Woodstock
Zoning Board of Appeals
45
Comeau Drive
April
25th, 2019
7:00
PM
MEETING
MINUTES
ZBA
Cases #’s in order of the preceding:
Public
Hearing ZBA Case #19-07
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-08
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-09
Chairwoman
Mendoza called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Members present:, Maria
Mendoza, Jeffery Collins. James Armstrong and Michael Castiglione. Gordon Wemp
was absent.
1.
ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
CHANGES/ADDITIONS
TO MEETING AGENDA – No changes.
Move
to accept April 11th, 2019 meeting minutes by Chairwoman Mendoza seconded by Michael
Castiglione. All voted aye. Motion adopted.
2.
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 Michael Castiglione. There were no
more comments from the board. Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to close ZBA
Case # 19-06, Mill Hill Property Associates, seconded by Michael Castiglione.
All voted aye. Motion was adopted. The following resolution was read:
RESOLUTION:
Based upon the Standards for Consideration of Area
Variances set forth in Section 260-103B of the Zoning Law of the Town of
Woodstock, area variances from the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Article
IV, Area & Bulk regulations, Section 260-16, Attachment 2 HC Column (e ),
as modified by Section 260-26 (a), for a 19 foot 4 inch infringement into a
required 40 foot front yard setback on Rte 212, and a 17 foot 1 inch
infringement into a required 40 foot front yard setback on Rock City Road, in
order to install a stand-alone Bank of America ATM machine, is hereby DENIED.
The vote was announced as follows: Maria Mendoza: (aye ),
Michael Castiglione:(aye ), Gordon Wemp: (absent ), James Armstrong: (aye ),
Jeff Collins: ( no vote).
THE
RESOLUTION WAS (ADOPTED) by
a vote of ( 3 ) in favor, ( 0 ) opposed,
( 1 ) absent, and ( 0 ) abstaining.
***
Gordon Wemp arrived ***
*****
ZBA Case # 19-05 Application of Thomas Auringer c/o
Elizabeth Auringer @ Urban Precast LLC Chairwoman mentioned this case will
remain recessed at this time.
3.
PUBLIC HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR April 25th, 2019
ZBA
CASE # 19-07 Application of Neil
Schaffer, for property located at 57 Van de Bogart Road, Woodstock, NY, 12498 a
5.25 acre parcel located within a R3 Zoning District, for a
variance from the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Article IV, Area &
Bulk Regulations, Section 260-16, Attachment 2, R3 Column (f), for a 18
foot infringement into a minimum required 50 foot rear yard set back in order
to install a 10 foot by 20 foot prefab storage shed. .
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.
The
applicant Neil Schaffer was present and he mentioned there was an error in the
legal notice the infringement is in the side yard setback not the rear yard.
Chairwoman Mendoza noted the correction. He started by mentioning out of the
eight contiguous neighbors the shed would only be seen by one. He then showed
the members on a drawing where the shed would be on his property and it’s
impact on his neighbors property. Attached is a letter from that neighbor supporting
the shed. They wanted to create a separation between the two properties and Mr.
Schaffer needed a shed for extra storage so it just made sense. It is 32 feet from the property line so it
would be an 18 foot infringement into that area, it is also a wooded area and
he is planning on planting some evergreens after placing the shed to create
more of a buffer. The shed is brown and beige earth tone colors. James
Armstrong stated he did a site visit since it was his case and he said the shed
will close off the view from the neighbors deck to his home. He also showed the
board some pictures he took of the site. There were no more questions from the
board.
Chairwoman Mendoza read the names of
the contiguous neighbors: Karl Boye, Aana Denter, Ross Elakmen,
Zenon Christophora, Rosalie Zimmerman, Magbool Cheema, Jeff delisio, Dina
McClellar, Gary White/Wilneida Negron and David Lewis/Loida Moreira.
No contiguous neighbors were present
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 Michael Castiglione All voted aye.
*****
ZBA CASE #19-08. Application of Immacolata Mazzone, as represented by ( Chairwoman Mendoza stated Paul Shultis
Jr. was no longer the representative , Mrs Mazzone would be representing
herself ) for property located
at 11 Simmons Drive, Woodstock, NY, a 1.5 acre parcel located within an R1.5 Zoning
District, for variances from the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Article
V, Supplementary Regulations, Section 260-32A Fences, Walls and Gates in order
to install a 6 foot high, 20 foot long fence in the front yard where only a 4
foot high fence is allowed and an 8 foot high, 130 foot long fence in the side
yard where only 6 foot high fences are allowed.
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.
Mrs. Mazzone was present and started saying the front of
her house is towards the back of her neighbors house, there is no road frontage.
Her and her neighbor agreed on this for privacy issues, she has motion lights
so this would reduce the disturbance from that.
Jeff Collins asked if the front was the section off od Simmons drive and
she said yes. It’s a driveway and a piece of lawn that is about 20 feet wide.
