Town Of Woodstock: Minutes: July 01, 2021: Minutes 2021 [Digital Towpath]

MEETING MINUTES

July 1, 2021

REGULAR MEETING

Held at the Comeau Building

7:00 PM START TIME: 7:00 PM

CALL TO ORDER, determination of quorum

Members Present: Peter Cross

Stuart Lipkind

John LaValle

Judith Kerman

Brian Normoyle

Members Absent: James Conrad and Conor Wenk

Updates to AGENDA: Mr. Cross asked Ms. Gray and she replied none.

MINUTES:

COMMUNICATIONS & ANNOUNCEMENTS:

+ Email from E. Holmlin re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 18

+ Letter from PB to Rich Zajac / Crown Castle requesting suspension of the 60-day “shot clock” until a public

hearing is held, emailed and mailed on June 21

+ Email from R. Funk re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 21

+ Email from K. Panza re: Woodstock DWSP2 Aquifer Education Plans rec’d June 21

+ Email from N. Fish re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 21

+ Email from J. Kerman re: Available Webinar: Regulating Short-Term Rentals rec’d Jun 23

+ Letter from D. Price re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 23

+ Email from P. Jackson re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 23

+ Email from J. Bishop & T. Conkling re: SPR# 21-0383 Linemen Institute rec’d June 24, 2021

+ Email from K. Lewandowski re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 24

+ Email from N. Sheldon re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 25

+ Email from G. Bradney & G. Cadden re: SPR# 21-0383 Linemen Institute rec’d June 25, 2021

+ Letter from PB to Rich Zajac re: Liability Policy Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D

mailed & emailed on Jun 25

+ Email from P. Josephson re: SPR# 21-0383 Linemen Institute rec’d June 28, 2021

+ Email from N. Boudrea re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 28

+ Email from C. Ritchie re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 28

+ Letter from J. Evans re: SPR# 21-0383 Linemen Institute rec’d June 28

+ Email from J. Kerman re: Webinar Regulating Short Term Rentals rec’d June 28

+ Email from N. Bogle re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 28

+ Email from J. Barthel re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 29

+ Email from W. Blelock re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 29

+ Email & Letter from S. Romine re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 29

+ Email from K. Ward re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 29

+ Letter from N. Fish re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 29

+ Letter from N. Boudreau re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Letter from F. Williams re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Letter from L. Ferrante re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Email from E. Holmlin re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Letter from V. Dora re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Letter from M. Wase re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Letter from D. & L. Leslie re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Email from R. Campbell re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Email from J. Charles re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Letter from N. Funk re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Letter from S. Kimber re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Letter from N. Eos re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Letter from L. Piperno re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Letter from R. DiBennardo re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d Jun 30

+ Email from M. Melamed & S. Ellman re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d July 1

+ Email from J. Bishop & T. Conkling re: SPR# 21-0383 Linemen Institute rec’d Jul 1, 2021

+ Email from K. Ruttenberg re: Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle o/b/o T-Mobile SPR 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D rec’d July 1

Mr. Cross comments there were lots of emails and letters in addition to the one from Mr. Ken Panza.

NEW BUSINESS:

SCHEDULED BUSINESS:

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

7:05 P.M.

NICHOLAS CARNE & CHERYL A. BOIKO SUP# 21-0606: Public Hearing for a Special Use Permit application to construct an addition located in the R3 and Scenic Overlay Zoning Districts at 142 Grogkill Road in Willow SBL# 14.4-2-10 Rep: Barry Price

Motion to open Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2^nd: Judith Kerman Aye: All

Notes: Mr. Cross read the case summary and states we have looked at the site twice already. There will be no tree removal, no driveway changes and it will be tucked in clean. Mr. LaValle asks about the roof treatment. Mr. Price states there are two options and he has given both. Mr. LaValle asks if they are metal. Mr. Price states they will be dark bronze in color and nothing light or reflective. Mr. Cross asks the Planning Board if they have any questions. Ms. Kerman asks about mapping with the Hudsonia and wetlands. Mr. Price replies no, not in the large search.

Comments from Public:

Mr. Cross asks Ms. Gray and she replies none.

Motion to Close Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2^nd: Stuart Lipkind Aye: All

Make motion to approve application pending draft resolution

Make motion: Peter Cross 2^nd: Brian Normoyle Aye: All

7:10 P.M.

LINEMEN INSTITUTE OF THE NORTHEAST INC SPR# 21-0383: Public Hearing for a Site Plan Review application for modifications 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

Motion to open Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2^nd: John LaValle Aye: All

Notes: Mr. Cross read the case summary and asks Mr. Leiching to go over what he plans to do. Mr. Leiching goes over his site plan and states this is a professional, technical school and asks the audience if they have any questions. Gail Bradney & Gail Cadden, of the Woodstock Tennis Club Board of Directors, asks about noise and traffic. Mr. Leiching no, they are mainly working in the back. Ms. Bradney & Ms. Cadden ask if there will be any lighting changes. Mr. Leiching states no. They discuss the schooling schedule and possible sharing overflow parking if need be and exchanging contact information. Ms. Annie Hemelnancy asks about the wildlife in the area. Mr. Leiching responds they are not disturbing the watercourses on the property. Ms. Raji Nevin asks how many students per class. Mr. Leiching responds forty per class for fifteen weeks. Mr. Cross asks the Planning Board if they have any questions. Ms. Gray states that Ms. Julie Evans is present and would like to ask the applicant a few questions. Ms. Evans comes to the front of the room. Ms. Evans introduces herself as a neighbor and she sees PTSD clients and is concerned about the visual impact and sounds being traumatic to her clients. Mr. Leiching responds he will be by the basketball court and swing set and plans to preserve the fields. Ms. Evans states to she wants to preserve the integrity of her property. Mr. Leiching states there are no trucks or buckets or microphones being used; ten hour days from 7 am – 5 pm. Ms. Evans asks about a visible barrier to put in between her residence at 14 John Joy Road and the school. Mr. Normoyle asks how did the school impact your profession prior. Ms. Evans states it was easily integrated and on a schedule. With the nature of this work, it will be very impacted. Mr. Leiching states he could possibly do pole with a screen. They are thirty foot tall poles. Mr. Normoyle asks Ms. Evans if she has a fence on her property. Ms. Evans states the tallest allowed, 8 foot, according to the town code. She is concerned with her work hours and clients and the impact this will create. Ms. Kerman shows the map on the screen. Mr. Leiching and Ms. Evans speak about locations and poles. Ms. Evans stresses the visual impacts. Mr. Leiching offers to cover up the backstop and states the poles are twenty-five feet in the ground. Mr. David Gordon, Ms. Evans’ lawyer states procedurally this is a site plan and the change of use from a public school to a note for profits school requires a special use permit. We are asking for a special use permit, continue with the public hearing and protect the people surrounding. Mr. Cross states this is not a change of use. This was referred to us by the zoning enforcement officer. It’s not our choice to make that determination. Mr. Lipkind states schools are permitted uses no matter what.

