MEETING MINUTES
AUGUST 19, 2021
REGULAR MEETING
Held at the Comeau Building
6:30 PM START
TIME: 6:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER, determination of quorum
Members Present: Peter
Cross
Stuart
Lipkind
John
LaValle
Judith
Kerman
Brian
Normoyle
Members Absent: Conor
Wenk
James Conrad
Updates to AGENDA:
+ Email from M. Nagele re: Brookside Getaway SPR# 21-0366A rec’d Aug 19
+ Email from A. Weissman re: Koulajain SUP# 21-0608 rec’d Aug 19
+ Memo from E. Casciaro re: Koulajain SUP# 21-0608 rec’d Aug 19
Mr. Cross asked Ms. Gray and she states these
three that went out after the final agenda.
MINUTES:
June 17
Make motion to approve minutes: Peter Cross 2nd: Judith Kerman and John LaValle Aye: All
COMMUNICATIONS & ANNOUNCEMENTS:
+ Email from K. Panza re: Aquifer Protection Overlay District Maps
rec’d Jul 30
Mr. Cross states there were a couple emails from
Mr. Pa
+ Phone Call from Supervisor McKenna
re: Crown Castle on Jul 30
Mr. Cross states that Supervisor McKenna had
called him and asked if it was ok for the Crown Castle lawyer to talk to John
Lyons. He didn’t see a problem with
it. He later that day spoke to Mr.
LaValle and Mr. Lipkind and each had serious concerns with this. This is a Planning Board decision not a
Supervisor’s decision. Mr. Cross asks
Mr. LaValle should we retain a lawyer.
Mr. Lipkind states this is interesting because there isn’t a budget line
to consult an attorney but the supervisor brought in and we didn’t discuss as a
Board. Mr. Normoyle states he concurs. This keeps happening. We need to give formal notice to the
supervisor and we need to document. This
is not the first time this has happened.
We need a formal motion to be able to budget. These are shenanigans and that’s my two
cents. Mr. LaValle states to ass to
that, this effort to control the Planning Board is unacceptable. Mr. Cross states as far as we are concerned,
they (Crown Castle) have to come back to us with a new application. The PB agrees. Ms. Gray states there has been no communication
from anyone regarding this application or Crown Castle. Mr. Lipkind questions the PB, what is the
agenda behind this, the Town Board brought in Andrew Campanelli. This is not an overnight process. What is the rush if the Town Board hasn’t
tightened up the ordinance. According
the paper, the Town Board vote was not unanimous in this. This is in conflict with practical issues
that have occurred. Mr. Normoyle states
he concurs. Mr. LaValle concurs. Mr. Cross states that the Supervisor is the
chief financial officer. Mr. LaValle
states he has never seen anything like this with this piece of the budget being
taken out of the Planning Board. I say
we propose a memo requesting legal representation in our judgement to be used
at our discretion. Mr. Cross states go
with it. Mr. LaValle states so move
it. Mr. Cross states he entertains the
motion. Mr. Lipkind states we will draft
communication to resolve the Planning Board budget line for consultation,
attorney fees, etc. Mr. Normoyle, So
Moved. All PB members state Aye.
+ Email from K. Panza re: proposed Local Law No. 3 rec’d Aug 11
+ Email with Photos from A. Casadonte
re: de Swaan Arons SUP# 21-0661 rec’d
Aug 16
+ Mailing from NYPF re: Available Webinars rec’d Aug 17
+ Email from M. Gray re: Available Workshop Recognizing Habitats rec’d
Aug 17
+ Email response from M. & H. de Swaan
Arons to A. Casadonte’s email rec’d Aug 18
Mr. Cross acknowledged the list of communications
before opening the public hearing for the first case.
