Woodstock
Zoning Board of Appeals
45 Comeau Drive
April 8th, 2021
7:00 PM
MEETING MINUTES
ZBA Cases #’s in order of the preceding:
Public Hearing ZBA Case # 21-07
Public Hearing ZBA Case # 21-08
Public Hearing ZBA Case # 21-09
Decision and Order ZBA Case # 21-01
Decision & Order ZBA Case # 21-04
Decision & Order ZBA Case # 21-05
Decision & Order ZBA Case # 21-06
Chairman Gordon Wemp called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
Members present Gordon Wemp, Michelle Warman, Joseph Belluck and Jude Sillato. Michael
Castiglione was absent.
1. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
MINUTES APPROVAL- Move to accept March 25, 2021 meeting
minutes by Gordon Wemp seconded by Joseph Belluck. All voted aye.
Motion adopted.
CHANGES/ADDITIONS TO
MEETING AGENDA – No changes were made.
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS
SCHEDULED FOR April 8th, 2021
ZBA CASE # 21-07 Application of 105-109 Mill Hill Road
LLC/Nancy Adler, as represented by David Fletcher, 422 Upper Byrdcliffe Road,
Woodstock NY 12498, for property located at 109 Mill Hill Road, Woodstock, NY
12498, a 3.1 acre parcel located within a R1.5 Zoning District, for a variance
from the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Article VI, Standards within
Gateway Overlay (G-O) District, Section 260-67 (F) (1) (b), in order to create
an accessory use on a pre existing structure at a location that prohibits the
sale of food to be consumed off premises.
Mr. Fletcher the representative was
present and stated they wanted to start a small sushi bar at the barn at
Cucina. Jude Sillato asked why did he write in his application it was a
temporary variance? Mr. Fletcher responded by saying their intention would be
for the food to be consumed off the premises. Jude Sillato asked again if he
was planning on just doing this short term? Mr. Fletcher answered by saying his intentions
were not for short term, he doesn’t know what that was stated in the
application, they would want to continue to sell and make sushi long term.
Michele read what Mr. Fletcher had written on the application as the reason for
the variance. Joseph Belluck asked what the building was currently being used for
now? Mr. Fletcher answered for catering for Cucina. Joseph Belluck also asked
if they had done any type of study regarding impact on traffic in that area,
impact on that intersection with the golf course? Mr. Fletcher answered by
saying at first their intention is to only have a couple of seats and some
delivery as well. They want to start small. Joseph Belluck said that
theoretically the way they are starting would imply a lot of vehicular traffic,
most people aren’t going to be going there and staying at the location, they
would be driving by to pick up their order, delivery vehicles etc. had they
thought about how this would impact the traffic/parking situation there? Mr.
Fletcher answered by saying at first they would be operating only during the
day time and they would work closely with Cucina so there wouldn’t be any
issues. The Cucina parking lot is well suited for all of this. Jude Sillato
read what the ZEO wrote as reason for variance on the referral form. Mr.
Fletcher stated at first they were thinking of starting out 100% take out and
delivery and expanding to seating after that. But throughout the process they
thought it would be best to start right away with limited seating. Chairman
Wemp stated that realistically what they are looking to do is open a sushi
restaurant. Mr. Fletcher answered by saying they want an 8 seat sushi bar and
they will be working with Woodstock Drop which is a delivery company Mr.
Fletcher is involved with and have take out as well. Jude’s concern is that the
application should reflect what they want to do. Chairman Wemp said that there
seems to be a lot of supposition in the actual variance request, the board
needs something a little bit more specific as to what their true intentions are
and request to do is. A lot of restaurant do take out but it is specifically
banned in the gateway because of traffic reasons. Jude stated the board needs
to know exactly what the applicant is asking for. Cucinas parking lot is vacant
during the day since they are closed. Questions about whether or not the
application should be amended arose. Jude
asked if Mr. Fletcher was aware that this was a use variance and there are
criteria that have to be met. Mr. Fletcher asked for the board to specify what
the criteria were. Chairman Wemp stated the board had to be very careful at the
time of granting a use variance, the issue wasn’t only applied to drive-thru
restaurants. Joseph Belluck read the 4 use criteria and explained each one.1-
Hardship on the applicant or the business with the current regulations and
demonstrating that they can’t operate the business without the variance: Mr.