Motion to Close Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2^nd: Brian Normoyle Aye: All

Make motion to approve application pending draft resolution

Make motion: Peter Cross 2^nd: Brian Normoyle Aye: All

SKETCH PLAN REVIEWS:

PAUL ROLNICK & SABINA BARACH PB# 21-1227: Sketch Plan Review of a Lot Line Revision application to transfer 0.644 acre from Elwynn Lane SBL# 27.10-3-11.130 (originally 7.225 acres) to

136 Elwynn Lane SBL# 27.10-3-34 (originally 2.86 acres) establishing (2) lots of 6.581 and 3.504 acres located in the R3 Zoning District in Woodstock Rep: Applicants

Notes: Sabina Barach and Pete & Nancy Caigan (potential buyers of lot after lot line revision) are present. Mr. Cross read the case summary and asked the applicant to tell the Board what they are planning on doing. Ms. Barach states they are selling the lot to the Caigans and want to redraw the lot line with this revision. Mr. Cross states that the lot line revision is simple enough but there is a wetlands watercourse to re access the upper lot; it goes along the lower lot. It goes along the creek. They have two choices, the PB can approve as is without a driveway application or they can apply for a wetlands and watercourse permit and change the right away, delineate the wetlands now. We can go ahead and approve the lot line revision but when you go to build you are going to have to go through this then. The best thing to do is delineate the wetlands. Discussion between Mr. Cross and Ms. Barach and Mr. & Mrs. Caigan about the mapping and creek locations and where to go next. Applicants would like to delineate wetlands and map out site for a new house prior to buying the lot. All agree to have a second sketch plan review after they have the wetlands delineated by surveyor and wetlands and watercourse application.

H. HOUST & SON INC SPR# 21-0384: Sketch Plan Review of a Site Plan Review application to replace a demolished frame building in the HC Zoning District located at 6-8 Maple Lane in Woodstock SBL# 27.55-4-24 Rep: Applicants

Notes: Mr. Cross read the case summary and asks applicants to tell the Board what they are planning. Mr. Ned Houst and Mr. John Despres are present. Mr. Houst states that they are replacing this storage building within the same footprint. Mr. Cross states that the applicant is requesting a waiver and reads the letter from Mr. Houst to the PB. This is the same use of building for storage he tells the PB. Mr. Cross asks the PB if we can move ahead with this application. The PB agrees.

Mr. Cross makes a motion to waive public hearing without further review pending a draft resolution. Mr. Normoyle seconds and All say Aye. Ms. Gray tells the applicant she will be in touch, just paperwork to be completed at this point. Thank yous all around.

SUSAN LEARNER-BARR PB# 21-1228 & SUP# 21-0656: Sketch Plan Review of Lot Line Revision and Special Use Permit applications to transfer 1 acre from SBL# 15.4-4-36, 83 Mount Guardian Road (originally 4 acres) to SBL#15.4-4-34, MacDaniel Road (originally 8.1 acres) establishing (2) lots of 5 and 7.1 acres and to construct a dwelling on SBL# 15.4-4-34 in the R5 Zoning District located at MacDaniel Road and 83 Mount Guardian Road in Bearsville Reps: John Gerd Heidecker and Barry Price

Notes: Mr. Cross reads the case summary and asks Mr. Price to tell the Planning Board about it. Mr. Price states basically, the existing lot is Barr’s own. The husband, Michael, has passed away and the kids use the house and they want to build a house on the adjacent lot that is marginally buildable. The short story is by adjusting the lot lines we are going to minimize the disturbance to the site. Ms. Gray states that she thought it to be easier to put the lot line revision and special use permit applications together to have one public hearing. Everyone agrees. Mr. Price states that the site for the new house needs the lot line revision. Mr. Heidecker asks the PB if they have any questions in regards to the lot line revision. The Barrs own three or four lots and he can stake it for the Board to see. PB asks to have the site staked for a site visit. Ms. Gray and Mr. Heidecker discuss staking it out and scheduling. Mr. Price states that the lot has a slope and the plan is to build where it is least obvious to build. Mr. Cross asks for site reps and it is decided it will be Mr. Cross and Mr. Normoyle. Mr. Heidecker states he will stake it out and let MS. Gray know when it is ready.

TOWN OF WOODSTOCK, CROWN CASTLE o/b/o T-MOBILE SPR# 21-0322D & SUP# 21-0361D: Request for Escrow for Planner, Attorney and Engineer Consultants for the Sketch Plan Review of Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit applications for modifications to site plan to replace (4) antennas and add (2) new antennas and ancillary equipment on existing cell tower located in the R8 Zoning District at 122 California Quarry Road in Woodstock SBL# 27.1-6-1.210 Rep: Richard Zajac, Site Acquisition Specialist

WAS ASKED TO ATTEND AND STATED THEY ARE CONFERRING WITH THEIR CLIENT & INTERNALLY AND NOT AVAILABLE TO MEET AT THIS TIME

Laura Ricci from Town Board Present

Notes: Various letters are hand delivered to the PB regarding this case from public audience.

(NOTE: These Minutes are as Verbatim as Possible from Audio Recording)

Mr. Cross: The next sketch plan before us is Town of Woodstock, Crown Castle on behalf of T-Mobile SPR# 21-0322D and SUP# 21-0361D Request for Escrow for Planner, Attorney and Engineer Consultants for the Sketch Plan Review of Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit applications for modifications to site plan to replace (4) antennas and add (2) new antennas and ancillary equipment on existing cell tower located in the R8 Zoning District at 122 California Quarry Road in Woodstock SBL# 27.1-6-1.210 Richard Zajac is the representative and I’m going to turn this over to our vice chair, Stuart (Lipkind), who is going to do this case for us.

Ms. Gray: Is Laura Ricci here; I think I saw her pull in. Sorry…

Mr. Lipkind: It’s OK. Thank you, Peter. My name is Stuart Lipkind and Peter (Cross) has asked me to pick up this part of the meeting and I’m glad to do that. I ask everyone who has a cell phone to please silence them because it gets a little noisy in here sometimes despite our best efforts it can get hard to hear. Please do that, as well as hold any further handouts because it gets disruptive. Thank you. We are glad to receive them just not right at this moment. Also, if anyone wants or feels they need to have a conversation, please take it outside. You can always come back in. Keep noise level to a minimum. I appreciate your cooperation. The record should reflect we still have a quorum at this time. I just want to ask each member to identify themselves so our voices are in the record starting with Brian (Normoyle).

