TOWN OF WOODSTOCK
APPROVED PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
April 19, 2012
Members Present: Tom Unrath, Paul Shultis, Jr., Peter Cross, Jim Huben (arrived 6:40), Laura Ricci
Members Absent: Lorin Rose, Judith Kerman
Others Present: Therese Fernandez, Secretary
Meeting called to order at 6:30 pm. Determination of a quorum.
Agenda: No change.
Minutes: The Board waited for Mr. Huben to arrive in order to review draft minutes. Minutes of March 29th, as corrected, and April 5th, as submitted, approved. Motion by Mr. Unrath. Seconded by Mr. Huben. Vote: Aye: 5; Nay: 0; Absent: 2; Abstain: 0
Pending Items:
Zoning Amendment for hydro-fracking:
Ms. Ricci noted that the wording does not include that you cannot use it, meaning any of the fluids, such as brine. The document says you can't extract or dispose of it, or create it, but does not ban using it. This might open the door to using the fluids on the roads. She thought that words not permitting it to be used in any form should be added to page 1, paragraph 1; page 2, item F; page 3, item C; and anywhere else appropriate.
Chairman Unrath proposed that the amendment be sent back to the Town Board, saying the Planning Board (PB) will not give them a formal report and will let the 45 days expire. Also, that the PB thinks it should include prohibiting "the use of any by-products, including, but not limited to, brine." Laura added that there are several spots where that should be inserted. Mr. Unrath made the Motion to do this. Seconded by Ms. Ricci. Vote: 4-0-3-0. Mr. Huben arrived after vote taken.
++
Mr. Unrath thanked Mr. Huben for his work as Acting Chairman at the last meeting.
++
Legier Subdivision: Approve draft Resolution with conditions.
Wording of conditions was discussed. Mr. Unrath made a Motion to accept the draft, as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Shultis. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
++
Pending items continued later.
WALRUS PROPERTIES, LCC, SUP #12-427: Sketch review of Special Use Permit application for selective timber harvest/forest management of 432.80 acres parcel, portions of which are located in the R3, R5 and R8 Zoning Districts, at 44 Eastwoods Drive, off Zena-Highwoods Road, in Zena, SBL #38.2-1-67. Rep: Rod Jones, Certified Forester; PB Reps: Peter Cross & Paul Shultis, Jr.
Mary Burke, Vice Chair of Town's Woodstock Environmental Commission (WEC), was also present.
Mr. Unrath said Planning Board (PB) will use Planner Alan Sorensen for joint review with Town of Ulster, which will cost an estimated $1,000. Escrow check from applicant will be needed for this.
Mr. Jones explained he plans to remove 6%-7% of several hundred thousand trees on the property.
Mr. Shultis told Mr. Jones that he and Board member Peter Cross (who is also the Town's Wetlands & Watercourse Inspector) had done a site visit, and would like to do another one with Mr. Jones. Mr. Cross will also delineate the wetlands on the site.
Posting of Performance Bond was discussed (who holds bond and the amount). Mr. Jones said he anticipated this. Mr. Shultis also mentioned possible buffer area for neighbors if requested at Public Hearing. Walrus Properties has legal right-of-way on Eastwoods Drive.
Mr. Unrath said the PB will schedule another meeting after the Planner comes back with his recommendations; then there will be a Public Hearing. Mr. Shultis asked that a WEC member join the PB on the site visit. Ms. Burke of the WEC agreed. Date and time to be coordinated.
Case may need referral to the Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB). Site is also contiguous to Town of Kingston, which will be notified, in addition to Town of Ulster, of Public Hearing when scheduled. Motion by Mr. Shultis to refer case to the UCPB if Planner says it is necessary. Seconded by Mr. Cross. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
Ms. Fernandez noted that the Board has to make a SEQRA determination prior to the UCPB referral.
++
WOODSTOCK FARM ANIMAL SANCTUARY, INC. (WFAS), SUP #12- 426: Public Hearing of Special Use Permit application for Bed & Breakfast (B&B) establishment in R3 Zoning District, located at 39 Van Wagner Road in Willow, SBL# 14.-2-20; Rep: Doug Abel; PB Reps: Tom Unrath & Jim Huben
Mr. Unrath and Mr. Huben had been to the site. Mr. Unrath said it looked as it was described in the plan.
