 7 investment . I think that they' re 8 terrific neighbors to have . 9 MR. GUNTHER: Are there any other 10 comments on this application? 11 MRS . WILLIAMS : neighbor is nowhere 12 near them. 13 MR . WEXLER : I think that the real 14 issues is the air conditioning, the 15 sounds that it generates and the 16 required sideyard and the sound that 17 it generates . No matter how beautiful 18 it is it doesn ' t matter, we ' re dealing 19 with those issues and those comments 20 should be saved and I think in this 21 case are not welcome . 22 MR. GUNTHER: Any other comments? 23 MR . HAMLET : John Hamlet, 72 �✓' 24 Chatsworth Avenue . Just a comment 25 that was made the Town expects to Proceedings 62 1 make a decision by the, as I 2 understand it, the end of this year, 3 by December because it ' s what he has 4 said as far as what he expects . Do 5 you want to see the research done by a 6 sound engineer? 7 MR . WINICK: If you ' d like to have 8 it marked as a exhibit . 9 MR . HAMLET : That is one thing 10 that if you aren ' t going to hire a 11 engineer I ' d really like you to avoid 12 that expense . 0 13 MR . WEXLER: Having to pay him. 14 MR. HAMLET : I don ' t have enough 15 copies, this is a sound report that my 16 neighbor had done on my air 17 conditioning unit and I guess that ' s 18 the thing . 19 MS . ROMA: Can I have one? 20 MR. HAMLET : First of all, the two 21 units I don ' t know if there is a 22 comparison, but you ought to look at 23 three things outlined in yellow. One, 24 no air conditioner is it ' s sound is 66 25 decibel in our neighborhoods before Proceedings 63 1 there is no air conditioning when the 2 car goes by the at 71 which the air 3 it ' s 69 now can you onlyhear a about a 4 three decibel difference you can 5 definitely hear a five decibel 6 difference . I want you to take this 7 consideration when you ' re getting 8 sound engineers that it ' s not just 9 what is the drop-off rate it ' s also 10 what is relevant . 11 MR. WINICK: You mean the ambient 12 sound. 13 MR . HAMLET : I thought that might 14 be helpful just to point that out . 15 MR. HARRIS : There is also a law 16 and a permit and variance . 17 MRS . HARRIS : My question is we ' re 18 here about the law whether the permit 19 or the variance is granted we ' re not 20 here about anything else, good 21 neighbors or whatever? 22 MR. GUNTHER : The only reason why 23 we are here is that the people at 11 C24 Lundy Lane somewhere have constructed 25 something that is connected to their Proceedings 64 1 house and that extends -- I don ' t know 2 the building and the length, the 3 building inspector goes in and looks 4 at the it . I don ' t know the area 5 where it should exist and what has be 6 requested. I don ' t know whether it 7 will continue to exist or whether it 8 will be shut down, if the Board says 9 so then it will have to be removed . 10 MR. HARRIS : We ' re not discussing 11 sound ? because that ' s something else 12 and we didn ' t come with an engineer 13 and all . 14 MRS . HARRIS : If it was a sound 15 thing I would have taped it for all of 16 you to hear . 17 MS . GALLENT : Then you should 18 bring to the Board what it is that you 19 hear everyday . The reason that sound 20 is at all one of the factors is that 21 the Board is prescribed by law to 22 apply five criteria, one of them is 23 the impact on the neighborhood, and 24 you ' re saying there is a noise impact . 25 MRS . HARRIS : You have to prove or Proceedings 65 1 someone has to prove that there is an 2 impact, you don ' t have to prove 3 whether or not it ' s useful to the 4 Board . 5 MR . HARRIS : Do we have to prove 6 that it ' s a variance? 7 MS . GALLENT : No, they ' re applying 8 for a variance . If you want to you 9 can tell the Board how noisy it is and 10 why it ' s bothering you or if you want 11 to you could hire your own engineer 12 and you can submit numbers, but you 13 don ' t have to do that because the 14 Board will do that in searching for 15 some objective . 16 MRS . HARRIS : So essentially the 17 Board is going to retain it ' s own 18 engineer . 19 MR. GUNTHER: Mr . Williams in his 20 comments at the beginning noted the 21 five different criteria the Board 22 generally uses to the grant variance . 