[0:30] Yeah, we were just talking.
[0:34] >> Okay. Okay.
[1:34] Hi there.
[1:53] » You're one minute and a half early. All
[2:01] right, everybody. Mic's on.
[2:29] Oh, no. Not yet.
[2:32] Got to make sure it's on. That's
[2:54] All right, it's 7 o'clock and I want to
[2:57] welcome everybody to the town of Sheneno
[2:59] zoning board of appeals uh meeting for
[3:01] August.
[3:03] Uh we have a full agenda tonight. So, uh
[3:06] we're going to dive right in. Let's get
[3:08] the call of order. Call to No, that was
[3:10] me. Let's get the roll call, please.
[3:14] » Mr. Stone
[3:15] >> here.
[3:16] >> Mr. Collins
[3:16] >> here.
[3:17] >> Mr. White
[3:18] >> here.
[3:18] >> Mr. Smith
[3:19] >> here.
[3:20] >> Mr. Brewster
[3:21] >> here.
[3:24] » All right. Uh, the next order of
[3:27] business is to review and approve our
[3:30] minutes from July.
[3:33] Um, why don't we have we'll have Mr.
[3:35] Walters vote on this since he was here.
[3:37] So, you you'll step out for this one
[3:39] just for the minutes and then we'll rope you back in. So, any any
[3:43] comments? Well, you don't have to leave.
[3:46] You just won't vote on the minutes.
[3:48] >> Oh, gotcha. Gotcha.
[3:49] >> Yeah. Uh, any anything to add or change
[3:53] for the minutes? Correct.
[3:56] >> Looks good.
[3:57] >> Okay.
[3:58] >> Looks good to me.
[3:59] >> If nothing, I'll accept a motion to
[4:01] accept those.
[4:03] >> So moved, Mr. Chairman.
[4:05] >> Okay.
[4:05] >> I'll support that.
[4:06] >> All right. Thank you. And let's get a
[4:08] roll call on the minutes, please.
[4:09] >> Mr. Walters.
[4:10] >> I.
[4:11] >> Mr. Stone.
[4:12] >> I.
[4:12] >> Mr. White.
[4:13] >> I.
[4:14] >> Mr. Smith.
[4:15] >> Hi.
[4:15] >> Mr. Brewster.
[4:16] >> I All right. They're approved and may be
[4:18] posted.
[4:20] Okay.
[4:23] And uh now, Mr. Collins, you're back in
[4:25] as a member. So,
[4:29] all right. The uh first order of
[4:32] business tonight, we have some new
[4:33] business to review and uh move forward
[4:37] through the planning board and set up
[4:39] for our September meeting. And that is a
[4:43] use variance.
[4:45] uh for 1986 New York State Route 12.
[4:50] Uh the owner's Cerulean Mountains LLC.
[4:56] And so what we do for the audience sake
[5:00] is um these applications that are new,
[5:03] we review them for completeness,
[5:05] corrections, and so forth. And um then
[5:08] they go to the planning board and they
[5:09] come back for a public hearing um to us
[5:12] in the next month.
[5:15] um if they if they meet standards
[5:17] tonight.
[5:19] So,
[5:21] uh I'll start off. I do have one very
[5:24] small item just for just for
[5:27] recordeping. The cover letter
[5:31] from the town states zoning residential.
[5:35] The application, however, from the
[5:37] applicant is correct stating the zone is
[5:39] neighborhood commercial. So, if we could
[5:42] just have that corrected at some point,
[5:46] I would be satisfied with that.
[5:50] Um, everything else looked fine
[5:53] to me.
[5:55] So, anybody um
[5:59] have any thoughts on the application
[6:02] uh to for for review and moving it
[6:04] forward?
[6:09] I think the main com main components
[6:11] were there. Um site plan is reasoning
[6:15] for the four factors.
[6:17] Um
[6:19] so I mean that's the part of the biggest
[6:22] thing.
[6:22] >> Um
[6:25] I said that I feel that the application
[6:27] is complete.
[6:34] » Okay. Anybody else?
