PLANNING BOARD MEETING - MARCH 5, 2026
Regular MeetingSkaneateles, NY · March 5, 2026
Minutes
Village of Skaneateles
Planning Board Meeting
March 5, 2026
Skaneateles Village Hall
Continuation of Public hearing for Site Plan Review (demolition) to construct 4,239 SF first and
second floor with added crawlspace foundations, 4.5 bedrooms, 4.5 bathrooms, and two car
attached garage with bonus room above and Area Variance recommendation in the matter of the
application of Keith Falkenberg to vary the strict application of Section 225-A5 Density
Control Schedule for Side Yard Setback; Minimum Open Area; Percentage of Lot Width; and
Maximum Stories; and Section 225-69D, Non-conforming Buildings, Structures and Uses,
Extension or Expansion at the property addressed as 3 Tallcott Lane in the Village of
Skaneateles.
Present:
Stephen Hartnett, Chairman
Connie Brace, Member
Martin Custer, Member
Melissa Komanecky, Member (via telephone)
Riccardo Galbato, Attorney for the Planning Board
John Cromp, Code Enforcement Officer
Ian Carroll, Clerk to the Boards
Patrick MacDonald, Deputy Code Enforcement Officer
Bob Eggleston, 1391 East Genesee Street
Francis Lombardi, 27 Fennell St
Benzion Klein, 60 Fennell St
Carter Stregiel, 1572 Heifer Rd
Kristin Bealer, 19 Fennell St
Jeff LaMarca, 62 Fennell St
Audrey Van Voolen, 62 Fennell St
Laura Rosner-Warburton, 102 W. Lake St
Keith Falkenberg, 1015 Butters Farm Lane
Kelly Falkenberg, 1015 Butters Farm Lane
Adrienne Drumm-Foody, 61 E Genesee St
Member Al Giannino was excused.
Chairman Harnett opened the meeting and called for the Falkenberg matter at 6:40 pm
Bob Eggleston represented Kelly and Keith Falkenberg, who were also present.
The board was briefed on a new application proposing demolition of a single-family home and
construction of a 4,239 sq ft replacement with variances needed for setbacks, lot coverage, and
stories; procedural history and referral letters were noted and the public hearing status was
presented for reopening or adjournment.
TDK Review and Next Steps
Mr. Eggleston began by talking about the engineering review letter that was completed on
02.25.2026 and began to express his views on the process.
The applicant said they had requested the additional information, that the Board asked for, from
PJO Survey and planned to obtain topography and utility laterals before revising plans, while the
codes office was identified as the final decision-maker for application completion after
resubmission. The applicant agreed to provide a topographic survey and utility laterals to update
the site plans.
Mr. Eggleston said, regarding the engineering analysis for the proposal, “I was a little baffled. I
don't know what the word is. I've only been working with it for 30 years and follow it and use it
all the time.”
Chairman Hartnett cut him off, he said: “Hold up one second please. I appreciate that you have
some questions or have some issues with how TDK handled this. And that's between, it doesn't
need to be dealt with at this point.”
Mr Eggleston said, “Right, exactly. So the big question, because again, this is kind of the first
application that's going through this process, is what the next steps will be. Obviously, I have
pointed out the corrections that need to be made to have it correct. And then we will show
laterals and things like that. And a lot of the information that they're referring to is items that will
be coordinated with the Director of Municipal Operations, which will be done after site plan
approval, because that's the policy of the codes office is that once you get approval, then we can
talk and work out those details, which our contractor will be more than glad to do. I'm not quite
sure what the next step is going to be, and obviously Keith and Kelly have a contractor which is
anxiously waiting, and he's ready to go. And we have the asbestos reports done, and asbestos has
been removed and all that, and obviously there'll be coordination. So I guess I'm not quite sure, is
this going back to TDK for their response, or you're taking the review, you're taking the
response, and from that you'll make your...”
Attorney Galbato interrupted, and said, “Well, you said in your summary that drawings and
support materials will be updated as required to address any TDK valid comments --well, valid
in your eyes – but have you done that?”