23 Those five things are a set of rules (:) 24 established by the State legislature 25 that give us the right to grant a Proceedings 66 1 variance or notgrant thevariance varia ce and C2 one of those things that was just 3 noted was the impact on the 4 neighborhood, what is the impact on 5 the community, can the applicant 6 achieve his goals by some other 7 reasonable means and so on . Is there 8 a significant impact and so on, those 9 are the factors that we have to look 10 at and noise may indeed have an impact 11 on the community and neighbors . So 12 from that perspective noise can be C13 looked at, does that answer your 14 question? 15 MRS . HARRIS : Yes . 16 MR . GUNTHER : Mr . Williams? 17 MR. WILLIAMS : I want to clarify 18 just a couple of things, I might be a 19 little out of bounds, however, the 20 aspersion that we snuck it in, it ' s 21 our air conditioner and what happened 22 was it was a 100 degree day. These 23 people were away and I don ' t care 24 whether they were away we couldn ' t 25 tolerate the heat and we have Proceedings 67 1 grandparents who were sweltering and 2 we had planned to get the air 3 conditioner in and they were over and 4 we put it in . There is virtually 5 nothing -- we would do it again for 6 exactly the same reason . 7 MR. HARRIS : And sneak it in . 8 MR. GUNTHER: Mr . Harris, please . 9 MR. HARRIS : You ' re right, 10 Mr . Gunther . 11 MR . WILLIAMS : I would also like 12 respond to a couple of other things, 13 obviously I realize we ' re here on the 14 merit of what is going to be a 15 complicated issue . I pfirmly believe 16 without any question it seems to be 17 obvious that you can have all the 18 objective criteria you want that of 19 that sound level , however, people are 20 going to vary and continue to with the 21 respect to the noise factor . 22 I think it is absolutely clear by 23 any reasonably standard that these 24 people are unbelievably hypersensitive 25 to noise and what complicates this is Proceedings 68 1 the factor that they come across sweet 2 and lovely. We had a sense that they 3 were very nice day one and then when 4 they started telling us this is what 5 we should do . And when I finally went 6 over to discuss it with them I had a 7 20 minute harangue in terms of what is 8 wrong with us and as far as I 'm 9 concerned the level of acrimony is so 10 great on their part that if they heard 11 anything from our yard it would feel 12 like a boom. Q 13 MR. HARRIS : I urged you to come 14 and hear and listen . 15 MR. WILLIAMS : A couple of air 16 conditioner that were in the back make 17 clearly more noise than our 18 compressor . That subjectivity is 19 going to be a problem and here is 20 where our case rests . They feel they 21 are being ganged up on and I don ' t 22 think you ' re particularly for us, I 23 sense we ' re in trouble . 401, 24 MRS . WILLIAMS : I want to ask a 25 question if there is a compressor that Proceedings 69 1 is two inches away from someone else ' s 2 house and if that someone doesn ' t 3 complain then it ' s not a problem? 4 MR . WEXLER : Don ' t ask me . 5 MR. WILLIAMS : Just because 6 someone complains we had to go through 7 this . 8 MR. GUNTHER: If the Building 9 Inspector issues a violation and at 10 this point the Board does not control 11 what the Building Inspector does and 12 if he finds through his means one way 13 or another, meaning if he ' s inspecting 14 a violation of whatever kind, a 15 plumbing violation, any kind of 16 violation or if a fence is too high 17 he can issue you a notice of violation 18 and you can resolve it based upon what 19 he issued or apply for a variance and 20 that goes for your plumbing it doesn ' t 21 make a difference . 22 MR. WILLIAMS : We wouldn ' t want 23 everyone to have nasty neighbors and 24 have them pull up that issue, Mr . 25 Carpaneto, you ' d have 1 , 500 petitions . Proceedings 70 1 MR. GUNTHER: Possibly . ICI 2 MR. WEXLER : We could be there for 3 a long time . 4 THE AUDIENCE : Rebecca Shier, 5 Mr . Wexler, I know you didn ' t like my 6 comments -- 7 MR . WEXLER : It ' s not relevant to 8 the case . 