Yeah, we were just talking.
>> Okay. Okay.
Hi there.
» You're one minute and a half early. All
right, everybody. Mic's on.
Oh, no. Not yet.
Got to make sure it's on. That's
All right, it's 7 o'clock and I want to
welcome everybody to the town of Sheneno
zoning board of appeals uh meeting for
August.
Uh we have a full agenda tonight. So, uh
we're going to dive right in. Let's get
the call of order. Call to No, that was
me. Let's get the roll call, please.
» Mr. Stone
>> here.
>> Mr. Collins
>> here.
>> Mr. White
>> here.
>> Mr. Smith
>> here.
>> Mr. Brewster
>> here.
» All right. Uh, the next order of
business is to review and approve our
minutes from July.
Um, why don't we have we'll have Mr.
Walters vote on this since he was here.
So, you you'll step out for this one
just for the minutes and then we'll rope you back in. So, any any
comments? Well, you don't have to leave.
You just won't vote on the minutes.
>> Oh, gotcha. Gotcha.
>> Yeah. Uh, any anything to add or change
for the minutes? Correct.
>> Looks good.
>> Okay.
>> Looks good to me.
>> If nothing, I'll accept a motion to
accept those.
>> So moved, Mr. Chairman.
>> Okay.
>> I'll support that.
>> All right. Thank you. And let's get a
roll call on the minutes, please.
>> Mr. Walters.
>> I.
>> Mr. Stone.
>> I.
>> Mr. White.
>> I.
>> Mr. Smith.
>> Hi.
>> Mr. Brewster.
>> I All right. They're approved and may be
posted.
Okay.
And uh now, Mr. Collins, you're back in
as a member. So,
all right. The uh first order of
business tonight, we have some new
business to review and uh move forward
through the planning board and set up
for our September meeting. And that is a
use variance.
uh for 1986 New York State Route 12.
Uh the owner's Cerulean Mountains LLC.
And so what we do for the audience sake
is um these applications that are new,
we review them for completeness,
corrections, and so forth. And um then
they go to the planning board and they
come back for a public hearing um to us
in the next month.
um if they if they meet standards
tonight.
So,
uh I'll start off. I do have one very
small item just for just for
recordeping. The cover letter
from the town states zoning residential.
The application, however, from the
applicant is correct stating the zone is
neighborhood commercial. So, if we could
just have that corrected at some point,
I would be satisfied with that.
Um, everything else looked fine
to me.
So, anybody um
have any thoughts on the application
uh to for for review and moving it
forward?
I think the main com main components
were there. Um site plan is reasoning
for the four factors.
Um
so I mean that's the part of the biggest
thing.
>> Um
I said that I feel that the application
is complete.
» Okay. Anybody else?
Same. I agree. Looks complete. Looks
>> Yep. No issues.
» No.
check. One, two.
>> There we go.
>> Thanks.
Uh, so yeah, uh, I'll go back to I did
have a further comment. So, the
applicant is here, right? Uh, you the
applicants for that. Okay. Um
we I just want to make sure since um we
can't we can't help you along this but I
do just want to say uh that um by
statute use variances are very difficult
to get without proof. So, I just want to
make sure that all the applicants and
anybody who has, you know, down the road
would like to submit uh use variance is
to make sure that you read up on things
and do your homework. There's a lot of
proof that needs to be that is required
uh to be brought before the board during
a public hearing for uh use variances to meet the four factors. And the four
factors all of them have to be met. It's
not like an area variance where we weigh
the different factors in that particular
variance. All of them have to be uh sat
satisfactorily met with um
factual proof and in one case um dollar
one of the things that this the the
statute says is dollars and cents proof
of uh of the hardship. So, I just want
everybody out there to know
um that it takes a fair amount of work
to bring before the board for a use
variance. So,
with that, I also again I I see all the
other components uh for moving the
application forward
uh are here. So, um
it seems like we could I would entertain
a motion to um accept this application
to move forward at the next planning
board meeting for review by them and
then through the next uh into our
meeting in September for the public
hearing uh and defense of the uh of the
application.
So moved, Mr. Chairman.
>> Okay,
I'll wait on a second. I'll second.
Thank you. We can we can vote on moving
it forward now.
>> Mr. Stone,
>> I.
>> Mr. Cowins,
>> I.
>> Mr. White,
>> I.
>> Mr. Smith,
>> I.
>> Mr. Brewster.
>> Hi. Okay. So, we've accepted your
application. We'll move it and you'll
come back in September to uh
provide us with additional proof on the
four factors and um discuss your your
needs.
>> Okay.
>> Sure.
» Well, I can So, that's about the best.
The information I I gave you was about
the best that I think the board can give
you is just to point out that the four
factors need um substantial uh proof in
terms of documentation.
Um so you'll have to figure out what
exactly that means going forward by
looking at the four factors and doing
some research on what they what they
mean and and how to come forward with
that. We can't counsel you on that, but
I can tell you that it's important to
know what's behind a use variance and
that's all public information that's
published out there. Do you want to add
anything that I
>> So, as the chair has said, we can't
advise you specifically on what it is
that you need to provide. The best that
he can do is that reference to dollar
and cents regarding the financial aspect
of that. So you should go and look into
that and see what available um samples
are online.
» Okay. Thank you.
» Uh so that we've concluded with your
application. You're free to stay or or
if you need to go that's fine too. But
um we're going to move on now with um
» Sure, that's fine. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Thanks.
Okay. The next order of business is um
to we are going to have a public hearing
for um area variance uh on um
let me get the reference numbers here.
Sorry.
Do we have do we have
>> 26 V4?
>> Okay. for 2026 V Oh, there it is. V04,
which is an area variance application uh
on 314 Perry Road
uh to create a parcel with less than
required road frontage from 240 ft to
140 ft and that's in an agricultural
zone.
I don't see the applicant here tonight.
Um so uh so we'll have to go off what
he's provided to us in the application.
Um
is anyone here in the public
to speak for or against the application
for um
314 Perry Road.
Okay, not seeing anybody
to speak on that particular application.
Uh, normally we would inquire with the
applicant
um for more information on the five
factors, but we don't have that
opportunity.
So, I will begin to read some
um the correspondence we received
into the record. Um, we have one from
the town engineer
Um
he states that a 239 review is not
required for this type of application.
Um
agricultural districts do exist within
500 ft of the parcel. However, area
variances are not subject to an
agricultural data statement.
He defers the seeker to legal counsel
and the board
and the request is to reduce the
required road frontage to install a
driveway.
Subsequent use of the parcel relative to
that driveway is not disclosed
and without a known use such as a
residence location of that use on the
parcel including setbacks to structures.
Um, we recommend requesting a
preliminary site layout and otherwise he
did not say anything about engineering
objections or not. That's all he wrote.
So that is in the record.
I do not have any further
uh correspondence to read in the record
for this application. So, um,
does anybody have anything else to, uh,
for the public hearing?
There's the applicant.
» I don't have a copy
laying around anywhere.
>> I have
I used to I changed my notebook.
>> I have them written on my laptop, but I
>> Oh, wait. They're in the application at
least. Okay. Some um
cursory um
there it is. That's use.
All right, Mr. Frier.
We're at the part where we give you an
opportunity to describe your um
project
and we will go over at least a few of
the um five factors that you're familiar
with. So, why don't you take the time
here to just tell us more about your um
what you're trying to do and the layout
of the parcel and some reasons why um
you need and are doing this. You have
the floor.
>> Oh, can you do a microphone here? So,
» is that okay?
>> I think so.
>> Is that okay? Hear me? Okay.
>> Yeah, that's good.
