TOWN OF WOODSTOCK
APPROVED PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
March 1, 2012
Members Present: Tom Unrath, Paul Shultis, Jr., Peter Cross, James Huben, Lorin Rose and Laura Ricci
Member Absent: Judith Kerman
Others present: Therese Fernandez, Secretary
Meeting called to order at 6:30 pm. Determination of quorum.
Agenda: No changes
Minutes: Minutes of November 3, 2011 were adopted, as corrected. Motion by Mr. Unrath. Seconded by Mr. Shultis. Vote: 6-0-1-0. Minutes of November 17, 2011 were adopted, as corrected. Motion by Mr. Unrath. Seconded by Mr. Shultis. Vote: 6-0-1-0.
++
Pending Items:
Approve Draft Resolution for St. Lifer Lot Line Revision (& sign maps):
Surveyor sent maps to owner to be signed; have not come back yet. There was an amended SEQRA negative declaration (neg dec) for an Unlisted Action in the Resolution. Six copies of signed map and one mylar, and final development fee still required.
Motion to approve Resolution by Mr. Unrath, pending submission of the above items. Seconded by Ms. Ricci. Vote: 6-0-1-0.
++
JERRY WASHINGTON: GIS Discussion with Board:
Mr. Washington handed out an information packet and said he has had several conversations with Paul Shultis, Jr. on the topic of the Geographic Information System (GIS). He was able to put the computer files back together on the C-drive of the GIS computer. He said that Town Assessor Plate's office has a plotter that is capable of doing large-scale maps, and another printer that can do smaller ones. Mr. Washington described what other GIS equipment and materials are in the Assessor's Office. He stressed the importance of the proper use of data. Mr. Washington explained some of the technicalities of a GIS system and how it can be useful to the Planning Board (PB).
To a question from Mr. Huben, Mr. Washington said that Town employees have been restricted from using this software without having proper licensing for it. Ms. Fernandez explained that some employees have been using similar data available from the County. To Ms. Ricci's question, Mr. Washington said no one here is currently trained for using GIS. He is going to teach a class for Town employees starting April 11th at the Highway Department. Ms. Fernandez will be participating with a few other employees from other Town departments.
Water and sewer districts are on the County GIS; only curb cuts are missing, said Mr. Washington.
Chairman Unrath thanked Jerry for his presentation.
++
TOWN COUNCILMAN KEN PANZA: Discussion of proposed Zoning Revisions packet October 2003 thru Summer 2010:
Mr. Unrath noted that the Planning Board (PB) had passed the proposed revisions and sent them to the Town Board. The Town Board had done nothing with it yet. The PB will now look it over again, discuss, and send back recommendations to the new Town Board.
Mr. Panza said that although the amendments being presented are somewhat dated, he thought most of the proposals were still valid and asked the PB to revisit them for updates. Changes to the Scenic Overlay District to delete the 300 sq ft threshold for Special Use Permit (SUP) review; changes to Light Industrial Zone to delete modifications for proposed police offices and court; extension of the Hamlet Preservation District up to the Colony Café building or Mountain View Avenue or 200 ft from current district boundary - all were discussed as new updates to the proposed Local Law. Mr. Panza said that Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District changes are a larger problem than just the site in Wittenberg. Discussion of difference between NC-1 and NC-2 Districts.
Mr. Shultis explained that the additional list of possible amendments also being reviewed is just a "working list" and he mentioned a few items from that list that he felt the PB should work on since he considered them the most important; perhaps take 10 changes at a time, each member work on one or two.
Mr. Unrath made a Motion for Mr. Panza to draft the changes discussed and present them to the PB to be reviewed again and accepted. Seconded by Mr. Cross. Vote: 6-0-1-0.
++
Tape side A ended; side B begins with Mr. Unrath reading Special Use Permit number for first case.
JENNIFER BOUSLIMAN for Agapae Rebekah Lodge 623, SPR #12-343 & SUP #12-425: Public Hearing of Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit applications for dance school in R3 Zoning District at former Odd Fellows Hall building located at 26 Wittenberg Road in Bearsville, SBL# 26.2-4-21; Rep: Applicant; PB Reps: Mr. Unrath & Ms. Kerman
For the public, Ms. Bousliman said she is opening a ballet studio at the former Odd Fellows Hall. She plans to refurbish the old building with new windows, insulation, painting, and so on. She wants it to be something nice for the community.
Ms. Ricci asked if she would not be having recitals or big events there, but having classes. "Exactly," said Ms. Bousliman.
Mr. Unrath invited public comment.
Jeff Shultis said he is a neighbor down the road, and that he is glad that someone is interested in making this old, historical building into something worthwhile.
Ms. Bousliman thanked him.
Karen Shultis, also a neighbor, said she fully supports the endeavor.
There were no written or telephone comments received.
Ms. Bousliman's husband, Shawn DeLisio, noted that they made a few revisions to their site plan, as requested at last meeting: lighting, signage, parking location, pavement for handicapped zone, paved walkway, and additional light on tree or post.