[6:44] Same. I agree. Looks complete. Looks
[6:47] >> Yep. No issues.
[7:02] » No.
[7:13] check. One, two.
[7:15] >> There we go.
[7:17] >> Thanks.
[7:21] Uh, so yeah, uh, I'll go back to I did
[7:24] have a further comment. So, the
[7:25] applicant is here, right? Uh, you the
[7:27] applicants for that. Okay. Um
[7:31] we I just want to make sure since um we
[7:36] can't we can't help you along this but I
[7:38] do just want to say uh that um by
[7:42] statute use variances are very difficult
[7:44] to get without proof. So, I just want to
[7:46] make sure that all the applicants and
[7:49] anybody who has, you know, down the road
[7:51] would like to submit uh use variance is
[7:55] to make sure that you read up on things
[7:58] and do your homework. There's a lot of
[8:00] proof that needs to be that is required
[8:04] uh to be brought before the board during
[8:06] a public hearing for uh use variances to meet the four factors. And the four
[8:12] factors all of them have to be met. It's
[8:14] not like an area variance where we weigh
[8:17] the different factors in that particular
[8:19] variance. All of them have to be uh sat
[8:22] satisfactorily met with um
[8:27] factual proof and in one case um dollar
[8:32] one of the things that this the the
[8:33] statute says is dollars and cents proof
[8:36] of uh of the hardship. So, I just want
[8:38] everybody out there to know
[8:41] um that it takes a fair amount of work
[8:45] to bring before the board for a use
[8:49] variance. So,
[8:53] with that, I also again I I see all the
[8:56] other components uh for moving the
[8:58] application forward
[9:01] uh are here. So, um
[9:04] it seems like we could I would entertain
[9:07] a motion to um accept this application
[9:10] to move forward at the next planning
[9:12] board meeting for review by them and
[9:15] then through the next uh into our
[9:18] meeting in September for the public
[9:20] hearing uh and defense of the uh of the
[9:23] application.
[9:34] So moved, Mr. Chairman.
[9:36] >> Okay,
[9:39] I'll wait on a second. I'll second.
[9:41] Thank you. We can we can vote on moving
[9:44] it forward now.
[9:46] >> Mr. Stone,
[9:47] >> I.
[9:47] >> Mr. Cowins,
[9:49] >> I.
[9:50] >> Mr. White,
[9:51] >> I.
[9:51] >> Mr. Smith,
[9:54] >> I.
[9:54] >> Mr. Brewster.
[9:55] >> Hi. Okay. So, we've accepted your
[9:58] application. We'll move it and you'll
[9:59] come back in September to uh
[10:03] provide us with additional proof on the
[10:05] four factors and um discuss your your
[10:08] needs.
[10:09] >> Okay.
[10:12] >> Sure.
[10:19] » Well, I can So, that's about the best.
[10:21] The information I I gave you was about
[10:23] the best that I think the board can give
[10:25] you is just to point out that the four
[10:27] factors need um substantial uh proof in
[10:33] terms of documentation.
[10:35] Um so you'll have to figure out what
[10:38] exactly that means going forward by
[10:40] looking at the four factors and doing
[10:43] some research on what they what they
[10:46] mean and and how to come forward with
[10:48] that. We can't counsel you on that, but
[10:50] I can tell you that it's important to
[10:53] know what's behind a use variance and
[10:56] that's all public information that's
[10:58] published out there. Do you want to add
[10:59] anything that I
[11:03] >> So, as the chair has said, we can't
[11:05] advise you specifically on what it is
[11:07] that you need to provide. The best that
[11:09] he can do is that reference to dollar
[11:11] and cents regarding the financial aspect
[11:14] of that. So you should go and look into
[11:16] that and see what available um samples
[11:20] are online.
[11:25] » Okay. Thank you.
[11:29] » Uh so that we've concluded with your
[11:31] application. You're free to stay or or
[11:33] if you need to go that's fine too. But
[11:36] um we're going to move on now with um
[11:44] » Sure, that's fine. Yeah.