>> All right. So, obviously it's a it's a
flag pole lot um that we're looking at.
I would like to put a driveway in to
access the back of the parcel.
I have um really have no set plans right
now. We're thinking eventually either my
wife and I may build a smaller house,
our kids may buy our bigger house.
At this point, we really don't have any
set plans as far as
what we're going to do moving forward at
this point, but I like would like to get
the driveway installed
for better access to the back of the
property at this.
Okay.
I'll take you through uh some of the
factors here just to get a little bit
more detail. Um, do you foresee just by
uh the nature of asking for this um
variance whether you'll create an
undesirable change uh in the character
of the neighborhood to be a detriment to
nearby properties?
>> I do not.
>> Okay.
And would the reason be that right now
you're not building anything on it
except the driveway
>> by chance? Right.
>> Okay.
Can you do this by any other method? Can
you achieve your your goal of reaching
the back of the property like you said?
>> I cannot.
>> Okay.
Um,
and will the proposed variance, this is
similar to question number one, but it
deals more with the environment, have an
adverse effect on the physical or
environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district?
>> It will not. What what type of um
material is going is the driveway going
to be?
>> Uh probably crush or run at this point.
>> Okay.
Those are the ones that I'll
cover. The board will there's a couple
more and the five factors that the board
will weigh um based on the information.
Um the board you have any questions for
the applicant?
» Mr. Fer, do you
own the lot now?
>> Yes, I do.
>> Okay. So, you've had it. It's adjoined.
Um,
>> yes. So, originally, um, when my dad
passed away,
we had parcled
a 2acre section out of the house and
then I purchased the back of the
property.
>> Okay.
>> So, my brother lives above me. which
joins all of that
kind of pars out, you know, make it a
nice place for someone else. That's why
we sectioned it out like this.
>> Okay.
>> I'm good.
>> Okay. And it is over two acres or it's
Yeah. Okay.
>> Yeah. GISDS says 4.8. So
>> 4.8 I think. 4.89. Yeah, it's close.
enough.
>> Yeah, about a 5 acre parcel.
>> Okay.
>> Um, so I mean, as far as a building lot
easily would be within all the
factors of setbacks and whatot.
>> Okay. Any other questions from other
board members?
» You too, Dan.
You got anything? Okay.
going once.
>> I guess I have one question. I'm trying
to look at the application, try to
figure this out. 240 to 140 foot road
frontage for a driveway. It's 100 foot
wide driveway.
>> No, no, no. So, zoning regulations call
for 240 ft.
>> Okay.
>> I have 140. Gotcha. Thank you.
>> So, I'm asking for 14 or 100 foot. Yeah.
>> Thank you.
Okay.
Um, hearing no further
board questions.
>> May I ask you one?
>> You you may
>> I understand that you don't have a set
plan at the moment. Is it safe to say
that no matter what your your intended
use will be residential, some sort of
residential?
>> Yes, 100%.
>> Okay.
This is egg though, right? You're okay.
>> So, yeah. Okay.
All right. The last call
for any anybody. Okay.
Then with that
um without objection from the board
members I will close the public hearing
on this application now and we can move forward with um seeker and then
final discussion u for on the uh on the resolution.
Okay, no objections. So the public
hearing for this is now closed.
Um moving on to uh seeker. I've been
informed that this is a type two action
and therefore uh we have no action to
take on seeker. Um we just let it go.
Right. It doesn't we don't need a vote
to accept type two. That's correct.
>> Okay.
>> So seeker is complete being a type two.
And um now we can cover the uh
discussion on the on the issue or do you
want to dive into the questions from the
you have the resolution there?
I do not the resolution.
» Yeah, we usually work off the um
the resolution which addresses the five
factors but I mean we we can
>> I don't have that but I do have the
question so I can just work through
that.
>> Oh yeah. All right. That's that well
that's that's fine. That's what I meant.
So uh if you so the board do do we have
any preliminary discussion or we just
want to take each question peace meal
and
>> I do I do have some discussion with this
>> fine
>> remember in previous
meetings we've had an issue with the
front edge and like a 100 foot but the
lines in the back were so wide it
averaged out to be 240. Would it Mr.
rear's property fall under this
guideline because it looks like he's got
a fair amount of back property line back
>> because ultimately if it averages out
more his variance is a mute point.
>> We have done that before. We have gone
down that road.
>> Correct.
>> That was out on River Road. Right.
>> Correct.
>> The McGawan application.
>> Right.
And I think this could fall under under
that same guideline
with the five acres. Do you know, Mr.
Fer, by any chance how long your back
property line is?
>> Look right now. And fortunately for you,
I don't have my glasses.
Um,
it it's quite long. Um, can I bring this
up to you? You can see it.
Are you are you familiar with
>> notific
property line
>> and then the front is 140
>> that the definition I believe in the
code is what led us beforehand to this
conclusion. It's the
a frontage
definition was the average,
not not necessarily right up to the
road. We checked the definitions on that
last. Maybe we should do an exercise
>> because it was 502 plus the 140 divided
by two and that gave us our average.
>> Correct.
>> So you're you're 602 642 divide that
you're you're well over 240,
right?
Um
>> meaning it would not be required.
>> Right. Right. Um
we should probably do that again through
the definitions if if we want to go to
e-code real quick. Um
good catch there, John. believe at least
potentially
>> or Yeah.
>> Well, I just think that he's got he's
got more than enough.
>> It's a big enough lot. It's not like
>> I had forgotten about that that case.
>> All right. Um
frontage,
right? because we went through a lengthy
discussion about was was it lot line
frontage? There are all those
definitions in there that
>> right
>> and I believe it said the frontage was
the a was the average and not just the
one that abuts the
so I'm not seeing average I'm seeing the
property line of the lot which is
contiguous with the street
Do you remember when we did that? We
could have them pull the minutes so we
could refresh our memory on that.
» The end of last year, I think, wasn't
it?
>> November, December. It was McGawan. It
was up on River Road.
>> I think it was November time frame.
>> I don't remember
>> because he was I think he was up for the
holidays if I remember correctly.
» Correct. Correct. This is a similar
» No, it wasn't.
>> It doesn't.
>> It wasn't a horseshoe.
It was a flag. Had a very long backyard
and then he had only one way to come
down to the front to the road like this
one. I mean it may have been a horseshoe
and that's right up near you.
Actually a border. Well, part of well
some of his property borders you but
get there. Oh, there we go.
lot frontage. The property line of the
lot which is
I know we found it. I remember the
discussion too. I just wish we need to
um
» because I see one here for irregular
shapes.
Find the average width by measuring the
narrowest and widest points. Divide by
two for an irregularly shaped lot. It's
not a rectangle.
» Did you find that in our code or just a
general definition? just in general
definitions for a property.
Trying to find it in the
code
because originally it started at the
state and then we had found you had
found it along the way
in the town code.
>> I know.
>> I just don't remember what what part of
the code it was.
>> I know frontage isn't giving
How about
>> and a quick search of the word average
isn't pulling anything up in your code
either
irregular
because I'm pretty sure it was October
November of 25.
>> Yes, it wasn't that long ago and you're
right. It wasn't this year.
» Can you spell the last name of
application.
Trying to see if I have the resolution.
Well, I don't think there was a
resolution in the end because we
>> right
>> we agreed that we we agreed that it was
>> Yeah, we need the minutes
>> a legal lot that he didn't need to have
a a variance for lack of frontage.
>> We have uh
minutes going back to last year on on
the town here, right?
>> Okay.
Yeah, I want to get this right.
Okay.
September 23rd
minutes. There we go. Let me see.
Oh, yeah. There we go.
All right.