As there was no further public comment, Mr. Unrath made a Motion to close the Public Hearing. Seconded by Mr. Rose. Vote: 6-0-1-0.
Ms. Fernandez noted that Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) and Commission for Civic Design (CCD) reviews were waived.
Mr. Unrath stated this was a Type II Action under provisions of
SEQRA/TWEQR.
Resolution Points:
* four copies of final site plan to be submitted
* final fee payment with amount to be determined by Building Inspector
Motion by Mr. Unrath to approve the application with conditions above, and second Motion to approve the draft Resolution and Special Use Permit (SUP) as per the noted conditions. Both motions seconded by Mr. Huben. Votes: 6-0-1-0.
Ms. Fernandez will speak to Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) about the final fee amount.
++
[Not on agenda] At this point, with regard to Diane Legier's Subdivision driveway approval and engineering plan, Mr. Unrath and Mr. Shultis talked about stormwater management and what recommendations from Town Highway Superintendent Mike Reynolds are going to be about item #14 of the Road Maintenance Agreement (RMA).
Ms. Fernandez will send Mr. Reynolds the RMA received from PB Attorney Drayton Grant and ask for his comments about #14.
++
Additional Pending Items:
Assign PB Case reps for Michael Stock, Diane Kraus & KPMC, LLC Lot Line Revisions and Subdivision application (sketch review scheduled 3/15/12):
Mr. Shultis & Mr. Rose were assigned.
++
Prep itemization of PB expectations with respect to Build-Out Analysis Committee and ArcGIS software purchase:
Town Supervisor requested that PB prepare this itemization and Mr. Cross submitted a narrative for the PB stating the purpose and goals of the subcommittee.
Mr. Shultis said that there is $150 approved in the PB budget for this software purchase. Discussion about annual software licensing fees for ArcGIS.
Mr. Cross said that Build-Out Analysis looks at which existing lots could be built on and what would be the impact on the Town from such building. The GIS mapping system could put various layers of data together and show what areas are excluded from development because of steep slopes, wetlands, and so on; therefore, determine what the maximum development of any given area could be. It provides a goal for future planning.
Decision: Mr. Unrath will see the Supervisor tomorrow to discuss this.
++
Karolys Site Plan Review/Special Use Permit: discuss Planner's draft review & SEQR Determination:
This is a Type 1 action under TWEQR, Mr. Unrath said, so it requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). PB is lead agency to begin with, Mr. Shultis added.
Mr. Karolys has been informed about the necessity of the SWPPP, Secretary noted. He needs to have engineer provide this document.
++
Woodstock Farm Animal Sanctuary (WFAS): discuss labeling of buildings on Farm's Site Plan:
Doug Abel was present for WFAS.
Mr. Unrath asked to deal with building labels issue first. Mr. Abel asked, what was the logic behind not labeling the buildings on the plan? Mr. Unrath said that if the WFAS labels something a "pig pen" and then uses it as a "chicken coop", for example, the Building Inspector might refer it to the PB as a change of use. Mr. Abel said he understood that the PB does not need to know about the farming use labels of buildings, but buildings where people might use the bathroom, for example, that is part of the non-profit recreational use.
Mr. Shultis thought they did not need labels, but added that a neighbor said if buildings were labeled, we would go back to what it was approved for originally, in this case, as a hospice. Do you mean the retail sales?, Mr. Unrath asked. Mr. Shultis did not know which one, but he said the original approval for the building was as an animal hospice. Mr. Abel said it was a combination hospice, office, and handicapped accessible bathroom. So it was not a visitor's center or concession stand, Mr. Shultis said. He said if that were the case, then during the initial review, former Planning Specialist Trahan would have asked what they were going to do with the building. If they had indicated retail sales, Mr. Shultis thought Ms. Trahan would have said retail sales are not allowed in the zoning district and they can't use the building for that purpose. It has been shown as a hospice during the review. Animal hospice, bathrooms, and office is what it is labeled as now, he said, and what it was approved for. If Mr. Abel wants to label it as that, Mr. Shultis said, that's fine, but after a certain point, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) says it is not the PB's purview what the label is. If Mr. Abel goes back prior to the ZBA determination, and labels the building what it was prior to the ZBA determination, that's one thing, but after that determination was made, the PB does not have a say in whether it's hospice, retail store or whatever. He said he did not think it would have been approved previously as a retail use structure.
Mr. Abel asked about the public going into the building to use it as restroom. That is up to the Building Inspector, Mr. Shultis replied, that it has proper ventilation and distance setbacks, and so on.
Mr. Abel said they would like it approved as a visitor's center because that is how it is used. It was not approved for that, Mr. Shultis said. The only label we can put on that building - and we can't put any label on it according to the ZBA - if we could, it would have to be what it was reviewed and approved for. If they want to change its use, they have to come back to the PB for a site plan modification. That is what we would like to do, Mr. Abel replied. Mr. Shultis added that if they say they want to conduct retail sales there, the PB will say, "the ZBA ruled they can't do that in that zoning district." To Mr. Abel's query about a non-profit organization having a visitor's center, it is okay for educational purposes, depending on what they do there, Mr. Shultis replied. He did not think they can do retail sales. He thought if they came back to change the labeling, the PB would not be able to approve it because it is not in their purview anymore according to the ZBA determination.