9 MS . SHIER : Your roll was to not 10 pass judgement and you interrupted the 11 laws , so I think when you ' re 12 recommending an instrument of 13 subjectivity and things like character 14 and things like that do come into 15 play. 16 MR. WINICK: Just in anticipation 17 of the next hearing the comments that 18 I ' ve heard from both sides speak badly 19 to their character and are not 20 persuasive of people that they ' re 21 speaking about . I deal with evidence 22 definite conclusive proof because 23 haranguing doesn ' t move me . 4C, 24 As a fact finder what I would like 25 to see is a complete draining of this Proceedings 71 1 issue by both the applicant and the �^ 2 neighbors of all the emotion and the 3 kind of factual issues that we have in 4 front of us . Frankly, I don ' t care 5 whether they are nice people or not 6 nice people . It doesn ' t even matter 7 that there are people in the houses . 8 We have to the deal with the very dry 9 set of facts that we have . Finally, a 10 little constructive criticism, whether 11 or not the people feel that are the 12 subject of haranguing it ' s 7 g g just not C13 why we ' re here . 14 MR . WILLIAMS : Relatively this is 15 going to boil down to they think we ' re 16 too noisy and in this light we believe 17 the existing law as it is presently 18 stated is open to mis use suse and even 19 prejudice in that it appears to be 20 super responsive to the complainant ' s 21 rights or maybe sensitivities because 22 it ' s unresponsive to the rights of the 23 homeowner . Meaning we should be able 24 to handle this objectively, no 25 question about that, but that Proceedings 72 1 objectivity dealt -- there is a c 2 perception of noise on that end and 3 then there is a reasonable level sent 4 out . There has to be something 5 between those two places, there has to 6 be a medium and hopefully some way to 7 make some kind of fair decision . 8 Obviously, you have the question 9 how do I take into account the 10 hypersensitivities -- 11 MR. WINICK: Mr . Williams, you 12 have the right to present your case © 13 anyway you want, but you should stay 14 to the heart of the discussion . I 15 mean it this way, we ' re not well 16 equipped to decide whose being 17 hypersensitive based on your statement 18 that they are and their statement that 19 their not . So as I was trying to tell 20 you you ' re welcome to present your 21 application anyway your want, however, 22 since you have the burden to prove, as 23 you ' re the applicant, that you ' re 24 within this standard . 25 It would be better to represent Proceedings 73 1 some sort of objective evidence and we 2 wil l obviouslyget the assistance that 3 we need. It is not persuasive for you 4 to come here, to me at least, for you 5 to come here and say you know you 6 can ' t favor the hypersensitive, then 7 it is for them to say we ' re not 8 hypersensitive . It just is not the 9 facts and we ' re trying to deal with 10 the objective facts . 11 I would urge to do so if you have 12 a way of showing us that their C13 complaint is not reasonable and 14 present us with evidence about that 15 because I certainly agree with you 16 that this shouldn ' t be based on 17 individual complaints . 18 MR . WEXLER: I don ' t think -- I 19 think what he has to prove is an 20 acceptable level of sound for that 21 type of community that that house is 22 in . It has nothing to do with what 23 this neighbor or that neighbor thinks . 24 We have a criteria in this zone 25 described as the height of the Proceedings 74 1 building, the maximum, the setback and ® 2 we don ' t describe how it should look. 3 We don ' t have right to do that in this 4 community and even the Architectural 5 Review Board doesn ' t even do that for 6 residential structures . So you might 7 look at the criteria set out in the 8 zoning code and decide you can do 9 whatever you want . In that sense it 10 is the same thing, we have set 11 criteria that ' s acceptable to the 12 general welfare to the people around 4:: 13 here and no, I don ' t care if someone 14 complains about it ' s too loud it 15 should be acceptable . 16 MS . GALLENT : I just caution you 17 to you look at, to consider whether an 18 undesirable change will be produced in 19 the character of the neighbor or if 20 there will be a detriment to near by 21 properties . 