TOWN OF WOODSTOCK
APPROVED PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
October 6, 2011
Members Present: Paul Shultis, Jr.; Paul Henderson; Peter Cross; Allan Duane; Lorin Rose
Members Absent: James Huben, Tom Unrath
Others Present: Therese Fernandez, Secretary
Meeting was called to order at 5:30 pm. Determination of a quorum.
Agenda: No changes.
Minutes: None considered at this time.
RURAL ULSTER PRESERVATION CO., INC. (RUPCO) / WOODSTOCK COMMONS, SPR #05-326 & SUP #05-368: Continued Public Hearing for review of Special Use Permit (SUP) and Site Plan language for compliance with and adherence to Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Also under consideration is whether to amend or revoke the SUP if Planning Board (PB) finds that the project is in violation of it or the site plan by its heavy truck use of and tree removal along Elwyn Lane and Elwyn Quarry Road, and is inconsistent with the plans as proposed and approved by the Planning Board for Affordable Housing development located between Playhouse and Elwyn Lanes in Woodstock, SBL# 27.55-2-3.
Mr. Peter Cross recused himself and left this portion of the meeting.
Mr. Shultis said PB members have a fourth draft revision of the amended SUP. Regarding the 4th draft, he asked if they had any questions or comments. No members had any comments.
RUPCO's attorney, Michael Moriello, and RUPCO reps were invited to comment on the final draft. Ms. Fernandez noted that Mr. Moriello had not seen the final draft. She gave him a copy now.
Mr. Moriello gave the Board a copy of the September 15th stenographic record that has been certified. He noted that they still have a jurisdiction issue, to which Chairman Shultis said that jurisdiction is up to the Town Board and Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO). The PB's intent and concern, he said, is that they adhere to the language in the documents. He was not concerned with who does the inspections.
Mr. Shultis pointed out that the PB did not know that they were supposed to condense a 7-volume EIS into a page-and-a-half SUP; and that vague language would be interpreted as it was, and that it would not adhere to the language that was adopted and approved in the EIS. He thought what they were trying to do with the document is to make sure if a condition or a mitigation measure is mentioned in the SUP, that it is clarified where it is referred to in the Draft EIS (DEIS) or site plan or wherever it may be. The PB has to make sure that whoever enforces it can find the language that the PB worked on for 5 years.
Mr. Moriello asked what document controls that - the DEIS, the Final EIS (FEIS), the findings, what? Mr. Shultis replied that we don't throw the DEIS out. We agreed that we did not want to waste more paper by writing another entire FEIS. We had the DEIS that we mostly agreed on and that we modified in the FEIS. There was no language change unless there was a modification to the draft. In the construction activity, he did not see any major modifications to the construction traffic activity in the FEIS. We are making reference to every document like a paper trail. If you look at #3, for example, it spells out what we are referring to.
Mr. Shultis said all documents are still valid. The language is still there from the DEIS. The FEIS modified it somewhat, but they did not write 7 new volumes of materials; it was a condensed version and the Findings summarize everything they did in the two documents [DEIS & FEIS]. He thought this was what has been done over the past 5 years. It states in the FEIS everything they are referring to and why, including mitigation measures.
Mr. Moriello read from amended SUP draft #4 and asked about a reference to PB attorney Drayton Grant needing to clarify some language on paragraph 4. That is just a question from Secretary Fernandez to Drayton [while working on the draft], someone said. Mr. Moriello asked what is the Board's intent on draft SUP #4? Chairman read from the "whereas" clauses in document. We are saying you can go into the site and follow the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) letter, he explained. If they go in there now after September 15th you are violating #4, he said. Mr. Moriello said, for the record, we don't agree that we're in violation.
Mr. Shultis asked if Mr. Moriello was saying he is not in agreement; that they are only allowed in the stream between September 15th and June 15th according to this condition? Correct, said Mr. Moriello. Because of the carte blanche DEC letter of Oct. 1st?, Chairman asked. Mr. Moriello replied it was because of a lot of reasons that are in the documents he submitted to the Board and he did not want to re-hash it. He wanted to understand what the PB is doing. He did think it useful to go over his jurisdictional objections or where he differs from Drayton on the applicable law. But he thought it useful that, if the PB will pass the Resolution and permit modification, we understand exactly what you are doing. Mr. Shultis said he had explained it for 2 weeks, and if Mr. Moriello did not understand he should have called him. Mr. Moriello said he did not have this draft document until tonight. Mr. Shultis noted that it had not changed since last time. Mr. Moriello said he had been asked to read it. Mr. Shultis repeated that there had been no substantive change. They are just clarifying it so RUPCO could comply with the DEC letter. Mr. Moriello said he did not want to argue. He said he is trying to be reasonable and understand #4 draft SUP. Mr. Shultis repeated that #4 is changed so they can comply with Oct. 1st DEC letter. Mr. Moriello asked where is it changed in this document? In this SUP? We will table it and come back and vote in 2 weeks, Chairman said.
