TOWN OF WOODSTOCK
APPROVED PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
May 5, 2011
Members Present: Paul Shultis, Jr., Paul Henderson (arrived 6:45), Peter Cross, Allan Duane, James Huben, Lorin Rose, Thomas Unrath
Others Present: Therese Fernandez, Planning Board Secretary
Meeting called to order at 6:30 pm. Determination of a quorum.
Agenda: No changes.
Minutes: Minutes of March 17, 2011 are on hold. Minutes of April 7, 2011 were adopted, with corrections. Motion by Mr. Shultis. Seconded by Mr. Huben. Vote: 6-0-1-0. Mr. Duane was absent from the meeting of that date so did not vote.
Pending Items:
New Case Assignments
Vice Chair Mr. Huben assigned the Planning Board (PB) reps for the Jellinghaus and Shultis case. Mr. Rose and Mr. Unrath were assigned. In Lovitz case, Chairman assigned Mr. Duane and Mr. Shultis. ++
Herman Site Plan Review - extend approval? Sign plans? Pending site visit results: Mr. Shultis had done site visit and is ready to sign plans.
++
Zahava Wilson (Daidone Subdivision) - sufficient escrow funds to do required guide rails work?
No, there are not sufficient funds. Town Highway Superintendent Mike Reynolds had done some research. As there is not enough escrow to do the required lineal footage, the PB will use what is there and do as much as possible in the worst areas. Applicant questions the need to do the guardrails. Mr. Shultis said they are a condition of the approval and cannot be withdrawn. Applicant will be told she is not getting a refund; the full remaining escrow will be used to protect the section of road. ++
Waiver of Public Hearing for Lessard Wetlands Permit? Pending site visit (see 7:15 case). Mr. Huben had been to site. Mr. Cross had been to site and thought it is pretty straightforward and does not need Public Hearing. Engineers had a good set of plans and controls, so if they adhere to them it will be fine. The applicant is putting in a culvert, a quarter of it to be natural streambed. Mr. Cross said that in the Fall or Spring it should be checked to see if the material lasts.
Decision: waive Public Hearing. Just do a site check of culvert later. See more concerning this case below.
++
Sign Lead Agency Coordination Request? Town Board considering revisions to Wetlands & Watercourse Protection Law. Ms. Fernandez said the other Boards had also discussed this item. Mr. Shultis read the request from the Town Board (TB). They failed to give the PB the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) along with the coordination request. Mr. Shultis wants the TB to send the EAF. Also, as the PB is responsible for applying the law, they should get a copy of it directly from the TB instead of merely through a taxpayer FOIL-ing for it.
Through SEQR process, the PB can still offer comments for 45 days, but they will need to see the language they can comment upon. One major modification is that the TB wants to run every case through the Building Department. Building Dept. has no certified Wetlands Inspector. The PB has Mr. Cross. Discussion. Mr. Les Walker (in audience), local architect, contributed some comments to the discussion as well.
++
JELLINGHAUS, CAROL & SHULTIS, PAUL & CATHERINE, PB# 11-0986A: Lot line revision to transfer 3.94 acres from a 45.94 acre parcel (Jellinghaus) to an existing 9.00 acre parcel (Shultis) at Cooper Lake Road in Bearsville, SBL 26.2-1-12.2 & 26.2-1-12.1. Rep: Jon Elwyn (Jellinghaus) - authorization to represent Shultis is pending. PB Reps: Mr. Rose & Mr. Unrath
Cancelled - no authorization to represent Shultis was received. ++
LESSARD, MARK & PENALUNA, REGAN, WW #11-015: Possible second sketch review of stream crossing at 2577 Glasco Turnpike in Woodstock, SBL 27.1-2-24; Rep: Lester Walker; PB Reps: Jim Huben & Paul Henderson.
Also see Pending List comments above.