NEW BUSINESS:
SCHEDULED BUSINESS:
PUBLIC
HEARING:
6:35
PM BROOKSIDE GETAWAY
LLC SPR# 21-0366A: Public Hearing for
a Site Plan Review application to construct an artist studio in the R3 zoning
district located at 51 Millstream Road in Woodstock SBL# 27.14-2-1 Rep:
Dawn Ladd
Present: Dawn Ladd
Motion to open Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2nd: Stuart Lipkind Aye: All
Mr. Cross read the case summary above and states that this
site is presently a boarding house (apartments) and she is adding another
building. He asks Ms. Ladd to tell the
Board and public what she is planning to do.
Ms. Ladd states she would like to address the neighbors and the Planning
Board. She understands when someone
wants to build something, it’s noisy and affects the neighbors. She has tried to make this site plan the
least intrusive to her neighbors. She is
a business owner and owner of the apartments.
This pandemic has created her to make an exit strategy to retire to
Woodstock and do her art. She keeps her
property up very well. It is tiresome driving back and forth. Mr. Lipkind asked her to describe what she is
doing. Ms. Ladd states she lives in an
apartment there among the rented out units.
She is building a small studio and plans to live in Woodstock full
time. Mr. Cross states this is a site
plan review by the Planning Board, the use is determined by the ZEO, we
reviewed the case and did site visits.
He asked for comments from the public.
Mr. Marcel Nagele (neighbor) states that Ms. Ladd is correct, she
maintains the property very well. He ahs
some questions. There is a driveway on
the plan, isn’t a curb cut necessary?
What about additional parking? But, yes, Ms. Ladd does maintain the
property well but I’m concerned about when she no longer is the owner of the
property. Mr. LaValle asks Mr. Nagele
what other way. Mr. Cross states this is
determined by the building department.
Mr. Nagele states in 2017, when Ms. Ladd was previously in front of the
Planning Board for the same project but different plans, there was more
requirements for this to go through. Mr.
Cross states that the PB did the site visits, the location of the new studio is
on site, it is not a use change. Ms.
Gray and Mr. Cross state that the studio is for personal use; therefore, not
creating additional parking. She already
has an apartment there and a parking spot allotted for. Mr. Nagele states there is a driveway on the
plan. Ms. Ladd states there isn’t a new
driveway. Mr. Nagele questions the need
for a curb cut. Mr. Cross states that
would go through the Building department if it was necessary. Ms. Gray states there wasn’t new driveway
plans and no need for it. Mr. Cross asks
the Planning Board if they have any other concerns. Ms. Kerman tells Ms. Ladd if she has a
driveway on the current plan, just have it taken off. If you have a driveway, you need a curb
cut. Mr. Cross states we will close the
public hearing.
Motion to Close Public Hearing: Peter Cross 2nd: Brian Normoyle Aye:
All
Make motion to approve application pending draft resolution
Make
motion: Peter Cross 2nd: Stuart Lipkind Aye: All
Post
Pubic Hearing Conversation:
Mr.
Nagele states he was cut off. Mr. Cross
states the public hearing has been closed.
Mr. Normoyle
addresses
Mr. Nagele stating, we listened to your concerns and they do not pertain to the
Planning Board.
Mr.
Nagele asks if he can ask a question.
Mr. Cross states no, we closed the public hearing. Contact the
building
department with your concerns.
SKETCH
PLAN REVEIWS:
6:45
PM JOANN DeMASI REVOCABLE
TRUST SPR# 21-0318A: Sketch Plan Review
of a site plan review application for modifications to existing site plan to
install new concrete sidewalks and to resurface blacktop in the HC Zoning
District located at 86-102 Mill Hill Road in Woodstock SBL# 27.55-6-9 Rep:
Carl Immich
Present: Carl Immich
Notes: Mr. Cross read the case summary
above. Mr. Immich comes forward and
explains the plan. Everyone
knows
the particular property, we would like to put in a new asphalt nice concrete
sidewalk, fix the pot holes
and
resurface the parking lot to elevate the aesthetic of the property that it
needs. Mr. Cross states he sees
there
is work going on there currently. Mr.
