Zoning Board of Appeals

Office of the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Schaghticoke — September 2, 2021. Two public hearings were scheduled: Leonardi (area variance) at 7:35 PM and Pruiksma (area variance) at 7:50 PM.

Regular meeting

Chairman Ed McDonough opened the meeting at 7:30 PM with roll call. Present: Ed McDonough (Chairman), Rich Geddis, Lettie Saheim, Jason Shover, and Kristin Griswold. Deputy Town Attorney Kristin Pratt was present. ZBA Clerk Elizabeth Hale was absent.

• August 5, 2021 minutes approved as submitted (Saheim · Shover — Ayes: McDonough, Shover, Saheim, Geddis; Abstain: Griswold; Nays: none).

Attorney Pratt updated the Board on the Ragone application: Mr. Ragone appeared for a pre-filing conference before the Planning Board at its September 1, 2021 meeting (application form and site plan) and has received his DOT permit to use a driveway connecting his property to a New York State route. The Planning Board plans to hold a public hearing on the application at its October meeting. Chairman McDonough noted the Board can conduct future ZBA meetings via Zoom as needed, and that the State Legislature had amended the Open Meetings Law to permit virtual meetings.

Public hearing — Anthony and Kristen Leonardi (area variance)

Opened at 7:35 PM (McDonough · Saheim — Ayes: all; Nays: none). Chairman McDonough read the notice for the Leonardis’ application: an 8-foot rear-yard variance for an accessory structure (a metal garage on an Alaskan slab). Rensselaer County Planning found the variance would pose no major impact on County plans and referred it for local action. A neighbor submitted a letter in advance expressing written support for the variance; there were no opposing letters or comments during the hearing.

A resident who regularly attends ZBA meetings asked why a secondary structure cannot be higher than the main structure. Attorney Pratt discussed how the proximity of an accessory structure may have a substantial impact on neighbors — the higher the structure, the more substantial the impact — and Jason Shover noted the aesthetic consideration. The resident also asked what would happen if a current, non-objecting neighbor sold their property; Jason Shover and Lettie Saheim explained that a variance runs with the land and it is up to a purchaser to complete due diligence when buying property. The hearing closed and the regular meeting reopened (McDonough · Geddis — Ayes: all; Nays: none).

Chairman McDonough reviewed the Zoning Code criteria for granting an area variance: (1) no undesirable change would be produced in the neighborhood’s character and no detriment to nearby properties would result; (2) due to the size of the property and the location of the existing residence, the applicant could not construct the garage without a variance; (3) the variance is not substantial; (4) it would not adversely affect physical or environmental conditions, and many homes in the neighborhood have similar accessory structures; and (5) while the difficulty is self-created, that is the case with most area variance applications.

• Variance granted as submitted by the Leonardis (McDonough · Saheim — Ayes: McDonough, Saheim, Shover, Geddis, Griswold; Nays: none).

Public hearing — David and Christine Pruiksma (area variance, lot width)

Opened at 7:50 PM (McDonough · Shover — Ayes: all; Nays: none). Chairman McDonough read the notice for the Pruiksmas’ application: an area variance for lot width to permit a two-lot subdivision. Surveyor Brian Holbritter presented for the applicants, who own a 33-acre lot with a house and two small barns housing alpacas. They seek to subdivide 0.69 acres around the existing house to make improvements. They had originally planned to build a new house on the larger parcel, but purchased a neighboring house that came on the market; they still want to subdivide and sell the existing house and keep the rest of the property and buildings. There was no public comment.

Rensselaer County Planning found the variance would pose no major impact and referred it for local action. The Board discussed that the Pruiksmas are constrained by existing lots on both sides of the proposed 0.69-acre lot and have no other feasible option to subdivide without a variance; neighboring lots dictate the frontage, the variance would leave enough setback from the existing barn, and all other nearby lots also have less than 200 feet of frontage. The hearing closed and the regular meeting reopened (McDonough · Saheim — Ayes: all; Nays: none).

Chairman McDonough reviewed the five Zoning Code criteria: (1) no undesirable change or detriment would result, and the lot width is similar to several adjoining properties; (2) although other frontage owned by the applicants runs behind an adjoining lot, that layout is awkward and would not provide frontage near the existing house; (3) the variance is not substantial; (4) it would not adversely affect physical or environmental conditions, and the lot width is consistent with other lots; and (5) while self-created, that is the case with most area variance applications. There was no opposition from neighbors.

• Variance granted as submitted by the Pruiksmas (McDonough · Geddis — Ayes: McDonough, Geddis, Shover, Saheim, Griswold; Nays: none).

Adjourned at 8:04 PM (McDonough · Shover — Ayes: McDonough, Geddis, Saheim, Shover, Griswold; Nays: none). Submitted by Kristin Griswold, ZBA (dated October 6, 2021).