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.

"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 Board Laughs, Knowingly.

What you will see in the two videos below, truly qualifies as prestidigitation. Let's break it down:


The developer proposes to legalize an existing single family home. Then, he proposes to demolish the entire home, including the foundation. Once complete, he will demolish the house of worship on the same tax lot, along with another single family home on an adjacent tax lot. All tax lots must then be combined to allow for a new structure.

Then, the developer proposes that a new, 4 story, non-residential structure be allowed to utilize the variance granted to a single family home? After it is ripped out, foundation and all?

The architect claims he doesn't "increase the degree of non-conformity." That's a tenuous argument considering that the degree of non conformity is based on EXISTING STRUCTURES. Additionally, the proposal would increase the degree of "non-conformity" of the bulk of the building.

The developer is saying that he should be allowed to grandfather an existing house that is about 8 feet high; demolish that house; build a brand new building 37 feet high of different occupancy and use.

That's a magical argument, no?

At the end of the 2nd video, you'll note the architect says: "so, ya know, technically--yes--that part is gonna be new." It should be duly noted that when he says "part," he means "ENTIRE NEW BUILDING."

This is a link to the Yorktown ZBA agenda hosted on the town's website that clearly states the application is" for a variance to legalize existing structures and allow construction of an addition with: 1) rear yard setback of 14’5” where 30 feet is required; 2) front yard setback of 29 feet where 30 feet is required; and 3) height of 37 feet where 35 feet is required in an R1-10 zone. Premises is located at 3500 Mohegan Avenue, Mohegan Lake, NY a/k/a Section 15.16, Block 2, Lots 50, 53, 54, 9 and 10 on the Tax Map of the Town of Yorktown."