Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconforming Use Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodstock ZBA signals likely denial of large nonconforming expansion; asks for site plan and legal review
Summary
Board members told an applicant a proposal to expand a nonconforming use and develop multiple cabins/houses is unlikely to meet variance criteria, flagged potential need for a use variance, and agreed to prepare a written decision while keeping the public hearing open for a future meeting.
The Woodstock Zoning Board of Appeals spent substantial time on July 24, 2025 debating a proposed expansion of a pre-existing, nonconforming site that the board said would likely require a use variance and is unlikely to meet the legal criteria for approval.
The matter concerns an application associated with Howard Rifken LLC (represented at times in the record by a Mr. Jacobson) involving existing cabins or small buildings on a parcel and a proposal described in board discussion as dramatically increasing building area (one speaker summarized an increase from roughly 1,150 square feet to about 4,800 square feet) and the potential for as many as 10 small dwellings.
Board members repeatedly raised legal and practical concerns. Members noted the town’s rule that a nonconforming use may be expanded only up to 25% without seeking a use variance; several said the application exceeded that threshold and that the criteria for a use variance (a higher legal standard) appeared unmet. One member characterized the filing as a “trial balloon” that had come to the board as an area-variance application but which, in the board’s view, should have been presented as a use-variance request.
The Ulster County Planning Board referral was discussed; board members said the county’s response was unclear about what it required and that the town should attach the county review to any written decision. Members also said the application lacked essential materials, including a site plan and detailed elevations, and debated whether the applicant should deposit escrow to cover review costs.
The board agreed it could prepare a written decision denying the application as an area variance while noting that a use variance would be required for the proposed scale of expansion and that the application, as presented, did not meet the legal criteria for approval. The public hearing remains open; the board recessed deliberations and said it would continue consideration after drafting a decision and accepting any supplementary materials the applicant may submit.
The board cited practical concerns — septic and water infrastructure, potential traffic effects from multiple additional dwelling units, and impacts to neighborhood character — and emphasized that approval could set precedent for similar requests elsewhere in town.