Oh, there there we go. Discussion of
McGawan public hearing C attached for
comments on top.
Motion to hold open the public hearing
and table the application by White
seconded by Walters Gina Middleton and
for Nate contact for code officer on on
interpretation
motion to hold open the public hearing
and table the application. So we tabled
it
that was there's no
>> then I think go to October's because
then I think we finalized that in
October.
>> Okay.
Yeah. Um
hang on. No. Okay.
October.
We didn't have an October.
We had a December. There's no discussion
minutes. There are there's no minutes
about the discussion.
>> Yeah.
>> Anything I'm finding in Thomas Schneango
is saying that it's needs to apply for a
variance unless it's 240 ft which
directly butts to a baseline of a road.
So, it's not giving us an average at
all. saying it has to have an actual
>> That's
um
>> Well,
>> are we sure this wasn't in reference to
a front yard setback rather than
» No, this was a this was a front yard
front lot line
conforming use size lot.
>> Create a buildable lot with less than
required road frontage from 240 to 128.
I've got I've got nothing else. I mean,
we and um the only way other way would
be to re review the actual video, but I
don't know if we're we need to go down
particularly that road.
No, I don't
I just don't remember enough of the
details personally. Does anybody else?
Oh, hang on. Maybe I have notes.
There was no October
and September was limited in in the the
detail of the minutes. It didn't have
that particular discussion we're looking
for. Um
But we tabled it. So we got Well, we
didn't get rid of it essentially. It's
just
>> sounds like you had an interpretation
hearing at some point.
Yeah. No, it was our discussion. Um,
what did we close the public hearing in
December then? Because we we left it
open. I just looked at December's
minutes. No.
file.
>> Well, I don't know if the file is going
to help because we need the the
discussion and and it would have been in
the, you know,
>> would have been in the minutes. I could
go into January. I guess
>> there's another one here from 1320 River
Road, James Weidman.
Same situation. I'm I'm going through
your guys' notes.
This was variance for less than required
240 to 150 in an agricultural zone.
>> Yeah, he was subdividing a lot,
» right? Yeah, that was January
>> double varants. You're right.
>> Well,
» John, good point. I remember
but I but we're here
so
>> I just figured I would bring that to
light and
>> you know it's
>> I just fig I bring it to light.
>> So far I think we've done our due
diligence as best we can. So why don't
we just work with what we got on the
table if that's okay with everybody.
>> Yep. Unless you want me to continue or
all of us continue digging.
» I mean, essentially,
>> we're granting the variance just to put
the driveway in,
>> per se.
>> That would Well, we're granting the
variance to
allow for a buildable lot in some
capacity.
>> Okay. Well, that's where that's where
I'm going down this road is if we're
going to continue to go through the
paces here.
>> We get it. So, Mr. Frier doesn't have to
come back for another variance when he
wants to put a house on it. He just
applies. Here's your plans. Here's I
want my building permit. Build house.
Done.
>> Right.
>> So, correct me if I'm wrong. He doesn't
have to if he's just
>> No, you'll have the road frontage.
That's the only requirement. So, once
you've got that frontage,
>> correct?
>> Yeah.
>> Then you can build back there. You can
do
>> correct. I think that's why you had him
involved. It's going to be residential,
right?
>> He didn't have to he didn't even have to
build a driveway. That's just what's
coming up, right? I mean, he could have
divided.
>> Yes. It's just small steps moving
forward,
>> right?
>> So, the variance is approved. Uh there's
no reason to put a driveway in
for my lack of road frontage to not be
able to do anything.
» That sense?
>> No, I think that's perfect sense. If you
can't put a house on it, no sense in
doing going any further.
>> So, no, that's fine. We can move
forward.
>> Okay,
everybody in agreement
moving forward?
>> Yep.
>> Otherwise, because I'll turn it over to
um Karen here to
>> walk through.
>> Okay. As I go through these questions,
as you provide your input and as you
answer, if you can give a statement of
your reasoning for why you're stating
you feel that way, that would be helpful
for us perfecting the record. So, number
one is, will the requested variance
produce an undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood or cause a
detriment to nearby properties?
>> Will not.
>> And the reasoning
fits in with the
property, you know, fits in with other
properties within the area.
>> And he assured us of the intent
for um what's planned?
>> Right.
» Okay. Can the benefit sought by the
applicant be achieved through another
feasible method without granting the
variance?
>> No. No.
No. other access available to
the property.
» Okay.
>> Is the requested area variance
substantial? I believe it was 100 ft.
Correct?
>> 100 ft.
» No,
» I don't feel a substantial. No,
>> I'm okay with it. Agreed.
>> Good.
>> And is that based on
maybe um
>> with him using a resident doing a
residential use for this property? Most
residential lots are 100 ft or narrower.
So I think I think that the 140 is more
than fair for a residential setting.
Good point. So it's within a common
throughout the area.
>> Correct.
» Okay. Will the requested variance
adversely affect the physical or
environmental conditions of the
neighborhood or district?
>> Will not will not
>> no major construction and no
um very little disturbance
>> future major construction. just typical
residential slash rural
use. Yeah.
Okay. Is the difficulty giving rise to
the area variance self created?
And I will remind you that this specific
factor does not negate the entire thing
the way that it does. experience
» to a certain part of me. I want to say
no on this one, but it's still it can be
self-created.
And my no would only be is because this
has been subdivided a long time ago.
» Okay. Um, is everybody good with that?
I'm I'm I'm going to go with the the
standard. Yes, it is. And I and I would
go with yes, but I mean, as I say,
there's there's a no part of me in there
that But at the end of the day, yes.
>> Okay.
>> What did you choose? Or what did not you
choose, but what did you write
>> that? Yes, it is.
>> Okay.
The summary question
does the benefit out
And
in consideration of these factors, does
the benefit outweigh the judgment?
I feel with those. Yes.
I feel with those as well.
Okay.
>> Yeah, I concur.
» Okay. Um so we at this it's it appears
as though uh we have determined uh that
the benefit to the applicant outweighs
um the detriment to the um
nearby community for um shortness of a
sentence there. And um therefore I would
uh seek a motion to adopt this
resolution granting
the uh area variance.
» Well, I'll make a motion to approve the
variance.
>> Okay, I'll second. All right. Did you
get those?
>> Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Stone,
>> I.
>> Mr. Collins,
>> I.
>> Mr. White,
>> I.
>> Mr. Smith,
>> I.
>> Mr. Brewster.
>> I Okay, John, you got your uh variance.
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Building permit required.
>> Yep. Yep. When we decide what we're
going to do, I'll
>> whatever you decide what you're going to
do.
>> Ordinance department with the site plan
and everything we need.
>> Thank you.
>> Appreciate it. Sure. It's a long trip.
We got there.
» I will.
>> Have a good night.
» Yeah, that's good. We've got I'm sure we
can find the Well, I'm gonna watch the
video again to see what we talked about
» because John Yeah, we we did something
like that.
>> I don't exactly know how we pulled it
off.
>> And this falls in that same guideline,
>> but
>> and then now we're we're looking at the
very same code that we looked at before
and it's just throwing us a curveball.
>> Correct.
>> So, yeah. Okay. Well, we got through
managed that. So, now we uh have let me
clear some screens here. We have um an
interpretation tonight
for um
read the actual
Okay. The desire is to or the
interpretation is to interpretate in
is to interpret.
Yeah, there is.
» I apologize for that, but
is to uh interpret the um code
enforcement officer's um interpretation
of the town code. The applicant has a
desire
to um conduct business, short-term
rental business via the platform Airbnb
and the zoning interpretation. I'll read
into the record as follows.