Mr. Normoyle: Brian Normoyle

Ms. Kerman: Judith Kerman

Mr. LaValle: John LaValle

Mr. Cross: Peter Cross

Mr. Lipkind: Stuart Lipkind. Thank you. So, before getting into the application, the record should reflect that we have certain letters that were sent out. Actually, before I do that, is there a representative present from Crown Castle USA or an agent for T-Mobile? (pause) The record should reflect that nobody is present for the applicant at this time. I want the record to reflect we previously heard this case on June 17, 2021. At that time, the applicant did attend the initial sketch plan review session and was represented by Richard Zajac and that was on June 17. On June 21, the Planning Board Chair issued a letter to Mr. Zajac as representative of Crown Castle USA. I’m just going to read the letter into record so we have it in the record.

Mr. Lipkind reads the letter. (Please see final pages of minutes for this letter attached.)

Mr. Lipkind: That letter went out on June 21 cc’ed to Supervisor McKenna, came from the Planning Board Chair and we have had no response to the Planning Board from Crown Castle or its representative to that letter. The record should also reflect that a further letter was sent by the Chair, Peter Cross on June 25, 2021 asking certain questions on the subject of insurance for their operations. I won’t belabor the record with the questions that were asked but the record should reflect that the last paragraph of that letter of June 25 states “we look forward to your answers to these questions as we consider your application at out next meeting on July 1, 2021;” (which is today) “You are encouraged to attend. Sincerely, Peter Cross, Chair.” (Please see final pages of minutes for this letter attached.)

Mr. Lipkind: Now, the record should also reflect that on Thursday, June 24, 2021, our Planning Board office received a call and email from Kiely Lewandowski (Mr. Lipkind spells her name), an attorney from Crown Castle, indicating that she says ‘we are still connecting both internally and with our customer T-Mobile regarding the items discussed between Rich at the June 17 sketch plan review’ and she recites the case numbers. Therefore, we are not available to present at the July 1 meeting.’ Now, that was on June 24, 2021 and they’re not here. I think the correspondences are appropriate to put into the record and that’s why I did that. Now, I’ve shared with my fellow Planning Board members my desire to go through this case in a logical and rational matter and I think there are some matters of both historical and application perspective that need to be covered and so, what I have done is I shared an outline of how I intend to proceed with this application today with my fellow Board members. You all have this, is that correct?

All Planning Board members (Brian Normoyle, Judith Kerman, John LaValle and Peter Cross): Yes.

Mr. Lipkind: So, that said, I’m just going to go through them one by one. The first point I want to discuss is that the application itself of Crown Castle USA on behalf of T-Mobile was filed, I’m sorry, was received on May 10, 2021. I’m going to ask Melissa (Gray) to confirm since she’s the person that received it.

Ms. Gray: That is a correct statement and then it was referred by the Building Department on May 25 back to me.

Mr. Lipkind: OK, but you didn’t have any application filed with you prior to May 10, is that correct?

Ms. Gray: That’s correct.

Mr. Lipkind: And, also, please note that the date of the document typed on the document is May 5 but the PB did not receive until May 10, 2021 and by its terms, the application is for a review of a proposed site plan modification and issuance of a special use permit to modify an existing wireless facility as an eligible facilities request. In other words, the applicant framed its application for these things as an eligible facilities request and we’ll get into that as we move through it. I’ve already noted that the application was received by the Planning Board on May 10. Now, the wireless facility in question is of course the cell tower owned by the Town of Woodstock, located off of California Quarry Road in the township and there’s some important historical background that is relevant to understanding and appreciating this application in all its aspects. The next item I wanted to discuss is an agreement that was entered into on November 30, 2004. A copy of it was provided to me by the Supervisor and shared with the Planning Board. By this agreement, JNS agreed to construct an unmanned communication tower on the town property off California Quarry Road and to arrange leases with at least two carriers to locate antennas on the tower. The agreement called for construction of a three- legged lattice tower with ownership of the tower passing to the town upon JNS’s securing at least two carrier tenants and with a further understanding that the lease income from the carrier leases would be divided evenly, fifty - fifty, by JNS and the town. These facts are established by the master management agreement which the Planning Board has reviewed. I shared the copies of what I got with the Planning Board members and if my colleagues have any further questions, I have an extra set of those documents right here if you want. OK. So, on March 29, 2007 my research has indicated the town and JNS Enterprises amended their agreement by changing the design of the proposed tower from a three-legged lattice tower to a monopole with pine tree design. This was a written amendment that the Supervisor also shared with me and I shared with my colleagues. In consideration of JNS’s agreeing to move to a different design, the town agreed to forego its share of the lease rent for a period of five years and that meant that JNS was entitled to receive all the rent for that five - year period. So, these facts are established by the written amendment of March 29, 2007, which we have reviewed. So, why was the change in design made? I think this is an important and interesting background fact that we should look at. My research shows the change in design was prompted by the Planning Board’s concerns over the visual impact of the lattice tower design on the area’s neighbors and the prospect of a potential lawsuit and claims that the lattice tower would decrease people’s property values. Planning Board members, during their consideration of this subject over a period of months, emphasized the need to minimize the adverse aesthetic impact of the tower. They settled upon a tree type monopole with stealth technology and camouflage elements instead of the earlier lattice tower that was initially agreed upon. The reason for doing that was to minimize the visual impact of the tower and to mitigate concerns of the tower being visible to the naked eye from certain locations in the town including several properties on Glasco Turnpike and Lewis Hollow Road and from the corner of Plochmann and Wilbur Lanes. Now, the minutes from the Planning Board meetings held on June 1, 2006, August 3, 2006, and August 31, 2006 confirm these facts as I have just relayed them. Also, these facts are confirmed by the resolution in the Planning Board’s files adopted by the Planning Board on August 31, 2006, approving with conditions the site plan and special use permit for the Town of Woodstock and JNS Enterprises, Inc. to erect a new tower. So, as presently existing… before I get into that, that is important background because that’s the series of agreements and events in which led to establishing camouflage elements on the current tower. As presently existing, the tower is a monopole, 140 feet tall with pine tree branches of the upper area of the pole beginning at a height parallel to the adjacent tree line and extending upwards to the top of the pole. Drawings on file with the Planning Board and show the pine tree camouflage branches extending thirteen feet higher than the pole. I’m sorry, my grammar got a little off there. The drawings on file with the Planning Board show branches to extend thirteen feet above the top of the pole, which is equivalent of 153 feet above the ground. The tower is designed to look like a tree in order to blend in with the environment. Now, it is my understanding that members of the Planning Board have vouched for the fact that the tower is visible from different vantage points in the town depending on the time of year. I’d like to offer any of the members who might be able to weigh in on that. I Know Peter (Mr. Cross) and John (Mr. LaValle) have some points.

Mr. Cross: Just it was visible. It was definitely visible.

Mr. Lipkind: Was it more at a particular time of the year or…

Mr. Cross: I think we looked when it was fall.

Mr. LaValle: Fall and winter.

Mr. Cross: Yeah, that’s what I remember.

