Minutes
|
Minutes
|
|
MEETING MINUTES May 6, 2021 REGULAR 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 Brian Normoyle James Conrad Members Absent:
Additional Present: Melissa Gray, Administrative Assistant
Agenda Invitees: Michael Tsoumpas George Politidis Barry Medenbach Heather Gabriel Cyndy Borzumato-Cobb Lizzie Vann Kim Lockrow John Cappello Maggi Witmer-Pack George Cross Mitchell Owen Donald Leiching Nancy Leiching Anthony Sicari, Jr. Kathy Speckenbach Dennett Francis “Butch” Hoffman
Public Invited: Marcia Zwilling Maxanne Resnick Peter Schwartz Natalie Cyr Geanine Kane Martha Frankel Ami Palombo Barbara O’Brien Maureen Duffy Jenny Maddock Laurie Ylivsaker Kathy Anderson Sam Taylor Eliza Kunkel Jim Polson Shauna Kanter Maura Brady Adam Pizer Stephanie Sorbellini Hollie Burton Erin Moran Reggie Earls John Elfrank-Dana
Updates to AGENDA: Mr. Peter Cross asked Ms. Melissa Gray if there were any updates to the agenda and she replied no.
MINUTES: April 29 Make motion to approve minutes: Peter Cross 2nd: Judith Kerman Aye: All
COMMUNICATIONS & ANNOUNCEMENTS: + Email from M. Zwilling re: SPR# 21-0141E Bearsville Center rec’d Apr. 30 + Email from L. Bloch re: SPR# 21-0141E Bearsville Center rec’d Apr. 30 + Emails from C. Hensley, D. Donaldson, R. O’Brien, S. Moores, M. Stewart, F. Hollander, M. Frankel, S. Heller and K. Sinclair & M. DuBois re: SPR# 21-0141E Bearsville Center rec’d May 3 + Revised Narrative from Bearsville Center SPR# 21-0141E rec’d May 3 + Emails from R. Kaminsky, H. George-Warren, J. Tisch and J. Weider re: SPR# 21-0141E Bearsville Center rec’d May 4 + Emails from G. Kane, D. Schneider, R. Ciarlante, T. & N. Geaney, A. Benson-Sayers, B. O’Brien, R. Goldberg & C. Righetti, K. Anderson, D. & S. LaSala, E. Landy and I. & H. Kimmel re: SPR# 21-0141E Bearsville Center rec’d May 5 + Email from N. Cyr re: SPR# 21-0141E Bearsville Center rec’d May 5 + Emails received from B. Cahill and AJ Lindeman re: SPR# 21-0141E Bearsville Center rec’d May 6 + Email from S. Sorbellini re: MICHAEL TSOUMPAS PB#19-1217 & WWP# 19-042 rec’d May 6
Mr. Cross states that most of the letters were in support for Bearsville Center and this was the most he’s ever seen in his history on the Planning Board. We will address these and the Natalie Cyr email, along with the Tsoumpas email during the public hearings.
Mr. Cross states we have three public hearings and 2 site plan review, Butch to speak and then drafts to approve.
NEW BUSINESS: SCHEDULED BUSINESS: PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:05 PM MICHAEL TSOUMPAS PB#19-1217 & WWP# 19-042: Public Hearing for a Minor Subdivision application to create 3 lots from 60 acres and WWP required to cross wetlands buffer located in the R3 Zoning District at Chestnut Hill Road in Woodstock, SBL# 27.19-2-19.120 Rep: Barry Medenbach, PE Present: Michael Tsoumpas, George Politidis, Barry Medenbach, Heather Gabriel
Motion to open Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2nd: Judith Kerman Aye: All Notes: Mr. Cross introduced case. He states he wants to thank the applicant for saving the wetlands and wildlife corridors; going from five to three lots and we are very thankful. He asks Mr. Medenbach to present the final plan. Mr. Medenbach states we added the buffer zone to the separate area, moving the mitigation area as requested. There will be no disturbance in the wetland area and this will be coming in off the woodlands road. The driveway for two lots and up on the hill, to mitigate we created a larger adjacent area to protect. Ms. Gabriel begins to show her screen to display the three lot subdivision map. Ms. Kerman brings up her screen first. Mr. Medenbach states he believes it’s page two. There is an echo between Mr. Medenbach and Ms. Gabriel’s computers. Ms. Gabriel mutes her computer to eliminate the echo. Mr. Medenbach states he will present the project for the benefit of the public. Ms. Kerman showed the original 5 lot map and Ms. Gabriel pulled up the correct map and shared screen for the three lot subdivision. Mr. Medenbach continues explains that lot one will be +/- 4.5 acres coming in from Chestnut Hill Road with the house on the frontage of the road. Lot two will be +/- 6.5 acres adjacent to the wetlands on the driveway. Lot three will be +/- 48.5 acres with the turn on top of the hill driveway. The disturbance was mitigated by creating a space between lot one and lot two to be untouched. Last meeting we had the mitigation and the Planning Board suggested there to be no disturbance there. We have approvals from highway and water and sewer plans. Mr. Cross asks about the driveway / road agreement. Ms. Gray states we have it and Mr. John Lyons has it to look over and get back to us. Mr. Tsoumpas paid a legal fee escrow for him to look it over. It is a condition in the draft resolution. Mr. Cross asks the Planning Board if they have any questions for Mr. Medenbach. No comment from the Planning Board.
Public Comment: Mr. Cross asked if there was any public comment. Ms. Gray states she believes that Ms. Stephanie Sorbellini has a few questions and is online. Mr. Cross states she can ask Mr. Medenbach her questions. Ms. Sorbellini asks if the land will be cleared, will there be hunting access, a road in the future and plans to further subdivide. Mr. Medenbach states that this will be the final subdivision of three lots; no more will happen. You aren’t allowed to hunt within 500 feet of a dwelling. Mr. Greg Sorbellini states and shows on the map where they live on Whitney Drive in correlation to the applicant’s property. Discussion about most of the property is being left alone. Ms. Sorbellini states that is what they were worried about. Mr. Medenbach adds that there will be no construction in the wooded area. Mr. Cross asks if anyone has any other questions. Mr. Medenbach asks if the resolution included the wetlands and watercourse mitigation. Ms. Gray replies yes. Thank yous by all.