[11:48] >> Yeah. Thanks.
[11:52] Okay. The next order of business is um
[11:56] to we are going to have a public hearing
[11:57] for um area variance uh on um
[12:03] let me get the reference numbers here.
[12:05] Sorry.
[12:11] Do we have do we have
[12:13] >> 26 V4?
[12:14] >> Okay. for 2026 V Oh, there it is. V04,
[12:19] which is an area variance application uh
[12:22] on 314 Perry Road
[12:25] uh to create a parcel with less than
[12:26] required road frontage from 240 ft to
[12:30] 140 ft and that's in an agricultural
[12:32] zone.
[12:34] I don't see the applicant here tonight.
[12:38] Um so uh so we'll have to go off what
[12:41] he's provided to us in the application.
[12:45] Um
[12:48] is anyone here in the public
[12:52] to speak for or against the application
[12:56] for um
[13:01] 314 Perry Road.
[13:08] Okay, not seeing anybody
[13:12] to speak on that particular application.
[13:14] Uh, normally we would inquire with the
[13:17] applicant
[13:18] um for more information on the five
[13:21] factors, but we don't have that
[13:23] opportunity.
[13:24] So, I will begin to read some
[13:27] um the correspondence we received
[13:31] into the record. Um, we have one from
[13:35] the town engineer
[13:38] Um
[13:45] he states that a 239 review is not
[13:48] required for this type of application.
[13:51] Um
[13:53] agricultural districts do exist within
[13:56] 500 ft of the parcel. However, area
[13:58] variances are not subject to an
[14:00] agricultural data statement.
[14:03] He defers the seeker to legal counsel
[14:06] and the board
[14:08] and the request is to reduce the
[14:10] required road frontage to install a
[14:12] driveway.
[14:14] Subsequent use of the parcel relative to
[14:16] that driveway is not disclosed
[14:21] and without a known use such as a
[14:23] residence location of that use on the
[14:25] parcel including setbacks to structures.
[14:28] Um, we recommend requesting a
[14:30] preliminary site layout and otherwise he
[14:34] did not say anything about engineering
[14:37] objections or not. That's all he wrote.
[14:41] So that is in the record.
[14:45] I do not have any further
[14:49] uh correspondence to read in the record
[14:51] for this application. So, um,
[14:56] does anybody have anything else to, uh,
[14:58] for the public hearing?
[15:04] There's the applicant.
[15:16] » I don't have a copy
[15:18] laying around anywhere.
[15:20] >> I have
[15:22] I used to I changed my notebook.
[15:24] >> I have them written on my laptop, but I
[15:29] >> Oh, wait. They're in the application at
[15:30] least. Okay. Some um
[15:35] cursory um
[15:40] there it is. That's use.
[15:47] All right, Mr. Frier.
[15:50] We're at the part where we give you an
[15:52] opportunity to describe your um
[15:56] project
[15:58] and we will go over at least a few of
[16:01] the um five factors that you're familiar
[16:05] with. So, why don't you take the time
[16:09] here to just tell us more about your um
[16:12] what you're trying to do and the layout
[16:14] of the parcel and some reasons why um
[16:18] you need and are doing this. You have
[16:20] the floor.
[16:22] >> Oh, can you do a microphone here? So,
[16:34] » is that okay?
[16:35] >> I think so.
[16:35] >> Is that okay? Hear me? Okay.
[16:36] >> Yeah, that's good.
[16:37] >> All right. So, obviously it's a it's a
[16:40] flag pole lot um that we're looking at.
[16:43] I would like to put a driveway in to
[16:46] access the back of the parcel.
[16:50] I have um really have no set plans right
[16:55] now. We're thinking eventually either my
[16:58] wife and I may build a smaller house,
[17:00] our kids may buy our bigger house.
[17:04] At this point, we really don't have any
[17:06] set plans as far as
[17:10] what we're going to do moving forward at
[17:11] this point, but I like would like to get
[17:14] the driveway installed
[17:16] for better access to the back of the
[17:18] property at this.