For the public, Mr. Abel explained that there are two kinds of B&Bs in Woodstock: a B&B home and a B&B establishment. A B&B home needs an operating permit, but does not need a Special Use Permit (SUP), and two bedrooms are allowed. The WFAS has been doing that type of B&B since October 2011. They would now like to expand to a B&B establishment, which allows up to five bedrooms, and requires an SUP. The house has five bedrooms; they plan to rent out only four. If the house were sold to a large family, instead of being a B&B, Mr. Abel pointed out, the comings and goings of family activities would likely be more frequent than those of B&B guests. He said, therefore, a B&B would have less impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Abel stated that the WFAS has a number of friends who require wheelchairs, and Woodstock is a difficult Town to negotiate in a wheelchair. Only one restaurant in Town has a bathroom that is wheelchair accessible. Visiting handicapped friends have had to go to Kingston or the Emerson Hotel in Mt. Pleasant. So when the WFAS designed the house for a B&B, they designed the downstairs bedroom to be accessible for a wheelchair. Although it is not Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant, and they are not advertising it as such, it has accommodated their friend in a wheelchair. The SUP would allow them to rent the room to people in wheelchairs, thus providing them a benefit.
Mr. Abel read aloud the lighting law that applies. He showed material from his engineer that says that commercial pedestrian footways are .2 of a foot-candle; for residential sidewalks it is .2; for residential pedestrian ways it is .5; for commercial sidewalks it is .9. Mr. Abel said this is not a commercial sidewalk. The law does not say how to apply the standards, so some interpretation is necessary. He had spoken to an engineer about having a motion-detector light on the garage, but it is a metal halide light fixture that can't be switched on and off; they take time to warm up. He suggested putting it on a dusk timer. When there are no guests, Mr. Abel suggested they just turn it off. They can thus minimize any exterior lighting impact.
The WFAS will also put in vegetative screening; he showed a mock-up of this. He noted that only the neighboring Ostrander residence has a view of the property. Other homes are blocked by pine trees.
Mr. Shultis said Town Highway Superintendent Mike Reynolds should give approval for it since sight lines may be affected. Mr. Abel said "these [trees]" will be set back from the road at least 10 feet. Mr. Shultis suggested just checking with Mr. Reynolds about it.
Mr. Unrath offered members of public to comment.
Neighbor Michael Lavin said he sees lights in his bedroom. When the main house [at WFAS farm site] lights are on, it wakes him up. Mr. Shultis said Mr. Abel's personal residence is nothing the PB can do anything about. It is not before the PB. Mr. Lavin said okay. Mr. Shultis said everyone on Van Wagner Road has lights on. And every time they go off and on, it's not lighting up his house, Mr. Lavin replied. It goes both ways, Mr. Abel said, because he sees Mr. Lavin's lights too. Ms. Ricci said the way Mr. Abel described it, the B&B site lights will not keep going off and on. Lighting will be on a dusk timer. She asked for confirmation if they will be going off and on. There's two lights, said Mr. Abel, showing diagrams. Mr. Shultis thought it would be better with a row of trees straight up the driveway.
Tape side A ended here.
Neighbor Gay Leonhardt said that property values are the premise of the Town Zoning law. The Assessor told her that a B&B next door devalues her property where she owns 6 contiguous acres. The farm is using the B&B site for parking. Mr. Shultis asked, "Does Assessor say that every B&B in Woodstock devalues the residential neighborhood it is in? Then why would this one have more impact on your neighborhood than any other B&B in Woodstock?"
Ms. Leonhardt said she thought it is the total commercial impact. The impact is still limited, Mr. Shultis replied. A farm animal sanctuary could have some type of impact because that's a unique type of use. But there has to be 20 B&Bs in Woodstock, and I don't think they devalue their neighborhoods, Mr. Shultis said. If anything, they strengthen the value because they bring people to the community.
Ms. Leonhardt said she feels the farm sanctuary is like an "elephant in such a little valley", and each time we talk about the particulars of this and that; the SUP rules say the PB should uphold the standards of the residential neighborhood. Which is what we tried to do with the farm animals, Mr. Shultis replied. How we regulate the parking at the sanctuary site is hard because the Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) doesn't work on weekends. That's true with any SUP in Town; it is not unique to this site, it is throughout the entire Town.