Mr. Shultis told Mr. Walker he can apply for a building permit. He asked Mr. Walker to write a note regarding what he and the PB had said earlier at this meeting regarding the Wetlands inspection and permitting process. He agreed.
Resolution points:
* site visit by Wetlands Inspector to be done in Spring to see if culvert has not washed out
* Public Hearing waived
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to waive the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Rose. Vote: 7-0-0-0.
Case was put on next agenda as Pending Item to vote on Resolution.
++
Pending Items:
John McNamara & Nian Fish Subdivision: amend November 4, 2010 Resolution re: inspection schedule for improvements & estimated construction cost for shared driveway. Ms. Fernandez researched the section of the law this came from.
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to amend the Resolution of 11/4/10, to omit condition #6, which states: "an inspection schedule for improvements as required by Chapter 202, Section 1, D & E of the Subdivision Regulations shall be submitted to the Planning Board", as it does not apply in this case. Seconded by Mr. Duane. Vote: 7-0-0-0. ++
Jesse & Linda Ostrow, SUP #08-352A: Applicants are requesting extension of approval with all existing requirements remaining in response to Open Cases letter. They just need to submit signed final plans for PB signature and final development fee only. Meet conditions of approval. Ms. Fernandez will notify applicants and their rep to comply with those last two conditions of approval and PB can sign the plans.
Tape 1 side A ends, side B begins.
++
SMS WOODSTOCK, LLC, PB #11-1146B: Preliminary review of a revised 3-lot subdivision of a 25.54-acre parcel off Van Dale Road on the Town of Woodstock/Town of Hurley border; Rep: Bruce Utter; PB Reps: Jim Huben & Allan Duane
Mr. Utter stated that neighbor Bailey's concerns have been addressed; they are buffering proposed house sites in conjunction with setbacks. They are relying upon Town of Hurley's joint review of this revised application to accept the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to waive the Town of Woodstock's Public Hearing on this case. Seconded by Mr. Duane. Vote: 7-0-0-0.
Applicant Assistance List:
* update Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA) on road portion, to be reviewed by PB's land use attorney
* submit curb cut approval from Town of Hurley
* provide estimated cost for shared improvements
* post bond for shared improvements from Town of Hurley boundary line to cul-de-sac
* label new lot lines
* show expanded tabular summary
* label road monuments
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to accept the Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) for SEQR, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Huben. Vote: 7-0-0-0.
Mr. Shultis made a Motion for conditional approval of this case pending submission of above-referenced documents. Seconded by Mr. Huben. Vote: 7-0-0-0.
An updated Resolution with conditions of approval will be prepared. ++
GIS Task Force
Peter Cross described a meeting with some members of the GIS Task Force. He said they were keen on the cost savings and he talked about some technology that will be available with regard to wetlands, topography, etc. Discussion of how to deal with this and how to notify residents of technology available to them.
++
KAROLYS, ROD, SPR (# not assigned yet) & SUP #11-421: Second sketch review of multi-family housing plan for the corner of John Joy and Purdy Hollow Roads in Zena. Rep: Rod Karolys & Scott Lane; PB Reps: Jim Huben & Tom Unrath
Mr. Shultis explained to Mr. Karolys the new PB procedure whereby the Town will use outside consultants at the expense of the applicant. He recommended that Mr. Karolys meet with Planners Mr. Shuster or Mr. Sorensen, PB case reps, Secretary Fernandez, and himself to get an idea for escrow amount once the Site Plan is forwarded to the planner to start their review.
The sketch plan was reviewed including parking requirements; hydrants - Fire Chief will need to look at this too (part of EAF); Mr. Karolys will contact Fire Chief; wells - more than one needed with increased pressure to pump water for hydrants; sprinklers necessary? Mr. Karolys stated fire separation/partitions will be done per the Building Inspector's requirements. Planner is to meet with applicant for sit-down appointment for overview of project.
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to accept the sketch plat as presented. Seconded by Mr. Henderson. Vote: 7-0-0-0.