More discussion between attorneys Moriello and Grant concerning notations within draft SUP #4. Mr. Moriello read part about stream crossing impacts. Ms. Grant said one category of changes is to make the document references in SUP clearer. Other changes are to reflect amendments from DEC. She said a bit more about DEIS and FEIS and Zoning Enforcement office.
Mr. Moriello said there is an issue on Playhouse Lane about how the trucks will get in and out, according to this SUP, how the bigger ones that have to come in to help with installing the bridge, how will they get out of the site once they come in off Playhouse Lane. He thinks the Findings in the FEIS say that access will be through Playhouse Lane. He was not sure where this language goes on how to get back out. Mr. Shultis read from the document. He did not know how they propose to get the trucks out. They can't use White's Lane to pull up and turn around and go out Playhouse Lane. The intent was no through traffic. Once the bridge is in, we can turn around in the site, Mr. Moreiello said. So are you saying you want to use all the roads you said you weren't?, Mr. Shultis asked. No, said Mr. Moriello. Another rep said something about access to the site. It says "construction activity," Mr. Shultis said. It doesn't say to the site. It wasn't that prior to the bridge, they can use these roads, and once the bridge is in, they are off limits. It says, "At no time shall trucks use White's Lane, Evergreen" and those other roads, and, "At all times Playhouse Lane shall be one-lane passable."
Mr. Shultis reminded the reps that the PB did not write the FEIS; RUPCO wrote it and gave it to the PB. The PB reviewed it and modified it, but did not figure out the construction schedule and access. RUPCO told the PB, the PB believed them and approved it. Now, he said, they are telling the PB it doesn't work that way. He did not know where to go from here.
RUPCO rep, Darin DeKoskie, explained further.
RUPCO rep, Kevin O'Connor, said they had different conversations at different times. Main conversation was adopted in the books, Mr. Shultis said. In the book and the EIS five years ago, rep said, it says that access to the site will be limited to Playhouse Lane. Clearly that means we cannot drive up Plochmann Lane and White's Lane to access the site. He thought that the intention was that they would come in Playhouse Lane, drive over the bridge (when it is built) to the site, turn around, and come out Playhouse Lane. But during the bridge-building period maybe this wasn't fully anticipated. Rep said it clearly says in the Findings and FEIS that one of the unavoidable impacts will be construction-related traffic on adjacent road network. We have a short period of time with trucks coming in on Playhouse Lane with large pieces of bridge structure. We don't want to turn around in anyone's driveway; the trucks are too big. Maybe 7 trucks will have pieces of bridge, plus concrete trucks. Maybe 10-11 trucks that should be able to go out White's or Plochmann Lanes, whichever way you want to direct them so they don't have to back up.
You don't want to back them in off the main road (Route 212)?, asked Mr. Rose. "Can it be done that way, Kevin?" Mr. Moriello asked RUPCO's rep. Do you have any interest in trying to get along here at all?, Mr. Rose asked. Sure, Mr. Moriello said. Then maybe back them in off the [main] road and not have to worry, Mr. Rose said. Someone said that is not the safest way. They are unloading the cargo, Kevin said, and explained more about the process. How many houses have been built up there where a septic or an oil truck comes in and out? It's not like no bigger trucks are ever in the neighborhood.
Mr. Shultis said his [RUPCO's] is the language we adopted. Does it say Elwyn Lane?, Mr. Moriello asked. Yes. So it was clearly meant to apply after the work coming in from Elwyn Lane was done, Mr. Moriello said. Yes, said Ms. Grant. Why does it say Elwyn Lane?, he asked. Mr. Shultis said it mentions Elwyn Lane because of improvements they had to do on Elwyn Quarry. Another man asked, why does it say in Findings that an unavoidable impact will be...(interrupted). That would be up to ZEO, said Chairman Shultis, if he is required to read that. All PB wants to be sure of is that the tools are there for proper enforcement.
