Woodstock
Zoning Board of Appeals
45
Comeau Drive
July
11th, 2019
7:00
PM
MEETING
MINUTES
ZBA
Cases #’s in order of the preceding:
Public Hearing ZBA Case # 19-14
Public Hearing ZBA Case # 19-15 (rescheduled per
applicants request)
Public Hearing ZBA Case # 19-18
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-05
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-13
Chairwoman
Mendoza called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Members present, Michael Castiglione,
Jude Sillato. Gordon Wemp, Maria Mendoza. James Armstrong and Jeff Collins were
absent.
1.
ADMINISTRATIVE
MATTERS
MINUTES APPROVAL-Move to accept June 27,
2019 meeting minutes by Maria Mendoza seconded by Michael Castiglione.
All voted aye. Motion adopted.
CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO MEETING AGENDA – No changes were made.
2. PUBLIC
HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR July 11th, 2019
ZBA CASE # 19-16.
Application of Paul Fleischmann/ 30 North LLC, as
represented by David Minch, 23 Mynderse, Saugerties NY 12477 for property
located at 3950 Rt 212, Lake Hill NY,
12477 a .433 acre parcel located within an NC Zoning District with scenic
overlay, for variances from the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Article
IV, Area & Bulk Regulations, Section 260-16, Attachment 2, Columns e ,
as modified by Section 260-26 A, for a 19 foot infringement into a minimum
required 15 foot front yard setback in order to build a new structure that
contains a retail space and 2 dwelling units,
Section 260-17 (2) to allow two dwelling units on a lot where only one
is allowed, , Article V, Parking and loading standards, Section 260-30 A (1)
(c) and Section 260-30 (A) (4) ( e) (g) in order to allow two additional
parking spaces
Paul Fleischmann and David Minch were
present. Mr. Fleischmann started by giving a brief re-cap of what has happened
in the past year since they came in front of the ZBA for other variances. They
met with the Planning Board on June 20th where they came up with a
clear path. They are not renovating the existing building, they are rebuilding
a building very similar but a little smaller that the original footprint. Mr.
Minch met with the ZEO to discuss the minimum number of variances needed. Mr.
Minch started by talking about the first variance requested which is regarding
the front yard setback from Mink Hollow Rd. It’s a 40 foot total from the center
of the road. He showed the members what he was talking about on the site plan.
The encroachment they have is 19 feet, the original setback was 15 feet and the
new setback which they are proposing is 21 feet which is 19 feet short of the
40 feet. They thought since they were using the same footprint there would be
no variance needed because the setbacks were pre existing, come to find out
that wasn’t true and that is why they are back requesting this front yard
variance. They have cut a corner off of the building and twisted the building
away (he showed the members on the site plan) to mitigate the setback problem
as much as they can. Michael Castiglione asked if the building will be farther
away from the road now? Mr. Minch answered yes, it went from 5 feet to 11 feet.
He pointed out that they could locate the new structure at the back of the
property and create a parking lot in front, but that would be the typical strip
highway approach. From the beginning they valued keeping the original location of the building, where
parking is to the side. He then read a design code from the planning board code
manual “placement of building”. The planning board is ok with the positioning
of the new building. Mr. Minch moved on to talk about the second variance where
only one dwelling is allowed in a pre existing undersized lot and they are
requesting two dwellings. They are proposing two minimally sized one bedroom
apartments, with a combined square footage of 1066 sqf. which would be much less
impact in the site than the potentially average size single family dwelling
which is 2200 sqf. So they are actually putting two smaller size one bedroom apartments
in. They could have also gone larger but much preferred going smaller. They
will be on the second story of the building away from Mink Hollow Road and Rte
212 to minimize the impact of changing
the character of the building. This has allowed them to visually maintain the
existing roof lines of the original building. Mr. Minch then read a statement
referring to income and viability of this project and why the two dwellings are
necessary. (see attached). Also looking at the Comprehensive Plan that was
passed last November there are several references to the importance of
providing different types of housing in the community. He read excerpts of page
23, 29, 38, 39, and 41 of the comprehensive plan. He moved on to talk about the
third variance being requested which has to do with parking. This came up at
the Planning board meeting and that is why they are changing it. He showed the
members the new proposed parking on the site plan. They are requesting two new
parking spots. Mr. Minch read a statement regarding this new parking idea ( see
attached ). They are going to have one facility where people can use both
services (food and retail). Michael Castiglione asked if they were requesting
two more parking spaces or two less? In the application it says two additional
spaces. Mr. Minch said that was his error they are actually asking for relief
from two spaces that would be required. Chairwoman Mendoza mentioned this case
had been sent to the UCPB and they received the referral response as having no
county impact. Michael Castiglione requested drawings of the Z access, which
Mr. Minch provided and mentioned it was in the packet of drawings he had
already submitted. This is how the building will look like from the road.
