MEETING MINUTES
April 29, 2021
REGULAR WORKSHOP ZOOM MEETING
7:00 PM START
TIME: 7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER, determination of quorum
Members Present: Peter
Cross
Stuart
Lipkind
John
LaValle
Judith
Kerman
Conor
Wenk
James
Conrad
Members Absent: Brian
Normoyle
Additional Present: Melissa
Gray, Administrative Assistant
Agenda Invitees: David
Gross
Maxanne
Resnick
Ingrid
Haeckel
Alex
Bolotow
Julia
Blelock
Erin
Moran
Nick
Foad
Robert
Wolff
Arlene
Weissman
Public Invited: Jenny
Maddock
Hollie
Burton
Updates to AGENDA:
Mr. Peter Cross asked Ms. Melissa Gray if there were any
updates to the agenda and she replied no.
MINUTES: April
15, 2021
Make motion to approve minutes: Peter Cross 2nd: Judith Kerman & John LaValle Aye:
All
COMMUNICATIONS & ANNOUNCEMENTS:
+ Email
from K. Hunt re: overdevelopment rec’d
Apr. 15
Mr. Cross read and states we will be working on that later
+ Email from
M. Gray re: Flood Webinars Available
through Cornell Cooperative Ext. rec’d Apr. 20
Mr. Cross read
+ Email
from N. Cyr re: Bearsville Center ROW
& gravesite rec’d Apr. 27
Mr. Cross read and states he went and saw they moved the
fence and he will go back and check it again.
Ms. Gray states that Supervisor McKenna was going to check, also.
+ Zoning
Amendments from Town Board Proposed Local Laws #2 & #3 rec’d Apr. 27
Mr. Cross read and states not tonight but we will look
at these. Mr. John LaValle will know the
most on these codes, heights and towers.
Regarding the aquifer / wellhead protection, we should review and get
back to the Town Board. Ms. Judith Kerman
states she asked Supervisor McKenna for the metes and bounds. Mr.
Cross asks Ms. Gray to schedule this as soon as she can on an upcoming
agenda. She states she will.
+ Email
from D. Greene re: David Greene SUP#
17-0469
Mr. Cross read and states considering postponements during
the pandemic, we go along with it.
+ Mailing
from K. Heinz, Esq. re: Restrictive
Covenants, Hamlet of Bearsville, Town of Woodstock and the
Grossman
parcels rec’d Apr. 28
Mr. Cross read and tells the PB this is land above the
Bearsville Center Complex, not the Center.
NEW BUSINESS:
SCHEDULED BUSINESS:
WORKSHOP
CEAs within the COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN: Collaboration of WEC, NRI and Land Conservancy to
identify and justify several areas in town to be labeled as designated CEAs and
go over the process to get the proposed areas of CEAs to be designated by the
DEC and added to the Town Comprehensive Plan
NOTES: Mr.
Cross read description above and states that he is going to go through the
concept. The
Planning Board is empowered to do certain things as with
subdivisions: including lot line
revisions and
site plans: new and
adjusting the plan and Special Use Permits.
The PB relies on the comprehensive
plan for guidance. Every
case we ask does this comply with the comprehensive plan. The PB needs to
review the comprehensive plan and keep it updated to use as
guidance for the boards. When looking at
the creation of CEAs, we run through the basic procedure; which
includes identifying and delineating,
preparing maps, SEQRA, public hearings, etc. CEA examples are wetlands, wildlife
corridors, other
corridors, farmlands, public water, landfills, waste sites,
etc. With CEA adoption we can present to
the
local legislative body.
There is no automatic protection with the CEAs. We need to have a lead agency.
Without the code, this will be interesting. It needs to be registered with the state DEC
and get this into
the comprehensive plan.
What we are doing is creating another overlay district, ideally. Mr. Cross asks
the PB is they will consider letting WEC be the lead agency and do
the SEQRA and present to the PB the
areas to be designated. We
are fortunate to have Ms. Ingrid Haeckel who knows and can guide us.
I’m hoping she can tell us what to do. Ms. Haeckel states that the town submitted
with a letter from the
supervisor. The training is
a process to work on this at a monthly meeting.
