Woodstock
Zoning Board of Appeals
45
Comeau Drive
April
11th, 2019
7:00
PM
MEETING
MINUTES
ZBA
Cases #’s in order of the preceding:
Public
Hearing ZBA Case #19-05
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-02
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-06
Chairwoman
Mendoza called the meeting to order at
7:00 pm. Members present:, Maria Mendoza, Jeffery Collins. Gordon Wemp, James
Armstrong and Michael Castiglione.
1.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
CHANGES/ADDITIONS
TO MEETING AGENDA – No changes.
Move
to accept March 28th, 2019 meeting minutes by Chairwoman Mendoza seconded by Michael
Castiglione. All voted aye. Motion adopted.
2.
PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR April 11th, 2019
ZBA Case #
19-05 Application
of Thomas Auringer c/o Elizabeth Auringer @ Urban Precast LLC, as represented
by Timothy P. McColgan, 20 Duzine Road, New Paltz NY 12561, for property
located at 64 Shortcut Road, Woodstock NY, 12498 a 43.98 acre parcel
located within a R8 S-O, Zoning District, for an interpretation as to whether
or not the ZEO.s decision to deny a Certificate of Occupancy should be reversed
and an interpretation whether or not the Woodstock Planning Board improperly
inserted the structure’s metal roof into the original proceeding relating to
the mitigation of clear cutting .
NYSEQR DETERMINATION
In accordance with the guidelines set forth in 6NYCRR, Part
617, and Section 65-13 of the TWEQR regulations, the Zoning Board of Appeals
has determined that this application for an area variance is classified as a
Type II Action which, by definition, does not have a significant effect on the
environment and is exempt from environmental review.
Mr. McColgan the representative was present and started by
giving a brief background of his client and when and why he purchased the
property. Mr. Castiglione asked if this was a new structure being built and Mr.
McColgan said no it was a renovation/remodel
of a pre existing house on that property. He then proceeded to show the
board all the permits his client was given and the drawings that were submitted
with the permit application where it was clearly identified (an indication of
new standing seem metal roof/zinc). Plans and drawings were submitted to the
Building Department and then reviewed and approved by the ZEO. Subsequent to
this his client Mr. Auringer, submitted paperwork/drawings regarding all of the
other remodeling/ complete renovation taking place in the house such as new
windows, new roof, exterior doors, new siding, new layout of interior rooms,
plumbing and electric to code. When the permit was issued his client acted on
the permit and sent the money, made the modifications and followed the permit.
As time went on there was an issue with some trees that were cut and his client
was issued a violation for clear cutting. When his client was referred to the
Planning Board to remediate the clear cutting, the Planning Board immediately
went to the roof, the clear cutting became secondary. And they are now in the
process of converting the audio from those planning board meetings into
transcripts where they believe that 85% of the planning board discussion is
about the roof, not the clear cutting. He wants to make is clear that at no
time was there a violation issued for the roof. The roof as it stands, metal,
zinc and color was approved by the building department. He then proceeded to
read a letter from one of the neighbors. (SEE ATTACHED).The building inspector
never had an issue with the roof, his client vested his right, he spent close
to 2 million dollars on the renovation and no other violations were ever issued.
He also mentioned, at one of the planning board meetings it was said to his
client “if you paint the roof you you can forget about the trees”. His client
has spent a tremendous amount of money to remediate the trees, but every time
they came in front of the planning board all they discussed was the roof, as
seen on a spreadsheet Mr. McColgan submitted to the board of the audio time
(SEE ATTACHED)The problem with all of this is that the Planning Board is being
improper since their focus has been on the roof and not the actual violation of
the clear cutting. The Planning Board has had 23 meetings regarding this matter
and at some point in one of those meetings the Planning Board it became clear that
the issue before the Planning Board was not the roof but the the trees. His client then submitted a request
for a Certificate of Occupancy which was the denied and it is their position
that it was denied based on the metal roof not the trees and that is evidenced
through hundreds of pages of minutes from the Planning Board where all that is
discussed is the roof. What this means is that once his client vested his right
as a matter of law and he did not go outside of the original permit parameters,
what he did in modification approved on the permit cannot be disturbed and it
cannot be used to deny a Certificate of Occupancy. And that is exactly what is
occurring here. There is a second more important issue here and it is that
under the case law when a body such as the Planning Board of the Town of
Woodstock conducts itself in this way it is violating his clients
constitutional rights of quiet enjoyment of his property, improperly. It’s a
civil rights violation as well as an arbitrary and capricious decision based
upon denial of an application for a Certificate of Occupancy for an issue where
no violation had occurred. By coming in front of the ZBA he is exhausting his
administrative remedies which under law is required for him to go any further.