22 MR . WEXLER: That is what we hope 23 to achieve by a set of criteria to ICO24 find out whether or not this would be 25 a detriment to the general community Proceedings 75 1 and the area at large . C 2 MR . WILLIAMS : Can I ask you 3 something -- 4 MR . WEXLER : You ' re missing 5 exactly what I 'm saying . 6 MS . GALLENT : Yeah, I am. 7 MR. WEXLER : There is a set of 8 criteria that would be accepted, 9 however, given the fact that once the 10 air conditioner compressor is there we 11 have no control over whether or not it 12 is serviced. It goes beyond that it ' s 13 whether this person hears it or does 14 not hear it and we should not be 15 allowing that variable, there should 16 be a certain variable of the sound 17 that ' s generated . We have a set of 18 criteria, this is accepted criteria, 19 the guide line . 20 MS . GALLENT : We can discuss that, 21 but we have to decide each case on its 22 own . 23 MR. WILLIAMS : Assuming for the 24 moment that my facts are accurate, 25 that in our neighborhood there are Proceedings 76 1 seven houses or seven houses on the C2 street that are equipped with central 3 air and seven house of the 31 have 4 central air and if you look at 5 whatever you want it comes out to 6 seemingly the acceptable level and if 7 we meet that with your criteria . 8 MR. WEXLER : Yes, without a doubt . 9 providing that the air conditioner 10 does not prevent service or emergency 11 service, there is a distance 12 requirement of that also . This C13 gentlemen he was very close to his 14 property which is another criteria, 15 not just sound. 16 MR. WILLIAMS : Sure, okay. 17 MR. WEXLER: I want you to be 18 aware of that . 19 MS . GALLENT : That ' s Mr . Wexler ' s 20 opinion . 21 MR. WEXLER : That ' s my opinion, 22 right . C23 MR . WILLIAMS : Okay. 24 MS . GALLENT : I don ' t know what 25 the other Board Members are thinking . Proceedings 77 1 MR. GUNTHER : Are there any other 2 questions from Board Members? 3 MR. SIMON: Yes, I have one . I 'm 4 going to ask you the house it ' s 5 existed for how long now? 6 MR. WILLIAMS : 30 years . 7 MR. SIMON : The both of MRS . 8 WILLIAMS : 9 MRS . WILLIAMS : They were all 10 built at the same time . 11 MR. SIMON: Was there an air 12 conditioner there at the time that you 13 purchased it? 14 MR. WILLIAMS : Yes, it was broken, 15 but it was there . 16 MR . SIMON : So it must have been 17 function at one time and you maintain 18 that the new air condition is far less 19 noisy than the regular unit . I don ' t 20 understand what the problem is, I 'm 21 being very serious we ' re talking about 22 the existing thing and whether you 23 changed the air conditioner for a less 24 noisy air conditioner . Why didn ' t 25 they come to the Board before? Proceedings 78 1 MR. GUNTHER: There was no C2 recourse . 3 MR. WILLIAMS : They were upset and 4 I trusted that the original one was a 5 piece of junk, I imagine, and I take 6 their word for it that it was horrible 7 and I understand that . 8 MR . SIMON : Let ' s say that for 9 example, a guy comes with the power 10 thing and comes on Sunday, in 11 Larchmont village and they say we will 12 send somebody who will listen to the 13 decibel of the sound of that machine-- 14 MS . GALLENT : What kind of 15 machine? 16 MR. SIMON: A blower, and you are 17 above the law of the decibel you could 18 then tell them to close the machine 19 and that ' s what happened, so don ' t we 20 have here that kind of -- we don ' t 21 have that kind of law? 22 MR . WINICK: We may have that by 23 the end of year . 24 MS . GALLENT : The Town doesn ' t 25 have that . Proceedings 79 1 MR . SIMON: Because that ' s what we 2 need for you to say it ' s wrong or it ' s 3 right . 4 MS . GALLENT : There is no law. He 5 applies the laws, that ' s it . 6 MR . GUNTHER : If there are no more 7 questions, I would like to postpone at 8 this point and adjourn the matter and 9 make a referal to the Town and 10 Marguerite we can talk about this with 11 regard to getting some engineering 12 support from the Town with an C13 engineering specialist on some of the 14 points that were discussed here . And 15 I think at the same time have a 16 discussion with the Town administrator 17 on his recommendation for getting an 18 engineer to respond to our questions . 19 MS . GALLENT : If it ' s ready by the 20 next meeting, by all means . 