ZBA MEETING - FEBRUARY 25, 2026
Regular MeetingSkaneateles, NY · February 25, 2026
Minutes
Village of Skaneateles
Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting
February 25, 2026
Village Hall
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Hearing in the matter of the Special Use Permit application and the application of Fintan
& Meredith Fleming to vary the strict application of Section 225-A5 Density Control Schedule
for Minimum open area; to construct a Carriage House at the property addressed as 80 West
Lake Street in the Village of Skaneateles.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present: Michael Stanczyk, Chairman
Gregg LaPoint, Member
Walter Nyzio, Member
Michael O’Toole, Member
Riccardo Galbato, Special Counsel
John Cromp, Code Enforcement Officer
Patrick MacDonald, Deputy Code Enforcement Officer
Ian Carroll, Clerk to the Boards
Fintan and Meredith Fleming,
Andy Ramsgard, on behalf of the applicants
At 7:00 pm, Chairman Stanczyk opened the meeting. Members Lapoint, O’Toole, and Nyzio
were present. Member Balestra was excused.
Public Hearing in the matter of the Special Use Permit application and the application of Fintan
& Meredith Fleming to vary the strict application of Section 225-A5 Density Control Schedule
for Minimum open area; to construct a Carriage House at the property addressed as 80 West
Lake Street in the Village of Skaneateles.
Architect Andy Ramsgard introduced himself on behalf of the Flemings, who were also present.
Mr. Ramsgard said, “It's a very simple application. We are basically proposing just taking off the
roof that's on there right now and creating a second story storage space that will be within the
character and the scale of the existing house.” Referring to an image shown on the screen, he
said, “So that is a photorealistic representation of the house that's being worked on right now and
what we're proposing for the carriage house. The footprint was previously approved. So there are
no variances involved in this. We've been through site plan review. In front of you, we're here
tonight in request of the special permit for the use of the carriage house. So dimensionally, it's
the exact same footprint. Things that we're doing is we're putting an 8-12 roof pitch on it, which
is what the house is. We're mimicking the dormers that are on the existing house to bring that
over. And it's essentially storage space. So it's under 800 square feet. ”
Chairman Stanczyk clarified, there is no plumbing inside the building, and that was confirmed by
the applicant. He then inquired about the interior stairs and the height of the space above the
garage? Mr. Ramsgard said it would be six-foot height, on the second floor, inside the structure
to the bottom of the rafters.
Chairman Stanczyk ran through the code’s Special Use Permit criteria, per 225-39 subsection I,
Basis of Determination:
• First one, there shall not be any unreasonable detrimental effect by the establishment of
such conditional uses on any other building structure or use within the district.
• Second one, such conditional use and site development plan are in harmony with and
will not impede the orderly development of the district and the location, nature, height of
the building, structures, walls, fences, and parking areas will not the appropriate
development and use of the adjacent land.
• Third, the water supply sewage disposal surface drainage system shall be adequate to
serve the conditional use.
• Fourth, the flow control and safety of traffic in the district will not be adversely affected.
• Fifth one, the plans for such conditional use provide that all structures, equipment, and
materials should be reasonably accessible for fire and police protection as the driveway
goes right to it.
• Six, the plans for such conditional use contain reasonable provisions for open spaces,
recreational areas.
• Seven, last one, plans for such conditional use meet the prescribed requirements of the
chapter inclusive of district.
After discussing the above criteria, Chairman Stanczyk said, “So, I don't see any reason we
can't grant this. So that being said I will ask if any members of public would like to be
heard on this application? I move we close the public hearing; I will vote yes.” Member
O’Toole seconded the motion. Upon the unanimous vote of the members present in favor,
the motion was carried 4– 0. Chairman Stanczyk continued, “And I will make the motion
that we approve the special use permit of application of Fenton and Meredith Fleming for
various district application of 225-85 density control for minimum open area to construct a
carriage house and property at 80 West Lake Street in the Village of Skaneateles.” Upon
the unanimous vote of the members present in favor, the motion was carried 4– 0.
Attorney Galbato assisted the Board with modifying the motion to include SEQR
requirements with standard language because it is a special use permit, to be an unlisted
action under SEQR with uncoordinated review., following the Planning Board’s granting of
site plan, and issue a negative declaration under SEQR of no adverse environmental impact
under the SEQR regulations.
The board placed a condition requiring completion by December 31, 2026.
On a motion from Chairman Stanczyk, seconded by Member O’Toole, the meeting was
adjourned at 7:17 pm.
Agenda
Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting
Wednesday February 25, 2026
Village Hall 26 Fennell Street 7:00 PM
Agenda
7:00 pm Public Hearing in the matter of the Special Use Permit application and the
application of Fintan & Meredith Fleming to vary the strict application of Section 225-A5
Density Control Schedule for Minimum open area; to construct a Carriage House at the property
addressed as 80 West Lake Street in the Village of Skaneateles.
7:05 pm Such other matters as may be before the Board.
7:10 pm Executive Session for Attorney – Client discussion
Note: The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals is March 25,
2026, at 7:00 pm.
* * * * *
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.
(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.
Get email alerts for Skaneateles
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.