Applicant Assistance List:
* two copies of updated Site Plan
* if anything else is needed for application, the applicant will be notified
* $100 for pre-application fee
* meet with Planners and PB on Thursday, May 12, 4:00pm
* contact Fire Chief Mike Densen concerning hydrants and fire protection
++
Board member Mr. Unrath left the meeting at 8:30pm.
ABEL, DOUG & BROWN JENNY / WOODSTOCK FARM ANIMAL SANCTUARY, SUP #10-381-B: Continued preliminary review of non-profit recreational use and signage at 35 Van Wagner Road in Willow, SBL 14.-2-23.10. Rep: Applicant; PB Rep: Paul Henderson
Mr. David Boyle and neighbors, Mr. Ekroth and Ms. Leonhardt, were present, as was Jenny Brown of WFAS.
John Cappello, attorney for WFAS, was present. Mr. Cappello said that in the case of a non-profit recreational use, there are no specific standards in Section 260-63 about a 50-ft. setback for parking. It is at the Planning Board's (PB) discretion, which is why he wanted to speak about having evergreen screening. Mr. Shultis replied that PB Attorney Ms. Grant thinks we should compare this to a cultural facility; she thought that was the closest use in our law that she feels is compatible. With cultural facility, you go to minimum 50 ft. setback for parking with Special Permitted Use. Mr. Cappello said the Special Use Permit (SUP) was granted and WFAS was determined by Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to be a non-profit recreational use, so he did not see what cultural has to do with it. He reiterated that it is at the PB's discretion.
Mr. Shultis said under SUP, it is either 50 or 150 feet. Under recreational use, he did not know what it should be. There is no specific setback, said Mr. Cappello. It is not required. Mr. Shultis said we can deem it appropriate to go 50 or 150 feet. PB Attorney had recommended minimum 50 ft. setback for parking. Discussion and looking at map. Neighbor Ms. Leonhardt participated. She said she wanted the distance, even with screening.
Tape 1 ended here.
Mr. Shultis polled the Board on the setback issue. Mr. Duane: neighbors should have some protection for privacy element, which is a high priority in other areas; he was for the setback. This parking lot is only used two days a week, 6-7 months a year, said Mr. Brown. Mr. Huben: Yes, 50 feet. Mr. Henderson: not 50 ft., 35 ft. with screening better. Mr. Shultis said it has to be 50. No, not 50, said Mr. Henderson. Mr. Rose: Unless they can work out some kind of screening everyone is happy with, I'd say go with 50. Mr. Cross: 50 ft. will force them to lose spaces; 35-22 ft. would be better but lose overflow parking or relocate it; otherwise 50 ft. More discussion about options. Mr. Shultis said we have four members in support of 50 feet. He suggested they reduce the aisle width, if possible
If we get the 50 feet are we required to screen it?, Mr. Abel asked. No. Would you rather 50 ft. or screening?, he asked Ms. Leonhardt. She wanted both. Not both, said Chairman Shultis. Ms. Leonhardt said she is not asking to move the driveway. If it's 50 feet it does not require screening in addition to that, said Mr. Shultis. Ms. Leonhardt read a recommendation aloud. As it is not year-round, and it's only overflow, Mr. Shultis reiterated that PB will not require both. Mr. Henderson thought that screening made more sense if it is a closer distance. Mr. Henderson opined that rote setbacks are illogical. Ms. Leonhardt said that this land has been preserved as an open field for a long time. Mr. Shultis said if Mr. Abel ended up with 40 feet, the PB may require screening instead.
Amplification was then discussed. Mr. Cappello said that it is not prohibited for recreational use under the SUP. The PB can deem where it is appropriate. Mr. Cappello said it would be counterproductive to have people there without a public address (p.a.) system; it would cause problems. He asked that the PB just limit the number of times per year. To have a p.a. 4 or 5 times a year would not be much different than someone having a party outdoors, or a stereo system on some cars nowadays. Mr. Shultis said those [hypothetical] people are not operating under a SUP. Mr. Cappello said yes, then let's discuss what is appropriate.