Motion to Close Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2nd: John LaValle Aye: All
Make motion to approve application pending draft resolution Make motion: Stuart Lipkind 2nd: Conor Wenk Peter Cross Aye Stuart Lipkind Aye John LaValle Aye Judith Kerman Aye Conor Wenk Aye Brian Normoyle Nay James Conrad Aye
7:15 PM BEARSVILLE CENTER SPR# 21-0141E: Public Hearing for a Site Plan Review application for site plan modifications to existing site plan to expand parking lot and make improvements including entrance and lighting in the NC Zoning District located at 277–297 Tinker Street in Woodstock SBL# 26.4-3-4.100 Rep: Barry Medenbach, PE Present: Lizzie Vann, Kim Lockrow, Barry Medenbach and Heather Gabriel
Motion to open Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2nd: John LaValle & Judith Kerman Aye: All
Notes: Mr. Cross read the case summary above. The Planning Board did the site visit and went through the checklist. Our main concerns are parking and lighting, and everything is on order. This is the most letters he’s ever seen in favor of a project. Ms. Gray replied there were about thirty. Mr. Cross read a few select letters that came to the Planning Board. A few that he read were from Brian Cahill, David Schneider and Barbara O’Brien, among others. He continues to say, as Ms. Gray said there were thirty of these. We appreciate all the correspondence. He states that he made a mistake and want to clear that up; The Bearsville Center was not under violation. Let me be extremely clear, any issues with right of way, deed restrictions or easements are civil issues. The Planning Board is not a court. These need to be taken up with a court. There are violations on this site. Violations come from the building department. If you have any issues, take it up with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Gray thanked Mr. Cross. Ms. Kerman states that she has some questions at some point. Mr. Medenbach states we will go over the site plan and give an overview for the public benefit. They are not really building any new structures, except one storage shed. We are reorganizing the traffic to meet with the department of traffic main entrance. There will be paved parking, no more muddy areas through the lot. Some of it will be turned into lawn areas with a small chapel. There will be an additional space for overflow parking. Ms. Vann states that they have just found out about green parking spaces this week. The idea is you won’t see the parking spaces. It will be green and grass. They are still learning about this. Hoping it won’t detract from the look of the place. Mr. Medenbach states that the goal is to have all the parking there. There will be new lighting that is LED and directed at the ground. This is a very specific plan to only illuminate the parking lots and walkways, etc. There will be additional landscaping. That is the summary. Mr. Cross asks if the Planning Board has any questions. Ms. Kerman asks about handicapped parking. Mr. Medenbach states we show all of those on the plans. Ms. Kerman asks about building access. Mr. Medenbach states that they plan to do that and expect it to be a condition. Ms. Vann plans to do that. Ms. Kerman states that should be part of the plans to submit. Ms. Vann states it will be added. Mr. Medenbach states it will be on the building plans. Ms. Kerman asks about the Little Bear. Ms. Vann states yes, there is a handicap bathroom and there are no steps to get in and out of the building. Ms. Kerman asks if the walkways will be paved. Ms. Vann states yes, she thinks but she will check. Ms. Kerman states wonderful stuff. Ms. Vann says thank you. Mr. Lipkind states that he wants to note the letter from Natalie Cyr not in favor in respect wants to acknowledge it and put it in to the record and being noted. Mr. Cross states he thinks he addressed the civil issue or go to the ZBA. Mr. Lipkind thanks Mr. Cross. Mr. Cross asks if anyone has any comments. Mr. Normoyle states he does not. Mr. Cross asks if there are any comments from the public. A man starts talking and Ms. Gray asks him to introduce himself. The man begins by stating that he is John Alfrendo and he is delighted to support and shares in the sentiments of the letters. Ms. Sam Taylor introduces herself and states she endorses Ms. Vann and wants to thank Lizzie for all she has done and wants to echo the vote of appreciation. Mr. Adam Pizer of 33 Wittenberg Road introduces himself and I live close enough that I can really hear everything there. He had a great conversation with Ms. Vann today. We have a tenant that is about seventy-five yards away and we have had issues with the noise prior and had to call the police. He took issue with Mr. Cross’s statement that don’t move next to an airport and take issue with the airplanes’ noise, which was stated earlier in meeting. Mr. Pizer continues that he has no opposition but wants to be heard and is concerned with the music. He states a loud outdoor venue is not what they planned. Please have some care that the noise law was visited and we could have potential issues. Mr. Cross states that Mr. Pizer has a good point and the town of Woodstock has a noise ordinance. Mr. Pizer states that when he has called the police prior and they didn’t want to get involved. Ms. Vann states that they are aware and are investigating decibel meters. They have bought them and they want to comply. They are moving the stage to not face the neighbors. Right now it is currently on top of the bunker there. It is only acoustic, and they believe by doing all this, it will avoid these problems in the future. We have put together the contiguous neighbors and they now have a group to tell us concerns and we will listen to you and let you know when construction is going on, etc. The person in charge of this neighbor group is Ami Palombo. She asks Ms. Palombo to speak about this. Ms. Palombo states she resides at 7 Wittenberg Road and she shares Mr. Pizer’s concern. She can see it from her kitchen. I’m that individual and will have open dialog with Ms. Vann about noise, lighting disturbances, etc. The last two days, Ms. Vann and Ms. Palombo have had enchanting conversations and I’m hoping we can work together as neighbors and continue to enjoy our land. We have had these conversations with Ms. Vann and I want communication to remain open. I want to be able to go in my pool and not hear it. Ms. Gray states that Mr. Pizer should connect with Ms. Palombo to be in this neighborhood group.
Maura Brady states she is speaking for her and Jeannine Perry on Wittenberg Road and state they appreciate all the efforts but the concern is the consistency of the music throughout the season. We love music but consistency seems to be the problem. Respectfully, this is our opinion. Mr. Cross asks Ms. Gray if she has any more comments that were received. Ms. Gray states no but she believes there are more people from the public here that may want to speak. Ms. Shauna Kanter of 13 Wittenberg Road speaks that she is very concerned about the amplified music. She asks for them to do soundproofing and doesn’t want the outside music to be a problem but she is in total support and adds that she is sure other neighbors feel the same way. Mr. Cross asks if there is anyone else. Mr. Cross begins to make a motion to close the public hearing but Mr. Lipkind interjects and asks the last speaker to define amplified music. There is a conversation of the definition of amplified music and amps and microphones. Ms. Kanter responds and conversation starts between all in the public. Mr. Cross states that when the neighbors are opening dialog, we could be here for hours and we have a lot of cases to get through.