Another RUPCO rep said we could talk about the 10-11 trucks. Mr. Shultis did not want to. They are saying the plan we have talked about for 5 years doesn't work and we need to do this now. If RUPCO feels that is how the SUP language is going to be interpreted, fine. All Mr. Shultis wanted was to be sure the language is there to be referenced in the approval documents, and whoever interprets it that is up to them. Then it is up to if RUPCO and opposition parties agree with it. All he wanted to be sure of is that the language he worked on is referenced and adhered to. RUPCO rep replied that he appreciated that, but he offered that the discussion about construction that took place around the table about 5 years ago is a little less able to address the reality of construction process and conditions today.
Mr. Moriello added, "We were here for all that time, too." He said his client spent a lot of time and money going though review process. Mr. Shultis said he is not going to give them the right to use those roads. He does not have the authority to interpret the law and he is not interpreting the law, he said. It will be up to the ZEO to decide if they are adhering to the SUP language, the Resolution, and the Site Plan. Mr. Moriello asked, Wasn't Elwyn Lane supposed to be used for pre-bridge installation traffic? Yes, said Chairman, and ZEO/Building Inspector Paul Andreassen interpreted that as anything prior to bridge being installed. That is his interpretation. But the DEIS language says except for installation of culvert crossing, no construction traffic shall use Elwyn Lane or Elwyn Quarry, except for installation of the bridge. They had discussed this, and he asked them several times what they needed to bring in on this road. It was limited materials. That was the intent and limited use of those roads. That is what the language in the EIS books says.
Mr. Morello said he knows that is Mr. Shultis' opinion. No, it's fact, Mr. Shultis said. Another rep said we believe it says clearly that there will be construction-related traffic on adjacent roads. We all have difference of opinions, said Mr. Shultis. But his concern is that after writing the SUP language and accepting the documents and adopting them, the ZEO has those documents to interpret and enforce. It is up to ZEO, not the PB, but Mr. Shultis wants to be sure the language is there that the PB wrote, and however the ZEO interprets it, it is up to him.
Mr. Moriello asked how Mr. Shultis thinks the trucks should get out of Playhouse Lane? No clue, he replied. Mr. Rose said with the money spent on legal fees they could hire a flagman who could stop traffic and trucks can back in off highway. Only truck that would have problem doing that is a cement truck because it offloads from the front. It would save money, he added. He described how they unload trucks. Mr. Moriello said the cement truck could pull into White's Lane and back up. Mr. Rose said his idea would be safe and simple. He has run quite a few construction sites, he said.
Mr. Shultis said he wanted the public to understand. He hoped they had all seen the format and understood what the PB is trying to achieve. He made a Motion to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Rose. Vote: 4-0-2-1.
Chairman polled the Board on adoption of revised language. RUPCO rep Chuck Snyder opined that backing a truck off of Route 212 and down a half mile of Playhouse Lane is silly. Mr. Duane agreed it is a long way. Another RUPCO rep said he had not worked enough small roads up here where there is no room to turn a truck around. Mr. Rose said he had no problem with this SUP clarification at all. Mr. Henderson was "okay with it." Mr. Duane: "Yup."
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to adopt the revised SUP #05-368, as modified. Seconded by Mr. Rose. Vote: 4-0-2-1.
Mr. Duane asked to make a comment. He said his respect and admiration for Iris York is huge. She had volunteered to attend almost every PB meeting on this case, and had put in a great deal of work on every part of the review process.
Ms. York responded that it was sad no one listened. Mr. Shultis said, "we are listening". Now that PB has passed an amended SUP, he hoped the language would be clear and available to ZEO to interpret it truly and fairly. She said we hope that. Ms. York also said that Mr. Andreassen is no longer an employee of the Town. Mr. Shultis said that part time ZEO Tim Keefe will take the case over. If Mr. Keefe does not take over in 2 weeks, Mr. Shultis said he will step down as PB Chairman because he will not sit by and let Paul Andreassen ignore the SUP language that we all worked on for 5 years. Mr. Henderson added that even though Iris felt ignored, the language was in there for a reason. It was gathered from the Public Hearings. Neighbor Shelley Cook said this is the first time she got a hearing notification letter as a contiguous neighbor since Secretary Fernandez took over from previous Planning Specialist. Why was she excluded in the past?, she asked. She got two letters from PB Secretary the past month but had not been notified by Board before that. If it weren't for Iris York, she would not have known about any previous meetings with RUPCO. She appreciated that she was included now.