Mr. Henderson asked what ability does the PB have to deem appropriateness. Mr. Shultis said the SUP section of the law says any amplification is to take place in an enclosed structure. Mr. Cappello demurred, reading, "Where required by Section 260-63 of this chapter, or wherever the PB deems it appropriate, amplification will go inside." He added that the particular uses include some leeway.
Ms. Brown said that the WFAS's next event would normally be their June Jamboree, which they have pushed back to July. They've had it every year since 2006. They do not use a big rental p.a. system. It is an important outreach and fund-raiser function. They use their own little p.a. system for it. The entertainment is done in a covered area just off the pig barn. It faces Van Wagner Road and no one has ever complained about it, so she thought it must be fairly quiet. She asked if they could have a specific determination that they can move forward with this event with their modest p.a. system as they've done previously without problems every year. The events are in the center of the farm, hundreds of feet setback from any neighbors, they hope they can keep this modest level of amplification for the June Jamboree and ThanksLiving events. The live bands that perform for them for free are usually bluegrass, folk, or reggae and are very modestly amplified, only heard in immediate area. They will not be able to get those bands if there is no amplification at all. A lot depends on this.
Mr. Cappello added that under Section 260-63, Membership Clubs (such as private, social, swimming, and fishing clubs), permits for p.a. system shall be submitted to and approved by the PB. Thus, he noted, the SUP provisions do envision times that such clubs' events can use a p.a. system. The hours and number of times could be what the PB discusses and agrees upon. Mr. Rose stated that doesn't mean music amplification, but for public address.
Mr. Shultis asked what system was designed for the June Jamboree. Mr. Abel said it is portable- one small Fender amp for bands and mic. Mr. Duane asked for specifics. Mr. Shultis read from Ms. Grant's April 4th letter. Mr. Cappello said that she was responding to his letter. Mr. Shultis felt that Ms. Grant recommended not allowing the amplification as it is audible off-site. Mr. Duane said that the PB had bent over backwards for the neighbors at the Town's Youth Center skate park on sound alone. $35,000 had been spent for that one dead-end street, he said.
Mr. Shultis allowed audience member Mr. Hanowitz to make a comment. He said that in 7 years being a member of Zena Recreation Club he knew that they have a number of parties each year, and they have an amplification system and hire deejays and no one complains. They don't have many close neighbors, Mr. Shultis said.
Mr. Shultis summed up that the neighbors don't want amplification and it's not required for us to allow it under the SUP. It is allowed to have a p.a. system, but to him a p.a. is different from a sound system for music.
Ms. Brown said they are only asking for 4 times per year, and they are cutting back even with that. Musician Norah Jones was interested in coming to do a concert. Mr. Shultis said they can't because they have the Blessing of the Animals, ThanksLiving, and the June Jamboree. He said they are limited to 4 days. We are not doing Blessing of the Animals, said Mr. Abel. It doesn't matter, said Mr. Shultis. If [musician] Norah Jones comes, there may be other options, he thought. He did not see where Norah Jones fits into "recreational use". Ms. Brown said no one called that recreational use.
Mr. Rose said according to Ms. Grant, we can only allow amplification in Hamlet-Commercial (HC) or Neighborhood-Commercial (NC) zoning districts, so even if we wanted to allow it, we can't. Mr. Henderson said the 4 events we are allowing now are contingent upon the fact that the original 6 events were scaled back because of the amplification. What if they had an acoustic band, you will hear it, so is it allowable? Mr. Shultis said his opinion was that whatever we permit beyond regular hours, the events have to be tied to the use. He did not see how violins, etc., would be part of the educational goal.