[17:22] Okay.
[17:23] I'll take you through uh some of the
[17:25] factors here just to get a little bit
[17:27] more detail. Um, do you foresee just by
[17:32] uh the nature of asking for this um
[17:35] variance whether you'll create an
[17:38] undesirable change uh in the character
[17:40] of the neighborhood to be a detriment to
[17:42] nearby properties?
[17:44] >> I do not.
[17:45] >> Okay.
[17:46] And would the reason be that right now
[17:49] you're not building anything on it
[17:51] except the driveway
[17:52] >> by chance? Right.
[17:54] >> Okay.
[17:57] Can you do this by any other method? Can
[18:00] you achieve your your goal of reaching
[18:02] the back of the property like you said?
[18:06] >> I cannot.
[18:07] >> Okay.
[18:09] Um,
[18:13] and will the proposed variance, this is
[18:15] similar to question number one, but it
[18:17] deals more with the environment, have an
[18:19] adverse effect on the physical or
[18:21] environmental conditions in the
[18:22] neighborhood or district?
[18:24] >> It will not. What what type of um
[18:26] material is going is the driveway going
[18:28] to be?
[18:29] >> Uh probably crush or run at this point.
[18:32] >> Okay.
[18:35] Those are the ones that I'll
[18:36] cover. The board will there's a couple
[18:38] more and the five factors that the board
[18:40] will weigh um based on the information.
[18:43] Um the board you have any questions for
[18:46] the applicant?
[18:53] » Mr. Fer, do you
[18:56] own the lot now?
[18:58] >> Yes, I do.
[18:59] >> Okay. So, you've had it. It's adjoined.
[19:02] Um,
[19:02] >> yes. So, originally, um, when my dad
[19:06] passed away,
[19:10] we had parcled
[19:13] a 2acre section out of the house and
[19:16] then I purchased the back of the
[19:18] property.
[19:18] >> Okay.
[19:20] >> So, my brother lives above me. which
[19:24] joins all of that
[19:27] kind of pars out, you know, make it a
[19:30] nice place for someone else. That's why
[19:33] we sectioned it out like this.
[19:35] >> Okay.
[19:38] >> I'm good.
[19:40] >> Okay. And it is over two acres or it's
[19:44] Yeah. Okay.
[19:47] >> Yeah. GISDS says 4.8. So
[19:50] >> 4.8 I think. 4.89. Yeah, it's close.
[19:54] enough.
[19:55] >> Yeah, about a 5 acre parcel.
[19:57] >> Okay.
[19:58] >> Um, so I mean, as far as a building lot
[20:01] easily would be within all the
[20:05] factors of setbacks and whatot.
[20:08] >> Okay. Any other questions from other
[20:11] board members?
[20:15] » You too, Dan.
[20:18] You got anything? Okay.
[20:23] going once.
[20:24] >> I guess I have one question. I'm trying
[20:26] to look at the application, try to
[20:28] figure this out. 240 to 140 foot road
[20:30] frontage for a driveway. It's 100 foot
[20:32] wide driveway.
[20:34] >> No, no, no. So, zoning regulations call
[20:38] for 240 ft.
[20:40] >> Okay.
[20:40] >> I have 140. Gotcha. Thank you.
[20:42] >> So, I'm asking for 14 or 100 foot. Yeah.
[20:45] >> Thank you.
[20:46] Okay.
[20:51] Um, hearing no further
[20:55] board questions.
[20:58] >> May I ask you one?
[20:59] >> You you may
[21:01] >> I understand that you don't have a set
[21:04] plan at the moment. Is it safe to say
[21:06] that no matter what your your intended
[21:09] use will be residential, some sort of
[21:11] residential?
[21:12] >> Yes, 100%.
[21:13] >> Okay.
[21:19] This is egg though, right? You're okay.
[21:24] >> So, yeah. Okay.
[21:27] All right. The last call
[21:31] for any anybody. Okay.
