Below is the content of a Yorktown Patch post that was published this morning. Thought I should share:
I moved to Yorktown on July 1st, 2010. I came with my pregnant wife and two daughters; now we have 3 and are pregnant again.
I have a bachelor of architecture degree from The Cooper Union.
The last 11 years, I have worked in Manhattan as a building code and
zoning consultant. It pays the bills and has allowed us to buy our
first home for our growing family.
Shortly
after arriving to town, we received a piece of certified mail telling
us our neighbor wanted to "legalize" some "existing structures" with an
application that was before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Being the
zoning nerd I am, I attended, not thinking much of it. Legalizing
existing structures isn't a big deal--or so I thought.
Turns
out the "existing strucutures," two single family homes and a house of
worship allowing up to 100 people, 3 days a year, for 3 hours a day--at
least according to the Yorktown Building Department and the Tax Assessor--were
all to be demolished. It was explained they had plans to build a
church for 344 people on the 2nd floor with 6 classrooms convertible
into another auditorium capable of holding another 300+ people. [note:
after they approved the variances, I pointed out that the application
was not worded correctly. The ZBA then revoked their approval and made
them use the correct words, "new building," on a second application]
They currently park up to 92 cars, according to their engineer, Site Design Consultants. This supports an illegal occupant load of up to 242 people, according to the same engineer. They are proposing 86 parking spaces to serve the new church capable of having two assembly spaces over 300 people. Even their attorney, Al
Capellini, agreed with me on record that the applicant needed to get a
"special use permit" from the town before converting the homes in this
R1-10 zoning district. That's when the alarm bells went off; it's rare that the opposition's attorney agrees with you.
Long story short, I sued the town pro se.
I spoke to lots of attorney friends, at length, and prepared my best
professional case against the zoning variances. Ultimately, the court
did not read my petition or render a decision based on the merits of my
agument. All because I didn't serve my neighbor, they said it was a
fatal flaw. What hurt so much was that I wasn't challenging a decision
my neighbor made, it was the determiations (not even all of them), that
the ZBA made.
The law is clear that the action I was taking was to
"challenge the final determination of governmental agency of body." Not
being an attorney, I wasn't aware of some obscure case law and lost on a
technicality.
So
instead of enforcing existing laws and kindly pointing out it's not
legal to convert single family homes without Yorktown approval or
permit, the town rewarded the developer who acted illegally by granting
inappropriate zoning variances that will ultimately depress home values
in the area.
Then
there is the "Costco" issue. I've written several posts for the Patch
on the subject outlining my objections to the proposal as an individual.
I argue that it's not about Costco, but rather conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Yorktown Building, Engineering, Envirionmental and Planning departments sent a memo to the planning board stating:
The
public policy sections outline the recommendations from the Yorktown
Comprehensive Plan, the Sustainable Development Study, and Westchester
County’s Patterns. Many of these recommendations are contrary to the
objectives of the Costco project, yet there is little discussion in the
potential impacts section on how the project does comply with goals from
these reports or how the project will enhance the Bear Mountain
Triangle/Crompond Hamlet Center area despite these differences. The
Comprehensive Plan describes the C-3 zone as a small scale roadside
commercial hamlet center...
and the Comprehensive Plan goes further and states:
This
stretch of Route 202 should be a green corridor, with preservation of
open space on the north side, and heavily landscaped buffers on both
sides that hide the building and parking lots to the rear.
I
don't think the "open space" the town envisioned when it adopted the
Plan into law in 2010 was a parking lot. Furthermore, the applicant
seeks a zoning variance to have approximately 25' high light poles
throughout the site whereas zoning only allows for 16'; granting an
increase over 55% of what's allowed in height to those lights surely
won't help hide anything behind the nominal buffer proposed.
It's hard to see how this proposal got off the ground in the first place. According to the developer, he apparently had lots of other offers. I think he should have chosen one that conforms to the Comprehensive Plan.
These
aren't sour grapes, it's just a reality it's taken me a few years to
accept. The future of Yorktown is not a 34 year old with a growing
family. The future is Al Capellini and Costco. The future is rezoning
100 acres from large parcel single family homes to C-3 so State Land
Corp. can maximize their ROI (return on investment). It's about letting
development progress unfettered while preserving and maximizing developers' ROIs. Apparently that's what's meant by the Yorktown motto: Progress with Preservation.
The building department and tax assessor records,
to this day, still show that I live next to 2 houses, homes occupied as
such from 1929 to 2006, and a very small house of worship with a
maximum legal capacity of 100 people on 3 days a year where they exceed
the normal 35 people. The 23 parking spaces permitted is now used by
92. The reality is that the homes were illegally converted and now it's
nearly 200 people a week with 90+ cars at least 52 days a year.
The
Comprehensive Plan was adopted as law and is still on the books.
Regardless of what the
Comprehensive Plan says, it would appear that the
development team will get Costco built in Yorktown with the
full-throated support of the Town Board and Chamber of Commerce.
My
advice to young families considering Yorktown--or any other
municipality--would be don't rely on town records and valid laws to
determine a town's character. Dig deeper. Just because that house next
to your house is legally a house--per town records--and looks like a
house, the town may turn a blind eye--perhaps even encourage--it's
illegal occupancy and use, even after dozens of correspondence bringing
it to their attention that it's in violation of existing, valid law.
There were red flags I could have picked up before I bought with a little googling. The "Trump" development for the elderly,
for example. Yorktown helpfully (to the developer) rezoned it from an
office park to an assisted-living facility with an age restriction of
62. "Within 30 days of receiving the approval, Cappelli went back to the
town asking to drop the 'assisted living' designation.Once that was
achieved, in 2005, the developers sought and received permission to drop
the age to 55 and above. In 2010, they approached the town asking to
lift the restriction entirely. The town balked because the developers by
then were on the hook for $700,000 in overdue taxes." Talk to
neighors in the area you are considering. Use google to research the
town. Don't rely on town officials and their records.
Thankfully there are many towns and villages adjacent to Yorktown in Westchester that appear to have their town planning ducks in a row. Because of the odd school district lines, we can even move to another town and stay in the same elementary school.
I
was happy to meet all my neighbors and get elected vice president of my
home owners association. It was fun to get involved at town meetings.
Sadly, it only ended in heartache and pain. On the upside, I've
learned a valuable life lesson. Everyone knows you can't fight city
hall, but you can research a prospective city hall prior to purchasing
your home and make sure you share the same values as they do. A home
inspector can't do that for you, but the internet and talking to people
sure can.
Farewell and good luck, Yorktown.