Gordon Wemp asked where the entrance to the apartments would be? Mr. Minch
showed them on the site plan. The rear elevation is North. Michael Castiglione
asked for the height demarcations. Mr. Minch said the building would be 25 feet
tall to the highest peak. The current building is 16-18 feet tall, the maximum
height in the Town of Woodstock is 35 feet. Mr. Minch said he would include elevation
points on another drawing. Jude Sillato asked how many seats were going to be
in the café? Mr. Minch stated they could look at the site plan to see the
number of seats, the calculations were all based on the square footage.
Originally, they had proposed 14 seats now there are 21 but that has to be
reviewed. Mr. Fleischmann said he didn’t believe they needed that many seats,
he doesn’t see the need for that many since not that any people will be eating
there for lunch. It is like a stop pick up your food and go type of
establishment. He will correct that on another plan. Jude Sillato asked what the total square
footage of the apartments was? Gordon Wemp answered by saying it was on the plan 1,066 sqf. She asked them
if they are anticipating the rentals to be long term and not short term. Mr.
Fleischmann answered, absolutely yes! They need steady income. Going into this
project they didn’t realize they would need a new building since the existing
one has no foundation. The cost of this is $6,000-7,000 to take down and
rebuild. The original plan was a two bedroom single apartment and after talking
to realtors they said two one bedroom apartments would generate more income.
Three streams of rental income provides stability, it is more sustainable. Jude
Sillato asked if they had gotten all of their NY Water shed paperwork and
permits for this much use? Mr. Fleischmann answered yes it has all been done
through the CWC. There were no more questions or comments from the board.
Michael
Castiglione read the names of the contiguous neighbors: Laura Williams,
Chappell Lake Corp., Peter Zeisner, Meadow Blum; Steven Mrs. Blum’s husband was
present and mentioned it just seems like a really big project for a half acre
property. He is worried about the amount of people. He asked the board if this
was considered a renovation or a new construction. Michael Castiglione answered
a new construction. He is also worried about the septic and the high water
table. He mentioned the bus stop and the straight away. Gordon Wemp answered
the ZBA has nothing to do with the septic that would fall under the Planning
Board and the DEP, the ZBA is only dealing with the setbacks, he understands
his concern but it’s not their purview.
Jeff
Collins arrived.
Mr.
Minch answered Steven regarding the setbacks, stating they could relocate the
building away from Mink Hollow but then they would fall under the strip highway
category where the whole front part would be parking. Steven said visually he
thinks it will look the same since the parking is on the side. Mr. Fleischmann
said he had hired a septic engineer and that everything was by code. Gordon
Wemp stated it is commercially zoned and that will create customers. Michael
Castiglione continued reading the names of the contagious neighbors: Alexander
Hafner and Donna/Brian Chase. Were not present. Mr. Bill Weisman spoke and
asked at what time would the place close down? Mr. Fleischmann answered 6:00
pm. Jude Sillato stated the hours of operation is a condition that the Planning
Board decides on. Arlene Weisman is concerned about the well. Michael
Castiglione stated that particular concern again has to be taken up with the
Planning board. Jude Sillato mentioned if the ZBA would grant them the variance
for two apartments would he agree to a condition they had to be long term
rentals and not short term? Mr. Fleischmann said yes, absolutely! There were no
more comments from the board. Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to close the
public hearing portion of the case, seconded by Mike Castiglione. Chairwoman
Mendoza made a motion to recess the case, seconded by Michael Castiglione. All
voted aye.
*****
ZBA CASE
# 19-14 Application of Robert Marsh
Lindley and Steven Taub, for
property located at 11 Laura Lane, Woodstock
NY, 12498 a 7.11 acre parcel located within a R3 Zoning District, for a
variance from the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Article V, Supplementary
Regulations, Section 260-32 (A), Fences, Walls and Gates, to allow the
construction of a 200 foot long 6 foot high privacy fence 12 inches from the
property line in a front yard, where only a 4 foot high fence is allowed.
Steven
Taub was present. Chairwoman Mendoza mentioned this case is Jeff Collins case. Mr.
Taub started by saying their house is located on a 7 acre parcel located closer
to the neighbor on 7 Laura Lane. They want a privacy fence for privacy and to
help their dogs not escape to the road. The area is pretty wooded. He showed
the members where the house was located and where the fence would be on a map.
They tried to add shrubbery there but it’s too shaded for anything to grow, so
they had to rip all those bushes out. Chairwoman Mendoza what kind of a fence
would it be. Mr. Taub answered cedar attached to each other. Michael
Castiglione asked why a 4 foot fence wasn’t enough? Mr. Taub doesn’t think it
would add enough privacy. Jeff Collins visited the property today and said it
is technically a side yard but from the road point of view it is the front. The
front ( what is being called the front) from the road visually it look like the
side . It’s called the front because of the location of the house on the
property. The front is considered as being on Chestnut Hill but they drive into
the property from Laura Lane. Gordon Wemp stated that anything that is in the front
of the house ( even if it is on the side) is considered the front yard which in
this case is facing Laura Lane. Anything
back from that point can have a 6 foot fence. This is a somewhat unique
situation where someone’s front yard is someone else’s back yard. Michael
Castiglione asked the applicants how they thought they would contain their pet
to not go outside the property beyond this fence. Mr. Taub answered they have
an electric fence and it is heavily wooded. Jude Sillato mentioned that the
setback for a front yard was 5 feet from the property line, they are asking for
12 inches? Mr. Taub said they were
asking for 12 inches off the property line. Chairwoman Mendoza mentioned the
board had received two emails from contiguous neighbors stating their approval
of the fence.