We did receive a letter from the code
enforcement officer invited him to be
here tonight, but he had other
commitments. So, the code enforcement
officer. Well, hang on one second.
Let me without objection open the public
hearing for this interpretation
before I read anything else into the
record. Um, so now that is open and I'll
read this to the record and then we'll
invite the public to speak. The
applicant is the applicant here actually
I should ask. I'm not seeing the
applicants. Okay.
So, from the
code office,
it is my interpretation that short-term
rentals, i.e. air B&B are not allowed
uses under the zoning code of the town
of Shenango.
Chapter 73-44, attachment one contains
the permitted uses in a residential
area. It also contains a footnote that
says, quote, "Any use not expressly
permitted under this section is hereby
expressly excluded. As such, short-term
rentals would be excluded from permitted
uses under 73-44, attachment one.
The current zoning law of the town does
not address the concept of short-term
rentals in any zoning district. A
short-term rental is generally defined
as a very specific dwelling unit or
rooms that can be rented for a period of
30 days or less. Zoning laws are for the
purpose of maintaining a neighborhood's
character piece as well as maintain a
quality of life. Without local laws
governing these very specific uses, such
as STR, direct enforcement becomes very
difficult. Sincerely, Randy Sheer, code
enforcement officer. So that is his
official interpretation
of the code
and the applicant is contesting that.
Let me let me get their letter up here.
and I don't have it like that.
Okay, this is the
Okay. Dated July 18th, 2026.
Uh, I'm requesting a pre-application
clarification regarding the
interpretation of the zoning ordinance
as it applies to my property at 399
Oakill Road, Bingington, New York 13901,
regarding my recent request for a use
variance to to have me to uh for me to
have an Airbnb, aka a short-term rental
at said property. Before
proceeding with my formal use variance
application, I would app hang hang while
this is preliminary.
I would appreciate the opportunity to
confirm the department's interpretation
of the applicable zoning regulations and
whether the proposed use is considered
prohibited under the current zoning
designation. Understanding the
department's interpretation will help
ensure that any future application is
appropriately prepared and addressed and
addresses the relevant standards.
Specifically, I would appreciate
clarification on the following. The
applicable zoning provisions governing
the proposed use, whether the proposed
use is considered a permitted use,
accessory use, conditional special use,
or a prohibited use under the ordinance.
the specific ordinance sections
supporting that interpretation, whether
a use variance is the appropriate
entitlement to pursue or if another
zoning process would be more
appropriate.
My intent is to ensure that any
subsequent application is based on a
clear understanding of the ordinance and
the department's interpretation before
committing the time and expense
associated with a formal use variance
request. to answer a few questions that
were expressed as concerns during the
planning board meeting on July 13th. One
being parking. There is ample spacious
parking following my long private
driveway. My property setup accommodates
all Quest vehicles,
guest vehicles entirely off the street,
specifically preventing any neighborhood
congestion or overflow on residential
roads. Secondly, there appear to be
concern regarding the number of allowed
guests. Multif family bookings will not
be allowed. I will have a very specific
booking restrictions written with
exactly the details of my guest limits.
My short-term rental agreement for said
property will be written as such that it
will be a single booking policy. That
said property is only rented to
one primary registered party at a time.
I will not rent a separate unaffiliated
groups or multiple families
simultaneously. My house rules which
will be incorporated into my A or Airbnb
listing and will prohibit events,
parties, and unauthorized visitors.
I highly value our community and my top
priority is ensuring the home operates
smoothly without burdened neighbors or
local resources.
I've attached a copy of my intended
house rules for your reference. Thank
you for your time and assistance.
Deborah Yarion of 399 Oakill Road. Now,
I was hesitating there because I think
that was from the original use variance
application. So,
let me find a followup.
There is one.
Do you know if that's Did she send a
followup on that? That seems to be
Yeah.
» Yeah. Okay.
» That is what I read.
Okay. Well, I think we have a clear
understanding of what her intent is
anyway and what the code enforcement
officer has uh stated.
Um I do have a couple more.
Uh, the town engineer
has no engineering objections. Should
this be allowed by code or should it
require a use variance?
That makes sense. Uh, and then the
planning board's letter to us states.
Uh, dear chairman and all board members,
at their meeting on Monday, August 10th,
the planning board considered the
request for 2026-V05
399 Oakill Road application for an
interpretation on an Airbnb in a
residential zone in the short EAF. The
planning board forwards this application
to the zoning board of appeals to
consider tableabling this application
until we have written interpretation
from the town's code officer regarding
this use. This may determine whether a
use variance is necessary
signed by the vice chairman. So we
actually have that
now that interpretation
and uh therefore we we can continue on
our own because this is our um
interpretations are our arena. So the
planning board had their opportunity to
advise us and they did to a certain
extent. So, uh, we may we may continue
on if the board chooses to do so.
Um,
I assume we're going to continue. Okay.
So, given that,
this is where it gets a little the
structure gets a little interesting uh
because we have no certain factors to go
through, but we've done these before. So
the general the general sense is we need
to look at our code and the definitions
within our code and look at what the um
and discuss what the what the law states
and the interpretation and then of
course the request by the applicant. But
before we get into that
uh would anybody in the public audience
like to speak for or against
uh this interpretation. Any comments on
that?
» Okay,
>> one second. Can we get Can we get her a
mic or
>> Oh, no. We have to So, we're we're we're
live. So, that's why we're all like
chewing on these things practically. So,
» thank you for Thank you for that. Yeah.
Well, our property a bus. Can you hear
me?
>> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh, a bus with hers.
And she's always been a very good
neighbor.
She doesn't live local most of the year.
She's west. She comes in to see the
kids,
visit the family. I think
we're a little concerned about people
that she might rent to. Although I don't
think that she's going to get a lot of
renters.
There's more in town. I don't know how
many
profitable they are.
» That's a whole another topic.
Go ahead. You have the floor.
>> Um,
do you have anything to say?
Okay, I guess I've got the floor.
>> You do.
>> We're We're just kind of, you know,
wondering how it's all gonna
go.
She's gonna be able to do better.
» Okay.
We've known her. She's she's lived there
with her boys probably
20 years.
» When the boys were younger, they were
kind of boys. So anyway, okay.
>> Okay. Thanks.
Um,
so yeah. So,
I've read everything in
uh I think and we've heard from the
public. I think so. I can close it and
we can continue on with the discussion.
Correct.
>> Yes.
>> All right. Um unless any objection, I'll
close the public hearing on this and we
can
» Oh, did
no. Okay.
Um
so without any objection from the board
I'll close the public hearing and we can
uh move on uh to the next phase.
Okay
then I will close the public hearing at
this time. The next phase uh is we will
consider seeker. However considering it it is a type two action and therefore
we don't have to do anything on the type
two action. So we can now move on from
Zer to discussing the matter at hand interpretation.
So I'm going to open the floor up to the
board for comments.
Who wants to start? Because everybody's
going to go.
Okay. I was looking at the residential
attachments that we all get and
everybody can can uh look at and then
the principal permitted uses home
occupation is part of residence. Could
this be considered a home occupation?
Because it is part of the residence and
it is a permitted use.
So that is essentially what you guys are
that's that's really what it boils down
to. That's the question in front of you
tonight is essentially whether renting
the entire home for seven days versus a
year or two years of tenency changes the
use from residential
just based on the length of teny or the
length of the occupancy and who is
occupying it. Is it owner occupied? Is
it
tenant occupied. Those are the things
that you're you're looking at and those
are things that are not defined in your
code. So that is that is what you're
here interpreting tonight and that is
what your decision is going to end on.
» Valid point, John,
anybody uh have anything anything else
or want to tackle that?