Jeff Collins also asked what the setback from the front of her property to the
road was, it looked quit large. She didn’t know. Michael Castiglione asked her
to show the board where the driveway was on a map. Mrs. Mazzone asked her
neighbor Mr. Rex Funk to come to the table and Michael Castiglione wanted to
now if the 6 foot portion of the fence was going across the driveway. They
answered no. Mrs. Mazzone said it was on the grass not on the driveway it is a
couple of feet in from the grass. Michael Castiglione asked her if she wanted
this fence for privacy and she said yes. Mr. Funk stated it would be over 50
back feet from the middle of the road and part of the reason for the 8 foot
fence is because there is a low spot between their two properties. Michael
Castiglione asked what material the fence was going to be made out of and Mrs.
Mazzone answered pine wood, no spacing, a stockade fence. The board looked at
he areal picture. There were no more questions from the board.
Chairwoman Mendoza read the names of the contiguous
neighbors: Kathleen Fox/John Abranchuck, Robert Gordon Jr., Theresa Reynolds,
Hula Kolabas-Jaquot, Nancy Funk and Helene Hayes.
The only contiguous neighbor present was Mr. Funk.
Chairwoman
Mendoza closed the public hearing part of the case. Seconded by James Armstrong. All voted aye. Chairwoman
Mendoza then recessed ZBA Case # 19-08, seconded by Michael Castiglione All voted aye.
*****
ZBA
CASE # 19-09
Application of James D. Cohen , as represented by John W. Furst Esq., Catania,
Mahon, Milligram & Rider, PLLC, One Corwin Ct. Newburgh, NY 12550, for
property located at 20 Country Club Lane, Woodstock NY 12498, a 6.48 acre
parcel located within an R3 Zoning District, for an interpretation as to
whether building permits 19-66 and 19-67 dated 3/25/19 were properly issued.
Vice
Chair Castiglione gave a brief description about how the meeting would proceed
and it’s order.
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. John Furst the representative was present and started
by saying Mr. James Cohen the applicant shares an approximate 500 foot boundary
with The Lodge ( a mix commercial use property part restaurant, part bar, part
lodge it’s a pre-existing non conforming commercial use that is located in a
residential zone.) Mr. Cohen asked him to
come here tonight to challenge the recent issuance of some building permits to
The Lodge. He then gave a little history on The Lodge, in 2016 they submitted a
site plan application to the Planning Board and that application was put on
hold in March or February of 2017, after reviewing the records he isn’t sure
why but he knows there were months and months of discussions between the
planning board members, council and the applicant as far as the existing zoning
and the possibility of violations, as well as some prior approvals and
conditions of approvals that could be violated, as well as some (unclear word)
restrictions. The owner at that time put a hold on the application before the
Planning Board in 2017, however The Lodge in Spring of 2018 illegally expanded
its commercial non conforming use by doing some exterior work, tree removal,
grating, it looked like they were adding some parking. In their mind this is a
clear circumvention of the planning board process, they weren’t able to get the
site plan approval, so they withdrew their application and they tried to
segment the work so they didn’t have to go back t the Planning Board. After
pressure from his client and himself the building inspector finally issued an
order to remedy and a stop work order on July 10th, 2018. He
clarified that the order to remedy regarding the site plan violation was not
attached to the ZBA application it only included the order to remedy for the
sign violation. He then handed the board a copy of this paperwork. Chairwoman
Mendoza placed it in the case file. The order to remedy stated there were modifications
to the site plan without planning board approval, the building inspector said
they had to submit a planning board application by August 2018. The stop work
order was also issued because there were site plan modifications with out an
approved site plan. According to the stop work order all exterior works ceased
until the permitting process was complete by the planning board, if and when
the planning board approves the site plan they can resume with any
modifications. He then read the Town of Woodstock’s Zoning Code Section 260-101
and Section 32-13 of the Towns Building Code. Therefor the stop work order should
have stayed into effect until The Lodge competed the site plan approval from
the Planning Board, until that happens the stop work order still exists and it
cannot be rescinded. However on March 25th 2019 the building
inspector issued two building permits, both involved interior renovations only.
The site plan application is dated April 5th 2019 however it was received by
the building department on April 2nd, 2019. The building permits
were issued before the an application was even filed with the Town. That is a
procedural mistake he would like to point out. All work must cease until the
Planning Board approves the site plan, all building activities must cease, no
permits should be issued. They are essentially seeking to nullify the two
permits that were issued in March of 2019 and they would also like the stop
work order and order to remedy re-instated until the property owner obtains
planning board approval, in accordance with the Town Code. They would also like
for all construction to cease until the ZBA makes their determination and that
no further certificates or permits should be issued until this happens. They feel the ZBA can restrain any further
work to take place on that property. Mr. Furst feels The Lodge has been
disregarding the Town Laws for some time now and it has to stop. Michael
Castiglione asked Mr. Furst how would he know if a stop work order were
lifted? He answered by saying under the
Town code it should be in writing. Mr. Castiglione asked if this was common
practice in Woodstock? Mr. Furst answered he thinks it would be common practice
in any municipality to have it in an email or document form especially when you
are dealing with violations. Mr. Cohen foiled for those specific records to
obtain this documentation. As of now this is non existing. Gordon Wemp mentioned that it was to his
understanding that this isn’t a common practice, the applicant does not get
informed of the lifting in writing. Mr. Furst then asked how then did they get
informed? Mr. Wemp answered when they are issued a building permit. Mr. Furst
stated there was no re issuance of a building permit and that in Section 32-13
is says it should be in writing. Michael Castiglione asked what is the legal definition
for “premise”? Mr. Furst said “property”, the entire property. Michael
Castiglione then said so if a property owner had a violation on a septic tank
they would have to stop all renovations on the home if that was the case. Mr.