Mr. Abel said if someone parked a car at B&B property from the animal sanctuary it was not with his permission. Ms. Leonhardt said the whole staff used it all at once. Mr. Shultis said the ZEO and PB needs to be aware of that. He did not know how to write language in the Resolution to enforce parking at the sanctuary. He thinks it is a violation of the SUP if employees or volunteers of the WFAS are using off-site parking. Mr. Abel agreed. He said if someone has a picture of that parking when it occurred then it will have to be explained to him by those who did it.
Mr. Lavin said since they already have commercial lighting for the farm, then more lighting for this site will be more disruptive. How far away is he?, Mr. Unrath asked Mr.Lavin. 150 yards. He said it wakes him up in his bedroom. He said occasionally when there is a bear in the field and they have to chase it away, he wakes up because his whole bedroom lights up. They do this at the farm sanctuary?, Mr. Unrath asked. That lighting is on our own residence, Mr. Abel said. They bought it that way. He even bought shields for it and as soon as he can borrow a long-enough ladder he will install them for the neighbor's sake. The lights are on the residence, and if there is an emergency on the site, they put them on. They try to be as courteous as possible.
Mr. Shultis said in the application currently before the Board, we add to the shielded lighting. The question we have is...(he was interrupted by Mr. Lavin who said if the lights were on all night it would be fine. It is the going off and on that bothers him) Mr. Shultis said the way they're shielded they would not ever reach his house. These are downward lighting. The question the PB has is if they are legal if they are on timers.
Motion sensors are the best, a woman said. We will ask the Town Planner if they are legal, Mr. Shultis said. If the community is in favor of lights being off when not required, then he thought...we don't want to allow something, and then have the neighbors say the lights aren't on all the time like the law requires. If everyone agrees they want it dark and the lights only used when buildings are in use, then they can all agree to that.
Neighbor David Ekroth asked what does the law say you need lights for, because of public occupancy? Any more than 5 parking spots, Mr. Shultis said. So if they have guests, the lights should be on, and if no guests, the lights off?, Mr. Ekroth asked. Exactly, Mr. Shultis said. If no one there, no lights. If they are booked in winter, the lights may come on at 4:30-5:00 pm; if it's summer, it may be 8:30 pm, and then they will shut them off once the guests are in the house.
Mr. Ekroth said something about lights late at night. Mr. Shultis said that sounds like it may be more to do with farm animals or intruders at the farm site. The PB can't look at that as it's a personal residence. It is beyond our scope of review. The PB cannot address that as it is separate from the SUP before them. With this, we are trying to follow the law. Mr. Shultis continued, if you don't want the lights on, then we'll put that language in the approval. Mr. Shultis said, okay, so we won't need a Planner for the lighting issue if we all agree. We'll keep it in-house, make a note in the Resolution or on the site plan.
David Boyle spoke next. He said the B&B is on the internet advertised as being handicapped accessible. The sign says handicapped accessible. As he sees it, it is not handicapped accessible. He said there appears to be a sales pitch to get people to join as WFAS members, and then they can use the B&B. Whether it's the public, or members, or volunteers, he said it is very unclear. When I see a claw-foot bathtub...Mr. Shultis interrupted him to say he thinks that is why Mr. Abel is applying for the B&B establishment [vs. B&B home] because they will have to answer the question of who is in the extra rooms. Now, in a B&B establishment, all the rooms are classified as guest rooms. There are no floating rooms. Prior to that, when it was a B&B home, it could only be two guest bedrooms. If they had five rooms, the community could ask who is staying in the other rooms. Now all the bedrooms are part of the B&B. One bedroom is for the resident and the other four are for the guests. It doesn't matter who they are. They could be paying to stay there or they stay for free, it doesn't matter. The rooms are now classified as guest space, they've gone through Special Permit review, and they are legitimate. They don't have to rent them; they can do what they want.
Mr. Boyle said the way it was advertised, with that wheelchair sign, it indicated to him that it is handicapped accessible. Mr. Shultis said if they have someone with a wheelchair who can't get inside the building, and they want their money back, then...(didn't finish sentence), but as far as the PB is concerned, it has nothing to do with the PB if they advertise as being handicapped accessible. That is a Building Department issue; whether there's a handicapped ramp, a wide-enough door, a bathroom, or hallways that are wide enough, those are all interior issues. The PB issues are parking, screening, lighting and signage.