Mr. Eggleston acknowledged that he had not.
Attorney Galbato continued, “Are you using the same actual foundation? You’re not putting in
new block?”
“Yeah, yeah,” said Eggleston. “We're putting two blocks on top to raise up the height. And I
think I explained why we're doing it. And again, their assumption was not correct. It was an
assumption and it was incorrect. And we explained that.”
Chairman Hartnett clarified, “Okay, TDK is an advisor to the village. And the codes office has
the final call on this. So we're going to get the rest of your information. We're going to run it by
the codes office. We can continue this and move things along. Believe me, we don't want to
spend one more minute on this, then we have to either. But we want to do it right. It is a major
property on a main street of the village, and we want to make sure that this was done correctly.
So we're all in agreement. So we're looking forward to your future submissions. So we have a
public hearing that we need to reopen, but before I do that I'm going to ask the forum for any
questions or comments.”
Member Brace said, I’ll make a motion that we reopen the public hearing. Member Custer
seconded. The board reopened the public hearing and invited questions from the forum;
procedural points included whether the project could be approved mid-cycle (it cannot) and
agreement to carry the hearing to the next month to allow review of revised drawings. Board
members reviewed the survey on-screen, discussed accessory structures and setbacks, and
clarified existing site elements such as a driveway, grass, and right-of-way access. The public
hearing was left open and the board moved to carry it to the next month pending revised
submissions.
In response to a Bob Eggleston insinuation, Attorney Galbato informed the applicant that the
process of engineering review has always been a feature of the Board’s review, authorized in the
code, that is usually reserved for larger and more sensitive projects that would include full-
demolition and reconstruction projects near the lakeshore. On a motion from Chairman
Hartnett seconded by Member Custer, the Public Hearing was adjourned and continued to
the April meeting awaiting the required documentation.
The matter was concluded at 6:53 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Ian Carroll, Clerk to the Boards
Agenda
Planning Board Meeting Thursday, March 5, 2026
Village Hall 26 Fennell Street 6:00 pm
AGENDA
6:00 pm Public hearing in the matter of Critical Impact Permit (Redevelopment in the D
District) for the application of Francis Lombardi to change the use of the main floor office from
(C-2) Commercial Services to 1,825 square foot liquor store (C-22) Retail Sales, Less than 3,000
Square Feet at the property addressed as 29(B) Fennell Street in the Village of Skaneateles.
6:05 pm Public hearing in the matter of Critical Impact Permit (Redevelopment in the D
District) for the application of Kristin Bealer to change the use of the main floor office from (C-16)
Personal Services to (C-22) Retail Sales, Less than 3,000 Square Feet at the property addressed as
19 Fennell Street in the Village of Skaneateles.
6:10 pm Continuation of Public hearing for Site Plan Review (demolition) to construct
4,239 SF first and second floor with added crawlspace foundations, 4.5 bedrooms, 4.5
bathrooms, and two car attached garage with bonus room above and Area Variance
recommendation in the matter of the application of Keith Falkenberg to vary the strict
application of Section 225-A5 Density Control Schedule for Side Yard Setback; Minimum Open
Area; Percentage of Lot Width; and Maximum Stories; and Section 225-69D, Non-conforming
Buildings, Structures and Uses, Extension or Expansion at the property addressed as 3 Tallcott
Lane in the Village of Skaneateles.
6:15 pm Continuation of Public hearing for Site Plan Review (demolition) in the matter
of the application of Ben Klein to construct 2,629 first and second floor with 4 bedrooms, 3.5
bathrooms and two car attached garage at the property addressed as 60 Fennell Street in the
Village of Skaneateles.