Motion to Close Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2nd: Brian Normoyle Aye: All
Mr. Wenk states that there is a noise ordinance under the town code. You can run a chainsaw on your property; it’s within your rights. I’m not comparing but I’m very confident in Ms. Vann’s communication and willingness to…. Ms. Brady asks about consistency of the music. Ms. Vann states it will stop in September. Mr. Lipkind states that there are no restrictions on the type of music and this isn’t within Planning Board purview. Mr. Wenk states that this is not enough information to concern decibel rates and Ms. Vann is going above and beyond to scrutinize this. An example is opera singers. Looking at the decibel rate, we shouldn’t litigate at her establishment. Mr. Cross states good point, Mr. Wenk. Live music outside is not new to Woodstock. Mr. Wenk states that the effort the applicant is going through is not overly cumbersome to the neighbors. This is an ongoing thing. Enough with the information. Ms. Gray states like everyone has said, there is a noise ordinance in place under the town within the zoning and enforcement officers. Mr. Normoyle concurs with Ms. Gray. Mr. Pizer states this is not a residential. Mr. Cross states there are allowed uses. Mr. Pizer states with a special use permit. Mr. Wenk explains that music has been in the town with small amplifiers and it is a peaceful experience. I don’t want to get hung up on this but arbitrarily heavy metal versus low volume. Let’s keep the dialog going between you. The public hearing is closed. We are not a civil or legal body. Ms. Gray asks Mr. Lipkind to make a motion to approve the application. Ms. Kanter asks if there is a level of acceptable noise. Mr. Wenk states there is a noise ordinance. The public information is in the zoning code. Ms. Kanter asks who has that. Mr. Wenk states you can go online to view it. Ms. Vann states the law is vague. Mr. Cross states you can refer to the building department. Trucks and motorcycles go over the decibel level. Ms. Kerman states we are mixing oil and water right now. Mr. Wenk states go to the building department and appeal if you want. We can’t make judicious opinions. This is out of Planning Board purview. Mr. Cross states we deal with parking, lighting, etc. Mr. Pizer states this is muddled. Mr. Lipkind tell Mr. Pizer to get a copy of the town code from the town clerk and look at the noise ordinance under the town code. We don’t pass the laws. Mr. Butch Hoffman, ZEO / CEO states that the law is § 260-62 (i) 2. Mr. Cross thanks Mr. Hoffman. Ms. Gray asks Mr. Lipkind to approve the application please.
Make motion to approve application pending draft resolution Make motion: Stuart Lipkind 2nd: Judith Kerman Aye: All
7:30 PM MARGIT DAHL WITMER-PACK SUP# 21-0588: Public Hearing for a Special Use Permit application to construct family home to replace recently demolished house located in the R5 and Scenic Overlay Zoning Districts at 301 Hutchin Hill Road in Shady, SBL# 15.-3-23.100 Reps: Mitchell Owen and George Cross Present: George Cross and Mitchell Owen
Motion to open Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2nd: Judith Kerman Aye: All
Notes: Mr. Cross reads the case summary and states he did the site visit and everything is in order.
Comments from Public: Mr. Peter Schwartz of 296 Hutchin Hill Road has one question and he probably could’ve asked Ms. Gray this. Is the special use permit needed because this is in the scenic overlay. Ms. Gray nods and Mr. Cross state yes, one hundred percent. Mr. Schwartz asks for cut and fill concerns. Mr. Cross states that we look at glazing, reflections, disturbing the canopy, outdoor lighting, roofing and to make sure it complies within and there is no clearing to expose the building. Mr. Schwartz thanks Mr. Cross.
Motion to Close Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2nd: Conor Wenk Aye: All
Make motion to approve application pending draft resolution Make motion: Stuart Lipkind 2nd: Brian Normoyle & Judith Kerman Aye: All
SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS: LINEMEN INSTITUTE OF THE NORTHEAST INC SPR# 21-0383: Sketch Plan Review of a Site Plan Review application for modification to site plan to create an outdoor training facility in the R8 Zoning District located at 1700 Sawkill Road in Woodstock SBL# 38.2-1-17 Rep: Donald Leiching Present: Donald Leiching Notes: Mr. Cross read the case summary and pointed out to the Planning Board that this is the old Zena School. Mr. Cross asks if the applicant is here. Ms. Gray says hi to Mr. Leiching and asks him to talk about the plan. Mr. Leiching states that this is a trade school of eighteen and up adults and we get them careers in the power world. We have a school currently in Saugerties that we began in 2018. It consists of an outdoor training facility that would contain poles. Ms. Kerman asks if the Planning Board would like to see the map. Mr. Cross states that it is a twenty-something acre property bordered by Sawkill Creek and Sawkill Road on both sides. Mr. Normoyle asks Mr. Leiching to explain poles. Mr. Leiching states yes, utility poles. The students are learning how to climb, then remove and replace the poles, etc. They get a CDL through our school. We hold three classes a year with 45 students per class. This happens four months out of the year. Mr. Normoyle asks if there is heavy equipment on site. Mr. Leiching replies no, not with heavy equipment. Mr. Cross asks if this is a permitted activity. Mr. LaValle replied yes and asked but is their asbestos in the building. Mr. Leiching states they are waiting on that information. Mr. Cross asks if the Board has any more questions. Mr. Lipkind asks for a broader description. Mr. Leiching states we dig and set the poles by hand. They are up for five weeks and then they put more up, back in the same hole. Mr. Lipkind asked what kind of equipment is used. Mr. Leiching states shovels. In the portion of the field, there will be a small school for the 45 students per class. Mr. Cross states that the parking is adequate; it should be, but we will check that. Mr. Lipkind asks if the school is profit or not for profit. Mr. Leiching replies for profit. We are licensed by the Department of Education of New York. Ms. Kerman asks him to send that certificate. She asks about the occupancy of the building. He states they will only be using 10,000 of the 50,000 square feet for the school. Right now he is concerned with the cafeteria and first floor. Mr. Lipkind asks if they are tax exempt. Mr. Leiching replies no, not tax exempt; you will get your tax money. Mr. Lipkind thanked him. Ms. Gray suggests a site visit with Mr. Leiching to explain and get a visual. Mr. Cross replies he has been there a ton of times. Mr. Lipkind and Mr. Conrad volunteer to be the site representatives. Ms. Gray states she will get them the site plan to take. Mr. Lipkind asks where in Saugerties is the current school. Mr. Leiching replies behind Big Lots. Mr. Cross thanks Mr. Leiching and states that he wants to thank linemen everywhere. Keep teaching these guys. He had a tree down in his driveway recently. Mr. Leiching directs Planning Board to check out their website online: LinemenInstitute.com or on FaceBook. The Board thanks him and he thanks the Board. Ms. Gray states she will be in touch with Mr. Leiching.
