Woodstock
Zoning Board of Appeals
45
Comeau Drive
September12th,
2019
7:00
PM
MEETING
MINUTES
ZBA
Cases #’s in order of the preceding:
Public Hearing ZBA Case # 19-23
Public Hearing ZBA Case # 19-24
Public Hearing ZBA Case # 19-25
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-16
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-17
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-18
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-19
Decision and Order ZBA Case # 19-20
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-21
Decision
and Order ZBA Case # 19-22
Chairwoman
Mendoza called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. Members present, Michael Castiglione,
Maria Mendoza, Gordon Wemp and James
Armstrong. Jeff Collins and Jude Sillato were absent.
1.
ADMINISTRATIVE
MATTERS
MINUTES APPROVAL-Move to accept August 22,
2019 meeting minutes by Maria Mendoza seconded by James Armstrong.
All voted aye. Motion adopted.
CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO MEETING AGENDA – No
changes were made.
2.
DECISION AND ORDERS AND INTERPRETATIONS OUTSTANDING
ZBA
Case # 19-16, Paul
Fleishman/30 North LLC will remain recessed.
*****
ZBA
Case # 19-17
Robert Whitcomb/Mountain Meadow Realty, Chairwoman Mendoza reopened the case
for Board member discussion only. This is Gordon Wemp’s case and he mentioned
he had been over the sign law and it has a lot of ambiguous language. There are
issues with directional signs. He also mentioned the board had already issued a
variance for a large sign on the Sunflower building which according to the law
is an allowed use ( he read Section D, subsection C of the Zoning Law that
references this matter) The Board has
gotten a lot of input regarding this case, he has spoken to other town agency
members, the supervisor, Laura Ricci. He wants to get some input from the Town
and Less/Jess Walker on this and maybe get it to be part of the law. He believes that nobody is really paying
attention to what is allowed or not regarding signage in the Town. James Armstrong stated he thought the granted
sign was 50 sq ft and it was granted because it was so far away from the
road. Mr. Whitcomb interjected by saying
it was a 25 sq ft sign not 50 sq ft back in 91 they were told they needed a
variance for the sign. Gordon Wemp read the directional sign section in the law.
He stated this a unique situation because there is no section in the law that
talks about a Plaza. He brought up the locals know that plaza as Bradley
Meadows and there is no sign that states that name. Most Plazas around the
county have names for their local Plazas. He would like to talk to the Zoning
Committee and get something in the law that addresses this issue specifically.
The buildings are about 150 feet away from the road which is a considerable
distance. It’s buffered by parking, large trucks and isn’t always easily viable
from the road when you are driving. Mr. Wemp believes this creates a very
specific use. He is still talking to a lot of people, he is working on it and
he would like to get a consensus. Gemma from A&P interjected by saying she
need a lighted sign because she has a night business and a directional sign
would not help her at all. She has been there for three years now and they need
some kind of representation lit at night because they don’t open until 5:00 pm.
They are not a walk by business. Gordon Wemp understands her point and is
leaning towards a marquis for that exact reason, but they have to abide by the
law. Gordon Wemp likes the plan that Jess Walker came up with where the size is
a little bit bigger than directional signs and smaller than the allowed big
signs. Mike Castiglione agrees with Gordon on everything he expressed. James
Armstrong believes the law has nothing applicable to shopping centers and he
would like to have some type of signs out in front, maybe by restricting the
size of the ones on the buildings. It’s a matter of competition and to bring
costumers in. Chairwoman Mendoza personally has no problem with the sign
Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to recess the case, seconded by Gordon Wemp.
All voted aye.
*****
ZBA
Case # 19-18,
Barbara O’Hare, Chairwoman Mendoza mentioned this is Jude Sillato’s case and
nothing was written up so it will remain recessed until the next meeting.
*****
ZBA
Case # 19-19,
Lewis Arlt,. Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to reopen this case seconded by
James Armstrong. There were no further questions or comments from the board.
Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to close the case, seconded by James
Armstrong. All voted ate. Chairwoman Mendoza read the following resolution:
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, an area variance from the
Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Use Regulations, Section 260-24 B,
Accessory Structures and Features in Yards, in order to install a 15 foot by 30
foot, 52 inch above ground pool in the front yard, is hereby GRANTED subject to
all requirements of the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, the New York State
Real Property Law and all other applicable laws, codes and regulations.
The
vote was announced as follows: Maria
Mendoza: ( aye ), Michael Castiglione: ( aye ), Gordon Wemp: ( aye ), James Armstrong: ( aye ), Judith Sillato: (absent ), Jeff Collins: ( absent ).
THE RESOLUTION WAS (ADOPTED) by a
vote of ( 4 ) in favor, ( 0 ) opposed, ( 2 ) absent, and ( 0 )
abstaining.