Michael
Castiglione read the names of the contiguous neighbors: Louisa Gross, Paul
Washington, Henry Ford/Michael Knaut,( are in favor), Ryan Miller/Alicia
Schwartz, Joseph Moreira, Steven Lynch; Dolores Lynch was there to speak on Mr.
Lynch’s behalf she wanted to see on the site plan where the fence would be
located. She asked how far would it be from Laura lane, Mr. Taub answered about
180 feet. They are looking to delineate the property line a little bit better.
Dolores wished them luck and said she was fine with the fence. Michael Castiglione continued reading the
names; Sandor Kekesi/Eva Orlouski and Gail Goodwin.
Chairwoman
Mendoza made a motion to close the public hearing portion for this case.
Jude
Sillato asked if perimeter fences were aloud per zoning. Michael Castiglione
asked what this was? Jude said do they allow to put a fence the entire length
of the property line, are there supposed to be setbacks? Michael Castiglione
answered by saying he believes a fence can be put in on a property line but he
would look it up to make sure.
Chairwoman
Mendoza made a motion to recess ZBA Case # 19-14.
3.
DECISION AND ORDERS AND INTERPRETATIONS OUTSTANDING
ZBA Case # 19-05, Thomas Auringer c/o Elizabeth Auringer. Chairwoman
Mendoza made a motion to reopen the case, there were no further comments or questions from the board. Chairwoman
Mendoza made a motion to close the case, seconded by Michael Castiglione. All
voted aye. Jeff Collins read the following resolution:
INTERPRETATION:
This is an application made by Thomas Auringer
seeking a) “a reversal of denial of a Certificate of Occupancy dated December
17, 2018" and the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy; and b) an
interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeal that the Woodstock Planning
Board improperly inserted construction of a metal roof added to a residence
into proceedings related to the mitigation of clear cutting in the Scenic
Overlay District without specific referral of that issue to the Planning Board
by the Woodstock Building Department.
Addressing first the second branch of the
application, Section 260-103 of the Town Code provides as follows:
“ The jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of
Appeals shall be appellate only and shall be limited to hearing and deciding on
appeals from and reviewing any written order, requirements, decision,
interpretation or determination made by the Zoning Enforcement Officer charged
with the enforcement of the Chapter”.
Since the Zoning Board of Appeals is a body
created by statute its jurisdiction is limited to that which the enabling
legislation provides. Here that jurisdiction does not extend to actions of the
Planning Board. As a result the Zoning Board has no authority to review any
action of the Planning Board arising from that body’s proceedings.
With respect to the request for the issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy code section 260-101 prohibits the issuance of a
building permit for a building with an existing violation unless issued to
correct the violation. The clear cutting issue which remains outstanding and which
requires the issuance of a site plan not yet granted represents a condition
which does not permit the issuance of the requested Certificate of Occupancy.
The
vote was announced as follows: Maria
Mendoza: ( aye ), Michael Castiglione: ( aye ), Gordon Wemp: (
aye ), James Armstrong: ( absent
), Jude Sillato: ( aye ), Jeff Collins: ( no vote
).
THE RESOLUTION WAS (ADOPTED) by a vote of ( 4 ) in
favor, ( 0 ) opposed, ( 1 ) absent, and ( 0 )
abstaining.
*****
ZBA Case #
19-13, Mike and
Robin Kramer, Chairwoman made a motion to reopen this case and read a statement
Jude Sillato had submitted saying “ the applicant agreed to replace any dead
forsythia resulting from the pool construction along with the border with the
Miller property ”. There were no further comments by the board members. Jude
Sillato wanted to add something to the record by saying the building inspector
is the one who determines if a property is in a flood plain. Chairwoman Mendoza
made a motion to recess ZBA Case # 19-13 seconded by Jude Sillato. All voted
aye.
4.
OTHER MATTERS THAT COME BEFORE THE BOARD
Chairwoman
Mendoza mentioned there were two new cases scheduled for July 25th
2019. ZBA Case # 19-18 of Barbara O’Hare was assigned to Jude Sillato and ZBA
Case # 19-17 of Mountain Meadow Realty that was assigned to Gordon. Chairwoman
Mendoza clarified that ZBA Case # 19-16 was assigned to Michael Castiglione.
Chairwoman
Mendoza made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Michael Castiglione.
All voted aye.
Respectfully submitted by,
Michele Sehwerert