A little more casual talk about trucks. Iris asked about damage to neighbors' mailboxes. Mr. Shultis said that is up to ZEO to enforce.
++
Board member Peter Cross returned to meeting at this time.
HOLY ASCENSION MONASTERY OF HELLENIC ORTHODOX TRADITIONALIST CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC., Pending SPR#: Preliminary sketch review of proposal to construct approximately 38 ft x 43 ft stone chapel, located at 521 Coldbrook Road in Wittenberg, SBL# 36.2-2-16.100; Rep: William Hall; PB Reps: Mr. Duane & Mr. Henderson
Father Maximus Maretta was present as applicant with his rep, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Shultis reminded the PB that a pre-sketch conference had been held on this application and that major concerns were pedestrian access, lighting, parking ingress and egress.
Mr. Hall presented an updated Site Plan for the Board.
Applicant Assistance List:
* show pedestrian access on plan
* show lighting foot-candles meeting Code prior to permit issuance; there may be a substitution of lighting fixtures later as less-expensive solar becomes available; submit prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy; condition of approval.
* cut-sheet of light fixtures
* literature on woodburning boiler for Commission for Civic Design (applicant said it
will be inside a 12' x 12' building to match the chapel)
(Tape turned over at this point)
* Town of Olive tax map
* contiguous owners' property info
* note handicapped parking and blacktop on plan
Mr. Rose was assigned as PB rep instead of Mr. Henderson who is resigning from the Board. Mr. Shultis told applicant the PB will take care of site visit with Town Highway Department.
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to set a Public Hearing for 7:45 on October 20th. Seconded by Mr. Duane. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
++
MARTIN, JUDITH, WWP #11-017: Sketch review of Wetlands & Watercourse Permit application to repair 50 ft portion of log retaining wall along Silver Hollow Creek in Willow, SBL# 15.3-2-19 - cancelled by applicant's rep. To be rescheduled at later date.
++
Pending Items:
Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary (WFAS) Draft Resolution for Thanksliving event request.
There had been one minor change in language that Ms. Fernandez explained to members. Mr. Shultis went over the provisions. Discussion.
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to adopt the Resolution, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Rose. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
Mr. Shultis said he would put a stake in the ground at sites for the sound test. He said we will give them [ZEO] an updated site plan, and something about Chris Anderson's sound testing format.
++
Michael Lang Subdivsion Draft Resolution & EAF
This case was put on hold.
++
Yanow & Foye Lot Line Revision Draft Resolution & EAF
Motion by Mr. Shultis to adopt Resolution, pending applicant providing Planning Board with 6 copies of final plat, mylar, and final development fee of $200. Seconded by Mr. Duane. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
EAF discussed. Ms. Fernandez will confirm if EAF is required.
++
Assign new PB rep to replace Paul Henderson for Holy Ascension Monastery, Judith Martin, Erlandson, Jellinghaus/Shultis, & Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary cases?
Monastery case done earlier in meeting (Mr. Rose assigned). Judith Martin put on hold. Erlandson may not be needed after tonight's meeting. Jellinghaus/Shultis put on hold. No new rep(s) for WFAS assigned.
++ ++
Donald Koosis Wetlands & Watercourse Permit: Assign case reps for application to construct addition to house within 100 ft. of Sawkill Creek in Zena. On agenda for 10/20/11.
Mr. Rose and Mr. Unrath were assigned. Mr. Shultis noted that the floodplain is in the yard of this house, so the buffer is already impacted.
++
SMS Woodstock Subdivision: Request to extend conditional approval
Motion by Mr. Shultis to grant extension, with conditions, for 12 months. Seconded by Mr. Duane. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
++
Hamilton & Aguilar: Wetlands Determination reviewed for pending Wetlands & Watercourse Permit application to remedy violation
Mr. Cross told applicant not to put in any material that has any invasive species in it. He will show PB a plan showing half filled with...(Peter did not finish sentence). Proposed mitigation is acceptable, said Mr. Cross. Application still has to come in. If all info in, case will be on schedule for Oct. 20.
++
Diane Legier Subdivision: Assign PB case reps for application on agenda for 10/20/11
Mr. Cross and Mr. Huben assigned. Discussion of right-of-way circumstances.
++
ERLANDSON, CHRISTIAN & KISER, REAGAN, SUP #11-418A: Public Hearing of revised Special Use Permit application to construct a single family dwelling and driveway in the Scenic Overlay District, located at the end of Hutchin Hill Road in Shady, SBL# 15.-3-2; Rep: John Wasylyk, PE; PB Reps: Mr. Henderson & Mr. Huben
Discussion of whether Mr. Wasylyk needs a waiver to represent applicants as Mr. Wasylyk is a member of the Woodstock Zoning Board of Appeals.