While looking at the NRI,
habitat maps, etc. and with the concern for new development and it
affecting the natural environment.
This will create a conservation overlay that could be used more
broadly throughout the town.
Similarly to the ridgeline and wetlands protections your town
already has. This could be a type of
resource for the town.
Identified CEAs would be a specific location or area. Mr. Cross asks Ms.
Haeckel what it the first step in finding these areas. Ms. Alex Bolotow (of WEC) states we did
submit the
application last week. I
believe it is a strong application. She
asks Ms. Haeckel when we will find out if
the town is chosen. Ms.
Haeckel replied that the decision was to be May 15, but maybe as soon as the
end of next week. Ms.
Blelock tells Mr. Cross that only two communities are selected and we should
make plans to proceed if we don’t get this opportunity. Mr. Cross states that this has two
prongs. The
CEAs to be approved by the DEC plan and then put into the
comprehensive plan. If we do this
through
the comprehensive plan, we can put specific restrictions and we
can create a guideline in these areas.
We can use this same process.
Ms. Haeckel states that Mr. Cross is absolutely correct in thinking
about
amending the comprehensive plan and it wouldn’t need to be fully
flushed out. Types of strategies could
include zoning updates that can be refined after that. Mr. Cross states that the human outcry going
on to
limit development and I think we can do this by identifying
CEAs. Ms. Bolotow states that the WEC
workload will be different if they are chosen and if not, we will
have to proceed without the guidance.
Ms. Kerman states that it’s like reinventing the wheel that
someone else has already built. There
are
political wrinkles and the uproar tends to be in the Hamlet and
the Short Term Rentals. She’s not sure
people that are complaining are even thinking of CEAs. Mr. Cross states that interestingly enough,
the
aquifer / wellhead has a good portion in the Hamlet. What are the limitations and he didn’t really
see anything in the proposed law that limited development. While going through the Chestnut Hill case,
we are lucky the applicant didn’t want to take us to court. Ms. Kerman asks if the town law is more
important than the state.
Ms. Haeckel states she is not an attorney. In terms of SEQRA, provides you
with a good cover. Again,
I’m not an attorney. This doesn’t
prevent, it just takes a hard look at the
designated areas. Ms.
Kerman states this is to give to the town to make more compelling
judgements.
Ms. Maxanne Resnick asks about the Zoning Revision Committee
directed to Mr. Conor Wenk. How long
does this take? Mr. Wenk
replied that they (the ZRC) has shifted their focus on the housing issue that
needs dire and urgent attention currently. Any information can be presented to Ms. Laura
Ricci or myself
to relay. One thing that
has been holding us up is the Association of Towns has been backed up. In
short, yes, we can schedule something with Ms. Ricci. Mr. Cross states the NRI has the mapping
already.
That can be the basis to start with. I grew up in this town and think the whole
town is a CEA. For
example, the wildlife corridors; what kind of restrictions can we
do. What can we put on these? What
about the 500 acre subdivisions?
It contains streams, wetlands, etc.
They can put houses, driveways on
the entire lot with the code the way it is now, with the exception
of the wetlands. He asks Ms. Bolotow
where to begin in identifying CEAs. Ms. Bolotow states again, part of this goes
to the training and if we
get that. What we are
trying to prioritize, otherwise, we need to decide what our priorities are and
identify on the incredible useful maps we do have. Ms. Resnick states that we are in a town that
we have
a lot of preserved lands.
There are some large tracks and look at ecosystems in that track with
wildlife
corridors; requiring clustered developments is a solution. Mr. Cross states that most developers want
mcmansions. Most is DEP and
Kingston, remember DEP lands once the reservoir puts in a filtration unit,
they will no longer be preserved.
Ms. Kerman asks if that is happening.
Mr. Cross states it is inevitable.
Ms. Resnick states that they don’t want to; it’s very
expensive. Mr. LaValle states that
thirty years ago,
there was an agreement and it was decided to not have a filtration
system; but it’s a constant worry with
the water in the reservoir.
It’s a serious concern. Mr. Cross
asks Ms. Haeckel if we create CEAs do private
property owners have a legal recourse. Ms. Haeckel replies that it’s really like
adding a new piece of
information to the review.