To Mr. Rose's comment that, in his opinion, Norah Jones could not play "in that little field", Ms. Brown said they could charge a certain amount of money for her and limit the number of people. It is special that people can come to the actual place they are supporting.
Regarding having any amplification at all, Mr. Shultis polled the members: Mr. Henderson: allow it; Mr. Cross: if within decibel limits of law it's okay for 4 events; Mr. Duane: no, it's a quality of life issue for neighbors; Mr. Huben: no; Mr. Rose: none. Mr. Unrath: left meeting earlier. Mr. Shultis: no.
Mr. Shultis said there is no doubt that under our law the amplification would be a violation. Discussion of the skate park and different people's sense of what is quality of life and what impacts are on community. Ms. Leonhardt and Mr. Henderson had an exchange about other noises already in the neighborhood and the need for community diversity.
Mr. Cappello said the existing SUP allows fund-raisers with up to 250 people, one during off-season and unlimited during the year. Mr. Shultis asked about amplification. Mr. Shultis said Ms. Grant disagrees. Original SUP had weak language. Mr. Cappello said amplification is not mentioned. Mr. Shultis responded, so it is not allowed. Mr. Cappello said that Ms. Grant should be here so we can discuss this, as she has not heard his opinion yet. He had spoken to her. Mr. Shultis said a judge will have to settle the difference. Mr. Cappello said we are here hoping not to have to go to a judge. We have not had a Public Hearing yet. Mr. Shultis opined that Ms. Grant will not change her opinion.
Mr. Abel said that ThanksLiving is their biggest fund-raising event, 250 attendees with a meal, so p.a. system is needed then.
Mr. Shultis again polled the Board: would they allow amplification at ThanksLiving event with a sound test, then 3 events with no sound? If they have music, they need a sound test. Not for general announcements. Mr. Cross: OK with 4 events; Mr. Huben: OK with 1 event with sound test; Mr. Rose: build a sound dampening wall, hay or straw bales, face it away from neighbors. Mr. Abel said they could try that.
Mr. Shultis asked if they used p.a. system for emergency announcements; that use of amplification would be OK but not music amplification, just occasional speakers or announcements due to the amount of people. Accoustic music OK. He asked which event has music? Mr. Abel said the Jamboree has more music; ThanksLiving has more speakers. Ms. Leonhardt said Jamboree is for 2 days. Mr. Shultis responded 2 days but with limited hours. They could test this arrangement for 1 year. Ms. Leonhardt said she was OK with that.
Mr. Shultis said, so now we have 3 people for no amplification and 2 that agree with 4 events having amplification. A member is missing (Mr. Unrath left at 8:30). Mr. Shultis said he is against amplification, which makes majority against it.
Mr. Cappello said we've applied to modify this. When the Board issues a [Special Use] permit that was written poorly, and Doug and Jenny relied on it written poorly, you are entitled to rely on it written poorly. We didn't revoke it, said Mr. Shultis. If the language had been stronger, it probably would have been revoked. The amplification would still be a violation, he said. We don't know that, said Mr. Cappello, because it was never addressed. He added, we've applied to reduce it to 4 amplified events, and I ask that you set the hearing and then you will vote on it. Mr. Shultis agreed.
Mr. Abel noted that there is a distinction between amplifying music and just having a banquet with a speaker. It will destroy our largest fund-raiser of the year, ThanksLiving, with 250 people sitting down to eat. Mr. Shultis asked if June Jamboree is a big fund-raiser, too. Mr. Abel responded, not as big and more family-oriented. What about the Blessing of the Animals?, Shultis asked. We are not doing that now, Mr. Abel said. ThanksLiving is the big one and it is popular.
Mr. Shultis said let's go back to amplification again. He asked Mr. Duane, if they allowed amplification for ThanksLiving only, with a sound test as a guide, what would he say? Mr. Duane thought it is a "slippery slope". Mr. Shultis said it would be one event with sound test. Mr. Abel said a keynote speaker might talk for 20 minutes. Mr. Shultis said they should do the event and we can do a sound test then to make plans for next year. If they are not in violation of decibel limits, it would be good for them when it comes time to renew the SUP.