He had advised to his client for a long period of time to work with the Town of
Woodstock, to “iron it out” but it has become clear that his rights were being
violated he had to proceed further. They are ready, willing and able to work
with the Planning Board to remediate the trees. They have already spent
$83,000.00 on trees because that is what the issue is, however it is their
request that any suggestion that the roof is linked to the clear cutting is
unconstitutional, improper and illegal. There is no violation on the roof. The
last thing they want to do is annoy their neighbors, and they are sorry that
this is happening, however they did everything it was suggested to them to do,
they submitted the application for the building permits, they got local contractors
and engineers, they met with the building inspector. They would like the ZBA to
issue a decision that states there shall be no insertion of the metal roof and
the other items approved on that building permit as it relates to clear
cutting. James Armstrong mentioned that he is not clear on what they are asking
for since the ZBA cannot reverse a Planning Board Decision. Mr. McColgan said
that the planning Board hasn’t made any decision yet, the ZEO is the one who
made the decision to deny the certificate of occupancy. Jeff Collins then
stated that the letter from the ZEO said that the reason the CofO was denied is
because of an outstanding Special Use permit. Jeff Collins asked what that
Special Use Permit was for and why was it still outstanding? Mr. McColgan
answered by quoting an letter dated 9/12/2018 from the Planning Board (SEE
ATTACHED) Discussion followed between Mr. Colgan and Jeff Collins as to whether
or not the Special Use permit in question had to do with the trees or the roof.
Michael Castiglione then said that the permit was issued before the trees were
cut, What was the visibility of the roof before the trees were cut? Mr.
McColgan answered it was the same visibility, in fact they submitted evidence
of the 8 trees that were cut,and that the glare was the same because there were
very few trees in the front part of the house as it faces out towards the
valley. The Planning Board has all of these pictures in their file. His client
did speak to the Planning Board about planting new trees in the front of the
house to cut down on the glare but some of the neighbors realized that even if
they did plant those trees the glare would not be cut down to a greater extent.
Once again the point is that they had a permit for the roof and it alone cost
$400,000. That is why his request to the
ZBA had to be very clear and it is an interpretation that a roof is unrelated
to the clear cutting issue which is the violation and it should stand alone.
Gordon Wemp asked when the original roof permit was issued and Mr. McColgan
said October 5th , 2016. He also asked if any of the parameters or
the materials of the roof had been changed from that time? Mr. McColgan said,
no and all the original information is on the plans attached to the ZBA
application. Michael Castiglione asked what was
the elevation 64 of Shortcut Road? Mr. McColgan answered, It’s above the
12,000 of the Scenic Overlay Boundary. Which means that the property is in the
scenic overlay district. He continued to say that because of this the ZEO
should have either denied the original application or refer it to the Planning
Board so his client would comply with the Scenic overlay code, but the ZEO did
not do that. She simply approved the permit and they relied on that approval.
He followed by saying that none of the people who worked on this project told
them anything about the property being in the scenic overlay, not even the
building inspector. Michael Castiglione asked if the clear cutting violation
was then referred to the planning board because it was located in the Scenic
Overlay? Mr. McColgan answered by saying that when his client received the
violation notice he went to the Building Department who then referred him to
the Planning Board for remediation of the clear cutting in the scenic overlay
district. Gordon Wemp asked if there was anything done to look into the cost of
mediating the roof? Mr. McColgan said yes, when they started going in front of
the Planning Board they began to talk about painting the roof, they then did
some research and found out that there would be no way to paint the roof for a
couple of reasons. Number one the paint that is needed to cover the roof is not
sold in the US in fact it is illegal to buy it, so this was not an option and
what is not an option either is ripping the roof off because the cost is
astronomical. The architect was North Engineer and the contractor was Steve
Morris. The board asked what the exact elevation of the house was and it is
1478. Even though there was no
agreement with the planning board
they proactively went and planted new trees. They couldn’t be tall trees to
cover the roof because they wouldn’t with stand the wind. More discussion about
the special use permit between the board and Mr. McColgan took place. Dan
LeFever spoke, he is the representative for Mr. Auringer in front of the
Planning Board and he mentioned that the first five sentences of Section 260-66
of the Town of Woodstock Zoning Law are key in this matter and he requested the
board look it over. There were no more comments from the board members.
Chairwoman Mendoza read the names of the contiguous
neighbors: Joseph Maddock, Randall Wallace, David Leibowitz, Kirk Pendleton,
Tonche Associates and AWS Development LLC.
No contiguous neighbors were present. But there were other
members of the public present. The following people spoke, Gaye Lenhard who
spoke about visibility, Kalvin Grim spoke about the impact of metal roofs in
the scenic overlay and in the town in general, he also showed the board some
pictures of the reflection caused by them. Mark Antman said the owner caused
these problems for himself, Mr. McColgan answered by saying again, there was no
violation on the roof.