She’s not aware of a situation where a town was sued for a CEA
situation. To
clarify, even if you’re not chosen the town can still go through
this process under SEQRA, DEC and the
environmental notice bulletin.
It’s really about the town’s land use authority. Open space requirements
could be a general tool.
Whether or not they are clustered.
More generous open space preservation and
how it is determined through conservation analysis. Ms. Kerman states she doesn’t want to blind
side
her but there was an article in New Paltz and what can we… Ms.
Haeckel states that the Planning Board
attorney was asked to weigh in and he expressed concern that this
would cause time, review and
expenses of the applicants, so the areas were reduced from six to
four. Being a new policy, the people
weren’t aware of. To have
specific regulation and guidelines to follow.
These were the main concerns.
Mr. Cross states the open spaces is a good idea. Right now you can develop a five acre lot a
certain
percentage; right now with the current town code, you can develop
a lot of that five acres. Mr. Cross
continues that we do have a few special zones: the scenic overlay district with special
requirements.
Homeowners have to abide by it.
It is difficult to enforce these types of things. I’m not sure how we
would enforce. In the
aquifer proposed law we received, there is nothing specific with
protection. The
argument that the well head protection and percolation with the well
will keep bad things out of the
water. The WEC buildout
analysis asks this question: how many
more can we put in and have an
environment left. CEAs and
conservations are together. Mr. Cross
asks Ms. Bolotow if we don’t get
approved, can your group come up with areas and present to the
us. Ms. Bolotow states she doesn’t
want to speak for everyone but yes and no. We would be happy to give
recommendations. This speaks
to so many things including housing, open space, etc. If we don’t get picked, we could reach out
to Ms.
Haeckel and prioritize. She
asks Ms. Haeckel if CEAs have to be contiguous.
Ms. Haeckel states that it
can be either. Some towns
have separate aquifers but all have CEA ridgelines. You can designate a
specific area for certain qualities. Ms. Bolotow states she is willing to do the
training with members of
the WEC, PB and Maria Elena Conte.
She thinks it is more effective to have a few boards involved to have
a broader coalition than just the WEC. Mr. Cross states that in
the wetlands delineation, federal or town,
the state code has a one hundred foot buffer (same as town
requirement) and if it says another buffer is
created by something next to it and it would have legal
preference. The same with the stream
corridor
buffers. If we put bigger
buffers, it would be helpful. To answer
Ms. Bolotow, the Planning Board is
putting most of the work on you and hoping you would be the lead
agency for this. Ms. Resnick asks if
the WEC is allowed to be lead agency. Mr. Cross replies that it can be
challenged. If we ask them and
they aren’t challenged.
Ms. Haeckel states that she is not sure about this questions. She talked with a
planner and attorney. There
is some precedent, the Planning Board is considered a SEQRA qualifying
agency. The WEC may not be
able to be lead agency. Town Board or
Planning Board can be lead
agencies. They can share a
town’s CEA implementation. Mr. Cross
asks the Planning Board if they have
any questions for Ms. Haeckel.
Planning Board has no comment.
Mr. Cross states that the Planning
Board is quite busy with cases and Ms. Haeckel may be right. Ms. Blelock asks Mr. Cross who is the NRI.
she states that there is no such thing as the NRI. Ingrid did a lot of the work. Mr. Lipkind states that with
the library SEQRA case, if his memory serves, the WEC received
notice requirement; maybe they are
qualified. Mr. Cross states
that the next issue is we still have to go through the process. All of it including
public meetings and input. Maybe the public doesn’t want it; but we have
to go through those steps.
Identify and present to the public and the Town Board. If you all agree, I would like to continue
with
identifying CEAs in our town; such as: stream and wildlife corridors, etc. We ask ourselves in every case
‘Does this comply with the comprehensive plan?’ and that is the
question. Ms. Bolotow states that there
has to be something to be said, WEC can reach out to the
public. She thinks there is a less
contentious
relationship between the pubic and the WEC just on the face that
the WEC doesn’t deal with people as
the PB does. She continues
about the good will of the public. They
are happy to do as much as they can
to support the Planning Board.