ELISA & JOHN NAVARRO SUP# 21-0607: Sketch Plan Review of a Special Use Permit Application to install a ground mounted solar array located in the R5 Zoning District located at 20 Handy’s Walk in Bearsville, SBL# 16.-2-25 Rep: Anthony Sicari, Jr. of NYS Solar Farm, Inc. Present: John Navarro and Tate Lacey from NYS Solar Farm, Inc. Notes: Mr. Cross reads the case summary and states it is in Mount Guardian. Ms. Kerman adds in the scenic overlay. Mr. Cross asks where the array is going to be located on the property. Mr. Lacey replies in the backyard. Ms. Kerman brings the map up on the screen and find the location of the proposed solar array for the Planning Board to see. Mr. Cross asks if there will be any clearing done. Mr. Lacey replies that there will be a little bit; but most of it is open space. Mr. Cross states that it is town policy to fast track solar panels. Are they reflective, he asks. Mr. Lacey states they are generally not reflective. This is ground mounted. Mr. Cross states we typically don’t do further review. Ms. Kerman agrees. Mr. LaValle agrees. Mr. Lipkind asks if we check with the neighbors. Mr. Cross states we fast track these because going solar is a good thing for the environment. This is the bet thing we can do.
Mr. Lipkind makes a motion to waive further review and approve application pending a draft resolution. 2nd: Brian Normoyle Aye: All
DISCUSSION: Butch Hoffman, ZEO/CEO re: Short Term Rentals, Zoning Regulations and Moving Forward Notes: Mr. Cross asks Mr. Hoffman to please tell the Board what the best path for us to take in moving forward with the short term rental cases. If the Board has any questions for Mr. Hoffman, please ask them. Mr. LaValle asks if the special use permit runs with the property and how are they terminated. Mr. Hoffman replied that if they have three violations, it would require revocation. If it changes property owner, they have thirty days to transfer. If it doesn’t happen within the thirty days, it is forfeited. Mr. Lipkind asks if the special use permit runs with the land. Mr. Hoffman states to his understanding, the special use permit goes with the property, like everything else. The operating permit doesn’t have to be granted and the SUP can be revoked for violations. Multiple parties, three party violations would constitute violations. It would have to be a violation / police report. It can’t be a neighbor complaining. Mr. Lipkind asks about grounds to pull the operating permit. Mr. Hoffman states there would need to ask the town attorney. Mr. Lipkind states that the language states there is the right to reserve the revoke. MS. Kerman states that the whole concept of a special use permit is suitable for this kind of use. Mr. Cross asks if we can issue only to the current and questions a lawyer’s involvement. Mr. Hoffman states that is lawyers, not me. Mr. Lipkind and Mr. Hoffman discuss that it is the Planning Board’s responsibility to consider the affect of the neighborhood in regards to issuing a special use permit. Mr. Hoffman states that this is the bed and breakfast law and it was elaborated. Ms. Gray states there are roughly fifty applications left in the PB office. We have approved over a hundred. Ms. Kerman states that she is doing the mapping and the density is showing that a vast majority are not owner occupied and within town. Ms. Gray states they are going to be non-owner occupied because we only see a small amount of owner occupied because of how the law is written. Only when owner occupied is 3 bedrooms or more, we see owner occupied. We see all the non-owner occupied short term rental cases. Once she gets through the stack of applications, she will compile all the information for Ms. Kerman to map the complete short term rentals. She wants to get through these last applications before she can find time to compile that information from our office and the building department. Mr. Cross asked about the public complaints that the Planning Board are receiving. Mr. Hoffman states that a neighbor’s complaint isn’t necessarily a violation. It is a violation if advertising differs from what they have on file with us. Mr. Lipkind mentions Neher Street and the location of several short term rentals. Mr. Hoffman states that the short term rental cases were based on first come first serve. Mr. Wenk states the law should be revisited, cap being raised or lowered. Maybe giving certain applicants priority to other districts; might be worth lobbying. Mr. Hoffman states it is up to the Town Board to change and they have the ability to make the laws more stringent. Mr. Conrad stated we can’t legally pick and choose what neighborhoods. Mr. Hoffman states the Town of Hurley has recently made the Route 28 corridor is the only place that short term rentals are permitted. Mr. LaValle asks through zoning. Mr. Hoffman replies yes, their hands must be full with the regulation for this. Ms. Gray states that we changed the public hearing process with the executive order but the neighbors are still notified and able to voice their concerns and have them remain on file. I take these complaints and forward them to Mr. Hoffman and attach them to the special use permit. It is within the regulation process to deem whether the communication is deemed a violation or not. Mr. Cross states to Mr. Hoffman we have another conundrum because we opened the door for the Planning Board to vote for these and what happens if we can’t have a resolution approved. Mr. Hoffman suggests discussing these concerns with a lawyer. If it is within the scope of the law, you have to approve the resolution. We apply the laws and this is what it says. Mr. Cross asks what if we get a bunch of letters and don’t want to approve the resolution. Mr. Hoffman states honestly, he doesn’t know. With the neighbors, I ask what is the reason. Mr. Conrad states it is not in the language. Ms. Kerman shows the map to Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Cross states there is nothing within the code that discusses location. Mr. Lipkind states that law § 260-62, the special use permit requires the planning board to take into consideration the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Kerman states we do have the authority. Mr. Hoffman states that he doesn’t disagree with that. Certain things you want to check with a lawyer. Ms. Gray states her concern is the legal issue of approving the ones prior and now stipulating these remaining applications. Mr. Cross states he is fine with bunching them together for approval and signing off. Mr. Wenk agrees. Mr. Conrad states that people complaining can’t cause an issue. The public hearing is the issue. Mr. LaValle states it is the structure of the law; not the administrative ability of Ms. Gray or the building department. This should expire within the transfer of property. Ms. Gray asks the Planning Board and Mr. Hoffman if this is legal to write this condition after we approved so many prior without it. Mr. Hoffman states there is a cap and it has been met. Due to no notification and miscommunication, the cap was changed by the Town Board and the building department wasn’t notified. And there was a stack of applications that were turned away, then the Town Board decided to honor them. It is his understanding, that the non-owner applications that are revoked will be forfeited or withdrawn and offered to owner occupied over a period of time. Mr. Lipkind states the law § 260-62 (H) and the changes in the special use permit wording should be based on this law. Ms. Gray states as long as Mr. Hoffman and the Planning Board all agree and we can move forward, she will add wording to the special use permit. Mr. Lipkind states he will look it over. Ms. Gray thanked him for his input, as always. Mr. Hoffman states that he believes the committee plans to weed out all non-owner occupied. Mr. Cross thanks Mr. Hoffman. Mr. Lipkind thanks Mr. Hoffman for clarifying the noise ordinance in the Bearsville Center case. Mr. Hoffman says you’re welcome. Ms. Gray thanks Mr. Hoffman and the Planning Board.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: + Make a motion to approve draft resolutions for Michael Tsoumpas PB#19-1217 & WWP# 19-042, Bearsville Center SPR# 21-0141E and Margit Dahl Witmer-Pack SUP# 21-0588
Make motion to approve draft resolutions Make motion: Stuart Lipkind 2nd: Judith Kerman Aye: All
+ Make a motion to approve credits for Judith Kerman attending Hudson River Estuary Program’s Conservation and Land Use 101 Webinar on May 5. Make motion to approve credits for Judith Kerman Make motion: Peter Cross 2nd: Stuart Lipkind Aye: All
Mr. Lipknd thanks Mr. Wenk for weighing in about the sound and music. Planning Board talks about the decibel readings, trucks and motorcycle noise and over the years in the town.