[21:35] Then with that
[21:37] um without objection from the board
[21:40] members I will close the public hearing
[21:42] on this application now and we can move forward with um seeker and then
[21:47] final discussion u for on the uh on the resolution.
[21:54] Okay, no objections. So the public
[21:57] hearing for this is now closed.
[21:59] Um moving on to uh seeker. I've been
[22:03] informed that this is a type two action
[22:05] and therefore uh we have no action to
[22:08] take on seeker. Um we just let it go.
[22:11] Right. It doesn't we don't need a vote
[22:12] to accept type two. That's correct.
[22:14] >> Okay.
[22:15] >> So seeker is complete being a type two.
[22:18] And um now we can cover the uh
[22:22] discussion on the on the issue or do you
[22:25] want to dive into the questions from the
[22:28] you have the resolution there?
[22:30] I do not the resolution.
[22:38] » Yeah, we usually work off the um
[22:42] the resolution which addresses the five
[22:44] factors but I mean we we can
[22:46] >> I don't have that but I do have the
[22:47] question so I can just work through
[22:48] that.
[22:49] >> Oh yeah. All right. That's that well
[22:50] that's that's fine. That's what I meant.
[22:51] So uh if you so the board do do we have
[22:54] any preliminary discussion or we just
[22:56] want to take each question peace meal
[22:59] and
[22:59] >> I do I do have some discussion with this
[23:02] >> fine
[23:03] >> remember in previous
[23:07] meetings we've had an issue with the
[23:09] front edge and like a 100 foot but the
[23:11] lines in the back were so wide it
[23:13] averaged out to be 240. Would it Mr.
[23:17] rear's property fall under this
[23:18] guideline because it looks like he's got
[23:20] a fair amount of back property line back
[23:25] >> because ultimately if it averages out
[23:27] more his variance is a mute point.
[23:32] >> We have done that before. We have gone
[23:34] down that road.
[23:35] >> Correct.
[23:36] >> That was out on River Road. Right.
[23:38] >> Correct.
[23:40] >> The McGawan application.
[23:42] >> Right.
[23:44] And I think this could fall under under
[23:46] that same guideline
[23:49] with the five acres. Do you know, Mr.
[23:53] Fer, by any chance how long your back
[23:55] property line is?
[23:56] >> Look right now. And fortunately for you,
[24:01] I don't have my glasses.
[24:04] Um,
[24:05] it it's quite long. Um, can I bring this
[24:08] up to you? You can see it.
[24:12] Are you are you familiar with
[24:15] >> notific
[24:33] property line
[24:35] >> and then the front is 140
[24:37] >> that the definition I believe in the
[24:38] code is what led us beforehand to this
[24:41] conclusion. It's the
[24:45] a frontage
[24:47] definition was the average,
[24:51] not not necessarily right up to the
[24:53] road. We checked the definitions on that
[24:54] last. Maybe we should do an exercise
[24:56] >> because it was 502 plus the 140 divided
[25:00] by two and that gave us our average.
[25:02] >> Correct.
[25:03] >> So you're you're 602 642 divide that
[25:07] you're you're well over 240,
[25:09] right?
[25:11] Um
[25:12] >> meaning it would not be required.
[25:13] >> Right. Right. Um
[25:19] we should probably do that again through
[25:23] the definitions if if we want to go to
[25:26] e-code real quick. Um
[25:34] good catch there, John. believe at least
[25:36] potentially
[25:39] >> or Yeah.
[25:41] >> Well, I just think that he's got he's
[25:44] got more than enough.
[25:45] >> It's a big enough lot. It's not like
[25:49] >> I had forgotten about that that case.
[25:53] >> All right. Um
[25:56] frontage,
[26:02] right? because we went through a lengthy
[26:04] discussion about was was it lot line
[26:07] frontage? There are all those
[26:08] definitions in there that
[26:10] >> right
[26:10] >> and I believe it said the frontage was
[26:13] the a was the average and not just the
[26:15] one that abuts the
[26:18] so I'm not seeing average I'm seeing the
[26:20] property line of the lot which is
[26:23] contiguous with the street
[26:40] Do you remember when we did that? We
[26:41] could have them pull the minutes so we
[26:43] could refresh our memory on that.