Mr. Boyle asked if health and safety is their concern. Mr. Shultis replied just because they advertise as being handicapped accessible that does not impair anybody's health and safety. It just upsets someone if they come there and can't use the B&B if they're in a wheelchair. It does not impact health, safety or welfare of the community as a whole.
Mr. Boyle said advertising is going out all over. People come from New Jersey and Connecticut. That is what all the B&Bs in Town do, said Mr. Shultis. Mr. Boyle thought this was unique since two adjacent properties are run by the same people who have a track record of applying for a permit without compliance with its requirements. Mr. Shultis said he thought that is why they went from a home B&B to establishment B&B, because then there is no question of compliance. Every room has been reviewed and can be used. There is ample parking for it, lighting, and everything has been covered.
Mr. Boyle reiterated that if it is advertised as handicapped accessible, and there is a claw-foot bathtub for bathing, he did not know how a handicapped person...Mr. Shultis repeated, "that is not part of the PB's purview. It has nothing to do with the PB's review of the SUP". Mr. Boyle asked if they look at the whole business. No, we do not go inside buildings and look at what type of bathtubs are there, said Mr. Shultis. That is all Building Department's jurisdiction. If they advertise as handicapped accessible, and it's not, it has nothing to do with our zoning law, the SUP section of the law.
Mr. Unrath asked who licenses it, Building Inspector (BI) or New York State (NYS)? No, it's done under the Town of Woodstock Building Department as an operating permit, Mr. Shultis replied. Does the Inspector go in and look, make sure the rooms are big enough? Mr. Shultis did not know if there is a requirement for room size. Mr. Unrath asked Mr. Abel if he had to have a NYS license. Mr. Abel confirmed it is an operating permit from the Town. Does the BI go in and inspect?, Mr. Unrath asked. Inspector did, said Mr. Abel. She looked at the diagrams on doors showing fire exits, she wanted them to get rope ladders for emergency egress upstairs and a lot of stuff.
Ms. Leonhardt said that given that people have to be a member of the WFAS to book a space isn't that like a club...Mr. Unrath interrupted to ask if that was true. Mr. Abel said that is how it is arranged now. Ms. Leonhardt said, then isn't this like I can go to Cornell [University club] in New York because I'm a member of that organization and I choose to be. It's not a hotel. It's not a B&B. Someone else can't go to the Cornell Club. So isn't this more like a club? An average citizen can't pull up like any other B&B and stay there. Mr. Unrath asked, can they join? It's a moot conversation, Mr. Abel replied, because if that is an issue, we will just pull that policy. It helps with the taxes as it is non-profit to have members. Our mission ties in better if it's by membership.
An unidentified man asked is membership $60? It is $30, said Mr. Abel. He then read from his website, "if people require wheelchair access, they can most likely accommodate them with advance notice, although technically they are not ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. Please inquire for details." Mr. Boyle asked him to repeat that due to he is hard of hearing. Mr. Abel did so.
Mr. Unrath said he cannot answer Ms. Leonhardt's question about B&B being a club. He will have to ask the Town attorney's opinion. Mr. Shultis thought they probably have to pull that language. If it's open to the public, it is a B&B; if not, it is a private club. Mr. Unrath agreed. Mr. Abel said he will change that requirement then tonight.
Mr. Boyle said he is confused by the contiguous properties owned by the same people in corporate names and individual names. People can flow from the B&B site to the sanctuary site. Physically walk, they can't drive, said Mr. Shultis. If someone is at the sanctuary, they cannot use the B&B parking. That would be off-site parking. He said, "We will put faith in Mr. Abel that he won't lose the SUP for his B&B or his farm animal sanctuary by doing that." There are two separate SUPs. One is for the farm animals and this is a separate one for the B&B. But people can walk around the two properties. An unidentified man asked, can they do it when it's closed? Mr. Shultis said no, only during open visiting hours. Same man said something about days, to which Mr. Shultis said there are so many different...(tape skipped here). Whatever the open season and the hours are.