ADJOURNMENT Time: 8:55 pm Make motion to end meeting: Peter Cross 2nd: Brian Normoyle Aye: All
APPROVED RESOLUTIONS:
RESOLUTION SUBDIVISION & WETLANDS/WATERCOURSE PERMIT CONSOLIDATED APPROVALS WITH CONDITIONS MICHAEL TSOUMPAS PB# 19-1217 and WWP# 19-042
At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Town of Woodstock Planning Board
on May 6, 2021, there were: Present: Peter Cross, Stuart Lipkind, John LaValle, Judith Kerman, Conor Wenk, Brian Normoyle and James Conrad
Absent:
A motion was made by: Stuart Lipkind and Seconded by: Judith Kerman
The Vote was:
Peter Cross Aye Stuart Lipkind Aye John LaValle Aye Judith Kerman Aye Conor Wenk Aye Brian Normoyle Aye James Conrad Aye
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Woodstock, located in Ulster County, New York, is considering Minor Subdivision and Wetlands & Watercourse Permit applications (the proposed actions) from Michael Tsoumpas (the applicant) to create 3 lots from 60 acres and cross the wetlands buffer in the R3 Zoning District, located at Chestnut Hill Road in Woodstock; and
WHEREAS, the parcel is designated on the Tax Map of the Town of Woodstock as Section 27.19, Block 2, Lot 19.120; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the application and relevant materials submitted, and has also taken into account its knowledge of the site and the surrounding neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the following plans and materials were received by the Planning Board:
Site Plan Review 2) Sketch site plan prepared by Medenbach & Eggers, dated 8/29/19, received 9/6/2019; Site plan revisions received 11/20/20, 6/9/20, 10/13/20, 11/19/20, 12/16/20, 2/22/21, 3/15/21, 3/30/21; 3) Phase 1 Archaeological Investigation for Tsoumpas Subdivision prepared by Joseph E. Diamond, Ph. D. dated 5/25/20; 4) Email stating preliminary approval of proposed septic systems received 8/5/20; 5) Letter received from Woodstock Land Conservancy dated and received 10/23/20; 6) Letter received from Woodstock Environmental Commission dated and received 11/9/20; 7) Various emails from Dennis Larios of Brinnier & Larios for engineering regarding meetings & conversations on 8/5/20, 9/11/20 and in December of 2020 with Barry Medenbach; 8) MDRA Memorandums dated 12/4/19, 10/13/20, 12/15/20, 3/15/21; 9) Letter from Michael Nowicki of Ecological Solutions, LLC dated 2/11/21& received 2/23/21; 10) Private Right of Way and Maintenance Declaration from Michael Moriello of Risely & Moriello received 3/15/21; 11) Signed Curb Cut and Driveway Permits received 4/1/21;
WHEREAS, in accordance with SEQR 6 NYCRR Part 617.6(a)(iv), and TWEQR by reference to the SEQR regulations, the proposed action is considered an Unlisted Action for which SEQR review & a determination are necessary and have been provided in a separate accompanying document; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Zoning Board of Appeals variance(s) are not required for the proposed actions as the proposed lots conform to the dimensional and other requirements of law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VII, Section 202-29(A) of the Town of Woodstock Land Subdivision Regulations, Subdivision design standards for Lots, access is required to be improved to the standards set forth in Article VII, Section 202-30, Driveway standards; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Zoning Board of Appeals variance(s) are not required for the proposed action as the proposed lots conform to the dimensional and other requirements of law; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Woodstock Town Code Section 65, Environmental Quality Review, the submitted SEQR/TWEQR Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and applications were referred to the Woodstock Environmental Commission (WEC) for their review and comments. The WEC wrote a letter to the Planning Board and participated in a site visit on October 28, 2020 and attended several Planning Board meetings; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VII, Section 202-29(B) of the Subdivision Regulations, Parks and public open space, the Planning Board must consider acquiring a portion of the land to be subdivided for park, playground and recreation facility use, or collect a fee in-lieu-of land; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article VII, Section 202-29(E) of the Subdivision Regulations, Private water supply and sewage disposal facilities, proof of adequate sewage waste disposal facilities and water supply is required; and
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2019, the Planning Board held an initial sketch plan review with applicant whereby the PB decided to refer the applications to the Town Planner; and
WHEREAS, on January 16, 2020, the Planning Board (PB) held a second sketch plan review of submitted proposals; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2020, the Planning Board held a third sketch plan review to consider Planner’s review memo of the same date, which required additional details and plan updates from applicant; and WHEREAS, on December 17, 2020, a pre sketch plan review was held to discuss the changes of a (3) lot subdivision and site visit; and
WHEREAS, on March 18, 2021 a first sketch plan review was held for the (3) lot subdivision and the revised Wetlands and Watercourse application; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2021 a second sketch plan review was held in which the Planning Board completed a Wetlands and Watercourse Mitigation; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2021, the Planning Board determined the application was substantially complete and scheduled a Public Hearing to be held on May 6, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2021, after proper notification, the Planning Board opened a Public Hearing to obtain comments about the proposed actions from the public and interested and involved agencies; and
WHEREAS, after considering comments received from the public and interested and involved agencies, the Planning Board closed the Public Hearing prior to further discussing the case and any additional information received; and
WHEREAS, 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 6 NYCRR Part 617 and TWEQR by reference to the SEQR Regulations, the proposed actions are considered to be an Unlisted Action for which the Planning Board (PB) conducted an uncoordinated review. A Negative Declaration or Determination of Non-Significance was made on April 1, 2021. In doing so, the PB relied upon the facts and information contained in its record, as well as discussions with applicant and mitigation measures proposed by the applicant and Planning Board to support the findings in separate accompanying documents; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That in accordance with Town Zoning Law Section 260-34(K)4, Wetland & Watercourse Protection Standards, the Planning Board hereby makes the following findings with respect to Wetlands & Watercourse Permit #19-042:
