Code violations at YCC
11/13/2007 (work session)
Item was not on the public agenda. Was brought up by Roker.
Roker told board that there are state code violations at YCC in theater and space used by Bright Beginnings daycare. The violations have been known since 1993 but nothing has been done about them. The daycare center is now on an official state list because of the violations.
It is the town's responsibility, not the tenants, to correct the violations in the building.
Building inspector is looking into options for installing necessary sprinklers in the theater. Eric said that there are several options; he named a few. No cost estimates were given.
For day care, the only change that was discussed was need for fire doors. Also no cost mentioned.
Building also needs a different fire alarm system that tells where the problem in the building is.
Roker said she was bringing this to board's attention because the work would have to be done and that money would have to be found.
Roker also reported that the theater people illegally leave equipment in the hallways which block fire exists. Board directed her to tell theater people that it is their responsibility to move the equipment and its up to them to find a legal place to put it.
11/27/2007 (work session)
1. some violations have already been fixed (no cost figures given), e.g., outlets, fire door, radiator covers
2. Gregory explained how sprinkler issue could be dealt with. Solution is clear and it won't be costly, under $20,000. Town has to get in touch with a plumber to do job. Campisi wanted to make sure that no authorization was being given to proceed with work. This had been an issue in the past.
3. alarm system. This will be more costly; still no figures available. DiBartolo made recommendations on location of central control panel and again use of a single alarm company. He also suggested that town comptroller put together package dealing with single company alarm
1/8/2008 (work session)
DiBartolo said it would cost $75,000 for the new alarm system if work was done under prevailing wages and $45,000 if non prevailing. He didn't explain why it had to be done by prevailing wages. He said the sprinkler system, which costs less (he didn't give $$ figure) will be in by end of week.
(Note: Based on earlier statement by Campisi that work should not proceed without authoritzation, the observer raised issue with Roker the following day if the board had authorized any work on the sprinklers. She checked with DiBartolo via phone and he said that he was getting 3 quotes,)
January 22, 2008 (work session)
Not on the agenda but Roker asked DiBartolo to give the board an update.
Sprinklers: he has two bids and is waiting for a third. He needs to put in a larger water line than originally planned.
Alarm System: bids came in lower than anticipated. Will be awarded at next meeting
September 22, 20090
Town Engineer Sharon Robinson explained to the board that the town was cited back in 1987 for not having the required sprinklers in the stage area. The town requested a hearing on the violation and was turned down. The town then subsequently asked for a waiver of the regulation and was denied.
One of the unresolved or confusing issues for the board was that since 1987 a new fire code has been adopted. Also, there have been changes in the auditorium. The original violation notice dealt with the stage and dressing rooms under the stage. The dressing rooms have since been removed. Also, an orchestra pit has been added since the original violation notice was issued. Also at issue were two different inspectors from the same state agency saying different things and only one willing to put something about the violation in writing. Councilman Nick Bianco called the situation “absurd.”
Town clerk Alice Roker explained that the issue is further complicated in that it involves two state agencies: the Dept. of Labor and the Dept of Education. The latter is involved because there are pre school programs in the building.
The cost for installing the sprinklers was estimated by the engineer to be about $35,000. Director of Labor Operations Eric DiBartolo said he thought they would cost in the $17,000-$20,000 range.
Ms. Robinson said the town had two options for proceeding. It would apply for a variance again and see if it was granted this time or it could install the sprinklers.
For some board members that left the question of whether the town was actually in violation and whether sprinkler were needed.
Councilman Bianco said he had no problem spending the money if the town needed to, but was reluctant to spend the money if it wasn't necessary. He added that if one inspector, a Mr. Stanley, says that the town doesn't need the sprinklers, but the town board wants them, that that was a different matter.
Ms. Robinson said that her interpretation of the code was that sprinklers were required on the stage and in ancillary areas. She said that she had spoken to Building Inspector Bill Gregory who was with the town in the 1980s and he said that the code was ambiguous.
Councilman Matt Metz said that if Mr. Gregory says the town needs them, they we should have it. Ms. Robinson said this should not be up to Mr. Gregory to decide. She said she thought that it was her job to interpret the code
The board (with only 3 members present) ultimately decided to send the plans for the sprinklers (which were prepared under a separate contract with Lyn Star Engineers) to the state for approval. State approval is needed before the town can go out to bid on he project.
October 6, 2009
During Courtesy of the Floor, Catherine D'Amato wanted to know the status of the fire sprinkler and asbestos issue at the YCCC. In response, Councilman Bianco said that the board had voted to spend $32,000 for the sprinklers because they were needed and not because the state made the town install them. He said he knew nothing about an asbestos issue. Mr. Peters said that the plans for the sprinklers had been sent to the state for approval and that if asbestos was found in the building, it would be abated.
YCC -- Other Issues
July 8, 2008 work session
A rental agreement was discussed during closed session. No additional details are available.
August 12, 2008, work session
Presentation on renovations to building and possible addition for a senior center.
See Senior Center
November 25, 2008 work session
See Senior Center for an update on the renovation plans.
Teen Center/Enrichment Center: Use of space
July 28, 2009, work session
The underlying issue is how the town is going to allocate the two rooms on the first floor that had been used by the Boys & Girls Club for a teen center now that the B&G club is no longer sponsoring the center and a group of parents are in the process of forming a new Yorktown Teen Center entity. The issue is the use of the rooms Monday-Fri from 2-6 pm.
Two groups are vying for the space: the Enrichment Program, operated by a non-profit group for children in the Yorktown School District, and the new Yorktown Teen Center group. Complicating the issue is the fact that the senior clubs, which use rooms on the basement level of the building, have also been using the pool tables in the B&C club space during the day before the teens arrive.
The director of the Enrichment Program and a supporting parent explained to the board that the group wanted to expand its current K-6 after school program to include 7th and 8th graders. It also wanted to have 6th graders in a different location than the younger children. The representatives argued that they were an established group that could be operational in September. The group currently operates in the district's four elementary schools. The group, which charges a fee for participation, would pay rent for the use of the two rooms. The program is limited to Yorktown School District children by virtue of its 501C3 status. Its insurance policy also has restrictions that limit the mixing of students of different age groups.
The parents supporting the continued use of the rooms by the newly formed Teen Center argued that its group was performing a vital function and should be allowed to continue using the rooms. When the B&G Club was using the room, there was no insurance issue involving the mixing of different teenage groups.
Calling both programs “fabulous,” senior citizen Jennie Menton told board members she didn't want to have to be in their seat trying to revolve the issue. But, she added that the YCCC serves two generations, teens and seniors and she was concerned that any new arrangement not limit the current use of the building by seniors. She asked if there could be some sort of compromise worked out that would meet the needs of both generations.
Board members were clearly sympathetic to the needs of both groups which they acknowledged were performing valuable services. The decrease in teen related crimes was noted. And the issue, as summarized by Councilman Matt Metz, was how to accommodate both groups before September. In a solution he said was not perfect, he asked the Enrichment Center people if they could think about rearranging where the 6th graders were assigned and come back to the town.
Councilman Bianco was concerned that the Enrichment Center would not be open to Yorktown residents who were not part of the Yorktown School District. He was also concerned about the supervision that would be provided by the Teen Center, especially when participants were in different parts of the building at the same time, e.g., in the gym at the lower level as well as in the upstairs rooms.
The discussion ended without any resolution.
|