Mr. Lipkind: Yeah, OK. (Pauses.) From everything I’ve seen in the minutes and records and why these changes were made, I think it’s plain that the camouflage elements are important to the town’s interest in preserving the aesthetics and visual beauty and views of the town. They minimize the visual impact of the tower and they enable it to blend in with the surrounding forested areas which, as we all know, are a natural and beautiful feature of the area of the tower and the township as a whole. So, that of course is relevant background. I’d like to move on to T-Mobile’s actual application that is before us. But, before I do that, I should note that in August 2010 T-Mobile applied to the Planning Board for a site plan review and special use permit allowing it to get on the town’s stealth monopine tower and install up to six panel antennas for its network. So, that was the process where they first started to get permission to get their network up onto our communications tower. Their site plan shows, as approved by the Planning Board, antennas were to be mounted on twelve - foot T-arm mounts affixed to the monopole and after receiving site plan approval and the special use permit, they began using the tower. Now presently before us is Crown Castle’s application on behalf of T-Mobile for permission to replace four of the existing antennas and add two additional antennas for its array. The six antennas T-Mobile wishes to now install are larger in size than T-Mobile’s existing antennas and will create more than one hundred square feet of outward facing paneling surface area onto the array. This information is set forth by the information in the application before us. Now, I’ve mentioned before there are camouflage elements on the tower consisting of pine looking artificial leaves that are in the upper portion of the tower, designed to make it look like a tree. There’s a question before us that’s relevant in any case involving an eligible facilities request of whether the proposed changes to the equipment on the tower would negatively impact the concealment elements - in other words, defeat their function as a camouflaging presence. I believe the applicable standard is whether the changes in the transmission equipment will render ineffective the concealment elements of the tower and that is a question that we legitimately may consider. There’s a consequence to the answer of that question because under the rules as interpreted by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), if the proposed changes render ineffective, concealment elements on the tower, then their application cannot be considered an eligible facilities request under the definitions established under the FCC. So, it’s a decision with consequences as to whether the proposed change out of antennas and putting in six larger antennas will defeat the function of concealment elements and render them ineffective. So, that of course, I believe is a question of fact for the Planning Board to determine and as I indicated there are six antennas being put up there: four in replacement of existing, and two new ones being added. According to the dimensions depicted and set forth in the submission by the applicant, all these new antennas are larger in their outward facing panel size than the present array of T-Mobile and will create an outward surface area that in my judgement, a reasonable person would recognize as part of a wireless facility and would nullify the camouflage effect of the monopole pine tree. I speak only for myself. That’s the question I think the Planning Board has to grapple with. So, I’d like to open it up to my colleagues to weigh in on that or any other aspects that were brought up on this subject matter.

Mr. LaValle: (inaudible)

Mr. Normoyle: Thank you, Stuart (Mr. Lipkind) for the extensive research and presentation. Based on the study you told us, I think it’s obvious to me that the application does not meet the standards to be approved.

Public Audience: (Clapping and applauding)

Mr. Lipkind: Please hold your disruptions. Please hold your disruptions. This is a business meeting and we need to conduct it with proper decorum. Thank you. Keep going, Brian (Mr. Normoyle).

Mr. Normoyle: That is my thought.

Mr. Lipkind: Any other comments?

Ms. Kerman: I support that view. This does not give me any reason to feel confident in the concealment issue.

Mr. LaValle: I, also support that and have seen this tower under various conditions. The addition of more visible antennas and they look like mini mattress springs and the concealment would be nullified. I just really, I cannot support this either.

Mr. Cross: I feel the same way. We are going to lose the concealment element with their proposal.

Mr. Lipkind: Again, thank you for your comments and from my perspective… I can’t help but emphasize the history here. The town paid a significant price to get the concealment element of the monopole with pine tree design, rather than the lattice array, and they gave up five years of lease income in order to get that. That design change reduced the visual and aesthetic impacts on neighbors and people across the town, and on the viewshed of the town, which is important to everyone in the town to keep protected. Those effects were mitigated and having done that and forgone a substantial amount of income for five years – that should not be lightly disregarded. That’s why I think the impact on the camouflage is something that we need to look at. It appears to me our Board considers the effect of this application would be to render ineffective the concealment elements that are present on the communications tower. Crown Castle has presented its application as an eligible facilities request for which they contend approval by a local Planning Board is mandatory by federal statute; however, we understand under the laws and FCC rules, a proposed modification on an existing tower is not considered an eligible facilities request if the proposed installation renders ineffective the concealment measures existing on the tower. So, this is where we are at, at this point and I think there are some other points I’d like to address concerning the application. One is there is a photo simulation presented. It’s not very extensive. it purports to show before and after picture simulations that were created as what they would like us to say the proposed installation will look like, but from my perspective and I’m just speaking for myself. I’ve looked at them a number of times and I don’t think they show what the tower would look like with the proposed new array because they are created from too close an angle to the tower to show how the outward facing surface area of the new panel antennas will look like from a distance away or from a wider angle or from neighboring parcels or other areas in the town. So, from my perspective that part of the application provides no meaningful information to assist us in evaluating that array. I don’t see, I wouldn’t give it any evidentiary value but again, that’s my perspective.

Ms. Kerman: I agree with that and I took another look at it. It looks more cluttered and basically a silhouette.

Mr. Lipkind: Speak up a little louder please.

Ms. Kerman: I say it looks like a silhouette and it is clearly a more cluttered silhouette but that does not tell us what it is going to look like from a pretty close up perspective. It doesn’t provide any real information.

Mr. Lipkind: John? (Mr. LaValle)

Mr. LaValle: I’d like to add a couple facts. Number one: Of course, an addition of antennas changes the visibility. Number two: The town giving up its lease rental for five years gave up almost $100,000 in income and that was a considerable amount of money in order to have it concealed and to defeat that concealment; it’s a major issue. Additionally, the lack of information from Mr. Zajac during the meeting we had with him, the Zoom meeting, and the failure to answer many of our questions we asked and then the irony when we ask for an extension of the shot clock, they extend it from July 5 to July 9. Which, you know, was like a slap in the face. They had no intention of showing up here before July 9 and they are just going to let the shot clock run out and they get what they want. Well, in that case, they have left us no alternative. This is called denial.

Mr. Lipkind: Let me step in there, John (Mr. LaValle).

Mr. LaValle: Yes.

Mr. Lipkind: Again, preserving of the right of the Planning Board to manage and decide its case load, the fact is we requested an extension of the shot clock and Crown Castle never responded to us on that question. While they may have reached out to other officials and other parts of the government to discuss possibly extending the shot clock, there’s never been any extension of the shot clock. They never told us and they never responded to our Chairman’s proposal that the shot clock be suspended until we could hold a public hearing and get the public’s input, which again, we offered in that letter. We were agreeable to do that in one of the first few meetings after they got us answers to a couple questions that we asked on June 17. So, it’s not a fact that the shot clock has been extended and I just want to clarify that.

