Annnnd...We're Back

Objection: Allowing an encroachment of 15 feet into a required 30 foot rear yard will allow the developer to build some portions of the building approximately 33% more than what Yorktown's zoning allows. The present structure accommodates--legally--less than one-third of the population of the proposed new development.

Granting a variance to allow such a major increase in occupiable space is imprudent, especially considering the current parking load already exceeds the proposed development's parking capacity.

According to the architectural plans on file with Yorktown, section B-B (above) is 60 feet wide. Section B-B requires the 15 foot encroachment. Hence, if the developer was not allowed this major zoning variance, the building would only be 45' at that point; 33% less space.

June 23rd, 2011: Zoning Board of Appeals Hearing on FBC's 5 Variances

[The orange words below are links to additional information]

At tonight's Planning Board working session, it was confirmed by Joseph C. Riina of Site Design Consultants of Yorktown and Albert A. Capellini, Esq. (former Yorktown Town supervisor) that the developer did not notify several of the legally interested parties of their previous application for 3 zoning variances (2 major and 1 minor). This was cited as the reason for the revocation. Mr. Capellini basically stated that the applicant didn't know that they owned property that had frontage on Lakeside Drive. It's a steep hill, but, seriously? There is a survey in the file that clearly labels "Lakeside Drive."

Sadly, they also confirmed that the retaining walls proposed under the new zoning board application with 5 variances (3 major, 2 minor) were not new and were actually a part of the original application [note: the two additional variances are compounded in that the 10 foot encroachment into a required 12 foot side yard will also be nearly 3 times the legal limit for a retaining walls].

Retaining walls will be used to level an incredibly steep hill-- a hill the town is charged with preserving; oh, and did I mention the parking lot and retaining walls requiring MAJOR variances are replacing a single family house? We are up to 3 major variances and 2 minor to make this happen; that's a 3 fold increase from what was presented about 3 months ago.

That means that these preeminent professionals either missed, or intentionally omitted the two biggest zoning variances. It should be noted at this point that the project could move forward with no variances whatsoever. Therefore, it's disturbing that the developer is proposing such radical deviations from laws enacted to preserve the few remaining low-density, single family neighborhoods and the steep slopes that make them so unique.

What amazes me, personally, is that the developer's team repeatedly cites the unique slope of the site and the challenges that it presents, but not a single section through the hill exists; please do share. Add to that, the near dismissal of the "interested parties" (that's a legal term and refers to you, Lakeside Drive) in the ZBA application are the ones most affected by the proposal and I'm scared.

The Planning Board ultimately recommended the application be heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 23rd at Yorktown Town Hall @ 7:30pm. We can make ourselves heard; if we don't, my family and tax dollars are out of here. I'll donate my house (immediately adjacent the development) to the church for parking. At that point we'll have solid precedent for giant retaining walls encroaching 90% into required rear yards in Mohegan lake and they'll be able to provide the parking to sustain this monstrosity.


Take it away, Joni Mitchell:

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.

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."

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]