Mr. Abel read the ZBA determination, which said that Special Use Permits (SUPs) involving the nature and intensity of a non-profit recreational operation are within the purview of the PB. He did not understand the logic. Neither did Mr. Shultis. He believed the PB's purview is parking, hours of operation, number of visitors, but no longer the number of buildings since NYS Dept. of Agriculture and Markets determined it is not the PB's purview any longer, nor setbacks on fences. He said Mr. Abel could come back and try, but he thought the building was approved for a certain use.
Mr. Abel said the intention has not changed; it was always a multi-use building. That the surveyor labeled it that way...(interrupted) Mr. Shultis said there was no mention at the time of visitor's center. He recalled that Mr. Abel mentioned an Interpretive Center during Phase 2 of the WFAS plans, but it never went anywhere. He was sure the PB would have asked what that would have involved if that was the intent, but he did not think retail sales would have been allowed in an Interpretive Center in any case.
Mr. Abel showed his site plan. None of the animal coops are labeled. The visitor's center, animal infirmary and office are labeled as such. He would like to get it approved. To Mr. Shultis' remark that the WFAS did not call it a visitor's center the last time they were before the PB, Mr. Abel said they certainly said it was a place where people check-in. Mr. Shultis said a check-in place is not retail sales. He was sure that if they told the PB back then that having retail sales was their intent, Ms. Trahan would have picked up on it and said they are not allowed in that district.
Mr. Abel said, leaving the retail sales issue aside, he is concerned that someone will complain that people are going into the building and not using the bathroom. Mr. Unrath said he is willing to let that be if they approve the SUP.
Mr. Abel said because of the PB and ZBA meetings often getting pushed back, he is now proposing that the new SUP expiration date be February 2013.
Ms. Ricci asked about some fine points of the issue, which were explained.
Mr. Abel said some people come into the office to donate money, not necessarily just to use the restroom. It's not a gift store, Mr. Shultis said.
Mr. Unrath made a Motion that the PB add language to the new SUP that, in conformance with the ZBA decision, there shall be no retail operation anywhere on the premises. Seconded by Ms. Ricci. Vote: 6-0-1-0.
Mr. Unrath also made a Motion to approve the SUP expiration date to be February 2013, at which time the WFAS neighbors can return and evaluate whether things were done right or if there were problems to address, and to approve the site plan with no indication noted on it that retail sales are allowed. Seconded by Mr. Shultis. Vote: 6-0-1-0.
Ms. Fernandez noted that they have to sign off on the final site plan and then sign the new SUP. Draft Resolution and final Draft Amended SUP will be prepared for PB adoption. Final Development Fee will also be due (to be determined according to fee schedule).
++
WOODSTOCK FARM ANIMAL SANCTUARY, INC., SUP #12-426: Sketch review of Special Use Permit application for Bed & Breakfast establishment in R3 Zoning District, located at 39 Van Wagner Road in Willow, SBL #14.2-20; Rep: Doug Abel; PB Reps: To be assigned
Mr. Unrath asked if Mr. Abel is going along with the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) determination that if they have two bedrooms and a host they don't need a Special Permit, or does he want an SUP? Yes to the latter, Mr. Abel said, to be a Bed & Breakfast (B & B) establishment.
Mr. Unrath and Mr. Huben volunteered to be the PB Reps for the case.
Mr. Unrath asked, who will live in the house? It is a person already living there, Mr. Abel replied. The resident host will live in one bedroom. There are five bedrooms, so four will be for the B & B.
Are there four parking spaces? Yes, and there is a barn with a spot for more space. Mr. Abel said he would like some advice on best way to expand parking lot. He will probably be renovating the barn.
To Ms. Ricci's query, he said it is already a B & B home. It was an allowed use already. Six total parking spaces are required for the place overall. There is 26 feet of space to back up in. They may add some gravel expansion. He showed a layout to Mr. Shultis as the PB further discussed the parking expansion.
The site plan is good enough for preliminary sketch, said Chairman.
Mr. Shultis said they should look at lighting. Mr. Abel asked if it has to be on a post, or can it be on...(interrupted) It can be on the building, Mr. Unrath said. They have security lights. Mr. Shultis suggested they review Section 260-29 of Zoning regulations that pertain to lighting. Downward-facing lighting on site is best.
Applicant's Assistance List for preliminary plan was given:
* meet the lighting standards
* show additional parking spot for the sixth space; Mr. Shultis said at least 9' x 20'
* show where drainage is
* Application may need referral to Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB); Mr. Unrath said we will look into it
* provide cut sheet (sample) of parking lot lighting fixture
* show location of lighting
Mr. Shultis stated that the screening is okay; there is a natural buffer.
Preliminary review of application was set for 6:45 on April 5th. If appropriate, will set Public Hearing then.
++
Mr. Unrath made a Motion to adjourn at 9:15. Seconded by Mr. Huben. All aye.
++
Minutes approved at meeting of March 29, 2012