Mr. LaValle: Well…

Mr. Lipkind: I don’t think you misspoke, just we may be under the impression.

Mr. LaValle: Well, let me clarify what I said. The extension of the shot clock was not addressed and they did not respond to us at all and I found that out only by a conversation with one of the Town Board members and that’s not the way to proceed. They were supposed to be dealing with the Planning Board and as Stuart (Mr. Lipkind) said correctly, literally this is an attempt to do an end run.

Ms. Kerman: I’d like to… (inaudible)

Mr. Lipkind: Speak louder please, Judy (Ms. Kerman).

Ms. Kerman: I heard that the shot clock starts when you receive the document. If they extended it to the 9^th, they haven’t extended it at all.

Mr. LaValle: I concur.

Mr. Lipkind: The other point that I had is what’s going to happened between now and the 9^th. We have the 4^th of July, weekends, people are away; they’re not coming to the meeting, they’re not answering our questions and I don’t see how our position is different between the next week and now to grapple with the application.

Ms. Laura Ricci (Town Board member): I’m here as a representative for the Town Board.

Mr. Lipkind: OK, I don’t want to be disrespectful but this is not a public hearing and I don’t want people to misunderstand that.

Ms. Ricci: I’m here as a Town Board member, not…

Mr. Lipkind: Is there something you want to correct?

Ms. Ricci: No, I want to state the Town Board summary from the Monday meeting.

Mr. Lipkind: Why don’t you hold that off until we finish our business, ok? Is that all right?

Ms. Ricci: OK, certainly.

Mr. Lipkind: Thank you so much. So, I also want to make a few more points before collectively deciding what to do. I do think the Planning Board members are entitled to draw on their own experiences, judgment, and common sense in deciding what to do with an application. After all, we all have our experiences and abilities and we’ve been tasked with determining this application. So, I want to point out people shouldn’t be bashful about drawing upon what makes sense to them as a good reason as any to take a course of action, that’s true in pretty much any endeavor. OK. So at this point, my view is that, and it seems to be the consensus, that the concealment elements on the tower are going to be nullified by what T-Mobile is proposing to do by installing these six large antennas and I’m prepared to get into a motion to resolve the case. But, before doing that we should get, have some discussion. How do people feel about that?

Mr. Normoyle: I’m ready.

Ms. Kerman: I’m ready.

Mr. LaValle: Yes.

Mr. Cross: Yes.

Mr. Lipkind: All right.

Mr. Normoyle: If I may speak, I know everyone here wants to speak but I think if you just let us do our business…

Mr. Lipkind: All right, OK, before I make a suggested motion, I want to ask, ‘Have all the Board members had an opportunity to review the outline documents that I provided? Have you gone through them?

Mr. Normoyle: Yes.

Ms. Kerman: Yes.

Mr. LaValle: Yes.

Mr. Cross: Yes.

Mr. Lipkind: Is everyone in accord with the statements that are in there?

Mr. Normoyle, Ms. Kerman, Mr. LaValle & Mr. Cross: Yes.

Mr. Lipkind: And do you understand that the outline is actually written in the form of a draft decision?

Mr. Normoyle: Yes.

Ms. Kerman: Yes.

Mr. LaValle: Yes.

Mr. Cross: Yes.

Mr. Lipkind: All right, so, and if you were to be asked, would you be in favor of the decision as it’s stated?

Ms. Kerman: I am.

Mr. Normoyle: Yes.

Mr. LaValle: Yes.

Mr. Cross: Yes.

Mr. Lipkind: All right, so, at this time, I’m going to make a motion in two parts. The first part of the motion is that we resolve to deny the application of Crown Castle USA on behalf of T-Mobile that is pending before us and secondly, that we adopt and sign, as an act of the Town of the Woodstock Planning Board, the draft decision that has been circulated, which includes in whole and in part, all of our findings and the finding that the concealment elements of the tower would be nullified by the proposal of the larger antennas set forth in the application and our finding the installation of them is not an eligible facilities request. It’s a two - prong motion. One is to deny the application and two is to adopt and sign the draft decision.

Mr. Normoyle: Yes, sir.

Mr. Lipkind: All in favor of the motion in both respects?

Ms. Kerman: Aye

Mr. Normoyle: Aye

Mr. Cross: Aye

Mr. LaValle: Aye

Mr. Lipkind: Aye

Mr. Lipkind: Let’s poll the Board. Mr. Normoyle?

Mr. Normoyle: Yes

Mr. Lipkind: Ms. Kerman?

Ms. Kerman: In favor

Mr. LaValle: In favor

Mr. Lipkind: Mr. Cross?

Mr. Cross: In favor

Mr. Lipkind: I’m in favor so the motion carries. The application is denied and the decision is adopted. We are going to circulate this copy to be signed. Let’s take care of that now.

(Document is circulated to the Planning Board)

Mr. LaValle: And there’s no need to send us five million letters, by the way.

(Audience laughs)

Mr. LaValle: It’s a lot of reading.

Ms. Gray: It’s a lot of distraction and extra work.

Mr. Normoyle: Stuart (Mr. Lipkind), we appreciate all your work.

Mr. Cross: In case anyone wants to know why we’re signing this, it’s because part of the legal aspect of it is, it can’t just be a vote by the Board. It has to be a signed document.

Mr. Lipkind: So, I just want the record to reflect that the five members of the Planning Board that are present at this meeting have signed this decision and I’m going to hand it to our administrative clerk, Ms. Gray.

Ms. Kerman: This is a majority of the full Board.

Mr. Lipkind and Mr. LaValle: That’s correct.

Mr. Lipkind: Seven Planning Board members, so five votes is a majority. I’m going to hand this to Melissa (Ms. Gray) to make copies for every Board member, email and mail these documents to transmit to the representative of Crown Castle.

Mr. LaValle: Certified, return receipt to cover our bases

Mr. Lipkind: Include the supervisor in the email.

Ms. Gray: (agreeing) Will do this tomorrow. Thank you, Stuart (Mr. Lipkind).

Mr. Lipkind: From my perspective, I don’t have anything more to do, we’ve denied the application and are proceeding with the signed written decision that will be transmitted. Melissa (Ms. Gray) will give us all a copy, as well as a cc to the supervisor. That concludes our consideration of this application.

Planning Board: Thanks, Stuart (Mr. Lipkind).

Mr. LaValle: Excellent.

(Audience cheers and claps)

Mr. Lipkind: We still have more business to attend to and Laura Ricci (Ms. Ricci) wants to tell us something from the Town Board.

Ms. Ricci: The Town Board is in full support of your actions, you clearly found this application incomplete and we feel you have covered this very well, I must say, Stuart (Mr. Lipkind), with your work in that short period of time to do it. You did a really thorough, compelling job.

Mr. LaValle: Here, here.

(Audience cheers and claps)

Mr. Lipkind: With that, we’re going to turn the meeting back to our Chairman.