A) The impact of the proposed regulated activity upon wetland, watercourse and wetland/watercourse buffer functions, including: 1) Infilling of a wetland and watercourse, or other modification of topographic contours: No or minimal impact is expected. There will be no infilling of wetlands and/or watercourse, or modification to contours proposed under this action. 2) Disturbance or destruction of flora and fauna, including disturbance of significant habitats and/or impacts on rare and endangered species: There will be no or minimal disturbance or destruction. The proposed action will enhance the flora along the stream and wetland buffer utilizing the proposed landscaping planting schedule. 3) Influx of sediments or other materials causing increasing water turbidity and/or substrate aggradation: There will be no increase in sediment. 4) Removal or disturbance of wetland, watercourse and wetland/watercourse buffer area soils: Any disturbance of soils will be during construction and planting of bio-retention areas, and is minor in scope. 5) Destabilization of a stream channel or stream bank: Not applicable. If anything, the proposed action will help stabilize the existing stream bank and buffer areas. 6) Reductions and/or increases in wetland and watercourse water supply: No or minimal changes are expected. The proposed plans will only help to filter stormwater. 7) Interference with the circulation of water within or through a wetland or watercourse: No activity is proposed within a stream channel or through a wetland. 8) Damaging thermal changes and/or nutrient levels changes in the water supply within or through a wetland or watercourse: The stormwater from new roof area will be mixed with existing roof runoff and will not increase thermal changes to water entering storm drain. 9) Any other considerations that the Planning Board deems pertinent: All NYS DEC conditions and guidelines shall be followed in accordance with issued Permit. (B) Any existing wetland, watercourse or wetland/watercourse buffer area impacts: Some minor impact currently exists; however, the proposed plan will only enhance the buffer and mitigated area. (C) Impact of the proposed regulated activity and reasonably anticipated similar activities upon flood flows, flood storage, upstream and downstream channel and bank stability, storm barriers, and water quality: No or minimal impact is expected. (D) Safety of the proposed activity from flooding, erosion, hurricane winds, soil limitations, and other hazards, and possible losses to the applicant and subsequent purchasers of the land: Possible losses are not expected. (E) Compliance with federal, state, county, and local land use regulations: Applicant shall comply with all NYS DEC conditions and best management practices. (F) Availability of a practicable alternative for the proposed regulated activity: There is an existing makeshift roadway on property for the construction. (G) Whether the impacts are necessary or unavoidable based on the criteria listed in Zoning Law §260-34K(4): The impacts are necessary to construct the bio-retention areas to manage stormwater. (H) The impact of the proposed regulated activity upon neighboring land uses (where Town records are available): Not applicable. (I) The overall impact of the proposed regulated activity upon public health and safety: The proposed action can only help to preserve the wetlands on the property. RESOLVED, That the Planning Board hereby grants approval of the Michael Tsoumpas minor subdivision application PB #19-1217 and Wetlands & Watercourse Permit application WWP #19-042, subject to the following conditions: 1. Submit six (6) copies of the plat and a mylar, with the Surveyor’s stamp and signature and property owners’ signatures, for endorsement by the Planning Board Chairman;
2. Submit approved Septic System Plans by Ulster County Department of Health;
3. Written documentation from Planning Board lawyer clarifying Driveway/ROW Letter from Risely & Moriello and the copy of the executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions and Common Driveway Easement and Maintenance Agreement (Road Maintenance Agreement) for Planning Board endorsement;
4. Evidence of Submission of the Wetlands Mitigation Plan to USACOE;
5. A Performance Bond based on the full cost of improvements as per Section 202-23 of the Subdivision Regulations shall be submitted in the amount of the Driveway Estimate TBD based on amount of full cost;
6. A Maintenance Bond as per Section 202-25 of the Subdivision Regulations shall be submitted in the amount of TBD. Note: This amount represents a fifteen percent (15%) portion of the total Performance Bond that will serve simultaneously as the Maintenance Bond. The Maintenance Bond portion shall be held back for one (1) year beyond the release date of the Performance Bond portion of the funds;
7. Submit a Final Development Fee in the amount of $600 in accordance with Section 2.2 of the Town of Woodstock Development Fee Schedule
8. Submit a Recreation Fee in-lieu-of Land for Park in the amount of $3,000 in accordance with Section 2.51 of the Development Fee Schedule; Be it Further
9. Applicant’s engineer shall be responsible for implementation of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPP); Be it Further
Wetlands & Watercourse Permit Conditions of Approval: 1. Submit five (5) copies of final plan, each set including signed applicant’s compliance statement;
2. Submit a Final Development Fee in the amount of $350 in accordance with Town Development Fee Schedule Section 3.3; and
Conditions for issued Wetland & Watercourse Permit:
1. All work activities shall be in accordance with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Permit conditions and best management practices;
2. Excavated material from the rear shall leave the site. New fill shall be brought in. Concrete truck: used concrete shall be taken off-site, or silt fencing shall be created around leftover wet concrete;
3. Approval is limited to the development/area of disturbance shown herein.
4. Modifications to the approved plan and/or Wetlands & Watercourse Permit require prior Planning Board review and approval;
5. Notice shall be given to the Town of Woodstock Wetlands & Watercourse Inspector when work is to start;
6. All conditions of Town Zoning Law Section 260-34(M) apply and shall be adhered to, including: a) Work conducted under the Permit shall be open to inspection at any time by the Wetlands & Watercourse Inspector, Building Inspector or his/her agent; b) The Permit expiration date shall be clearly noted and shall be pursuant to the time periods specified by said Section; c) The Permit issued by the Planning Board shall be prominently displayed at the project site during the undertaking of the authorized permit activities;
7. Planning Board assigned case representatives, together with the Town Planner, shall conduct a site visit prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or Compliance; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That abovementioned Conditions of Approval shall be met prior to the endorsement of the final plans and issuance of a Wetlands & Watercourse Permit by the Planning Board; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That the Wetlands & Watercourse Permit shall expire one hundred eighty (180) days from date of its issue or once authorized activities are completed, whichever is sooner. Any requests to extend the expiration date must be submitted in writing; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That conditional approval of the plat shall expire one hundred eighty (180) days after the date of this Resolution if the requirements have not been certified as completed within that time and the plat is not signed by the Planning Board Chairman; 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 plans 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.
