"Some people work very hard, but still they never get it right."

It is time to sum up where we are with Faith Bible Church. Simply put, the church leaders continue to behave selfishly. Their proposed construction would be detrimental to the wetlands of Mohegan Lake and every home in the small residential neighborhood that surrounds it. Their design is plainly illegal, for good reason. The site is simply too small for such a large development. And yet, nearly 5 years after plans were initially submitted, the scale of the proposed development is as large as ever. 

Instead of respecting the law, and the public interest that is served by the law, the church hires shameless professionals to make deceitful arguments in an endless search for special exceptions to the law. The public interest is clearly opposed by such an illogical design, but mislead public officials continue to entertain the possibility of granting these exceptions. While this may benefit the church and the hired professionals who exploit their selfishness, the rest of us are losing in the process

Much more to come on this shortly.  Thankfully, we have the full backing of both home owners associations that surround the site and will make a reasoned stand against the madness.  

Honey, I Eliminated The Required Front Yards

Unfortunately for Faith Bible Church, their design team has made what we in the profession refer to as a "colossal fuck up."  It's a highly technical term, but I think you understand it's not a good thing.  In short, the zoning code prohibits parking, for anything other than residences, in required front yards; 30 of the 63 parking spaces they are proposing are not permitted as of right and this is just now--over 4 years after the application was filed--coming to light.  It effectively reduces the occupant load the parking can support from 252 to 132.  Keep in mind they are proposing an occupant load of 344 on the first floor and 378 on the 1st floor. 

B. In any residence district, no required off-street parking facility shall be developed within the required front yard to serve other than residential uses, nor shall be developed within five feet of a side or rear lot line. 

I had a bit of a back and forth with the building inspector and he helpfully pointed out that in residential zoning districts, like where Faith Bible is, corner lots are required to provide side yards equivalent to the minimum front yard requirement in the prevalent zone  (30 feet in this case).  This means the wetland lot actually has a front yard requirement(indicated by yellow highlighter on plans below) not shown on my the plans; even worse than I initially thought.

G. Corner lots. On a corner lot in any residence district, there shall be provided a side yard on the side street equal in depth to the required front yard on said side street.

Since I wrote the attached letter (below, with exhibits) to the planning board, it has also come to light that the applicant is required to maintain a 35 foot front yard, not 30 feet as previously thought.  It's right there in Appendix A, footnote (1) of the Residence Zone Standards.  Duh!

NOTES:

1

On streets with less than a 50-foot right-of-way [Sagamore is 40 feet wide], the front yard setback shall be measured from the center line of the existing roadway and 25 feet shall be added to the required front yard setback.

 

There is actually additional required front yard on the Mohegan Ave frontage of the Wetland parking lot.  The code prohibites all this parking in our little residential zone.  Their engineer and architect totally overlooked (willfully or not) this provision.  It's kind of a bid deal since granting a variance for so much parking in that required front yard buffer would ruin the residential character of the neighborhood and devalue all of our homes. 

If I had made the same mistake they did (overlooking the front yard prohibition on parking), I would lose my job.  Shame on me for missing it for such a long time. Zoning can be sexy and thrilling.  I think I just proved that. 

Holland Club Notice of Violation

Yorktown received a violation for the half-assed demo job they did at the Holland Club.  Much more to follow.  In the meantime, you can follow along at home by liking Friends of the Holland Club on facebook, here.  

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.]

"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"

Discrepancies.

The DOB memo written by and based on an inspection conducted by Glen G. Sneyd of the Yorktown Building Department (see below) indicates there is a church structure and two single family homes on the subject premises. That is much different from the The Zoning Board of Appeals application that indicates "three church structures."

Which one is it?

Click on the images, below, to enlarge.




If the Yorktown Building records still classify the buildings as single family homes, not "church structures," are they still on the tax rolls? If not, is the DOB concerned about the illegal conversion of such structures, or do we turn a blind eye to such illegal activity?

This Is Cute

(Click on image below to embiggen)

Six property owners were notified of the developers application before the Yorktown Zoning Board of Appeals

Please note that 3 of property owners adjacent to the sites to be redeveloped are The Town of Yorktown and the Town of Yorktown Parkland, all c/o Town Attorney, Jeannette Koster).

2 of the notified, interested parties were single family homes; my house and one other.

The last one notified was "Mohegan Vista Properties."

I propose an amendment to the Town Code to allow applicants for Zoning and Planning Board to notify the Town Attorney in a single mailing. This will cut down on paper waste and mailing costs to the applicant.

I am going to confirm with the Town Assessor that ALL adjacent properties were duly notified of the application, in accordance with the Town Code. Will keep you posted.

"wiith the exception of the rear yard..." -Al Capellini

It's still unclear how any part of the variance will be "of vast benefit for the community," or "very, very pleasing," aesthetically speaking.

Talking point: the development presupposes a new sewer connection. The developer proposes a private sewer connection, with no provisions for additional load from the community behind the new development.

It would seem prudent--at a minimum--to at least size the infrastructure to accept additional sewage load for the community it serves. This not only benefits the community, but also the health of the lake by allowing households to abandon septic systems.

Comments from the community are welcome below.