Immich states they are working on replacing the catch basins
currently
and curbing the sidewalk. Mr. Cross
states he knows the place and he suggests to the Planning
Board
that we waive further review and grant approval for this case due to it being
minor in scope.
Mr.
Lipkind makes motion to waive without further review and grant approval. Mr. Normoyle and Ms.
Kerman
2nd and All PB Members Aye.
Thank
yous by all and Ms. Gray tells Mr. Immich she will talk to him next week.
6:55
PM MARC & HARIETTE de
SWAAN ARONS SUP# 21-0661: Sketch
Plan Review of a special use permit application for construction of a new
house and other projects located in the R5 and Scenic Overlay Zoning Districts
at 132 Valley View Way in Woodstock SBL# 15.3-5-13.111 Rep:
Brad Will
Present:
Brad Will
Notes: Mr.
Cross reads the case summary and asks Mr. Will to explain the project. Mr. Will states it is nice to see everyone
and thanks them for entertaining this application. He continues to tell the Planning Board that
he did fill out a waiver request, if it is available. The applicants are in Europe for a family
reunion but regret they can’t be here for this meeting. Mr. Will continues with a narrative of the
project for the Mount Tobias site. Ms.
Kerman states that she saw a precedent with the pictures. Mr. Will states we architects look at
precedents. Mr. Will reads the narrative
that he comes prepared with regarding the project and the owners’ plans. Mr. Normoyle questions Mr. Will in regards to
the emails claiming clear cutting and the trees coming down. Ms. Gray handed the email from the applicants
in response to the email that he is talking about. Mr. Will states they did not clear cut and
continues to read the narrative and moves onto the site plan and explaining it
to the PB. Mr. Lipkind asks if the
buildings are connected. Mr. Will states
the first one, yes and the other three layer ones are conditioned space. Glazing and the roof connects them. It is a European style. Mr. Lipkind asks if this is for single
residency. Mr. Will replies yes. Mr. LaValle asks about the glazing. Mr. Will states it is included in the packets
I prepared for you. It’s a very clean
design. The drainage happens within the
walls. Ms. Kerman asks if it is a flat
roof. Mr. Will replies yes, but it has
to have some grade. Ms. Kerman and Mr.
Will further discuss flat roof housing and their experiences with. Mr. Will asks the PB if they have any
questions. A PB Member asks about the
drainage within the walls. Mr. Will
replies that the engineers are designing all that and it is within the
walls. Mr. Lipkind asks about the
visibility. Mr. Will states that no one
will see these structures. They are trying
their best… Mr. Lipkind completes his
sentence, to be inobtrusive, I get it.
Mr. Will states it will be invisible for the view and a single family
residence. He shows the neighbors’ view
with pictures to the Planning Board. The
overall summary is this is low impact on the surrounding environment, which is
why we are asking for you to consider a waiver.
Mr. Cross replies that because this is in the scenic overlay, we can’t
accept a waiver and have to have a public hearing. Mr. Cross tells Mr. Will he did a nice
presentation and it is very conceptual.
We can’t waive further review when it comes to the scenic overlay. We will do a site visit and get you
back. Mr. Cross asks the PB for site
representative volunteers. Mr. Will
states that it is staked out and ready for a site visit and he would be happy
to meet anyone there. Mr. Lipkind and
Mr. Cross are the site visit representatives.
Ms. Kerman asked about the driveway.
Mr. Lipkind asks Ms. Gray to distribute the narrative to the PB. Thank yous all around.
7:05 PM HELLENIC ORTHODOX
TRADITIONALIST CHURCH OF AMERICA, INC. SUP# 21-0479A:
Sketch
Plan Review of
a Special Use Permit application to create burial sites in the R5 Zoning
District located at 521 Cold Brook Road in Bearsville, SBL# 36.2-2-16.100
Rep: Alexander Queen
Present:
Alexander Queen
Notes: Mr.