Fletcher answered by saying because of the pandemic all of the restaurants are
doing are doing a significant amount of business with online ordering and
people are consuming the food off the premises and at their house. It is a
standard of the industry to offer that. He doesn’t know of any restaurant that
isn’t allowed to have a to go food order. He believes it would be reasonable to
allow different language to allow their use and to not allow big corporations
to come in and change the flow of the town. 2- His hardship is unique to the
property and doesn’t apply to the rest of the district or neighborhood: Mr.
Fletcher answered by saying he knows of other restaurants in that district that
aren’t doing take out but there is a restaurant in the district that is doing
only take out. He thinks any property in
Woodstock that had to follow that mandate, whoever was trying to start a
restaurant and said building would have a very hard time. 3- The variance would
not alter the character of the neighborhood: Mr. Fletcher answered by saying
the parking lot is being very much utilized for that purpose since people are
getting take out from Cucina as long as they are in sync with them he sees no
problem with them utilizing that space for exactly that. 4- His hardship is not
self created in some way: Mr. Fletcher answered by saying he didn’t write that
law, he thinks the intention of that statute is very much at one with the
values of Woodstock and he would like to preserve that intention. But he would
like to make the process less onerous for himself to start this project. Joseph
Belluck asked him in non pandemic times why the business model isn’t to have
the food served there instead of a to go model. Mr. Fletcher answered by saying
since he is involved in Woodstock Drop his mindset was focused on that but that
this is no different than any other restaurant in Woodstock, have seating and
also be allowed to have take out. Chairman Wemp asked why he led with the take
out model. Mr. Fletcher stated at first because of the pandemic this is what they thought
was the right way to go and it would
have been 100% take out but things got dragged out and now they are here. Jude
Sillato asked if they were going to have evening hours? Mr. Fletcher answered
they were going to have evening hours and day hours and they would be
coordinating everything with Cucina. Jude Sillato stated when they grant a
variance it is specific to the property not to the applicant. The application
is focused on take out and delivery. Amendments can be made to the application
if need be. If the applications stated a take out restaurant and the board
allows a take out restaurant there it can open the opportunity for a chain
restaurant to come in. Mr. Fletcher stated he has been working closely with a
law firm and they are very confident and see super feasible to rewrite the
variance law in a way for only local businesses to have take out in the gateway
district and not allow big corporate restaurants to come in. He made a comparison
to a town in California and how they wrote the statute. Jude Sillato stated
that would be something the Town Board would have to address not the ZBA.
Chairman Wemp stated this was not an easy thing to do and California and other
states have different laws that guide them. Jude Sillato stated if their
intention is to run a take out business but they apply for something else they
would be in violation. Mr. Fletcher answered by saying very simply they want to
open a sushi restaurant with 8 seats and have the ability like every other
restaurant in Woodstock to have food be consumed off the premises. Mr. Fletcher
read a part of a recommendation to change the Town Law. Chairman Wemp reminded
Mr. Fletcher that is something that would have to be taken up with the Town
Board but if there was any way they could include that in the decision writing
he would definitely look into that after talking to council. There were no more
questions from the board.
