Residences

I'm just not clear as to whether the 3 or 4 zoning and tax lots being merged into 1 to make this project work consist of 2 or 3 residences, plus the church proper. Please click on the image above; my confusion is highlighted. Also, by "vacant," does Mr. Riina, PE, mean "occupied as daycare/school/meeting hall"?

It's common knowledge that the residences have been altered [legally?] from residences to different occupancies and uses; uses and occupancies not on file with the town of Yorktown.

"The property is bordered to the south, east, and west by residential use."

You may enlarge this partial copy of the planning board application, below, by clicking on it. You can read the first three pages of the document by clicking here.

What, may I ask, is the property bordered by on the northerly edge of the premises? [Is it still rhetorical if I answer it?]

It's bordered by "residential use" to the north, as well.

Site Plan

The developer has retained Joseph C. Riina, P.E.,of Site Design Consultants. Below you will find an engineer's report dated 12/10/2010, prepared for the developer.

Parking Is The Developer's Limiting Factor

Below you will find a detailed photograph showing 39 cars parked on "parcel B," as the developer refers to it. I wanted to correct my previous calculation of 44 cars.

I also want to note that, under the plan which proposes over a three-fold increase in legal occupancy, the developer proposes a net decrease of total parking spaces in "parcel B."

Under the proposed new development, where we see 39 cars parked below, this parking area/wetland will be decreased in area and a total of 27 spaces will be legal.


That's some "fuzzy math."

[ Click on the image below, to embiggen.]

Turkey Vulture

Gross. Still sort of majestic though.

"Non-Simultaneous Occupancy"

As FBC's architect will tell it to you, the entire building will never be occupied by more than 344 people on both floors. Ever. I take issue with that. Namely because it's based on a non-existent section of the code. If you can find any section, clause, article, etc...of our building code (Yorktown uses the New York State Uniform Building Code) that defines and outlines parameters for "non-simultaneous occupancy," then I will buy you, +1, dinner at Le Bernadin. Leave your citation, with contact information, in the comment section below.

[click on image; image get bigger]

2nd Floor:

1st Floor
Please note, this floor is never to be occupied while the 2nd floor sanctuary is. That's right, the nursery and classrooms will never be occupied while there is a sermon upstairs. At least that is the narrative being put forth by the design team. I'd like them to cite the section of the code that allows them to claim the entire first floor as "non-simultaneous occupancy."

This shows you that the code is absolutely silent on "non-simultaneous" occupancy. It's an undefined term and not allowed under any circumstance. Perhaps the Town Supervisor or Building Department Commissioner can grant a variance for such?

IBC article explaining why they don't like, or define, "non-simultaneous occupancy"

The Ugly Duckling

Good news: our swans are doing well in their nest across the street from FBC. If all goes well we should see a cygnet soon.


It's important to note that their nest is in the Town of Yorktown lot that, under the proposal, must be remediated to offset the net increase to the impervious surfaces on site (e.g. concrete and asphalt).

They propose to offset this adverse action by snuffing out the invasive species (phragmites) and planting native seeds. Great, but I'd like to point out that the entire area has not succumb to phragmites. More than half of that lot is already native plants, or lake, which is where our swans nest.

Also, I would like to point out that FBC already increased, without filing for approval and obtaining the required permits, to increase the amount impervious surfaces on the site. Let's just keep that in mind as we start this horse trade.

I present the below without commentary (it's already on the photo); click on image to embiggen:

"Septic & Parking Area, Lakeland Jewish Center, Lake Mohegan, N.Y."

These are photographs of original documents in the Planning Board file for FBC's new development. They clearly show that the last documents approved by the town of Yorktown, NY, had 23 parking spaces.

Astonishingly, the building's septic and parking systems are designed for the following occupant loads (click on image below to enlarge):
"MAX OCCUPANCY - 80-100 PERSONS-3 HOURS-3DAYS A YEAR
USUAL OCCUPANCY 15-20 PERSONS-2-3 HOURS DAILY,
PARTY OR SUPPER - 80-100 PERSONS 3-4 HOURS ONCE A MONTH"

THERE ARE ONLY 23 LEGAL PARKING SPACES ON SITE TO SERVE THE 98 CARS (ON AVERAGE) THAT SHOW UP WEEKLY!