Cross reads the case summary and asks Mr. Queen to tell the Planning Board what
he is proposing. Mr. Queen states there
was an immediate need for a burial site for their beloved Bishop of the church. He would like to be buried near the church
and we would like a lot to have for people that die, himself included. Mr. Cross states there are a few items. He asks Mr. LaValle if we have done this
prior. Mr. LaValle states yes, Mr.
Albert Grossman’s burial site. Mr.
LaValle tells Mr. Queen that this forever encumbers their property. Mr. Queen replied that we forever have to
have the church. Planning Board agrees
to approve the application and schedule a public hearing after asking Ms. Gray
how many neighbors there were.
7:15 PM NIGOL
KOULAJIAN SUP# 21-0608: 2nd
Sketch Plan Review of a Special Use Permit application to construct a
dwelling and associated improvements in the R5 and Scenic Overlay Zoning
Districts at 21 Day Road in Woodstock SBL# 16.-2-7.211 Rep:
Stephanie Bassler, North River Architecture & Planning
Present: Stephanie
Bassler
Notes: Mr. Cross
read the case summary and tells Ms. Bassler that this site will require a site
visit by WEC and
the Planning Board.
This specific site is sensitive and the main reason we have the scenic
overlay restrictions.
To start, the Planning Board feels the driveway doesn’t meet
the driveway standards for the town of
Woodstock. We received
a memo from Ms. Casciaro in the building department regarding this and we feel
the driveway does not meet the town code for driveway
standards. We are sending you to the ZBA
for the
driveway standard to start.
Ms. Bassler asks about the second house planned for the future after
this smaller
house is complete, the phase two part of the project. Mr. Cross states we, the Planning Board have
to look at
the whole project, look at it all at once. Read the regulations in the scenic overlay
section. The scenic overlay
regulations were created because of that house on that
ledge. A house is not allowed on that
ledge. The
road doesn’t meet the standards and the house for the 2nd
phase is not permitted at all. Ms.
Bassler asks
about the vantage points.
Mr. Cross states the proposed plans does not work. Mr. Cross continues for the
second house, it is a passive solar home and it does not work
within the scenic overlay and our glazing
regulations. Ms.
Bassler asks is it, though? I believe
its discretionary language in the written town code. Mr.
Cross states no, it is 25% and we can ask. It’s the law.
With this passive solar home, there is no mitigation in
front. Mr. LaValle
states this is one of the most, if not the most sensitive sites. It is extremely delicate for us.
The prior house there caused this law. This application does not come close to be
approved and may need a
redesign. Ms. Ballard
confers with the PB, the site of the second house would be challenging. I have difficulty
with the glazing.
There are mitigating features in the design. Her glass choice is a concern, the product
comes really really close with solar benefit. We are trying to meet the Board with this
project. Mr. Cross
states in the past we
have been able to mitigate, but you are in the most prominent site for the
scenic
overlay. Ms. Kerman
asks the Planning Board, with the Phase 2 approval, we can say yes to the
little house
and tell them the main house is not ok. Conversation continues between Ms. Ballard
and Mr. Cross on the
waiver possibility and the plan as is. Ms. Ballard states we respect you, the
Planning Board, and we are trying
to comply. I can work
on a resubmittal for the reflection. Mr.
Cross states we can schedule another sketch
plan review once you adjust these plans or you can start with
the ZBA for the driveway. Please read
the law.
Conversation continues on maintaining the first guest house
plan that was submitted. Mr. Normoyle
states to
be continued. Ms.
Kerman states we have to look at both phases in this. Ms. Ballard states but I’m here for
this first phase only.
Mr. Cross states but you told us this was a two phase plan and what the
second phase is
to be. Mr. LaValle
states that the segmentation of the application is a non starter. We don’t say this lightly
This is probably the most sensitive sight you can
imagine. Ms. Gray tells Ms. Bassler she
can call her to discuss
where to go with the ZBA.
Ms. Bassler states she needs to go back to her client and discuss
this.