Mr. Cross states that we continue on applying for this training and if
we
get it, we will have good
guidance in going forward. If there is
town interest, we can see how it plays
out. Ms. Haeckel states
that the town of Red Hook may be a good place to look at. They are increasing
open space density in agricultural areas and more dense areas in
the hamlet. Prioritize conservation and
where more development should take place. To echo Ms. Bolotow, having a committee of
different
groups to broaden thoughts would absolutely be beneficial. In New Paltz, the public support was
overwhelmingly positive. Ms.
Resnick states that conservation is in the comprehensive plan, we just have
to school the new people.
MS. Kerman states that people think if they own the land, it’s
theirs. Ms.
Resnick states that there are people here that don’t have
ownership and people donate their land;
more so in the town of Woodstock than other places. Conservation was a priority. Ms. Bolotow states
the WEC has been asked to get recommendations identifying critical
environment areas, mitigating
climate change or areas of vulnerability. Perspective, the Town Board was very positive
for our
presentation. To make us
stronger for the upcoming storms and rains, we could probably get a lot of
public support. Mr. Cross
states the comprehensive plan says CEAs is to do exactly that. Mr. Cross thanks
Ms. Haeckel, Ms. Bolotow and everyone for all their efforts and
says we will continue. Mr. Cross asks
the
Planning Board if they have any questions. Mr. LaValle states he has a comment. In
regards to what
committee, the statutorily created board such as the the Town
Board, Planning Board and Zoning Board
of Appeals are it. It would
have to be done by the Town Board. Mr.
Cross thanked everyone again for all
their participation. Ms.
Gray thanks Ms. Blelock for all her hard work on the application and submitting
it for everyone. Ms.
Bolotow asks what is the next step. Ms.
Gray states that once we find out if we were
accepted, we can begin to move forward. Let me know when we find out and I’ll get you
all back on the
agenda to move forward.
Thank you.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
+ Approve draft resolution
for Woodstock Land Conservancy SPR #21-0382
Make motion to approve draft resolution
Make
motion: Stuart Lipkind 2nd: John LaValle & Judith Kerman Aye: All
Ms. Gray tells Ms. Resnick she will be in touch next
week. Ms. Resnick thanks her and the
Board.
+ Make a motion to approve
credits for Judy and James attending NYPF webinar ‘The What, Why & How of
Site Plan Review’
on April 15
Make motion to approve credits for Judith and James: Peter Cross 2nd: Conor Wenk Aye: All
+ Update on Site Visit
for Carne & Boiko SUP# 21-0606
Site Reps: Peter Cross and
Judy Kerman
Mr.
Cross did the site visit and states all looks fine on 142 Grogkill. Ms. Gray states she will bring them back for
2nd sketch plan review.
+ Update on Site Visit for
Brookside Getaway LLC SPR# 21-0366A: New plans coming in the next few weeks
Ms.
Gray states that Ms. Ladd has changed a few things in her plans and is having
them drawn up. This is on hold for
now. Thank you to Mr. Conrad and Mr.
Cross for doing the initial site visit.
Ms.
Gray states that the next meeting will be public hearing for Tsoumpas,
Bearsville Center and Witmer-Pack cases.
Right now, the governor’s open meeting law extension is May 16. So, she will let them know as soon as she
does.
ADJOURNMENT
Time: 8:04 pm
Make motion to end meeting:
Peter Cross 2nd: John LaValle
Aye: All
Adopted Resolution:
RESOLUTION
TOWN OF WOODSTOCK PLANNING BOARD
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
WOODSTOCK
LAND CONSERVANCY, INC.