Because in my opinion, a home occupation
is a service that you're supplying to a
customer. And in this instance, you are
supplying your house for them to stay
overnight and getting monetary value for
it.
So to me, that would be considered a
home occupation.
It's just where does it where does the
fine line end with
the length of occupancy,
you know, two, three, four days.
>> Correct. And that is not defined in our
code.
>> I would I would disagree with it only
because in my mind, home occupation is
the owner themselves doing the
occupation, their career, their focus
within the house. I don't feel that the
property
classifies as the occupation itself.
Okay.
But isn't the owner there for the winter
>> or the summer or whatever?
>> Based off of the information that she
gave us, sounds like she is only there
visiting
temporarily once in a while.
>> You said she goes away for part of the
year.
>> What part?
of the year?
>> Part of the I don't know. We see her
once a year, but that doesn't mean she's
>> Okay.
>> Right.
>> So, the family is looking
>> Yes. And they testified to that. Sorry
to interrupt, but uh that's Yeah, that's
in their application. I believe they
said that uh last time we were here, but
yeah.
>> Okay. The boys are
>> So, so the kids are there. So, the
family is occupying the house for part
of the year. That's my understanding.
Yes.
» You were asked a question, so I'm going
to let it go.
>> Yeah.
>> So, yes, if you can finish answering.
Sure.
>> Okay.
Okay. But has it hasn't moved out
yet?
That's bad.
>> Oh no.
>> So I guess I have one more thing then
based on your information of is one
week, two weeks, 3 weeks, 7 months, a
year any different? I personally feel
yes. I do feel that
long-term rentals are being more,
what's the word I'm looking for?
They're a little more stringent. They're
looking looking at the details more of
who's running these places. Airbnbs are
not. There's a standard rule
set through Airbnb itself.
And I apologize. I'm adamantly against
Airbnbs.
Um I just I don't think that they can
control who's coming in and out. And I
100% agree with their concerns as to
who's going to be in and out of those
properties. Is it going to be one
person? Yes, one person can rent the
place, but that doesn't mean 20 people
don't show up. So, I have a lot of
reasons why I just don't don't feel that
a short-term rental compares to a
long-term rental. Anything over 6
months, in my opinion, you're validating
who's moving in, you're taking a little
more of the responsibility.
One night contracts to me, no, they
don't.
Okay.
thoughts from others who have not said
anything yet. Dan, you got anything?
Anybody?
» I know in the building code it gets into
transient and long-term. Typically 30
days is kind of like the is where they
start dividing up the our one, two,
three, four categories.
And with the RB Airbnb, it's a
transient, not a
it's not be occupied like a residence.
>> So I think that kind of
changes the um
the classification
for that structure when it's treated
that way as a transient property.
>> Okay.
Before we move on, if I could just kind
of focus your view a little bit because
you're you're supposed to be
interpreting your code to answer this
question.
>> So,
like we've said, we are you're
essentially asking whether renting the
entire home for seven days or less
changes its permitted rent residential
use. And in considering that question,
you should take into account the code
officer's reliance on 73-44,
right? Because that's what he's hinging
this decision on. That says any use
expressly permitted under this section
is hereby expressly excluded. as well as
the fact and you should also with that
take into account that the code does not
define short-term rentals as a separate
use and whether it is occupied by the
owner or a tenant is also not defined
and these points bear on whether the
property remains in use as a one family
dwelling or if it constitutes a
different use and therefore the point
that Randy is hinging on doesn't apply.
So that is you're trying determine
whether or not it falls within a
residential use or if you find that it
is better suited somewhere else defined
in the code and whether or not that
exclusionary provision will apply.
» Mr. It seems to me that if
>> if if rentals are allowed
in the code, which it is, and it doesn't
define whether it's by day or month or year, it just
renting a home is
permitted.
And so it it seems like it seems to me
we would be inserting a definition that
that's not there.
And and so it it seems to me as the code
stands, it would have to be permitted.
There's
rental is permitted
and
whether it's short-term or long-term
that's not spelled out. Rental is
permitted.
I think if if
I I think these concerns are valid of,
you know, neighbors and so on, but if
that's the case, um that should be moved
through the planning board and and
insert a specific definition, but
currently it's not there. I I I can't
see the basis for for denying that that
use. agree.
» I'll be a little rhetorical here. Is
renting your home permitted in code?
I mean, we all know it it could be
implied, but
is it is it permitted?
I mean, it's it's common practice
apparently, but
>> Oh, yeah.
>> But
when when you have zoning, I'm under the
impression of it's permissive zoning.
So, anything not in there is not
permissive. And we actually call that
out with that statement.
But according to
New York overview or oversight,
if you have zoning, it's permissive.
So, but we we specifically call it out.
Our forefathers put that statement in
there saying it's not. So, the question
becomes that I have is renting your home
permissive?
And I'm just being rhetorical.
>> Um
I would say it must be or we'd have a
lot of people arrested every
couple days. Valid.
I've never seen it, but I'm just saying.
So, so then, so I I say that because
then it comes back down to what Dan had
just put out there and you agree with we
have no defined timetable on rentals.
>> That's correct. We don't we don't
loan officer. He's saying it's generally
defined as 30 days or less. Is that
>> But you're you are interpreting your
code as
>> right.
So the the question is where did he get
that from? I mean uh is it in
build building standards and code which
Mike kind of alluded to
of um you know the the the definition of
a of an ST STR
It's not in our code. There's no New
York code. I think that
>> I think it's possible that part of his
interpretation comes from this is the
same guy that works in another area.
Right.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. So part of part of it might have
come
to
be equivalent to what he enforces
in his other other job.
>> So experiential
>> a totally different municipality,
>> right? But so it's through his
experience
>> experience
>> as opposed to the letter of the law.
>> Our letter
>> opposed to the letter of law. Correct.
Now in 73-3 under word usage definitions
dwellings multi dwellings one family a
detached building designed for or
occupied exclusively by one family
multiple dwelling multiple as a dwelling
which is either rented, leased, let out
or hired to be occupied or is occupied
as temporary or permanent residence or
home of three or more families living
independently of each other.
So, and then a two family is a building
designed or dwelling two family is a a
building designed for or occupied
exclusively by two families living
independent of each other.
Those are in the definitions in the town
code. Mhm.
>> So essentially
by reading them definitions in a
multiple multiple family dwelling it
could be rented or leased out
and but and it doesn't describe
short-term long-term. It just says
either rented leased or let out or hired
to be occupied.
But it doesn't say that in a one family
dwelling
in the in the definitions.
>> Right. Okay.
Well, and actually I think the the bottom line to his
interpretation slashd disagreement with
allowing Airbnbs comes down to
this attachment and that one phrase, any
use not expressly permitted under this
section is hereby expressly excluded.
So that's his argument and
interpretation whether or not we agree
with that. I mean it's it's fact.
But that's what we're here to decide
tonight as to whether or not it's the
it's a correct interpretation. And
that's all he gave us. He didn't say
whether or not he considers
this dwelling, well he did use the word
dwelling um to be a hotel or a transient
or uh one of the other definitions of
housing in in our that's actually in our
code. He did not define that. He just
said
if it's not in this little section, it
cannot happen.
>> Right? And even in the definition of
home occupation, any use customarily
conducted entirely within a dwelling and
carried on by the inhabitants there
thereof, which use is clearly incidental
and secondary to the use of the dwelling
for dwelling purposes and does not
change the character thereof. Such
occupations shall include but not be
limited to beauty shop, barber shop,
woodworking shop, ceramic shop, and
garage sale as described and limited by
definition included in this article.