DISCUSSION & COMMENTS:
+ Update from Site Visit for Highwoods
Sportsmens Club SUP# 21-0174A and Learner-Barr PB# 21-1228 &
SUP# 21-0656
Ms. Gray asks the Planning Board to give her
details about both site visits and asks if she can schedule public hearings for
both cases. Planning Board is in
agreeance for both cases to schedule the public hearings.
+ Discuss and make motion to return Performance
Bond for SUP# 10-419 Ingrid Josephson, current parcel of
FAM
Acres
Ms. Gray reminded PB of the timber harvest that was priorly
taking place at farm acres and all agreed we can return the Performance
Bond. Mr. Cross states he checked out
the site and it is complete.
Make motion: Peter
Cross 2nd: Judith Kerman Aye: All
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
+ Make a motion to adopt draft resolution
for Brookside Getaway LLC SPR# 21-0366A
Make motion to approve draft resolution
Make
motion: Stuart Lipkind 2nd:
Brian Normoyle Aye: All
Mr. Cross asks if anyone has any other business. No reply from anyone. Mr. Lipkind thanks Ms. Gray for a copy of advisory
opinions for Committes on Open Government Opinion from the state website in
regards to Zoom meetings currently.
ADJOURNMENT
Time: 7:40 PM
Make motion to end meeting:
Peter Cross 2nd:
Stuart Lipkind Aye: All
Mr. James Monserrate
approached table after the meeting had been ended and asked about the De Swaan
Arons property and his claim of clear cutting.
Mr. Cross replied to him that the meeting is over and the ZEO is the
enforcement body not the Planning Board.
Mr. Monserrate continues to talk about conservation and clear cutting
and Mr. Lipkind & Mr. Cross tell him the meeting is over and he can attend
the public hearing and say what he has to say.
Approved Resolutions:
RESOLUTION
TOWN OF WOODSTOCK PLANNING BOARD
SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS
BROOKSIDE
GETAWAY, LLC
SPR#
21-0366A
At a
regularly scheduled meeting of the Town of Woodstock Planning Board on August
19, 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: Brian Normoyle
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 Brookside Getaway LLC (the applicant) to construct
an artist studio in the R3 Zoning District, located at 51 Millstream Road in
Woodstock; and
WHEREAS, the parcel (owned by applicant) is
designated on the Tax Map of the Town of Woodstock as Map Section 27.14, Block
2, Lot 1; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action requires Site Plan
Review (SPR) and Approval in accordance with Section 260-74 of the Town of
Woodstock Zoning Law; and
WHEREAS, the following plans and materials were
reviewed by the Planning Board:
1) Application for Site Plan Review,
received March 9, 2021, including Town of Woodstock Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) dated March 25, 2021, and
referral from Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) dated and received March 9,
2021;
2) Site plans including Site Plan for
Ladd Studio Building, prepared by Andernach Concepts, undated and received
March 18, 2021 and updated revised Site Plan titled Ladd Studio
Building including picture of light fixtures, prepared by Lucchi
Architectural P.C. dated May 8, 2021 and received June 25, 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 April 15, 2021, the Planning Board
(PB) held a sketch plan review with applicant, at which time the Planning Board
(PB) requested a site visit. Site visit
occurred once with initial plans and a second time with the 2nd set
of revised plans and at the second meeting on July 15, 2021 the PB determined
the application substantially complete and scheduled a
public hearing for August 19, 2021; and
WHEREAS, on August 19,
2021, after proper notification, the Planning Board opened a Public Hearing to
obtain commentary from the public and other interested / involved agencies; and
WHEREAS, on the same date, the Planning Board
closed the Public Hearing prior to discussing commentary and/or information
from the public and interested agencies; 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 Brookside Getaway
LLC Site Plan Review (SPR) #21-0366A, subject
to the following conditions:
1.
Submit four (4) complete sets of final site plans with signed applicant’s
compliance statement;
2. Submit
Final Development Fee in the amount
of $ 260.00 in accordance with the Town Woodstock Development Fee Schedule
Section 1.21, based on cost of new construction;
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.