SPR#
21-0382
At a
regularly scheduled meeting of the Town of Woodstock Planning Board on April
29, 2021, there were:
Present: Peter Cross, Stuart Lipkind, John LaValle,
Judith Kerman, Conor Wenk and James
Conrad
Absent:
Brian Normoyle
A
motion was made by: Stuart Lipkind, and
Seconded by: John LaValle & Judith
Kerman
The
Vote was:
Peter
Cross Aye Stuart
Lipkind Aye
John
LaValle Aye
Judith
Kerman Aye
Conor
Wenk Aye
Brian
Normoyle Absent
James
Conrad Aye
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of
Woodstock, located in Ulster County, New York, is considering an application
(the proposed action) from Woodstock Land Conservancy, Inc. (the applicant) to
expand the parking lot at Sloan Gorge Nature Preserve in the R3 Zoning
District, located at 487 Stoll Road and West Saugerties-Woodstock Road in
Woodstock; and
WHEREAS, the parcel (owned by applicant) is
designated on the Tax Map of the Town of Woodstock as Map Section 16, Block 3,
Lot 31.100; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action requires Site Plan
Review (SPR) and Approval in accordance with Section 260-74 of the Town of
Woodstock Zoning Law; and
WHEREAS, the following plans and materials were
reviewed by the Planning Board:
1) Application for Site Plan Review,
received March 25, 2021 including Town of Woodstock Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), and referral from Zoning
Enforcement Officer (ZEO) dated March
25, 2021;
2) Preliminary site plans prepared by
applicant and dated March 15, 2021, received March 25, 2021; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with SEQR 6 NYCRR Part
617.5(c)7, and by reference to TWEQR, the proposed action is considered a Type
II Action for which further SEQR review and determination of significance are
unnecessary; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action does not require
referral to the Town of Woodstock Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) for variances
from the area and bulk requirements of the Town of Woodstock Zoning Law;
and
WHEREAS, the application was not referred to
the Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) pursuant to Section 239(l) and (m) of
General Municipal Law since proposed site plan modifications meet referral
exemption criteria as agreed to under the Memo of Agreement signed between the
Woodstock Planning Board and UCPB on January 15, 2009; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Woodstock Town Code
Section 65, Environmental Quality Review,
the submitted SEQR/TWEQR Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) was offered to the
Woodstock Environmental Commission (WEC) for their review and comments. The WEC
had no concerns with respect to the proposed action; and
WHEREAS, on
April 15, 2021, the Planning Board (PB) held a sketch plan review with
applicant and determined the application substantially complete. A Public
Hearing was waived by the Planning Board under Town Code, Chapter 260-75, Site Plan Review and Approval Part C(1), deeming
this project to be limited in scope, with
compatible land use, thus requiring no further review under this article;
and
WHEREAS, the Town of Woodstock Town Code,
Section 260, Zoning, Article VII, Site Plan Review and Approval, was
considered in the review of this application, and the Planning Board has also
taken into account its knowledge of the site and surrounding neighborhood;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That in accordance with SEQR Part
617.5(c)7, proposal is considered a Type II Action not having a significant
impact on the environment and is therefore not subject to additional
environmental quality review; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That the Planning Board hereby grants approval of the Woodstock Land
Conservancy, Inc. Site Plan Review (SPR) #21-0382, subject to the following conditions:
1.
Submit four (4) complete sets of final site plans, each set with signed
applicant’s compliance statement;
2. Curb
Cut Approval from Town of Woodstock Building & Highway Departments
3.
Submit Final Development Fee in the amount of $75.00 in accordance with the
Town Woodstock Development Fee Schedule Section 1.22, based on cost of
renovations; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That all abovementioned conditions
shall be met prior to the endorsement of the final Site Plan by a Planning
Board Member; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That Site Plan Approval expires if a
Building Permit is not requested within twelve (12) months of the date of this
final approval, or if a Certificate of Occupancy or Compliance is not obtained
within twenty-four (24) months from the date of this approval. An extension of
the Site Plan Approval may be granted by a majority vote of the Planning Board;
Be it Further
RESOLVED, That any alteration or deviation from
the signed final plans shall require the prior review and approval by the
Planning Board; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That any proposed amendments to the
approved site plan shall comply with the requirements of the Town of Woodstock
Zoning Law; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That this Resolution authorizes only
the activities approved herein and as delineated on the signed and filed final
plans; Be it Finally
RESOLVED, That failure to comply with any of the
conditions set forth herein shall be deemed a violation of this Approval, which
may cause the revocation of said Approval, or the revocation by the Building
Inspector, of any issued Building Permit or Certificate of Occupancy or
Compliance pertaining thereto.