Chairman Wemp read the names of the
contiguous neighbors: Marla Weider was present ( no comments), Pan American
Dance foundation, Nancy Schauffler was present with her attorney Wayne
Thompson. Mr. Thompson started by saying if there were any SEQR declarations
made? Did the ZBA declare themselves as lead agency? Chairman Wemp answered,
no. There are certain SEQR requirements of the ZBA on NYS law 617 as this is a type I or unlisted
action this is not a Type II action and SEQR must be followed. All this
information was stated in a letter he submitted to the ZBA. That being said he
believes this public hearing could never had taken place legally because SEQR
wasn’t complied with. The ownness is on the applicant to comply with NYS law
and the Town of Woodstock Zoning Law with respect to the 4 hardship matters
codified. The applicant has provided nothing of this sort. Use Variances are
very rarely granted under NYS law. The burden is set so high it’s nearly
impossible. The applicant must show that he can get no reasonable return by any
other use under the zoning code by competent financial evidence not conclusive
statements. The hardship has to be unique. There has been no demonstration that
it is unique, that it’s compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, traffic
issues haven’t been addressed and the hardship is self-created because the
applicant is asking for a variance in a prohibited zone. He doesn’t believe there is any way this
variance could be granted and the application isn’t complete. An environmental
assessment form has to be completed. This is a different request to what was
presented to the Planning Board. Chairman Wemp stated the board did bring up
the 4 criteria to Mr. Fletcher. He doesn’t disagree the application is
incomplete. Mr. Fletcher replied by saying it was their thought that tonight’s
meeting would be for the ZBA to instruct them as how to proceed, if any
amendments have to be made they would comply with them. The ZBA will have to
research all of this a little further. Joseph Belluck said if Mr. Fletcher
wanted to move forward he would have to present the board with all the answers
to the 4 use variance criteria either through an attorney or himself. Mr.
Fletcher stated he wasn’t aware of any of this until tonight. Chairman Wemp
continued reading the names of the contiguous neighbors, Ivy Steel and Woodstock Property Inc. He then
continued to open the meeting to the public, there were no more comments. Jude
Sillato recommended recessing the public hearing since there were so many
questions and the application was incomplete.
Chairman Wemp agreed and made a motion
to recess the public hearing, seconded by Jude Sillato, all voted aye.
*****
ZBA CASE #21-08.
Application of Pensco Trust c/o Robin Wells, for property located at 10
Streamside Terrace, Woodstock, NY 12498, a 0.31 acre parcel located within an
HR, for a variance from the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, , Article V,
Supplementary
Regulations, Bed and Breakfasts and Short Term Rentals, Section 260-56, and Local Law No.1 in order to allow a
property owner to have an STR in the floodway.
Mrs.
Wells was present and stated she purchased the property 3 years ago and they
decided to start an STR, they put in an application and they got a response
back from the building department stating since it was in a floodway they
couldn’t have an STR. She spent a good amount of time talking to Bill McKenna
since a lot of people didn’t know this restriction had been placed in the STR
law. She wanted to know why and someone told her it was because of the stream
over flowing the STR people wouldn’t know what to do. She was told to go to the
Planning Board and they sent her to the ZBA. They have been restricting the
rentals because of this. She wanted to
spend more time here but she hasn’t been able to due to COVID. She does have a
property manager Robyn and they try to rent it out to families since they
turned the garage into a recreation room for kids. If she were across the
street this wouldn’t be a problem. There are other properties that are in the
floodway like Woodstock Way that can have rentals because they don’t come under
the STR law and she isn’t grandfathered in. Jude Sillato stated the planning
board can’t change the law nor does the ZBA, that would be the Town Board. As the last application this is a Use
variance and the 4 criteria must be met. There are very specific financial
requirements that she doesn’t believe she meets. Mrs. Wells asked why it would be a use
variance, change of use in what? Jude Sillato explained there are certain uses
allowed in certain zoning districts and other uses aren’t. In the floodway
STR’s are not an allowed use. Chairman Wemp stated a rental is not precluded
from being in the floodway but an STR is. Mrs. Wells asked if her application
was incomplete or erroneous? Jude answered by saying she would like to see Mrs.
Wells fill out the application as if it was a use one. Michele will send her
the criteria to follow. Butch told Jude
she was one of the first applicants for STR’s. Mrs. Wells stated when she said
before she had spoken to the planning board she didn’t mean them she meant she
spoke to the Town Board regarding this issue and how to straighten it out.
Joseph Belluck requested that they do the same as the past application, let her
review the 4 criteria and amend her application as needed. There were no more
comments or questions from the board.
Michele read the names of the
contiguous neighbors: Susan Hoover, Risa Barber and Forest were present and
asked if there would be a postponement of the case. Chairman Wemp explained
they would recess the public hearing because of Mrs. Wells not being aware of
her application being a use variance. Mr. Forest stated they have some concerns
since their property is adjacent to Mrs. Wells and they have a lot of erosion.
