Unofficial summary. This is a community summary of the town's official minutes, provided so the record is searchable and readable. It condenses the meeting and may omit detail. Some private individuals’ personal details have been left out. The official signed PDF is the complete record of authority.
Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Schaghticoke — Thursday, June 7, 2018, at the Town Hall, 290 Northline Drive, Melrose. The meeting opened at 7:30 PM with roll call.
Present: Ed McDonough (Chairman), Rich Geddis, Kristin Griswold, Jason Shover. Absent: Lettie Saheim. Deputy Town Attorney Kristin Pratt and Clerk Elizabeth Hale were present.
Regular meeting
- May 3, 2018 minutes approved as submitted (Griswold · Shover — Ayes: McDonough, Geddis, Griswold, Shover; Nays: none).
- Motion to suspend the regular meeting and open the public hearing on Application #4-18 (McDonough · Griswold — Ayes: McDonough, Geddis, Griswold, Shover; Nays: none).
Public hearing — Application #4-18, Joseph & Colleen Rubino (Tax Map #40.-1-1.15)
Opened 7:35 PM. The Chairman read the Notice for Application #4-18 of Joseph and Colleen Rubino, 2875 River Road, Melrose, for an area variance from the 50-ft minimum front setback to build a garage about 33 ft from the road — a 17-ft variance. The property is in the Residential-Agricultural District.
Applicant Joseph Rubino explained his plan for a two-car garage with a shop for building small furniture. Because the property is near the river, he designed the roof height and pitch so as not to obscure neighbors’ river views, and consulted neighbors, none of whom objected. He needed the front-setback variance to avoid relocating the existing paved driveway. A neighbor attended in support.
Back in regular session, the Chairman reported walking the property and confirmed the applicant’s neighbor outreach and low-profile roofline. The Board reviewed Section XI(B)(2)(b)(1-5): no undesirable neighborhood change (garages are common nearby); no public opposition; relocating the driveway would not be cost-efficient; the variance was not substantial; no adverse environmental effects; Rensselaer County raised no concerns. The hardship was deemed self-created but unavoidable.
- Application #4-18 approved — 17-ft front-yard variance to permit the garage (McDonough · Geddis — Ayes: McDonough, Geddis, Griswold, Shover; Nays: none).
Public hearing — Application #5-18, Brendan Getter (Tax Map #70.11-3-48)
The Chairman read the Notice for Application #5-18 of Brendan Getter, 310 Lansing Avenue, Troy, for an area variance from the 10-ft minimum side-yard setback to build a deck about 6 ft from the adjacent parcel — a 4-ft variance. The property is in the Hamlet District.
The applicant explained that his home has a second-story sliding glass door with no landing, balcony, or deck. He wants to build a deck off the side extending to the rear, with a staircase to the ground, leaving a 6-ft side-yard setback (house is 12 ft from the line). An area variance was granted for the home’s original construction; the house had remained unoccupied until he bought it. Rensselaer County had no concerns. There was no public comment.
- Motion to suspend the hearing and reopen the regular meeting (McDonough · Shover — Ayes: McDonough, Geddis, Griswold, Shover; Nays: none).
Back in regular session, the Board reviewed Section XI(B)(2)(b)(1-5): no undesirable neighborhood change or detriment — a landing would be a safety improvement; converting the doors to windows or enclosing the opening would not be economically feasible; occupying the long-vacant house is an improvement; in a close-set Hamlet District the appeal was not substantial, had no environmental impacts, and was not self-created (the condition pre-dated the applicant’s purchase).
- Application #5-18 approved — 4-ft side-yard setback to permit a 6-ft-wide deck about 6 ft from the adjacent parcel (Griswold — Ayes: McDonough, Geddis, Griswold, Shover; Nays: none). The applicant was told the Building Inspector would be notified.
An adjacent property owner arrived after both hearings had closed and resolutions adopted, to oppose the Getter application; she said she had experienced issues (unspecified) with the previous owner and the Town and intended to oppose any variance on that property, and questioned the need for a 6-ft deck. The applicant said he was willing to build a narrower deck. The Board consulted Attorney Pratt, who advised that the hearing was closed and the decision made; with no inaccurate facts presented and no compelling reason to reconsider, the decision should stand. The Chairman told both that, while the application was granted, the applicant was free — but not required — to build a smaller deck farther from the line.
Adjourned at 8:10 PM (McDonough · Griswold — Ayes: McDonough, Geddis, Griswold, Shover; Nays: none). Respectfully submitted by Elizabeth Hale, Clerk.
Spot an error or omission? Tell us and we'll fix it.