It's frightening to think that the septic and parking systems were designed to accommodate such a terribly modest occupant load; per this article in the Yorktown Examiner, the church accommodates 160-170 people on Sunday. Not to mention the additional loads totaling 4 to 6 days of septic and parking activity per week.

I hope the remediation of public lands required for the proposed new development takes into consideration the extreme overloading of the current septic and parking systems. It's a fact that organic waste plays a crucial role in the algae blooms that plague Mohegan Lake.

The Forgotten Lot

You can click on the image below to enlarge it.

Above: aerial and black lines are from their architect's signed and sealed Zoning Board of Appeals application . I added the red(a lot shown on the zoning drawings and calculations, but omitted here) and blue(Lakeside Drive) lines to show what the architect has left of this sheet T-101 "Site Photographs Existing and Proposed."

I'm sure that was an honest mistake; but it's a mistake nonetheless. There are no less than two households that were not notified of the proposed zoning variance application which is immediately adjacent to and affected by the site of Faith Bible Church's proposed new development. I am requesting that the proper notifications be sent out and the application re-opened for public comment.

Click on this link and look at the last part of the form where it says "PLEASE TAKE NOTE."

Secrets Of Zoning

Click on the image below, to embiggen.
The above image is from the application on file with Yorktown's Zoning Board of Appleals, less the red lines and red text--which are mine. For the record: the height variance they are seeking is for "37 feet where 35 is required."

To give you a sense of scale, the standard distance between streets in the standard Manhattan grid, is 200'-10". 46 feet is ample room to fit four occupiable floors. Therefore, ZBA member Bob Fahey is not incorrect in stating it's a "4 story building." It is as high as a four story structure.

I challenge you, gentle reader, to find a building 46 feet in height or greater, inside the limits of the sleepy hamlet of Mohegan Lake. Post your answer in the comments and the first correct--verifiable answer wins brunch with me at Thyme.

As their attorney will tell it, this is a "modest," "pretty" development with "vast benefits" for the community. Not the community of Mohegan Lake, my friends.

The Survey

This is the survey that was included with the Zoning Board of Appeals variance application on the public record obtained through a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. You can click on the images, below, to make them appear larger.

Please note that the survey was done April 26th, 2004.

Also note that it is missing a lot that IS included in the Zoning Board of Appeals variance application.
Conclusion:The ZBA variance application filed in February of 2011 included a 7 year old survey; said survey omits a new lot purchased for the new development--however, the zoning drawings prepared by the architect for the ZBA application include a lot that was acquired after the survey was completed? Hmmmmm.

The Missing Lot Is Missing...

The missing lot is missing from the legally required notifications to "interested parties."

Interesting.

I'm going to attempt to remove all emotion from this post and present you with two images.

Below: I took the liberty of drawing in Lakeside Drive and highlighting a lot that the architect omitted from sheet T-105.00 of his ZBA variance application. You can click on the image to enlarge it. Please note that this drawing is from the ZBA application file obtained through a FOIL request.



From the Yorktown Town Code:

Appeals.

A.

All appeals and applications to the Board of Appeals shall be taken in the manner prescribed by law and within such time as shall be prescribed by the Board of Appeals by general rule. All such appeals and applications shall be, in writing, on forms prescribed by the Board, and each appeal or application shall fully set forth the circumstances of the case. Every appeal or application shall refer to the specific provision of the chapter involved and shall exactly set forth, as the case may be, the interpretation that is claimed, the details of the adjustment that is applied for and the grounds for which it is claimed that the same should be granted or the use for which a permit is sought. Every decision of the Board of Appeals shall be recorded in accordance with standard forms adopted by the Board and shall fully set forth the circumstances of the case and the findings on which the decision was based.

B. In addition to all other papers and documents required to be submitted on an appeal or application to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the term "interested parties" shall mean the owner or owners of property immediately adjoining or abutting the parcel or parcels to which the appeal or application relates and the owner or owners of property directly across the road, street or avenue, if any abutting the parcel or parcels to which the appeal or application relates.


Image #2: I must credit my wife for making a map with "publicly available shape files," whatever that means. Pfffft. [Please click on the image to embiggen]