Skaneateles Planning Board denies library site plan, citing multiple code violations

The Village of Skaneateles Planning Board unanimously denied the Skaneateles Library Association's application for site plan review and related permits for a proposed library at 75 Fennell Street.

Chairman Stephen Hartnett said the board's role is to enforce the site plan review criteria and that an outside architectural review identified numerous problems with the application. "The fact the application failed to apply these standards means the application does not hold up to the criteria for site plan review," Hartnett said at the meeting.

A clerk's prepared statement noted the village started receiving application documents on Feb. 11, 2026, and the board's formal review began after placement on the April 6 agenda. The clerk said an external architectural review, delivered April 30, highlighted "overwhelming evidence" that the proposal did not conform to Section 225-17 design standards and therefore was "unapprovable." The review and board members together identified about 48 items needing correction.

Board members walked through each criterion in Section 225-30 D (criteria for site plan review) and agreed that the application failed to demonstrate harmony with adjacent uses, adequate protection for environmentally sensitive areas, meaningful treatment of Skaneateles Creek, compatible scale and materials, safe vehicular circulation, adequate parking and loading, and sufficient landscaping and setbacks.

Member Connie Brace, who described herself as a retired architect, said she "fail[ed] to understand why the architect did not address the zoning code and relevant design standards." Member Al Giannino and others detailed specific departures, including facade and setback dimensions, a wide curb cut, parking layout and stall-size discrepancies, and material choices inconsistent with the village's guidelines.

After the board's deliberations, Library Association counsel requested a continuance. Chairman Hartnett said the association had been given notice and time to respond, and the matter was put to a vote. Member Brace moved to deny the site plan review; Member Custer seconded. The motion carried, 5-0.

An audience member, Duane Wiedor, questioned whether the association would withdraw a May 19 public vote in light of the denial and warned against asking voters to fund a project "we don't know what we're going to get." Planning counsel said that question was not pertinent to the board's review.

The denial does not by itself prevent the library association from revising the design, reapplying, or pursuing other administrative appeals or variances; the board's action reflects that the submitted package did not meet the village's site plan and design standards at the time of review.