Audience Member: What about a public hearing?

Mr. LaValle: What public hearing?

Mr. Cross: There won’t be a public hearing.

Ms. Kerman: They are back to square one. If they want, they need to submit a new application.

Mr. LaValle: Yes

Audience Member: (inaudible)

Mr. Cross: We drove around, Paul Shultis and I and a couple others to completely different sites looking at it. Some places it was clearly obvious at that time.

Mr. LaValle: You know the corner of Plochmann and Wilbur Lane?

Audience Member: Yes, I do.

Mr. LaValle: Stand there, you’ll see it.

Mr. Normoyle: I know everyone has an issue…. (inaudible)

Ms. Kerman: I know a lot of people are concerned about health issues and 5G. You need to address your Congress people and get some leverage with the FCC. This is not something we have any control over.

Mr. LaValle: Yes, because the feds can overrule us, understand that.

Mr. Cross: All right, we have some unfinished business yet…

DISCUSSION & COMMENTS:

+ Start Time for Meeting Moving Forward?

6:30 or stay at 7 pm.

Planning Board and Ms. Gray discuss and everyone agrees to return to 6:30 start time now that we are back in person.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

+ Make a motion to adopt draft resolutions for 16 Yerry Hill Road LLC SPR# 21-0387A, Carne & Boiko SUP# 21-0606 and Linemen Institute of the Northeast Inc SPR# 21-0383

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 Absent

Brian Normoyle Aye

James Conrad Absent

+ Make a motion to approve credits for Judith Kerman attending the webinar Regulating Short Term Rentals

offered by Dutchess County Planning Federation on June 23

A Motion was made by: Stuart Lipkind and Seconded by: John LaValle

The Vote was:

Peter Cross Aye Stuart Lipkind Aye John LaValle Aye

Judith Kerman Aye

Conor Wenk Absent

Brian Normoyle Aye

James Conrad Absent

+ Make a motion to adopt draft resolutions for STR Cases under Executive Order:

Owner – Occupied:

SUP# 21-0657 Ashton P. Abella & Joseph R. Pinero

SUP# 21-0658 Steven Ostromogilsky

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 Absent

Brian Normoyle Aye

James Conrad Absent

Ms. Gray checks in with the PB about the following:

+ Bressack & Andretta on Library Lane Lot Line Revision between neighbors for a fence

Case is minor in scope and lawyers are involved on both sides, waive public hearing, minor in scope.

+ FAM Acres – waiting on Matt’s memo & bring them back TY everyone for a wonderful site visit!

+ White Feather Farms – had a change of hands and will be in touch when they decide if they are staying with these plans or not and to schedule a site visit when they are ready.

+ July 29 is a workshop meeting

ADJOURNMENT

Time: 8:30 pm

Make motion to end meeting: Peter Cross 2^nd: Judith Kerman Aye: All

Approved Resolutions:

RESOLUTION
TOWN OF WOODSTOCK PLANNING BOARD

SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

16 YERRY HILL ROAD LLC

SPR# 21-0378A

At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Town of Woodstock Planning Board on July 1, 2021, there were:

Present: Peter Cross, Stuart Lipkind, John LaValle, Judith Kerman and Brian Normoyle

Absent: Conor Wenk and James Conrad

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 Absent

Brian Normoyle Aye

James Conrad Absent

WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Woodstock, located in Ulster County, New York, is considering an application (the proposed action) from 16 Yerry Hill Road LLC (the applicant) to modify an existing Site Plan to build garage bays in existing footprint for storage purposes in the LI Zoning District, located at 16 Yerry Hill Road in Woodstock; and

WHEREAS, the parcel (owned by applicant) is designated on the Tax Map of the Town of Woodstock as Map Section 26.60, Block 3, Lot 4; 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 January 6, 2021, including Town of Woodstock Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), and referral from Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) dated January 6, 2021;

2) Site plans including dated December 23, 2020, prepared by Lockwood Architecture, received January 6, 2021, revised plans dated April 20, 2021 received May 5, 2021, and revised plans to include only garage bays dated May 24, 2021 and received on May 25, 2021;

3) Outdoor Photometric Report prepared by Acuity Brands dated on May 20, 2021 and received on May 24, 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, 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 (updated December 2018) with the Town of Woodstock Planning Board, referral to the Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) was deemed not necessary; 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 18, 2021, the Planning Board (PB) held a sketch plan review with applicant, at which time the PB requested a site visit and requested skimmers to be included in the drywells. The site visit occurred on March17, 2021. On April 27, 2021, the applicant informed the Planning Board office they changed their plans to only doing the garage bays presently. On May 20, 2021, the PB met with the applicant for a sketch plan review of the new plan and held a second sketch plan review on June 17, 2021 to review revised plans; and

WHEREAS, at the June 17, 2021 meeting, the Planning Board (PB) determined the application substantially complete and decided to waive a public hearing 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 16 Yerry Hill Road LLC Site Plan Review (SPR) #21-0387A, subject to the following conditions:

1. Submit four (4) complete sets of final site plans including lighting, signage and each set with signed applicant’s compliance statement;

2. Submit Final Development Fee in the amount of $ 765.00 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

NICHOLAS CARNE & CHERYL A. BOIKO

SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

SUP #21-0606

At a regular meeting of the Town of Woodstock Planning Board, July 1, 2021, there were:

Present: Peter Cross, Stuart Lipkind, John LaValle, Judith Kerman, Brian Normoyle

Absent: Conor Wenk and James Conrad

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 Absent

Brian Normoyle Aye

James Conrad Absent

WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Woodstock, located in Ulster County, New

York, is considering an application (the proposed action) from Nicholas Carne and Cheryl A.

Boiko (the applicants) for Special Use Permit (SUP) approval; and

WHEREAS, the proposed action involves the construction of an addition in the R3 and Scenic Overlay Districts located at 142 Grogkill Road in Willow; and

WHEREAS, the parcel is designated on the Tax Map of the Town of Woodstock as Section 14.4, Block 2, Lot 10; and

WHEREAS, the following plans and materials were reviewed by the Planning Board:

1) Special Use Permit application received 3/22/2021, including Town of Woodstock Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) dated 3/17/2021 and Referral from Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO), dated and received 3/22/21;

2) Site Plans including Site Plan, Foundation & Roof, Floor Plans, Sections, Elevations, Window and Door Schedule and Electrical Plan, prepared by Barry Price Architecture dated 3/17/2021 and received 3/22/2021;

3) Aerial drone photographs received 4/23/2021 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 April 15, 2021, at which time the Planning Board (PB) reviewed the submitted plans for the addition 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 April 23. The site visit took place on April 25 and the 2^nd Sketch Plan Review was held May 20. At that meeting the PB requested to schedule a public hearing; and

WHEREAS, after proper notification, the Planning Board opened a Public Hearing on July 1, 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 July 1, 2021; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That with regard to the Nicholas Carne and Cheryl A. Boiko SUP #21-0606, the Planning Board makes the following determinations for this addition 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 Nicholas Carne and Cheryl A. Boiko application for Special Use Permit (SUP) #21-0606, 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 $200, in accordance with Section 1.62 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) #21-0606 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.