SEQR/TWEQR Negative Declaration Minor Subdivision Michael Tsoumpas PB# 19-1217 & WWP# 19-042
1. Proposed actions will not create a material conflict with an adopted land use or zoning regulations since they are in compliance with said regulations. 2. The proposed actions will not result in a change in the use or intensity of use of the land. Use is existing and structure is only being slightly expanded through the addition of a loading dock and outdoor seating. 3. Proposed actions will not impair the character of existing community. Use is existing. Proposed upgrades will enhance community character. 4. There will be no impact on environmental characteristics that caused establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) since no direct wetland disturbances are proposed. 5. Proposed actions will not cause an adverse change in existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway since use is existing, expansion of use is minor, and public transportation remains available near the site. 6. Proposed actions will only cause a minor increase in the use of energy. Reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities are being utilized: photovoltaic solar array, charging station for electric vehicles. 7. Proposed actions will not impact existing public water and wastewater treatment facilities. The Planning Board took measures to ensure Town water and sewer infrastructure will not be encroached upon as a result of the actions, and that infrastructure is adequate to handle the slightly enlarged use. 8. There will be no impairment of quality or character of the archeologically sensitive area. The NYS DEC conducted its own SEQR review and found there would be no or minimal impact on the area as a result of the proposed action. 9. The proposed actions will not result in adverse changes to natural resources, i.e. wetlands and watercourse, since no direct wetland & watercourse disturbances are proposed. Some regulated activity will occur in the buffers of these resources, however, and Planning Board has taken measures to ensure any potential impacts are mitigated thru required stormwater management, erosion & sediment control, vegetative plantings, bio-retention areas, streambank stabilization. There will be no increase in impervious area or change to overall site hydraulics. Site does not contain any threatened or endangered species, habitat, flora or fauna. 10. The proposed actions will not result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding or drainage problems due to the installation of bio-retention ponds, vegetative plantings, streambank stabilization, etc. that will mitigate any potential impact. Proposed actions will improve existing conditions. 11. The proposed actions will not create a hazard to environmental resources or human health as existing use is only being slightly expanded and Planning Board has fully considered any potential impacts in the course of its review and approval of the subject proposals, and required mitigations for potential minor impacts to buffers of adjacent wetlands and watercourse.
RESOLUTION SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS BEARSVILLE CENTER SPR# 21-0141E
At a
regularly scheduled meeting of the Town of Woodstock Planning Board on May 6,
2021, there were: Present: Peter Cross, Stuart Lipkind, John LaValle, Judith Kerman, Conor Wenk, Brian Normoyle, and James Conrad
Absent:
A motion was made by: Stuart Lipkind, and Seconded by: Judith Kerman
The Vote was:
Peter Cross Aye Stuart Lipkind Aye John LaValle Aye Judith Kerman Aye Conor Wenk Aye Brian Normoyle Aye 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 Bearsville Center (the applicant) to modify an existing Site Plan to expand parking lot and make improvements including entrance and lighting in the NC Zoning District, located at 277 – 297 Tinker Street in Woodstock; and
WHEREAS, the parcel (owned by applicant) is designated on the Tax Map of the Town of Woodstock as Map Section 26.4, Block 3, Lot 4.100; 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: 2) Revised site plans including a cover letter, narrative, Bearsville Chapel &Theater South Deck Plans and Lighting & Landscaping Plan dated November 19, 2020, prepared by Medenbach & Eggers, received January 4, 2021;
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 referred to the Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) pursuant to Section 239(l) and (m) of General Municipal Law and the Planning Board received response and recommendations dated March 3, 2021. On April 1, 2021 the Planning Board and applicant discussed these recommendations; 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 responded that they had no concerns with respect to the proposed action; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2021, the Planning Board (PB) held a sketch plan review with applicant, at which time the PB requested referral to UCPB and referral was sent to UCPB on February 8. The PB also requested NYSDOT curb cut approval, drainage plans and signage displayed on the plans; and
WHEREAS, on April 1, 2021, the Planning Board (PB) held a 2nd sketch plan review with applicant, at which time the PB and applicant discussed the UCPB recommendations and conducted site visits that were completed on April 8, 2021 and May 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on May 6, 2021, after proper notification, the Planning Board opened a Public Hearing to obtain comments about the proposed action from the public and interested and involved agencies; and
WHEREAS, after many positive comments were received from the public and interested and involved agencies, the Planning Board closed the Public Hearing prior to further discussing the case; 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 pursuant to Section 260-30 of the Zoning Law, Parking and Loading Standards, parking spaces will be calculated on the final site plans; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That the Planning Board hereby grants approval of the Bearsville Center Site Plan Review (SPR) #21-0141E, subject to the following conditions:
1. Submit four (4) complete sets of final site plans including lighting, landscaping, parking calculations, signage, SWPPP and each set with signed applicant’s compliance statement;
2. Submit curb cut approval from NYSDOT; 3. Submit Final Development Fee in the amount of $ 3,015.00 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.
RESOLUTION TOWN OF WOODSTOCK PLANNING BOARD MARGIT DAHL WITMER-PACK SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS SUP #21-0588
At a regular meeting of the Town of Woodstock Planning Board, May 6, 2021, there were:
Present: Peter Cross, Stuart Lipkind, John LaValle, Judith Kerman, Conor Wenk, Brian Normoyle, James Conrad
Absent:
A Motion was made by: Stuart Lipkind and Seconded by: Judith Kerman
The Vote was: Peter Cross Aye Stuart Lipkind Aye John LaValle Aye Judith Kerman Aye Conor Wenk Aye Brian Normoyle Aye 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 Margit Dahl Witmer-Pack (the applicant) for Special Use Permit (SUP) approval; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action involves the construction of a family home to replace recently demolished house in the R5 and Scenic Overlay Districts located at 301 Hutchin Hill Road in Shady; and
WHEREAS, the parcel is designated on the Tax Map of the Town of Woodstock as Section 15, Block 3, Lot 23.100; and
WHEREAS, the following plans and materials were reviewed by the Planning Board: 1) Special Use Permit application received 2/26/2021, including Town of Woodstock Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) and Referral from Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO), dated and received 2/26/21; 2) Site Plans including Cover Sheet, Site Plan, Construction Plan, Exterior Elevations, Long and Cross Sections prepared by Mitchell Owen: Architect, MOD, LLC dated 2/24/2021 and received 2/26/2021; 3) Spec sheet for roof, windows and sample of outdoor lighting received 3/29/2021 4) Aerial drone photograph received 3/25/2021 with areas of disturbance labelled.