Furst responded , yes that was his understanding. Further discussion amongst
the members and Mr. Furst took place regarding the definition of premise,
property and structures. Chairwoman Mendoza named Mr. Bill Mckenna who as Town
Supervisor read a letter on behalf of the Town Board. (see attached). Chairwoman
Mendoza placed a copy in the case file folder.
Victoria Polidoro The Lodge representative mentioned she
was their with Jess Walker on behalf of the owner and site operator. She
mentioned this appeal had been brought to her attention just this week so she
submitted a letter to the Zoning Board asking for additional time to review and
investigate the claims. She understands that this time will be granted from a
message she received from the Town attorney and she thanked the Board for that.
There are a lot of factual questions and discrepancies which need to be
resolved. At this point there a lot of unclear points such as if the stop work
orders were reasonably issued in the first place, the site work that was being
done was to add parking where parking already existed they were formalizing
those parking spaces, did that require site plan approval? That is what they
will work out. Her client has offered to
remediate all of the outdoor areas that were expanded with dirt and grass seed
to bring it back to the status quo, so
there would be nothing triggering the need for a site plan approval. They did
offer this to the neighbor this morning. They would like to focus their energy
on getting approvals not weather or not what was done was appropriate or not.
Another issue that was raised was the “stay provision”. Case Law is very
settled and is says that the stay provision does not apply when a third party
is challenging a permit on someone else’s property. If the ZEO found a
violation and her client appealed it, the ZEO could not go to court during the
time of that appeal. It does not mean that a neighbor in every situation can
stop progress. She asked the board for a chance to provide them with the
appropriate rules regarding this matter. There were no more questions from the
board.
Michael Castiglione read the names of the contiguous
neighbors: Michael Roth, Jesse Cullen-DuPont, Howard Rifkin, Paul Van Wagenen,
Tamara Eichorn, Patricia Beidler Appel, Jane Carlin/Martha Walker, Onteora
Central School District, Andrew Kwasnicki/Amy Albert.
The only contiguous neighbors present was Patricia Beidler
Appel was present and she expressed her negative experience with The Lodge, is
very concerned and objects.
Marcel Nagele objects and provided the board with
documentation backing his point, which
was placed in the case file folder. Angela
Spinelli asked the Board which LLC was before the board since there are 6
active LLC’s affiliated with this property. Victoria Polidoro answered by
saying she is representing Selena of Woodstock LLC the new owners of the
property and the site operators/construction managers are MHS Worldwide Holdings
and then Construction Management LLC. Gary Eskal spoke next and he hopes they
can come to a peaceful conclusion. Megan Brown spoke next and mentioned that
lifting a stop work order has never been sent to her in writing. Robin Sears is
very unhappy and concerned with all the renovations happening at The Lodge.
Johanna Kimberly was the last one to speak and objects with expansion to The
Lodge.
John Furst interjected again by saying the lifting of the
stop work order should be issued in writing, it is in the code, weather it
hasn’t been done in the past doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done in the future.
this is all procedural. The bigger issue here is what the building inspector did was wrong by
allowing the work to continue without site plan approval. He also mentioned The
Lodge had 60 days to appeal the violations just like they had 60 days to appeal
the building inspector’s determination. The prior owner at the time had 60 days
to appeal the building inspectors order to remedy as well as the stop work order,
the statute of limitations at this point has passed. The issue is the issuance
of the two building permits in March of 2019, not what was issued this past
summer. Regarding what can or cannot be remediated, he isn’t sure because he
believes to do that more grading will have to be done and the trees that were
removed are no longer there. You can’t bring back old trees. No one is really
sure what was there before. With respect to the “stay” Victoria is correct with
respect to an automatic stay, so if they would have challenged this order last
year they would be entitled to an automatic stay but this doesn’t generally
extend to third parties. But the ZBA under the Town code and the Statute they
have the ability to restrain further activity. The applicant is not looking to
shut anyone down, there are a lot of site plan issues that should be addressed
and the goal is to get the opportunity to work something out with the Planning
Board. Jeff Collins read Section 260-99F regarding the lifting of the stop work
order in writing.
Chairwoman Mendoza stated the public hearing portion of
this case would be recessed per councils advise, seconded by Michael
Castiglione. Motion adopted, All voted aye. Chairwoman Mendoza recessed ZBA
Case # 19-09 to the call of the Chair, seconded by Michael Castiglione, motion was
adopted . All voted aye.
Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to adjourn the meeting
seconded by Michael Castiglione. All voted aye.
Respectfully submitted by,
Michele Sehwerert