RESOLUTION
TOWN OF WOODSTOCK PLANNING BOARD

SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

LINEMEN INSTITUTE OF THE NORTHEAST, INC.

SPR# 21-0383

At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Town of Woodstock Planning Board on July 1, 2021, there were:

Present: Peter Cross, Stuart Lipkind, John LaValle, Judith Kerman, Brian Normoyle and James

Conrad

Absent: Conor Wenk & James Conrad

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 Absent

Brian Normoyle Aye

James Conrad Absent

WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Woodstock, located in Ulster County, New York, is considering an application (the proposed action) from Linemen Institute of the Northeast, Inc. (the applicant) to create an outdoor training facility in the R8 Zoning District, located at 1700 Sawkill Road in Woodstock; and

WHEREAS, the parcel (currently owned by Zena 4 Corners, LLC and in the process of being sold to the applicant) is designated on the Tax Map of the Town of Woodstock as Map Section 38.2, Block 1, Lot 17; 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 January 4, 2021, including Town of Woodstock Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), and referral from Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) dated March 31, 2021;

2) Site plan prepared by applicant and dated December 24, 2020, received March 31, 2021;

3) Real Estate Contract draft;

3) The University of the State of New York State Education Department License for a Private Career School issued to applicant;

WHEREAS, the Planning Board determined that the application did not require referral to the Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) as proposed action meets the exemption criteria agreed to under the Memorandum of Agreement between the Woodstock Planning Board and UCPB, dated January 15, 2009 (updated December 2018); and

WHEREAS, on May 6, 2021, the Planning Board (PB) held a sketch plan review with applicant, at which time the PB requested to schedule a site visit. The site visit was completed the week of May 10 and the PB scheduled a second sketch plan review on June 17, 2021 to discuss waterbodies on parcel in correlation to site plan and uses; and

WHEREAS, on July 1, 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 hearing comments from the public and interested and involved agencies, the Planning Board closed the Public Hearing prior to further discussing the case and deemed the application complete; and

RESOLVED, That the Planning Board hereby grants approval of the Linemen Institute of the Northeast, Inc. Site Plan Review (SPR) #21-0383, subject to the following conditions:

1. Submit four (4) complete sets of final site plans including each with signed applicant’s compliance statement;

2. 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 waterbodies on parcel will remain intact and undisturbed, to prevent any harm / damage to the Sawkill Creek; 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 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

RESOLUTION

TOWN OF WOODSTOCK PLANNING BOARD

SHORT TERM RENTAL APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

ASHTON P. ABELLA & JOSEPH R. PINERO

SPECIAL USE PERMIT #21-0657

At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Town of Woodstock Planning Board on July 1, 2021, there were:

Present: Peter Cross, Stuart Lipkind, John LaValle, Judith Kerman and Brian Normoyle

Absent: Conor Wenk and James Conrad

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 Absent

Brian Normoyle Aye

James Conrad Absent

WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Woodstock, located in Ulster County, New York, has considered a Special Use Permit (SUP) application received from Ashton P. Abella and Joseph R. Pinero (the Applicants) to establish a 3-bedroom dwelling, owner occupied, Short Term Rental dwelling (the proposed action); and

WHEREAS, the proposed use is located in the R3 Zoning District at 66 Grogkill Road in Willow, and is designated on the Tax Map of the Town of Woodstock as Section 14.4-3-18.200 and

WHEREAS, the Short Term Rental dwelling use requires Special Use Permit review and approval under Town of Woodstock Local Law #1 of 2019, Zoning, Section 260-14, Schedule of Use Regulations, 260 Attachment 1 (as amended); Section 260-56, Bed & Breakfasts and Short Term Rentals (STR) (as amended); Article VI, Special Permit Uses, Section 260-62, General Standards, and Section 260-30(A)(3), Parking & Loading Standards for STRs (as amended); and

WHEREAS, on December 16, 2020 a Declaration of Town Wide Emergency was declared pursuant to Section 24 of the New York State Executive Law and was adopted by the Town of Woodstock to waive the public hearing part of the process for your short term rental Special Use Permit application; in order to reduce the backlog of applications awaiting to be seen by the Planning Board according to Section 260-56 of the Woodstock Town Code; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board office reviewed your application, will notify the contiguous neighbors and continue forward with the process in adopting this resolution; as stated herein; and

WHEREAS, the following plans and materials were reviewed by the Planning Board:

1) Special Use Permit application, received 6/25/21;

2) Referral from Town of Woodstock Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO), dated and received 6/25/21;

3) Site Plan that includes property layout on tax map, parking plan, safety / egress plan and garbage removal plan, prepared by applicant and received 6/25/21; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board determined that the proposed Type II Action will not require environmental review under SEQRA 6 NYCRR Part 617.5, with reference to TWEQR, and in accordance with the Planning Board’s adopted list of Type II Actions not requiring further environmental review; 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 concerns were received with respect to the proposed action; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Town of Woodstock Zoning Law Schedule of Use Regulations, 260 Attachment 1, and Area and Bulk Regulations, 260 Attachment 2, Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) variance(s) are not required for the proposed action; and

WHEREAS, due to the Covid Pandemic and the executive order detailed herein, The Planning Board is deeming your application complete; and

WHEREAS, on July 9, 2021, letters were mailed to the contiguous neighbors to gather commentary from the public and any interested/involved agencies; and

WHEREAS, after receiving any commentary from the public and interested/involved agencies, the Planning Board forwarded the commentary and any additional information to the building department; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has fully reviewed the application and relevant materials submitted and has also taken into account its knowledge of the site and surrounding neighborhood;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Board has considered the criteria for determining significance as set forth in Section 617.7(c) of the SEQRA Regulations and finds that the proposed activity is a Type II Action under SEQR Section 617.5, and that it is in accordance with the Planning Board’s adopted list of Type II Actions not requiring environmental review; and

RESOLVED, That with the above circumstances and the current Covid Pandemic, when the applicant meets the conditions stated in this resolution, the Planning Board office will issue a special use permit for the legality of the short term rental. Be it Further;

RESOLVED, That the Planning Board hereby grants approval to the Ashton P. Abella and Joseph R. Pinero Special Use Permit (SUP) #21-0657 subject to the conditions below:

1. Three (3) copies of the approved final plan, including the signed owners’ compliance statement, shall be submitted for Planning Board endorsement. Plan copies have been submitted and compliance statement is included for signatures and to be returned to the Planning Board office;

2. Final Development Fee in the amount of $200 shall be paid in accordance with Section 1.23 of the Town of Woodstock Development Fee Schedule; Be it Further;