Guests use their property to access the stream and that is very dangerous and
creates a liability for them. He would like to know if they could put up a
fence to prevent this from happening. Mrs. Wells said she would definitely put
up a fence if it is allowed, or maybe some warning signs or some chicken
wire. She doesn’t want the liability
either and she had no idea this was going on. She was very sorry, Robyn Pollins
the property manager stated she had no idea either, she would leave her number
for Mr. Forest in their mailbox. It states in their welcome book that guests
are to stay off anyone else’s property, if she would have know she would have
stopped it immediately, to please contact her if anything like this happens
again. Mrs. Wells asked if a fence was allowed there? Mrs. Barber answered by
saying, yes. Jude Sillato asked if she was running an STR from her house now?
Mrs. Pollins answered by saying no, they had only been there for 5 months and
they were offering it for one month at a time, but once it was made clear to
her she couldn’t do the STR they stopped doing less that 7 day rentals and the
last tenants were there for 3 months. Michele continued reading the names of
the contiguous neighbors: Neher Realty
Group, Reginald Robinson & Donna Wilder, Gary Rawlins & Martha Abraham.
None were present. Diane a neighbor stated it was weird to be on a cul de sac
and now there is a commercial situation with Mrs. Wells renting it out for a month
at a time. .
Chairman Wemp made a motion to recess the public hearing,
seconded by Jude Sillato, all voted aye.
*****
ZBA Case #21-09 Application of Dan
Zamlong and Camila Grusd, as represented by Inma Donaire, 22 East Market
Street, Rhinebeck NY 12572, for property
located at 136 Meads Mt. Road, Woodstock NY 12498 a 10.29 acre parcel located
within an R5 Zoning District, for
variances from the Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Article IV, Area &
Bulk Regulations, Section 260-16, Attachment 2, Column (R-5) (f), for a 29
foot infringement into a minimum required 75 foot side yard set back in order
to construct a 2 story 6 foot by 36 foot addition and a 74 foot infringement
into a minimum required 75 foot side yard setback in order to extend an
existing deck on the east side and for a
72 foot infringement into a minimum required 75 foot side yard setback
in order to extend an existing deck on the west side.
Representative Inma Donaire was present and it
is an 10.29 acre elongated lot that is surrounded by 9 other properties. It is
on a slope and there are 3 buildings on it currently. There is a barn/storage
building, the main house and a small pool house/shed. The main house is just at
the corner of the property, it was built in 1983 before the Town approved the
setback regulations. The entire house is within the setbacks so whatever they
do they need to request a variance. She showed the board where the new addition
would be located and the new decks would be an extension of the decks that are
already there in order to connect both of them. The addition would be 2 story.
Jude Sillato stated that it looked like the deck was infringing on someone
else’s property. Mrs. Donaire said yes but it was pre existing, it was built in
1985 and the new owners bought this house in 2007. Chairman Wemp asked if the
deck that is there would be remaining? Mrs. Inma said yes it had a certificate
of occupancy. Jude Sillato asked if the property owners also owned a separate
contiguous lot? Inma answered by saying yes and showed the board on the tax
map. Michelle Warman asked what the addition would be used for? Inma answered
by saying it would be part of the main house. It would be a bigger entrance, dining
room and master suite on the second floor. Michele asked on behalf of a
contiguous neighbor, Uffner Beth Trust who had called that day, if the addition
would be used at any point for an STR? Inma answered definitely not, it was
being built as part of the existing house for the owners, they live there full
time. Camila Zamlong the owner stated they were just extending the master
bathroom and bedroom and in order to do that they needed to extend it a few
feet, it would just continue off the home. She also mentioned she would contact
the neighbor who had asked about the addition being used for commercial use
since she knew them well. Michele also mentioned Alfred S Kerner had requested
a copy of the application.
Michele read the names of the contiguous neighbors:
Renee Lucier/Thomas Hiner,
Ailes Spinden, Uffner
Beth Trust, Alfred S Kerner Trust/Willma D. Miller trust, Adam Jacobs, James
Pisano/Angela Landon, New York State and James Henry Mahlmann.
None were present and
there were no more questions from the board.