*****
ZBA
Case # 19-20,
Patrick Rose, Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to reopen this case seconded by
James Armstrong. There were no further questions or comments from the board.
Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to close the case, seconded by James
Armstrong. All voted ate. Chairwoman Mendoza read the following resolution
RESOLUTION:
Based
upon the Standards for Consideration of Area Variances set forth in Section
260-26B of the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, an area variance from the
Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Article IV, Area and Bulk Regulations,
Section 260-26 B (1) (b), Modification of Required Yards (R1.5 – Side), to
allow the construction of a 394 sq. ft. addition with a 5-foot infringement
into a required 15-foot side yard setback, is hereby GRANTED subject to all
requirements of the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, the New York State
Real Property Law and all other applicable laws, codes and regulations.
The
vote was announced as follows: Maria
Mendoza: (aye), Michael Castiglione: (aye), Gordon Wemp: ( aye ), James
Armstrong: ( aye ), Judith Sillato: ( absent ), Jeff Collins: ( absent ).
THE RESOLUTION WAS (ADOPTED) by a
vote of ( 4 ) in favor, ( 0 ) opposed, ( 2 ) absent, and ( 0 )
abstaining.
*****
ZBA
Case # 19-21, Laurelside
LLC/James Manuso Chairwoman Mendoza mentioned this is Michael’s case and it
will remain recessed until the next meeting.
*****
ZBA
Case # 19-22,
Samantha Ryon, Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to reopen this case seconded by James Armstrong. There
were no further questions or comments from the board. Chairwoman Mendoza made a
motion to close the case, seconded by James Armstrong. All voted ate.
Chairwoman Mendoza read the following resolution
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, an area variance from the
Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Article IV, Area & Bulk Regulations,
Modification of Required Yards, Section 260-26 (B) (1) (c) for a 24 foot
infringement into a minimum required 25 foot rear yard setback, in order to
construct a 7 foot by 18 foot roof extension on the rear side of an existing
shed, is hereby GRANTED subject to all requirements of the Zoning Law of the
Town of Woodstock, the New York State Real Property Law and all other
applicable laws, codes and regulations.
The
vote was announced as follows: Maria Mendoza: (aye), Michael Castiglione: (aye
), Gordon Wemp: ( aye ), James Armstrong: ( aye ), Judith Sillato: ( absent ),
Jeff Collins: ( absent ).
THE RESOLUTION WAS (ADOPTED) by a
vote of ( 4 ) in favor, ( 0 ) opposed, ( 2 ) absent, and ( 0 )
abstaining.
3. PUBLIC
HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR September 12th, 2019
ZBA
CASE # 19-23
Application of Maureen and Paul Hoyt, for property located at Carle Road (
vacant land ) Mt. Tremper, NY 12457 a 22
acre parcel located within an R5 Zoning District, for a variance from the
Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Section 260-57 (4), in order to allow the
existing road on a 20 foot right of way to be used as a driveway for the
construction of a single family home.
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 applicants were present and started by
stating they own a 22 acre parcel of land with a deeded right of way. It is a
100 year plus old road. There is a top portion and a bottom portion of the
road. It is a subdivided road with the
Town of Shandaken (Carle Road). The bottom portion is a Town dedicated road.
There is a strip going to their property it is about 20 feet, there are two
homes on it. At the top it fans off to their property and to the adjacent
property and there is a house there. Michael Castiglione asked if that was the
Katz house, and they responded yes. They now have a potential buyer for the
property and they wanted to make sure they could build a single family home on
that property and they were told by the building department they needed to go
through this process first. They cant to
anything with the road, the driveaway is not on their property, they just have
a right of way over it,but they cant do anything about fixing it to the newer
driveway regulations. The road has been there for a long time and it isn’t on
their property. James Armstrong asked what kind of grade specifically were they
looking at? Mrs. Hoyt answered by saying 20%, 15%, 21% and 13%. The board
looked at the site plan map and there were no more comments or questions from
the board or the applicants.
Chairwoman Mendoza
asked if there were any contiguous neighbors on the floor, there were none.
Chairwoman Mendoza made
a motion to close the public portion of the hearing, seconded by James
Armstrong, all voted aye. Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to recess ZBA Case #
19-23, seconded by James Armstrong, all voted aye.