James Armstrong asked Mr. McColgan when the roof was put
up, he answered by saying he wasn’t sure but it was definitely done after
October 6th when the permit was issued. The house was completely
gutted when the permit was issued so the roof was put on many months after
that.
Duff Allen then spoke about a copper roof that was denied
and that it was strange that nobody on this project was aware that the house
was in the scenic overlay and above by almost 300 feet. And he hopes that the
enjoyment of the neighbors properties will not be affected by this roof. Maxanne Resnick expressed her concern in
upholding the scenic overlay laws. Solta Asher commented on the possibility of
scuffing/roughing up the roof to reduce the glare. Mark Altman spoke again and
mentioned the difference between a zinc and a stainless steel roof. Mr.
McColgan said the plans were never changed for the roof and the Building
Inspector went to the site and there was never an issue with the roof. Michael
Castiglione mentioned that on the plans it says roof - (Metal/Zinc). Mr.
McColgan stated that it’s the ZEO’s purview and she is the one in charge of
enforcing the code. Dan Lafever commented there are many types of stainless
steel and zinc is substantially shinier than the material the roof is made out
of. He showed the board some pictures of both materials and the difference between
them, neither of them coat well. Michael Auringer mentioned that none of the
colors (zinc, stainless steel or galvanized) comply with the requirements of
the Scenic Overlay. He also mentioned there is no communication between the
Building inspector and the Planning Board and that is why now the neighbors and
his family are suffering. Mr. McColgan wanted the board to know the expense his
client has invested in this property. This is Jeff Collins case and he
understands both sides of the case. The board had no further questions.
Chairwoman
Mendoza closed the public hearing part of the case. Seconded by James Armstrong. All voted aye. Chairwoman
Mendoza then recessed ZBA Case # 19-05, seconded by Gordon Wemp All voted aye.
3.
DECISION AND ORDERS AND INTERPRETATIONS OUTSTANDING
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-06 Mill Hill Property Associates Chairwoman Mendoza
made a motion to reopen the case, second by James Armstrong. Michael
Castiglione said he would be responsible for writing the decision on this case
and that he personally didn’t see how the ATM fit in the character of the community
at that location. Jeff Collins, Gordon Wemp and Chairwoman Mendoza had no
argument. And James Armstrong said he understood where Mr. Castiglione was
coming from. Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to recess the case. Seconded by
Michael Castiglione and she mentioned they hope to render a final decision made
by the next meeting.
*****
Chairwoman Mendoza mentioned ZBA Case #19-02 Robert
Whitcomb/Mountain Meadow Realty, Chairwoman Mendoza stated that she will be
recusing herself from this case and stated that Michael Castiglione would be
taking over. She said she would walk out side the building and to please call
her in once their discussion of the case was done. Michael Castiglione reopened
ZBA Case # 19-02 Robert Whitcomb/Mountain Meadow Realty he thanked Robert
Whitcomb for making the mock up sign and
going through the process of that. He also mentioned the Tree Committee wasn’t
happy with the sign, and his personal feeling even though he knew it was just a
rendition of the sign, he thought it was fairly large in size. He also noted
that the A&P and the Woodstock Healing Arts don’t have a road front for
their particular signs where Sunflower
and the Bank of Green County do have a large row front to support the single
sign rule. He thinks that the plans as submitted he would say that the sign
presented was out of character and didn’t meet the Zoning Code. He said the
ZBA’s experience in the past has been if they deny an application they can’t
add conditions on that denial. They can’t say the 50 foot sign is denied but a
25 foot sign would be approved. Jeff Collins agreed by saying it was a very
large sign. James Armstrong agreed also on the size being too big and he also
mentioned he was still upset the ZBA approved such a large sign for Sunflower. Gordon
Wemp mentioned he understood the other members point and that Sunflower already
had been approved for an oversize sign because of the setback of the building and
it’s size. There are terrible sign laws in the Town of Woodstock but it all
falls on the ZBA and their decision making. Gordon asked if it was possible to
have two or more ideas for submission and Michael Castiglione said yes as
Exhibit A and Exhibit B. There were no more comments from the board. Michael
Castiglione recessed the case. Seconded by James Armstrong. Michael Castiglione went to go get
Chairwoman Mendoza and asked her to come back to the table.
Chairwoman Mendoza mentioned there was one new case ZBA
Case # 19-07 Neil Schaffer and it was assigned to James Armstrong. Chairwoman
Mendoza made a motion to adjourn the meeting seconded by Michael Castiglione.
All voted aye.
Respectfully submitted by,
Michele Sehwerert