Chairman Wemp made a
motion to close the public hearing portion of the case, seconded by Jude
Sillato, all voted aye. Chairman Wemp made a motion to recess the case,
seconded by Jude Sillato, all voted aye.
3. DECISION AND ORDERS AND
INTERPRETATIONS OUTSTANDING
ZBA CASE # 21-01 Terry Dagrosa. Chairman Wemp made a motion to re open the case, seconded
by Joseph Belluck, all voted aye. Chairman Wemp moved to close the case, seconded by Jude
Sillato, all voted aye. Chairman Wemp read the following resolution.
RESOLUTION:
Based
upon the Standards for Consideration of Area Variances set forth from the
Zoning Law of the Town of Woodstock, Article IV, Use Regulations, Section
260-14, 260 Attachment 1 Amended Schedule of Use Regulations, Article V, Supplementary Regulations, Bed and
Breakfasts and Short Term Rentals, Section 260-56, in order to request an
exception of the Local Law No.1 to allow a property owner to have more than one
STR, is
hereby DENIED 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: Gordon Wemp, ( aye ), Michael Castiglione: (
absent ), Judith Sillato: ( aye ), Michelle Warman (aye ), Joseph Belluck ( aye
).
THE RESOLUTION WAS (ADOPTED) by a
vote of ( 4 ) in favor, ( 0 ) opposed, ( 1 ) absent, and ( 0 )
abstaining.
*****
ZBA
CASE # 21-04 Byron Duckwall. Chairman Wemp made a motion to re open
the case, seconded by Jude Sillato, all voted aye. Chairman Wemp moved to close the case, seconded by Jude
Sillato, all voted aye. Chairman Wemp read the following resolution.
RESOLUTION: Based
upon the Standards for Consideration of Area Variances and conditional upon
compliance with stated representations, Area Variances from the Zoning Law of
the Town of Woodstock, Article IV, Area & Bulk
Regulations, Modification of required yards, Section 260-26 B (2) (b) as
modified by Section 260-26 A, for a 15 foot infringement into a required 25
foot side yard setback in order to construct a 16 foot by 28 foot detached
studio with a bathroom , 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:Gordon
Wemp (aye),Michael Castiglione: (absent ), Judith Sillato:(nay), Michelle
Warman (aye ) Joseph Belluck (aye )
THE RESOLUTION
WAS (ADOPTED) by a vote of ( 3 ) in
favor, ( 1 ) opposed, ( 1 ) absent,
and ( 0 ) abstaining.
*****
ZBA CASE # 21-05 Ralph Goneau Chairman
Wemp made a motion to re open the case, seconded by Jude Sillato, all voted aye.
Joseph Belluck mentioned Mr. Goneau passed away and this is his case and he
doesn’t know what the status of the case was.
Chairman Wemp stated they had received a letter from Mrs. Brooks the
representative. Michel mentioned she had spoken to Mrs. Brooks that morning and
she had spoken to a representative of the family and the sale of the property
was still moving forward as planned. Joseph stated he didn’t know legally what
the status was but when the person passes away everything is deemed stayed
until an executor of the estate is appointed. The ZBA should not deliberate on
this case until they receive that information. Jude Sillato stated to make sure
everyone knew this case is stayed and any time constraints the ZBA might have
to follow would be suspended. Chairman
Wemp made a motion to recess the case, seconded by Jude Sillato, all voted aye.
He also mentioned he would talk to council regarding this tomorrow.
*****
ZBA
CASE # 21-06 Andrew Peck and Chloe Dresser.
Chairman Wemp made a motion to re open the case, seconded by Jude Sillato, all
voted aye. He mentioned they hadn’t received any notification from the UCPB.
Michele mentioned it had been heard by the UCPB the night before, they probably
wouldn’t received any decision for at least two weeks. Jude Sillato mentioned
this was a use variance also. There were no further comments from the board.
Chairman Wemp made a motion to recess the case, seconded by Jude Sillato all
voted aye.
4. OTHER
Jude Sillato and Michele will be working on a Use Variance
informational template to give to the applicants.
Jude Sillato made a motion to adjourn the ZBA meeting,
second by Gordon Wemp. All voted aye.
Respectfully submitted by,
Michele Sehwerert