[26:49] » The end of last year, I think, wasn't
[26:51] it?
[26:51] >> November, December. It was McGawan. It
[26:54] was up on River Road.
[26:56] >> I think it was November time frame.
[26:58] >> I don't remember
[27:00] >> because he was I think he was up for the
[27:02] holidays if I remember correctly.
[27:08] » Correct. Correct. This is a similar
[27:17] » No, it wasn't.
[27:18] >> It doesn't.
[27:19] >> It wasn't a horseshoe.
[27:22] It was a flag. Had a very long backyard
[27:25] and then he had only one way to come
[27:28] down to the front to the road like this
[27:31] one. I mean it may have been a horseshoe
[27:33] and that's right up near you.
[27:37] Actually a border. Well, part of well
[27:38] some of his property borders you but
[27:44] get there. Oh, there we go.
[27:51] lot frontage. The property line of the
[27:54] lot which is
[28:07] I know we found it. I remember the
[28:08] discussion too. I just wish we need to
[28:10] um
[28:14] » because I see one here for irregular
[28:16] shapes.
[28:18] Find the average width by measuring the
[28:19] narrowest and widest points. Divide by
[28:21] two for an irregularly shaped lot. It's
[28:25] not a rectangle.
[28:32] » Did you find that in our code or just a
[28:34] general definition? just in general
[28:36] definitions for a property.
[28:39] Trying to find it in the
[28:43] code
[28:46] because originally it started at the
[28:48] state and then we had found you had
[28:51] found it along the way
[28:54] in the town code.
[28:56] >> I know.
[28:57] >> I just don't remember what what part of
[29:00] the code it was.
[29:01] >> I know frontage isn't giving
[29:05] How about
[29:06] >> and a quick search of the word average
[29:07] isn't pulling anything up in your code
[29:10] either
[29:18] irregular
[29:19] because I'm pretty sure it was October
[29:21] November of 25.
[29:25] >> Yes, it wasn't that long ago and you're
[29:27] right. It wasn't this year.
[29:32] » Can you spell the last name of
[29:34] application.
[29:46] Trying to see if I have the resolution.
[29:54] Well, I don't think there was a
[29:56] resolution in the end because we
[29:58] >> right
[29:58] >> we agreed that we we agreed that it was
[30:01] >> Yeah, we need the minutes
[30:02] >> a legal lot that he didn't need to have
[30:04] a a variance for lack of frontage.
[30:08] >> We have uh
[30:11] minutes going back to last year on on
[30:13] the town here, right?
[30:16] >> Okay.
[30:23] Yeah, I want to get this right.
[30:53] Okay.
[30:57] September 23rd
[31:02] minutes. There we go. Let me see.
[31:12] Oh, yeah. There we go.
[31:20] All right.
[31:45] Oh, there there we go. Discussion of
[31:47] McGawan public hearing C attached for
[31:49] comments on top.
[32:02] Motion to hold open the public hearing
[32:04] and table the application by White
[32:06] seconded by Walters Gina Middleton and
[32:09] for Nate contact for code officer on on
[32:13] interpretation
[32:16] motion to hold open the public hearing
[32:18] and table the application. So we tabled
[32:20] it
[32:23] that was there's no
[32:27] >> then I think go to October's because
[32:29] then I think we finalized that in
[32:31] October.
[32:32] >> Okay.
[32:33] Yeah. Um
[32:40] hang on. No. Okay.
[32:44] October.
[32:45] We didn't have an October.
[32:48] We had a December. There's no discussion
[32:51] minutes. There are there's no minutes
[32:53] about the discussion.
[32:56] >> Yeah.
[32:57] >> Anything I'm finding in Thomas Schneango
[32:58] is saying that it's needs to apply for a
[33:01] variance unless it's 240 ft which
[33:04] directly butts to a baseline of a road.