21 MR. HAMLET : Are you still open 22 for discussion? 23 MR . GUNTHER : We have not closed 24 the hearing, do you have a question? 25 MR. HAMLET : No, it ' s just the limmy Proceedings 80 1 Town Board is already doing a lot of 2 research they might have the 3 mitigating factors, so you really 4 should try to connect with them. 5 MR. GUNTHER: We ' re going to talk 6 to Steve Alteiri , the Town 7 Administrator because he ' s privy to 8 all of the work that has been done, 9 instead of going down a path that 10 would be opposed to where the Town is 11 leading to . 12 MR . WINICK: Are we going to pick 13 an adjourn date for this matter? 14 MR. GUNTHER: At least for now 15 let ' s just adjourn until our next 16 meeting . 17 MR. WINICK: Are we going to pick 18 a date? 19 MS . ROMA: The next is meeting is 20 October 27th . 21 MR . GUNTHER: That ' s the fourth 22 Wednesday, we normally meet the fourth 23 Wednesday of the month . 24 MR . WEXLER : At 7 : 45, this is 25 really a strange MRS . WILLIAMS : 4 Proceedings 81 1 MRS . WILLIAMS : I have to have my 2 80 year old parents babysits for my 3 children to come here . 4 MR. GUNTHER: Just so you know the 5 Director of Buildings will not take 6 any action on your notice of violation 7 so long as you are coming before this 8 Board. So it ' s just in limbo . 9 MR . GUNTHER: Case 2365 has been 10 adjourned to our next meeting . 11 MS . GALLENT : Or if we don ' t have 12 a report -- 13 MR. WEXLER : There is no sense -- 14 MR. GUNTHER: Adjourn it until the 15 nest meeting or until we get a report 16 at which point we would hear what it 17 has to say. Your application will be 18 on the 1 ca endar it wo uld be probabl y Y 19 the third, we have two adjourned cases 20 before h t at . Feel free to call. the 21 Building Department before meeting to 22 see if anything has come in . 23 MR . WILLIAMS : We do that on a 24 regular basis . We don ' t want this 25 case to be treated as a special case . Proceedings 82 1 MR . GUNTHER: You are a special 2 case you made an MRS . WILLIAMS : 3 MRS . WILLIAMS : What about if the 4 Town changes -- 5 MR. WILLIAMS : You could rule 6 against it, but the Town Board could 7 rule in favor, you get my point? 8 MR . GUNTHER: What we will do -- 9 you have a made an application . 10 MR. WILLIAMS : Correct . 11 MR. GUNTHER : What our 12 responsibility is is to either rule on © 13 your application or in the absence of 14 that you would have an opportunity at 15 any point along the way to withdraw 16 your application so if perchance -- 17 MR. WEXLER : How they can withdraw 18 their application, they would have to 19 remove the compressor . 20 MR. GUNTHER : Let me finish, if 21 the Town grants a law that says all 22 units as of such and such a date are 23 grandfathered then he doesn ' t need 24 this application . 25 MR . WEXLER : But that -- Proceedings 83 1 MR. WILLIAMS : Let ' s put it in 2 this capacity, this is going to be put `,✓ 3 off for some time so that all we ' re 4 asking for is fairness and 5 reasonableness . You get my point, 6 it ' s obviously a special case and 7 special gets very expensive . 8 MR. WEXLER: That ' s right . 9 MR. GUNTHER : You ' re pretty much 10 the same as every other application . 11 MR . WINICK: We need to learn more 12 about the what the Town is doing . 13 Legally this could impact you 14 positively or negatively . 15 MR . WILLIAMS : Either way we ' ll 16 take our lumps . 17 MR . WINICK: This is a precipitous 18 process . 19 MR. WILLIAMS : We want to make 20 sure that we are clear and I hope 21 that ' s accurate . 22 MR. GUNTHER : Did you get that 23 resolution that this application will v' 24 be adjourned to the next meeting or 25 the subsequent meeting or when the Proceedings 84 1 report is received . Okay, do I have a C 2 motion to adjourn the application? 3 MR. WINICK: So moved. 4 MR. GUNTHER : Second? 5 MR . SIMON : Second. 6 MR . GUNTHER: Everyone in favor 7 say aye . 8 THE BOARD: Aye . 9 10 11 12 C 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 4C) 24 25 Proceedings 85 1 ® 2 3 CERTIFICATION 4 5 Certified to be a true and accurate 6 transcript of the aforesaid proceeding . 7 8 9 10 11 12 C 13 Michele Nieto 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 24 25