Reason I read that that supports what
Brian was saying
essentially well what a true definition
of a home occupation is.
I I almost feel like the same situation
we had earlier tonight where this is
mute if you're saying that
and I'm going through everything I can
find in here and there is nothing that
states that they can't have a short-term
rental. So unless we say all rentals
aren't allowed
then
there's no difference here. So that's
one miter.
I think we need to revisit it
right up in the code.
It certainly would in times of, you
know, changing times would behoove not,
you know, our higher board to discuss
the nuances and differences between and
clarify short-term rentals versus
general housing rentals, which is not
defined except defined by the code
officer using experience because there
again, he only goes after this one
statement. If it's not in here, it can't
be done, which is a fact. Something we
have to consider.
But we we are also considering the fact
that renting your home is not in here
either.
>> Therefore, it cannot be done.
But it is done.
>> And I'm just throwing these definitions
out there.
>> No, you just That's good.
>> Just for process of getting
>> get them on the record.
Rooming house, a dwelling in which
lodging facilities for three or more
persons are supplied for pay over an
extended period of time and which is a
secondary use to the occupancy of the
dwelling by a family.
So, with that consideration, I'll also
ask you to consider the information that
was provided to you tonight, letting you
know that the
current resident of the property will
not be occupying the property at the
same time.
I guess I want to keep in mind very last
statement of the letter for that
interpretation is him saying that the
zoning laws were put in place in the
first place to protect basically our
neighbors, our our well-being. Um
I I don't know. I kind of lean on the
idea that if it's not in there, we
shouldn't be What? Let me ask this. What
is our choice tonight? What are we what
are we looking to finish up? This is
this ordinance is being passed or
>> So, you're not making a decision
tonight. Tonight, I am gathering as much
information as possible for you and I
will be typing up a report decision for
you to consider at your next board
meeting. And if that is in line with
what you're voicing here tonight, then
at that time, you would be making your
decision.
>> Thank you. I would like more time.
>> Yeah, sure. and more information on
this.
>> Sure, we can we can take as much time to
kind of narrow down the facts here
tonight and before we come to a
conclusion.
Um,
and I think we have a bit more
discussion
to to go go forth. At least I do. Um,
but the you guys can uh tell, you know,
come more, you know, tell me where
you're where you're at and where where
we need to be.
» John, would you be willing to read that definition of the multifamily
again,
the dwelling multif family?
Dwellings multiple. A dwelling which is
either rented, leased, let out or hired
to be occupied or is occupied as
temporary or permanent residents of or
home of three or more families living
independently of each other.
That's the definition.
>> So you have to have three three or more
family units on property.
>> Correct.
So I think a a a normal reading of that
would apply to a two family as well
and
would apply to a single family whether
it's it's a permanent residence or
let out.
>> Yeah. I mean a dwelling of one family.
In here it says a detached building
designed
>> for or occupied exclusively by one
family.
>> And so
yeah, again it seems inherent in that that
definition that it would apply to a two
family or a single family and that that
rentals are are permitted and there's no indication of whether
those should be long-term or short-term.
It's just
it's permitted.
This is this is great. We have uh two
definitions of family throughout the
whole code. The zoning
is
let me click on it here.
Simply family
one or more persons with whom there may
be not more than four borders, rumors or
lodgers all living together in a common
household. Any border, rumor or lodger
residing within the family household is
a person who pays a consideration
therefore and such residence is not an
incident to employment therein.
And then
the other definition of family comes out
of the fair housing act that we have.
And uh
family includes a single individual
just the messenger.
I think I think in this case we have to
lean on the one that's in our zoning.
Uh but that was
I don't know. Was it clear to any of you
that particular
now I can't get back to it.
Gateway time out.
Lost our internet. or at least the
public one.
» Oh, look at that.
» Does anybody want me to read that again
to them?
Family.
No, it was long. I agree. I can read it
again.
I I do too. I'm I was going to do it
anyway. Family. One or more persons with
whom there may be not more than four
borders, rumors, or lodgers, all living
together in a common household. Any
border, rumor or lodger residing within
the family household is a person who
pays a consideration therefore and such
residence is not an incident to
employment therein.
» And where was that from, Jim?
>> That's in our zoning chapter. That is a
definition of family within the zoning
chapter
>> 73-3.
kind of like the one in the Fair Housing
Act, but nonetheless,
>> could you explain that last clause like
I'm a 5year-old?
>> So,
that that's got lawyer speak all over
it. So,
>> I can I can help there.
>> So, you are making your own
interpretations, but my interpretation
of that last sentence regarding
employment is let's say there is an
Opair living in the house taking care of
the children. she's simply residing
there as part of her employment. I would
assume that that applies to that.
Okay. So
good that helps. Um so we can go back to
the just the first part. One or more
persons with whom there may be not more
than four borders,
rumors or lodgers.
All. Now,
all what does all mean? Living together
in a common household.
You could have a mix. You could have
some that are family by blood. You could
have some that are then say you have one
or two people that are passing through.
I need a room. Here's 100 bucks. I'm
going to stay the night.
You're a family. you're still considered
a family.
That's part of the family
even if it's not by blood.
Because if you looked in the true
definition of in the dictionary, what is
the definition of family in the
dictionary?
» I don't know.
>> I was going to say, don't leave us
hanging there, John.
>> I don't know.
So
>> I don't have a dictionary in front of
me.
>> My my I guess my not interpretation
question is
define all in the family pun intended.
Um
so serious no in all seriousness all
does that mean the owners
family
as well as borders have to or
so so there's a limit there no more than
four okay
we've established that rumors or lodgers
all living together correct is that with
the family unit or without?
>> Let me back that up. Is that with the
owner ownership family?
» Or
transients on their own.
» Well, like my my son and his two buddies
would be considered a family if they're
living in a single family home. Mhm.
>> So they don't have to be related by
blood. It can be it's a group of people
living in the house.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. And you own the house. Let's
hypothetically say.
>> Yeah.
>> But you're not living there in your in
your example.
>> Yep. So like my tenants, I have three
tenants that are unrelated living
together. They are considered a family.
>> Okay.
as opposed to a sorority of 40 people
living.
>> That's more than four.
>> That would not be a family.
>> That's more than four, but that's a more
of a um then it kicks up into another
>> type of you're outside a single family,
right?
>> Residence. Now you're into
>> a different type of
classification in the
>> So again, I will Well, I'll read what
John read.
Dwelling one family. A detached building
designed for or occupied exclus
exclusively by one family.
But essentially
you could have
not more than four borders and that's
considered a family.
seems that way or at least
I would agree with that interpretation
>> breeding in our definitions within town
code.
>> Yes,
>> that could change.
>> So that would like So I I understand
what you're saying. So four borders come
through as a family.
>> Correct.
>> The next night four more borders come
through as a family. Now you have two
families. Now two different days it's an
occupancy. That's what I'm saying. Can
it change?
How do we
>> Well, we're not we're not in the
business of
>> so we're not in the business of of
setting the the short well not even it's just
setting the code. We're interpreting
what's in what we have available to us
>> and again the
server. Yeah. Um,
so, oh, there it is. Um,
okay, I have it again. All he left us
with was no reference to definitions
in our code. All he left us with was the
one chapter saying, "No, it can't be
done because
anything not expressly permitted under
this action or section is excluded."
Okay. So, we've established that res
I don't know if we've established that,
but we've talked about the residential
district not
permitting,
and that's what he he he agrees, does
not permit
the activity of a short-term rental.
He pulled definitions from
experiential
evidence
to support that.
And there is nothing to support that
especially on the timetable
within our code. And again, I go back to
arguing.
