Schodack Zoning Board of Appeals · Appeal Z838-26 · Sunset Road, Castleton

Zoning Board of Appeals – September 14, 2026

A neighbor's appeal of the zoning classification of the Keller Park lacrosse complex · Agenda item 3

Watch full meeting video ↗

Appeal heard after the Board's executive session, which ended at 7:19 p.m. · Read the full transcript →

What happened

The appeal was denied as untimely. Chairman Calarco moved "to deny entertaining this application due to the fact that it's not timely," Mr. Spada seconded, and it carried 5 to 0 on a roll call of all five members.
The Board never reached the zoning question. Nothing was decided about whether the project is a "recreation facility" or a "membership club." That question is still open.
Before calling the item, the Board went into a closed attorney-client session with the town attorney, coming back out at 7:19 p.m. The Chairman then led the timeliness discussion from prepared notes.
The whole item took about eleven minutes, and was entirely about the deadline, not about the project.

The Board's reasoning

When the clock started. The Chairman said the Code Enforcement Officer's zoning determination is the entry he signs on the project application itself, dated August 2025, and that this is deliberate Town policy: "everything that goes to the planning board goes for a zoning determination first."
The neighbor-notice exception was rejected. The appellant's attorney argued that for a neighboring owner the 60 days runs from notice, not filing. The Chairman answered that Farina v. New Rochelle and the cases it cites are all building-permit cases and are "apples to oranges" here.
A records request cannot start the clock. "We don't think it's from the date you choose to put a FOIL request in," the Chairman said, or "people would wait to put that FOIL request in till the day before something gets approval."
Attending a Planning Board meeting counted as knowing. The Chairman read the appellant's March 2, 2026 public comment aloud from the Planning Board minutes and said he "was aware of this on March 2nd, at the latest."
Why the deadline matters, in his words: the 60 days exists because it "is not fair to an applicant" to question the use later, when "they're spending money on engineering," adding that "any appeal stays his entire process."

What the Chairman said about who decides zoning questions

Explaining the Town's policy, the Chairman described how use questions are meant to reach his board:

"In the town, we have adopted a policy because in the past we've had people question the uses, whether the use was legitimate... So we adopted a policy that everything that goes to the planning board goes for a zoning determination first. And that zoning determination is part of the initial application."

"When we adopted our new code a year, a little over a year ago, in there I said that if there's ever a question as to a use's validity or classification, that it goes directly to the zoning board and we make that decision."

Chairman David Calarco, September 14, 2026, as captured from the recording

He also stated that when this application went to the Planning Board, "no one on the planning board questioned the determination, it was never an issue." Residents did raise the classification in Planning Board public comment on March 2, 2026, which is summarized in that meeting's page.

How zoning interpretations work here

From the Chairman's opening: interpretations are not subject to noticing of property owners, not referred to the county, and not open to public comment at a public hearing. Unlike a variance, neighbors do not get a say.
The Board has up to 62 days after the close of a hearing to render a decision.
A written decision is adopted at a later meeting and then filed with the Town Clerk within five days.

What's next

The written decision in this appeal is expected to be adopted at the Zoning Board's next meeting, Monday, October 19, 2026 at 7:00 p.m., then filed with the Town Clerk within five days.
The underlying question is still undecided: whether a members-only lacrosse complex is a "recreation facility," which the Town's Schedule of Use Regulations does not allow in this residential district, or a "club."
The Planning Board file, SPB #2025-24, is separate and continues on its own track.

Who appeared

David Calarco ZBA Chairman Anthony Maier ZBA member Lou Spada ZBA member Karen Rogers ZBA member Wesley Staroba ZBA member Jonathon Tingley Gilchrist Tingley P.C. – for the neighbor who appealed

There was no public comment on this item, because the Board does not take public comment on interpretations. The evening's other business was the minutes and the adoption of two previously granted QuickChek sign variances.

This summary was written by neighbors from the Town's own published meeting video. Quotations are as best we could capture them and may contain small errors. The Town's official minutes and the Board's written decision, once filed with the Town Clerk, are the authoritative record.