He asked other people about having 4 events, one with amplification. Mr. Huben would like the neighbors to allow it. It is his understanding that the problem started with concert outside of the 4 events. Ms. Leonhardt said the larger scale of events over time is a problem for her. Even without the rock and roll, the scale was too big, the sound too big, she said. Mr. Ekroth said it isn't the same as it was in the past.
Further discussion of ideas for sound reduction.
Are we okay for the one amplification for ThanksLiving?, Mr. Shultis asked. (Apparently, yes, although no voices heard.)
Mr. Shultis asked if they need a p.a. system to address people at the June Jamboree? Mr. Hanowitz suggested the straw option again. Mr. Abel said he would try, but not sure if neighbors would be satisfied. Mr. Shultis thought it would be okay to have p.a. for "those events". Mr. Abel said June Jamboree is the event most likely to need amplified music. How about an hour and a half of music?, Mr. Abel asked. That's a concept we're happy to do.
Ms. Leonhardt asked if that means that the 2-day June Jamboree will have music? Yes, but with limited hours, said Mr. Shultis, 3 hours per day. So you'd write language that says music for one weekend?, she asked. Saturday and Sunday in month of July, amplified music not to exceed 3 hours per day, Mr. Shultis said. This would be a test case, he said. We have to agree to have a sound test during the event. Okay, said Mr. Abel. Mr. Shultis said that this will tell you if you are in violation or not, like with the Woodstock Playhouse. We want to be fair.
Mr. Cappello said we will be willing to have something regarding music, but the reason we wrote it that way is because if a signpost is out of line or there are 61 [visitors] one day, that allows you to cancel the SUP, that would be unfair. Mr. Shultis said most issues will be the noise and traffic with larger events. Mr. Cappello said another concern is that if they are on a year-to-year basis, people will not be likely to donate. Mr. Shultis said after one year it will be a 3-year renewal, and maybe 5 years later on.
Mr. Shultis said we still have 4 events, 2 days in July with amplification, and other events with a p.a. system. They can change the names of events, he added, but cannot have amplified music if they do so. Regarding setbacks again, he told Mr. Abel if he can get closer in footage then maybe we'll compromise with natural screening. Maybe reduce aisle width.
The event plan is okay, said Mr. Shultis. Language is sufficient for everything so far.
Someone asked about zoning violations. Mr. Abel said it is contingent upon what the Zoning Board of Appeals determines. If they determine the WFAS has not exceeded allowed number of accessory structures, then there is no reason why it can't go forward. Some discussion about solar panels grant. Who is it from?, Mr. Huben asked. NYSERDA, said Mr. Brown, and Solar Generation is donating the labor to install it.
Motion by Mr. Shultis to set the Public Hearing for June 2nd at 6:45 pm. Seconded by Mr. Henderson. Vote: 6-0-1-0.
Ms. Leonhardt asked if there was a way that suggestions made on parking can be made available to the public before the Public Hearing (PH). Mr. Shultis said it has to be in the office 10 days prior to the PH.
General open discussion ensued.
Mr. Duane observed that the WFAS has "ambitious, far-sighted, rather aggressive management", which is OK, that's the way it should be with business. He insisted that they have to have growth to sustain themselves and that we'll be dealing with this issue every year.
Mr. Huben said that the level of entertainment is going to cause a problem.
Mr. Henderson noted that the Town is "dying". If this enterprise goes away, the neighbors will have quiet houses, but what else do we have? Woodstock is getting dull and uninteresting. Why kill it more by getting rid of this jewel?
++
Mr. Shultis made Motion to adjourn at 9:50 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Cross. All aye. Vote: 6-0-1-0.
++
Minutes approved by Planning Board on September 1, 2011