RESOLVED, That the following Special Use Permit conditions apply to the Short Term Rental use:

1. The Applicants shall adhere to the final, signed and filed plans. Any and all future modifications shall conform to and comply with all applicable sections of the Town of Woodstock Zoning Law;

2. This Special Use Permit shall be valid indefinitely subject to the provisions of the Town of Woodstock Zoning Law with regard to Short Term Rentals;

3. A use authorized by Special Use Permit may be revoked by the Planning Board if it is found and determined after notice and a Public Hearing, held in a manner as provided for by law, that there has been a failure to comply with any of the terms, conditions or requirements imposed by said Special Use Permit; Be it Further

RESOLVED, That a Special Use Permit shall be deemed to only authorize one particular use, and shall expire if the Special Use Permit activity is not commenced and diligently pursued within eighteen (18) months of the date of its issuance, or if the use authorized by the Special Use Permit ceases for more than a twelve (12) month period; 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 Special Use Permit shall comply with the requirements of Articles VI 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

RESOLUTION

TOWN OF WOODSTOCK PLANNING BOARD

SHORT TERM RENTAL APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS

STEVEN OSTROMOGILSKY

SPECIAL USE PERMIT #21-0658

At a regularly scheduled meeting of the Town of Woodstock Planning Board on July 1, 2021, there were:

Present: Peter Cross, Stuart Lipkind, John LaValle, Judith Kerman and Brian Normoyle

Absent: Conor Wenk and James Conrad

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 Absent

Brian Normoyle Aye

James Conrad Absent

WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Woodstock, located in Ulster County, New York, has considered a Special Use Permit (SUP) application received from Steven Ostromogilsky (the Applicant) to establish a 3-bedroom dwelling, owner occupied, Short Term Rental dwelling (the proposed action); and

WHEREAS, the proposed use is located in the R5 Zoning District at 462 Sickler Road in Willow, and is designated on the Tax Map of the Town of Woodstock as Section 15.3-4-19.100 and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board office reviewed your application, will notify the contiguous neighbors and continue forward with the process in adopting this resolution; as stated herein; and

WHEREAS, the following plans and materials were reviewed by the Planning Board:

1) Special Use Permit application, received 6/25/21;

2) Referral from Town of Woodstock Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO), dated and received 6/25/21;

3) Site Plan that includes property layout on an aerial photo depicting parking and a fire evacuation plan, prepared by applicant and received 6/25/21; 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 concerns were received with respect to the proposed action; and

WHEREAS, due to the Covid Pandemic and the executive order detailed herein, The Planning Board is deeming your application complete; and

WHEREAS, on July 9, 2021, letters were mailed to the contiguous neighbors to gather commentary from the public and any interested/involved agencies; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has fully reviewed the application and relevant materials submitted and has also taken into account its knowledge of the site and surrounding neighborhood;

RESOLVED, That the Planning Board hereby grants approval to the Steven Ostromogilsky Special Use Permit (SUP) #21-0658 subject to the conditions below:

2. Final Development Fee in the amount of $200 shall be paid in accordance with Section 1.23 of the Town of Woodstock Development Fee Schedule; Be it Further;

RESOLVED, That the following Special Use Permit conditions apply to the Short Term Rental use:

1. The Applicants shall adhere to the final, signed and filed plans. Any and all future modifications shall conform to and comply with all applicable sections of the Town of Woodstock Zoning Law;

2. This Special Use Permit shall be valid indefinitely subject to the provisions of the Town of Woodstock Zoning Law with regard to Short Term Rentals;

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 Special Use Permit shall comply with the requirements of Articles VI 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

June 21, 2021

Crown Castle USA

4545 E. River Rd. Suite 320

West Henrietta, NY 14586

Attn.: Richard Zajac

By Email to richard.zajac@crowncastle.com

By US Mail

Re: Crown Castle USA, as agent for T-Mobile

Applications to Modify Site Plan and for Special Use Permit, to replace

Four (4) antennas and add Two (2) new antennas and ancillary equipment

On existing cell tower, 122 California Quarry Road, Woodstock, NY

Our Case Numbers: SPR# 21-0322D and SUP# 21-0361D

Dear Mr. Zajac,

Thank you for your presentation at the June 17, 2021, sketch plan review. Your application includes a proposal to install 5G-capable antennas on the existing cell tower.

As you know, an important part of our review process is the holding of a public hearing, in which members of the public may ask questions and make comment on pending applications. We believe there is a significant level of interest in your application on the part of the public, which includes T-Mobile’s current customers and potential future customers.

We are asking that you agree to suspend the 60-day, “shot clock” time frame for a decision on your application, pending the holding of our public hearing. We are well aware of the federal policy supporting deployment of 5G networks and are not seeking to delay our decision. However, it is important for this Board to provide the public hearing to our citizens.

If you are agreeable to this request, we will schedule the public hearing at one of our next two (2) meetings (we meet 2X per month), after receiving the information requested during the sketch plan review (propagation maps for current and proposed installations; an answer to our question of what infrastructure installations are planned or contemplated in the Town of Woodstock, beyond the tower antenna changes, to establish T-Mobile’s 5G service). We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Peter Cross, Chair

cc: Bill McKenna, Supervisor, Town of Woodstock

June 25, 2021

Crown Castle USA

4545 E. River Rd. Suite 320

West Henrietta, NY 14586

Attn.: Richard Zajac

By Email to richard.zajac@crowncastle.com

By US Mail

Re: Crown Castle USA, as agent for T-Mobile

Applications to Modify Site Plan and for Special Use Permit, to replace

Four (4) antennas and add Two (2) new antennas and ancillary equipment

On existing cell tower, 122 California Quarry Road, Woodstock, NY

Our Case Numbers: SPR# 21-0322D and SUP# 21-0361D

Dear Mr. Zajac,

Attached is the Certificate of Insurance provided to the Town of Woodstock for your operations at the cell tower. We note the insurance coverage includes a Commercial General Liability policy from Federal Insurance Company and lists the Town of Woodstock as an additional insured.

We understand many commercial liability policies exclude from their coverage injury claims due to electromagnetic radiation/radio frequency exposure. We have also received information from public statements filed by your company, indicating Crown Castle has no insurance coverage against such claims.

Please advise whether your liability policy covers claims for personal injury to one’s health due to electromagnetic radiation/radio frequency exposure. Or, does your liability policy exclude coverage for such claims? In addition to your answer, please send us a copy of the policy for our review.

We look forward to your answers to these questions as we consider your application at our next meeting on July 1, 2021. You are encouraged to attend.

Sincerely,

Peter Cross, Chair

cc: Bill McKenna, Supervisor, Town of Woodstock

**(Please note: Certificate of Liability Insurance and Planning Board Decision of the Town of Woodstock Decision of SPR# 21-0322D and SUP# 21-0361D of July 1, 2021 are available upon FOIL request)