Mr. Boyle referred to copy of letter from NY State Department of Agriculture and Markets, dated January 3, 2012, that he obtained. It was addressed to former Town Supervisor Moran. It was information about allowed farm operations specific to WFAS farm site. Mr. Boyle said what goes on at the sanctuary is not exactly a farm operation as there is no product that he could see, such as $9,000 from sale of eggs. Mr. Unrath said he agreed with him that the Ag & Markets decision was wrong about that but that is not the issue at hand. He asked Mr. Boyle to move along.
Ms. Ricci said he can't talk about this now. Mr. Boyle said there is an interchange of people from here to go over here [between the two sites]. He thought there was a stipulation from the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) that said no commercial sales. "Retail sales," Mr. Shultis corrected him, "except for days of special events."
Mr. Boyle said he did not know what is going on. An application gets submitted, and then it seems that because it is in process, the owner-operators...there doesn't seem to be much difference. You follow the money trail, he said, why people do things. What are they doing? There are references to storage and sale of manure, eggs. That is farm animal stuff; that's the SUP for the animal sanctuary, Mr. Shultis said. That's not the case before us now. Right now, it is the B&B and the site plan for the B&B. Those are things we hashed over in the SUP for the farm animals. The PB did not make a determination on what the Ag and Markets said. That was requested by someone else. We have to uphold whatever [directive] was given to us by the State; we don't have the right to...(interrupted) The State has certain specifications here, Mr. Boyle said, that seemed to him not to have been applied for. They issued the letter, Mr. Shultis replied. Mr. Boyle did not think so. It's a separate issue, Mr. Shultis said. Mr. Boyle thought that Home Rule requires that the PB knows what's really going on, as well as the ZBA and the Town Supervisor. He said when it goes to the Building Department and permits are issued, and the information and so forth, there are supposed to be Orders to Remedy or stop work orders, or building permit stuff, and he does not read it well. Where he is, there have been numerous robberies, and Neighborhood Watch, and...
Mr. Unrath apologized and said he has to cut Mr. Boyle off now. He thanked him for his comments. Mr. Boyle said he hoped they would keep an open eye and an open ear.
Since no one else wanted to comment, Mr. Unrath made a Motion to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Shultis. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
Mr. Shultis listed some requirements for Resolution:
* site plan to be updated to show lighting fixtures
* delete website language that membership is required to use B&B
* place light fixture on house on a motion detector; timer light on the barn to go off at 10 pm; porch lights can stay on
* lighting ratio is okay
* provide screening between farm animal sanctuary and B&B
Draft Resolution will be presented at May 3rd meeting. Ulster County PB referral is pending due to proximity of B&B to farm operations.
++
CHRIS MAXWELL, WWP #12-021: Sketch review of Wetlands & Watercourse Permit application to replace existing storage shed on same footprint, located within watercourse buffer of Sawkill Creek, in R8 Zoning District, at 564 Zena Road in Zena, SBL #27.4-4-9. Rep: Applicant; PB Rep: Not yet assigned.
Kelly Storrs (wife of Chris Maxwell) was present in place of applicant.
Wetlands Inspector Mr. Cross suggested that Public Hearing be waived due to minor scope of project. Motion by Mr. Unrath that Ms. Fernandez will draft a Resolution saying that since building is staying same size and will be placed in location of existing shed, the Wetlands Inspector is familiar with the property and it did not flood during major storm event of Hurricane Irene, and the stream bank is very steep, the Public Hearing is being waived and the application may be approved. Seconded by Mr. Cross. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
There will be a development fee. Case will return on May 3rd to approve draft Resolution.
++
Pending Items continued:
Regarding hydro-fracking item discussed earlier, Mr. Unrath explained to Town Councilman Ken Panza, now present, what the PB had decided. Ms. Ricci gave Mr. Panza the language clarification about the use of fluids as discussed earlier.
++
Approve draft Resolution with conditions for Stock, et al, Subdivision, PB#12-1080E:
Mr. Shultis made a Motion to accept the draft Resolution, as presented. Seconded by Mr. Huben. Vote: 5-0-2-0.
++
Tape side B ended.
Motion by Mr. Unrath to adjourn meeting at 8:20. Seconded by Mr. Huben. All aye.
++
Minutes were approved at meeting on May 17, 2012