I'm not 100%
determined that actual rentals of a home
are are allowed.
At least I can't without somebody
showing it to me. And and this is from a
person who rented their home before they
bought it. So, I have experience in
renting
and it was a short-term rental. It was
90 days, but that's that's not a year.
It's not. So,
I'm just going to stop there. Let
everybody kind of keep mulling that
over.
Well, I guess that's where I was with
the conversation we we a few minutes ago
here saying like, you know,
Each footnote stating that is not
expressly permitted by the section is
hereby excluded. I do agree with that
which puts an end to it almost except
for like you're saying and that's where
I'm trying to find how do we get to a
happy medium there. We can't prove that
we even have rentals in the first place.
>> There is no definition of rental in the
town code. No,
>> just rooming house
which I which I've read in and that's it
other than the dwellings and what you've
read in for family.
So essentially because there isn't a
definition of rental.
Well, so
it it would stand to it stands to reason
that he could also be tapping. There are
other factors that go into,
you know, his decision perhaps his
decision-m which is outside the scope of
what we're talking about. But he could
be bringing in like the various
occupancy and fire codes from another
resource into his thought process, which
he didn't give to us. He only gave us
that section. That's all he gave us,
>> right?
>> And we don't have we can't introduce
those
because really only only Mike being a
code officer would understand, you know,
most of them or at least be readily
available to to interpret that. And I
don't think we we should go down that
road. We need to stay within the
framework of our of our town code.
Um,
he defined short-term rental. Great.
Hopefully someday a code officer or he
would be able to assist
the main board into talking about this.
However, this is what we're this is what
we're left with.
I tend to be purist personally. Um, so
my my face value until before the
discussion tonight was to was to lean on
his interpretation.
It's black and white. However,
that's not necessarily my view at this time.
» I would agree.
I also
» so it's we well it's up to you guys when
we want to bail. Uh it's like um
I'm satisfied to keep talking about this
but it's your it's your board. I'm
>> do we have an
>> I'm the facilitator. Oh wait is there a
time cut off for meetings here?
>> Like another
>> Oh outanding.
>> Yeah. No. Like, my god. No. Do we have
enough information to
come up with something, right? I know
you can't give me a decision, but do we
have enough?
>> You guys have raised a lot of good
points. I think that if you could hone
your points and really
express exactly how each of you are
feeling, that would help us move forward
because at this point, you guys have
raised essentially all the points that
you're considering.
Now I would ask you to voice what those
considerations are leading you towards
interpreting
» like with what he provides here is a
pretty brief
interpretation
but I think there's also more that goes
into the uh international codes that's
adopted by New York State into this what
he's figuring here that he's not giving
us. So, I think there's a lot more when
looking at the building code. There's a
lot more definitions and
a lot finer detail that we're we're not
getting.
But does that supersede town town code?
>> Tonight, you're being asked to interpret
your town code.
>> I would say no.
>> That's that's where I'm
going with it. Now when you look at the
definition of a motel, a building or
group of buildings detached or in
connection connected units used as
individual lodging facilities designed
primary primarily for transient
travelers and providing off-street
parking facilities and may be provided
with a restaurant or eating
establishment.
No, that is a completely separate
definition from what a a rooming house,
a family, one multiple family, single
family, two family,
right?
» Did you read us boarding house or
rooming house earlier?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, thanks. I I won't do that.
>> But it says nothing in our our our
zoning timelines of anything about a
rooming house,
>> right? Uh well, and we can presume Well,
it's not spelled out. So, we can presume
that a room we can't have a rooming
house or a boarding house in a
residential area.
Can we agree on that?
because I don't think there's anything
I mean like in a PDDC zone, you know,
you got the hotel motel, but doesn't say
anything else about, you know, like a
rooming houses.
>> Mhm.
>> Well, there's a rooming house
definition.
>> Correct.
>> There's a definition, but yeah, it's not
included in there. words in any of
these. Well,
so
the one while we while there's a pause,
the one the one thing that just jumped
right out at me now and I don't know why
it's now, but specifically
what is allowed a family dwelling.
There's a definition in the code in this
particular section that is allowed a
family dwelling,
>> a one family.
>> We've defined that.
We haven't defined whether or not it's
allowed to be rented overall, let alone
short term.
>> Nothing says it can't or can.
>> Nothing says it can or can't.
>> So, there's a definition for tourist
home in the code.
>> You're right. There is
» I would invite you to interpret that
entirely. So if somebody would like to
read that into the record, it might be
helpful.
>> So a tourist home, a dwelling in which
lodging facilities or overnight
accommodations are provided to transient
guests for compensation
and which is a secondary use to the
occupancy of the dwelling by a family.
So we define it in the code,
but where is it allowed?
Hold on a second.
>> Yeah.
The secondary use of the occupancy of
the of the dwelling by a family.
her house rules what family
» no
» words in that in that definition such as
dwelling
>> the secondary use of a dwelling by a
family
>> dwelling and family
>> and the secondary use
Because essentially in this situation,
if somebody comes back and stays for a
little bit in their own home,
that's the primary objective. The
secondary objective is to rent it out to
somebody to gain financial value or
financial gain.
I'm comfortable with secondary use and
family and dwelling
and the fact that a family dwelling is
allowed in a residential area. I would
concur.
» Thoughts? Chair, would you mind
repeating what you just said? You're
comfortable with
>> I'm kind of one and done on those. Um,
I'm comfortable with
I'll even add to it. I'm comfortable
with tourist home, which is a secondary
use
dwelling and family. I believe that's
what I said. Not a complete sentence,
but uh
oh, and a family dwelling is
um permitted in a residential district.
I'm not specifically finding a call out
for a tourist home, but I'm not I don't
think it needs to be called out because
in in code
unless I find it real quick because of
the fact that the definition says
secondary use and these would be
principal uses that are called out in
these sections of the code.
So, uh, the floor remains open to the
board. I'm that's my that's my my
that's those are my words. That's what
I'm comfortable with. So,
>> um,
anybody, uh, have any, you know,
discussion further on that or new
points? Although I think we may have
covered everything that's in the code.
Uh so where where are we all where are
you all
lining up?
So my line of thought
single family dwelling is permitted
and a single family dwelling can be used
as a tourist home
for transient guests.
according to that definition. So
>> as a secondary use which is what we're
looking at.
» It's okay to disagree. It's it's
perfectly fine.
Just and what's the primary use? If
we're classifying this as secondary use,
what is the primary use of this house
then?
» I have not heard that information from
anyone in this meeting.
They stated
when we asked earlier she had stated
that he was living there,
moving out, getting a new home. They
visited once a year. That's all the
information we've given on it. And the
home, the entirety of the home is being
rented out from what I understand as an
Airbnb
or tourist tourist home, whatever you
want to call it, second, but it doesn't
classify to me as secondary if that's
going to be the primary use of the home
going forward.
But there's no vehicle in place, Brian,
in order to apply for special permit or
anything of that nature in this instance
because
it's not explicitly
expressively written into it.
>> I agree.
>> But that's essentially by town by town
definitions
essentially this could happen. It could
be done. And if he says that he and all
they really have to do is say, "Well,
I'm going to live there one, you know,
every so often, every couple weeks or
something, that falls under that
guideline."
>> And she she actually does well and and
we've heard testimony that she she does
come back at least once a year for the
primary use of the owner's home. So she
is
to me there is a potential that that
building exists as a a a homeowner's
dwelling which correct is not defined
but nonetheless a dwelling and a family
dwelling
>> which definitions
>> right and could it be a lot of gray area
possibly
>> but all they would have to do to make it
a family dwelling is say okay well the
house isn't available for tourist
from this date to that date and we're
going to move back in for x number of
weeks, months, whatever, and then they
might go somewhere else after that or or
even decide to stay,
>> right?