For the public, Mr. Wasylyk explained that the parcel is at top of Hutchin Hill Road, 48.22 acres, part of which is in Greene County, part in Woodstock/Ulster County. The owner wants to develop it using an alternate house site closer to the access road. It is a narrow access. The house would have approximately 1,200 sq. ft. footprint. Road development, septic field, and well installation would occur as well.
There was no public comment, so Mr. Shultis made a Motion to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Henderson. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
Applicants' Assistance List was provided for final approval:
* submit updated Board of Health map in Erlandson's name
* updated letter from Town Fire Chief Mike Densen concerning water for fire suppression
* site visit and memo from Town Highway Superintendent Mike Reynolds concerning
the driveway access
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to approve application, pending the above conditions. Seconded by Mr. Rose. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
++
Tape 1, side B ends. Tape 2, side A starts.
FEIDEN, KARYN & ELSASSER, DAVID, PB# 11-1179: Public Hearing of Lot Line Revision application to transfer 0.15 acre (an equal land swap) between two lots owned by the applicants, located at Grog Kill Road in Willow, SBL#s 14.4-2-7 and 8; Rep: Brooks & Brooks Land Surveyors, PC; PB Reps: Mr. Cross & Mr. Unrath
Brooks & Brooks rep Steve Pauli explained that the only revisions to the map were preliminary, and there were a few drafting additions, nothing that had to do with the property itself. For the public, he said these are two parcels both owned by applicant. The existing property line dividing them is only 17 feet from the house, which is a violation of zoning variance. They are in Zone R3 (three acres), and they need side yard setback of 50 feet. They propose a land swap of 0.15 acre evenly, from one lot to the other and vice versa. That will give them the 50 ft. "offset" from the house.
There was no public comment, so Mr. Shultis made a Motion to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Henderson. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
Mr. Henderson asked about the old boundary line. Is there a ditch there? Yes. Is that a natural ditch? Mr. Pauli did not know. Mr. Henderson wondered if the original line came from the ditch arbitrarily. Mr. Shultis did not think so. Discussion of older "paper" subdivisions and NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) buying lands for watershed purposes.
Resolution Points:
* change map to final version
* submit 6 copies of final map and mylar
* pay final development fee of $200
* Final Resolution
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to approve application, pending the above conditions being met. Seconded by Mr. Henderson. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
++
MCKENZIE, KEVIN & VAN HAMEL, MARTINE, WWP #11-018: Public Hearing of Wetlands & Watercourse Permit application to rebuild approximately 60 ft. long section of rock wall along banks of tributary of Tannery Brook, located at 10 Lower Byrdcliffe in Woodstock, SBL# 27.9-2-17; Rep: Ken Ostrander; PB Reps: Mr. Duane & Mr. Huben
Mr. Ostrander said that he had given the NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) a drawing and was told it would not be on the permit.
For the public, Mr. Ostrander explained that there are two phases to the project. One is to pull out 60 ft. of rock retaining wall at edge of stream. Stream is 8 feet wide at that point. Deck of house comes out over existing stone wall; part of wall has collapsed due to stream damage. He wants to place mini-boulders for 60 ft. Driveway on top of boulders. 150 feet of lawn space. It's a shallow bank. Would like to naturally grade it back 6 feet from edge so they can put some grass and shrubs there. Existing wall is about 3 feet tall; possibly want to relieve pressure where creek is 8 feet wide. A neighbor was concerned about velocity of stream water at that spot. It is 7.6 feet now so Mr. Ostrander said he wanted to get a little width there. That is why he wanted to pull a section of wall down a bit to let the water over.
There was no public comment, so Mr. Shultis made a Motion to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Rose. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
Mr. Ostrander signed an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). Mr. Shultis asked Mr. Cross's opinion as Wetlands & Watercourse Inspector.
Mr. Cross said he had looked at the site and the DEC-approved plans. He agreed with the DEC plans.
Resolution Points:
* submit copy of DEC permit
* submit design plans from DEC
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to approve the application, pending above conditions. Seconded by Mr. Duane. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
Draft Resolution to be put on October 20th agenda as pending item including payment of final fee and submittal of final plans as conditions.
++
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Henderson. All aye.
Minutes approved by Planning Board on February 16, 2012