6:20 pm Continuation of Public hearing for Site Plan Review (Skaneateles Lake
Overzone) in the matter of the application of Skan Boathouse Property LLC, on behalf of
Sam Nappi, to construct a 3,555 Square Foot addition including house addition, new patio,
attached garage, and driveway reconfiguration of west driveway, at the property addressed as
103 West Lake Street in the Village of Skaneateles.
6:25 pm Consideration of the 2026 Outdoor Dining/Sidewalk Café License applications
by: Hidden Fish, 7 Fennell St.; Moro’s Kitchen, 28 Jordan St.; Patisserie, 2 Hannum St.;
Gilda’s 12 W. Genesee St.; Sherwood Inn, 26 W. Genesee St.; Doug’s Fish Fry, 8 Jordan St.;
Lakehouse Pub, 6 W. Genesee St.; Clover’s Cafe, 22 Jordan St.; Vermont Geen Mountain, 50
E. Genesee St.
6:30 pm Such other matters as may be before the Board.
7:00 pm Executive Session for Attorney – Client Discussion.
*****
1
NB The following matters are pending before the Board and are continued, but are not on tonight’s agenda as
the Board is awaiting further information before action may be taken:
• Consideration of Sketch Plan Review in the matter of the application of Cathy T. McDonald as Trustee for
McDonald Trust to construct a mixed-use Retail, Office and Residential development on three parcels
comprising 8 acres located at the property addressed as 1330 East Genesee Street and between two parcels
addressed as 1322 and 1338 East Genesee Street in the Town of Skaneateles. [Last heard 2/6/25]
• Consideration of Design Standards Review [Section 225-17] and Area Variance recommendation in the
matter of the application of Kristy & Jason Boyles to vary the strict application of Section 225-A5 Density
Control Schedule for Minimum open area; to construct a new 4,799 SF single family dwelling with porches
and attached 2-car garage on a vacant lot at the property addressed as 108 Sinclair Street in the Village of
Skaneateles. This is a revised and resubmitted application for new construction residence (was addressed
as 108 Sinclair in prior application). [Last heard 3/6/25]
Note: Limited electronic presentation support may be available. All times listed after 6:00 pm are approximate.
Any matters tabled and continued by the Board tonight will be heard by the Planning Board at its meeting scheduled
for December 6, 2025 at 6:00 pm. Any variance recommendations made by the Board tonight will be heard by the
Zoning Boar4 of Appeals at its next meeting scheduled for December 04, 2025 at 7:00 pm. Submission of an
application prior to the cut-off date in any particular month does not necessarily ensure that the matter will appear
on the agenda for the next scheduled meeting.
CRITERIA FOR VARIANCES
Specific findings. No variance in the strict application of any provision of this chapter shall be granted by
the Zoning Board of Appeals unless it shall find the evidence required under the following Subsection B(4)
and (5).
B(4) Use variances.
(a) The Zoning Board of Appeals, on appeal from the decision or determination of the Code
Enforcement Officer, shall have the power to grant use variances, authorizing a use of the land which
otherwise would not be allowed or would be prohibited by the terms of this chapter.
(b) No such use variance shall be granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals without a showing by
the applicant and a finding by the Zoning Board of Appeals that applicable zoning regulations and
restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. In order to prove such unnecessary hardship the
applicant shall demonstrate to the Zoning Board of Appeals that for each and every permitted use under
this chapter for the particular district where the property is located:
[1] The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is
substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence;
[2] The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply
to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood;
[3] The requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood; and
[4] The alleged hardship has not been self-created.
(c) The Zoning Board of Appeals, in the granting of use variances, shall grant the minimum
variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate to address the unnecessary hardship proved by the
applicant and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health,
safety and welfare of the community.
B(5) Area variances.
2
(a) The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have the power, upon an appeal from a decision or
determination of the Code Enforcement Officer, to grant area variances from the area or dimensional
requirements of this chapter.
(b) In making its determination, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the
benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety
and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination the Board
shall also consider and determine:
[1] Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood
or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance;
[2] Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance;
[3] Whether the requested area variance is substantial;
[4] Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and
[5] Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant
to the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of
the area variance.
(c) The Zoning Board of Appeals, in the granting of area variances, shall grant the minimum
variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the
character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.
3
Get email alerts for Skaneateles
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.