>> So, I will note for the board in their
interpretation because we're kind of
interpreting tourist home also at this
point that when you're interpreting
secondary use similarly to how there are
not um timeline limitations on defining
rentals or anything else. There is also
not a timeline or duality defined in the
tourist home definition.
So when it says which is a secondary
use, it's not really defining or telling
you whether or not that is whether the
occupancy is occurring at the same time
or if they are going to be living there
in between rentals and whatnot and
whether that secondary use um
is secondary to if it is residential in
nature principally. So that is something
that you should consider when you are
looking at that.
» I I feel based on the information that I
was given and that I've heard tonight
that this
what we are calling secondary use of a
tourist home is going to be the primary
use of this home.
So I would my personal I think that
>> okay
>> I would go along with code enforcement
officer.
>> Okay.
I mean ultimately you know after
whatever is synthesized we'll be voting
on it next month. So um the chips will
fall you know we need to just narrow
down to something and we either vote it
up or we vote it down however it comes
out. So, what is that something? Um, I
think we're still working on almost
there, but we're we're still working on
it because we haven't heard from
everybody. So, um,
who's next?
You've heard from me, you've heard from
Mike, Brian,
John mostly, unless he wants to say
anything again.
» I I'm good for now.
>> Okay. Dan or Scott, fight over it.
» Okay, Dan. Uh, okay, Dan. Go ahead,
Scott.
>> All right. Um,
I don't know how long they've owned the
house.
I think that they've occupied the house
during most of the ownership until
recently.
Uh, I think age is a consideration of
why they're changing
uh the use of the house possibly. Not
sure, but I'm guessing that uh maybe uh
the long-term occupant now is maybe
spending parts of the year somewhere
else, either in another home or in
another part of the country or something
like that.
Um,
I think that uh could happen some more
in the future, but we don't know. We'd
have to ask them, I guess. is she going
to fly south for the next five years or
what whatever the plan is. We don't
necessarily have to know exact details,
but it would be helpful to know in order
to uh um
to consider a family dwelling as a
primary if she's going to be there. I
mean, she has enough years in there
already to average it out over 40 years
or so, but if she's never coming back,
Um, so the tourist home to me the
tourist home u
name fits
and there's a secondary use
because the primary use could change at
any time. I mean once they're working
with Airbnb or whoever to fill their
calendar they can block the calendar for
longterm short term anytime they want to put her back in the house.
Can I say something, Scott? And her
letter of intent, I do believe right now
she's in Arizona due to business
reasons. So, it's not like it's
she's out there for business and
eventually she'll come back.
was my intentions, I think, with reading
her letter of intent of why she wanted
to do this for to be able to just since
her kids moving out to be able to have
money coming in to probably pay for the
house. Um,
I do believe that was in her letter of
intent.
Yeah, I've got it up here. I'm looking
um
yeah I'm going to take take your word on
that. Um,
» while you're looking for that, chair, I
will note for the board that if if
you're getting hung up on whether or not
this is considered a tourist home, the
reason why I'm asking you to consider
that second part of secondary use is
because if you're considering this a
tourist home, which is a secondary use,
then you need to the primary use which
is why you're here tonight inter that's essentially your interpretation
that you guys are trying to do tonight
anyway. So it brings you full circle
back to the exact question that you're
trying to interpret in the first place.
>> Correct.
We have opinions on that, but have we
actually done that
cohesively
» that it's a family dwelling?
>> That's what I'm asking. That's what the
question is. The whole the overall
question
>> at at one point until her son moved out,
it was a family dwelling.
So the the question is will it continue
to be a family dwelling? And that's
where I thought in her letter of intent
she wrote why she wanted to do it
because of
Yeah, I remember it. Um
just trying to find
there's so many pages. Um
signature page
I can't seem to find it here in the this
the interpretation application. Do do
you think you we could have seen it in
the use?
>> That's what I was that's what I was
wondering if that was what I remember.
Well, I recall that she wrote her that
uh she was,
you know, it is a family dwelling.
She'll be back to use it.
Therefore, my in my mind, but that's
just my interpretation. I'm trying to
look for the facts here, but uh
I wonder if it was in the use
application that I don't seem to have,
would it be back in July, maybe? Would
that still be living back there?
How far down this rabbit hole do we want
to go? If we're going to recall, if
we're going to call this home her
primary residency or her primary house,
this house is her primary
purpose of it as her primary dwelling or
whatever you want, however you want to
word that,
then we need to consider where she's
staying in Arizona. What is that? Then
that would to me and I'm pretty sure New
York State's going to agree with me. If
you're spending 48 weeks of the year in
Arizona and two weeks of the year here
or four weeks, sorry, 52. Either way,
you're spending the majority of your
time there, you're going to be primary
residency is going to be considered in
Arizona, which will make this.
Does she get mail in Arizona?
>> That would be
>> I I mean, I don't know. I'm just
>> I'm just throwing that out there to for
the sake of conversation is there should
be We want to make sure we don't get off
track. We are not interpreting whether
or not it was considered her primary
residence.
>> Okay.
>> You are you are interpreting
>> Yeah. Let's go back to the definition.
Dwelling one family. A detached building
designed for
>> or
occupied exclusively by one family.
>> Oh, defined for one family. It doesn't
say anything
>> the Well, and the dwelling
>> with that ore in there.
>> Correct.
>> Yep.
>> I think you got it. So now that kind of
eliminates the occupancy issue.
>> I think I think as a property matter the
building is designed as a one family
>> family
>> residence. It has been used as a one
family residence. It's still owned by
and then anybody that transits through
there is considered a family.
>> Y
the secondary use
>> for the tourist home.
» It's a good statement.
>> Mhm.
Uh,
anything to add, synthesize,
bring us home?
Either way, man, I really don't have
much to add. It just seems
Yeah, it would have been
very nice if it were in the code specifically that
short-term rental definition
>> and either allowed or not allowed. Um,
without that being in the code, I still
don't
see the reason why it can be denied.
If we allow rentals,
I think it's a reasonable
just a normal reading of the code that
we would allow rentals.
>> Okay.
Uh, so I guess at this point, um, are we in the zone,
do you think, for something to write up
along the lines of,
again,
it doesn't matter how how we're going to
vote for it. I think we we've come to a zone that she can
document give to us and a conclusion
>> and if it doesn't will there will there
be adjustments
>> on the fly?
>> We can make adjustments.
>> Okay. So if if there's adjustments, you
know, next month
or if you're, you know, convicted one
way or the other, we vote. We vote on
the synthesis that we've kind of hashed
out
in a direction that we sort of seem like
it should fit.
And again, like I said, still don't like
it, vote no
or yes. Whichever way, whichever way the
wording comes out, I'm not sure. So, um,
are we are we concluded
or so, how do we formally handle this?
We just table it. We just toss it to old
business.
>> I believe we would carry it to the next
meeting for the decision to be voted on at that time.
>> Okay. So no formal yeah
one of the trainings I had said don't
hang on Robert's rules of order anymore
just just go for just talk. So uh with
the exception of things we have to do.
Um we're going to kick it into old
business for next meeting.
» That'll work.
>> Okay. Comfortable
everybody.
>> Yep. I'm comfortable.
>> Okay.
>> All right.
Um, that brings us to the end of
tonight's business. Anybody got anything
else for the good of the order?
>> I'm good.
>> Okay.
Without any further objection or any
objections, I will bring this meeting to
a close.
Thank you everyone. We are We are done.
Good work.
That's an offuit.