*****
ZBA CASE # 19-24 Application
of Cynthia Glasgow and Robert Rhodes, for property located at 141 Ohayo
Mountain Road, Woodstock, NY, 12498 a 3.09 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 10 foot infringement
into a minimum required 50 foot rear yard set back in order to legalize a 10
foot by 12 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 was present and she stated they had installed a pre fab shed on an
area of their property that was 10 feet closer to the property line that the required
minimum 50 foot setback. They are hoping a variance get granted for them to
leave it there and not have to move it. It’s on the side of the property
surrounded by woods, no houses can see it, it’s in a location that is useful
for them and doesn’t seem to be a bother to any of their neighbors. She
presented the board with pictures of the shed and an areal google map view of
the sheds location on their property. It’s not close to anybody else’s house.
Chairwoman Mendoza mentioned the board had received a letter from Sean McDonald
stating he had no problem with the suggested variance. James Armstrong asked
that he noticed the shed was on a bottle neck, was that a right of way? Mrs. Glasgow
answered saying they own both properties, the lot where the shed is, is
undeveloped. The chose to put the shed there because it was easy access to
them.
Chairwoman
Mendoza opened the floor for
any contiguous neighbors’ comments. Jean Young was present. and she stated she
thought it was perfectly fine with her.
Chairwoman Mendoza made
a motion to close the public portion of the hearing, seconded by James
Armstrong, all voted aye. Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to recess ZBA Case #
19-24, seconded by James Armstrong, all voted aye.
*****
Chairwoman
Mendoza opened ZBA Case # 19-25 Application of Eric Sobaczewski as
represented by Marysia Helies, 6 Fitzsimmons Lane, Woodstock NY 12498 for
property located at 6 Fitzsimmons Lane, Woodstock NY 12498, ,
a 0.06 acre parcel located within an HR (Hamlet Residential) Zoning District,
for a variance from the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Article V,
Supplementary Regulations, Section 260-32 (D) Fences, Walls and Gates in order
to legalize the previous installation of a stone wall with a 5 foot
infringement into a required 5 foot front yard setback.
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 and the representative were not present. James Armstrong suggested
they postpone the hearing. There were contiguous neighbors present. Gordon Wemp
mentioned this was Jude’s case and she was absent also. Chairwoman Mendoza
stated the board had received four letters from contiguous neighbors. Michael
Castiglione, James Armstrong and Gordon Wemp said they had no problem
addressing the contiguous neighbors concerns, especially if they were all
there.
Chairwoman
Mendoza opened the floor to the
contiguous neighbors’ present: Paul DeLisio (sent a letter opposing the wall)
his property manager was present – David DeLisio- stated the stone wall had
been built several years ago beyond her property line and it was about 3 feet
into the 10 foot right of way. Both him and Paul spoke to the property owner
and the Building Inspector, after this the property owner pushed the wall even
farther out, 2 or 3 more feet and poured concrete into the wall to make it more
permanent. The property’s owner reason
to them is she built the wall for flooding purposes and he has never seen any
issues with flooding in that area. William Lee ( sent a letter opposing the
wall) Mr. Steve Romine the property caretaker and manager was present and
showed the board members the different right of ways the property has on a map.
He gave the building inspector all of the maps and deeded documents and nothing
was done, the building inspector said it was a setback matter. It has been a
very problematic thing and the three
contiguous neighbors have had many problems in the past with this
property. Michael Castiglione went to
the property and took pictures, he showed them to the board. James Armstrong
asked who the property owner of the right of way in question was? Mr. Romine
answered by saying the stone wall is on the right of way that goes through each
of their properties. James Armstrong wanted to know who the original property
owner was? , Mr. Romine didn’t know but he mentioned that each one of their
property deeds says they all have a 10 foot right of way. Gordon Wemp asked Mr.
Romine to show them exactly where this right of way was on the map. He measured
from the back of the house to the back fence and the 60 foot mark put him right
on top of the wall, if you figure this it would actually be 7 feet too far.
Gordon Wemp said the map shows the wall is right in the middle of the right of
way. John Muth spoke and said his deed states his property goes to the center
of the right of way. He says her reasoning is that it is her property and she
will put up that wall to the end of her property. Michael Castiglione mentioned
there is a tree growing in the right of way and then read what the applicant
had stated as their reason for the wall in the application. Mrs. Raji Nevin
(Mr. Romine’s partner) expressed her opposition to the wall. There were no more
contiguous neighbors present. Mr. Romine also submitted a letter to the board
opposing the wall. James Armstrong stated this might need civil legal action
also. Mr. Romine mentioned the building department already sent her a notice to
remove the wall and after that happened she applied for a variance.
Chairwoman Mendoza made
a motion to close the public portion of the hearing, seconded by Michael
Castiglione, all voted aye. Chairwoman Mendoza made a motion to recess ZBA Case
# 19-25, seconded by Michael Castiglione, all voted aye.
*****
Chairwoman
Mendoza made a motion to adjourn the meeting, all voted aye.
Respectfully
submitted by,
Michele Sehwerert