WHEREAS, in accordance with SEQRA 6 NYCRR Part 617.5(c)(9), and by reference to TWEQR, the proposed action is considered a Type II Action for which a SEQR review & determination are not necessary; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to General Municipal Law Sections 239(l)(m)(n) and the referral exemption criteria as agreed to in the Memorandum of Agreement signed January 2009 with the Town of Woodstock Planning Board, referral to the Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) was deemed unnecessary as the proposed action does not exceed thresholds requiring referral; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Woodstock Town Code Chapter 65, Environmental Quality Review (TWEQR), copies of the application and Short EAF were offered to the Woodstock Environmental Commission (WEC) for its review. No WEC comments were received with respect to the proposed action; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Town of Woodstock Zoning Law, no Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) variances were required for the proposed action; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Woodstock Town Code Section 260-77A (7) & (8) and Section 260-66A, the Planning Board can request further documentation in preserving the scenic overlay and protecting the integrity of the landscape.
WHEREAS, a sketch review of the application was held on March 18, 2021, at which time the Planning Board (PB) reviewed the submitted plans for the construction of a family home in the Scenic Overlay District. The Planning Board (PB) asked the applicant and representative to have a site visit done with a PB member and an aerial drone photograph done showing the area of anticipated area of disturbance. Drone photos were received on March 25. The site visit took place on March 30, 2021 and the 2nd Sketch Plan Review was held April 15. At that meeting the PB requested to schedule a public hearing; and
WHEREAS, after proper notification, the Planning Board opened a Public Hearing on May 6, 2021, in order to gather comments and concerns from the public and interested and involved agencies;
WHEREAS, on the same date, comments received from the public were considered, and the Planning Board closed the Public Hearing prior to discussing the case and additional information received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the application and relevant materials and documentation submitted, and has also taken into account its knowledge of the site and the surrounding neighborhood; approved this resolution at the meeting of May 6, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has reviewed the application and relevant materials and documentation submitted, and has also taken into account its knowledge of the site and the surrounding neighborhood;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That with regard to the Margit Dahl Witmer-Pack SUP #21-0588, the Planning Board makes the following determinations for construction of a family home in the Scenic Overlay District:
1. No Zoning Board of Appeals variances were necessary for proposed action to comply with the Area & Bulk Regulations of Town of Woodstock Zoning Law.
2. The proposal is a Type II Action under SEQRA Part 617.5(c)(9) as it involves “construction…of a single family residence on an approved lot including provisions for necessary utility connections…and installation of…drinking water well and septic system”;
3. Section 260-66(A) of Woodstock Zoning Law has been reviewed and the following findings are made:
a.) Extensive cut and fill activities are not planned. Minimal or no tree removal is planned and the proposed structure will not be visually conspicuous; therefore, a vegetation restoration plan is not needed. b.) The Scenic Overlay section of the Zoning Law requires that chosen building materials, colors and textures blend well with the natural environment. c.) The project must respect natural drainage ways, contours and landforms and the Planning Board finds that proposed action meets these objectives. The area of disturbance is minimal and is not expected to exceed thresholds requiring an additional stormwater prevention plan. d.) The law prohibits development along and/or projecting above ridgelines or in a visually prominent area. The proposal is in the existing footprint with smaller than a 300 sq. ft. addition and was deemed by the Planning Board that the area of disturbance is not located on an escarpment or ridge, and structure is not located in a visually prominent area. Due to existing vegetative buffers, the location of the proposed action and its topography, the use of materials, colors and textures that blend well with the environment, and that proposed exterior lighting will be shielded and “dark-skies” compliant and cast downward, the Planning Board finds that the modifications to the site will be visually inconspicuous. e.) The project must maintain natural buffers or other vegetative screening between land uses, developed areas and public roadways. Due to the minimal scope of the proposal, the existing natural buffers and vegetative screening will be maintained. f.) The law requires that outdoor lighting fixtures in the Scenic Overlay District be shielded. A “dark-skies” compliant, shielded light fixture sample will be required. Lighting will be required to be down-cast to avoid spread onto neighboring properties. g.) The applicant is required to minimize tree-cutting activities. Proposed construction confirms tree-cutting will be minimized.
4. Location, size and intensity of the proposed action are in keeping with existing residential uses/clearings in the area. Adequate natural buffers are being maintained between land uses. The character and appearance of the proposed action is in general harmony with other approved actions in this vicinity and the Scenic Overlay District; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That the Planning Board hereby grants approval to the Margit Dahl Witmer-Pack application for Special Use Permit (SUP) #21-0588, subject to the conditions cited below:
1. Four (4) complete copies of site plan and building elevations including the Town of Woodstock Bulk Regulations, with compliance statement signed by the applicants included on plans, shall be submitted for endorsement by the Planning Board.
2. The Final Development Fee of $400, in accordance with Section 1.61 of the Town of Woodstock Development Fee Schedule, shall be paid prior to Planning Board endorsement of final plans; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That Special Use Permit (SUP) #21-0588 shall be issued under the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall adhere to the final signed and filed Site Plan and exterior elevations. Any and all future modifications shall conform to and comply with all applicable sections of the Town of Woodstock Zoning Law.
2. Exterior lighting, materials and colors shall be as specified herein, or applicant shall request Planning Board approval of any modifications; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That this Special Use Permit and plans shall expire if the approved activity is not commenced or diligently pursued within twelve (12) months of the date of this Resolution; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That any alteration or deviation from the final signed plans shall require the prior review and approval by the Planning Board, and shall comply with the requirements of Section 260-66 of the Zoning Law; Be it Further
RESOLVED, That this Resolution shall be deemed to authorize only one particular use as defined herein and as delineated on the 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 and/or Certificate of Occupancy or Compliance pertaining thereto.
|
|