[33:08] So, it's not giving us an average at
[33:09] all. saying it has to have an actual
[33:12] >> That's
[33:14] um
[33:16] >> Well,
[33:17] >> are we sure this wasn't in reference to
[33:18] a front yard setback rather than
[33:25] » No, this was a this was a front yard
[33:27] front lot line
[33:30] conforming use size lot.
[33:32] >> Create a buildable lot with less than
[33:34] required road frontage from 240 to 128.
[33:40] I've got I've got nothing else. I mean,
[33:42] we and um the only way other way would
[33:46] be to re review the actual video, but I
[33:50] don't know if we're we need to go down
[33:52] particularly that road.
[33:54] No, I don't
[33:57] I just don't remember enough of the
[33:58] details personally. Does anybody else?
[34:07] Oh, hang on. Maybe I have notes.
[34:11] There was no October
[34:15] and September was limited in in the the
[34:19] detail of the minutes. It didn't have
[34:23] that particular discussion we're looking
[34:25] for. Um
[34:30] But we tabled it. So we got Well, we
[34:32] didn't get rid of it essentially. It's
[34:34] just
[34:34] >> sounds like you had an interpretation
[34:35] hearing at some point.
[35:07] Yeah. No, it was our discussion. Um,
[35:11] what did we close the public hearing in
[35:12] December then? Because we we left it
[35:14] open. I just looked at December's
[35:16] minutes. No.
[35:24] file.
[35:26] >> Well, I don't know if the file is going
[35:28] to help because we need the the
[35:29] discussion and and it would have been in
[35:31] the, you know,
[35:33] >> would have been in the minutes. I could
[35:35] go into January. I guess
[35:37] >> there's another one here from 1320 River
[35:39] Road, James Weidman.
[35:42] Same situation. I'm I'm going through
[35:44] your guys' notes.
[35:47] This was variance for less than required
[35:49] 240 to 150 in an agricultural zone.
[35:54] >> Yeah, he was subdividing a lot,
[35:59] » right? Yeah, that was January
[36:01] >> double varants. You're right.
[36:02] >> Well,
[36:06] » John, good point. I remember
[36:09] but I but we're here
[36:13] so
[36:13] >> I just figured I would bring that to
[36:15] light and
[36:17] >> you know it's
[36:20] >> I just fig I bring it to light.
[36:22] >> So far I think we've done our due
[36:24] diligence as best we can. So why don't
[36:26] we just work with what we got on the
[36:27] table if that's okay with everybody.
[36:29] >> Yep. Unless you want me to continue or
[36:32] all of us continue digging.
[36:37] » I mean, essentially,
[36:40] >> we're granting the variance just to put
[36:42] the driveway in,
[36:43] >> per se.
[36:45] >> That would Well, we're granting the
[36:46] variance to
[36:49] allow for a buildable lot in some
[36:52] capacity.
[36:52] >> Okay. Well, that's where that's where
[36:54] I'm going down this road is if we're
[36:55] going to continue to go through the
[36:57] paces here.
[36:58] >> We get it. So, Mr. Frier doesn't have to
[37:01] come back for another variance when he
[37:03] wants to put a house on it. He just
[37:05] applies. Here's your plans. Here's I
[37:08] want my building permit. Build house.
[37:11] Done.
[37:12] >> Right.
[37:12] >> So, correct me if I'm wrong. He doesn't
[37:15] have to if he's just
[37:18] >> No, you'll have the road frontage.
[37:20] That's the only requirement. So, once
[37:21] you've got that frontage,
[37:23] >> correct?
[37:23] >> Yeah.
[37:23] >> Then you can build back there. You can
[37:25] do
[37:25] >> correct. I think that's why you had him
[37:27] involved. It's going to be residential,
[37:28] right?
[37:29] >> He didn't have to he didn't even have to
[37:31] build a driveway. That's just what's
[37:32] coming up, right? I mean, he could have
[37:34] divided.
[37:35] >> Yes. It's just small steps moving
[37:36] forward,
[37:37] >> right?
[37:38] >> So, the variance is approved. Uh there's
[37:40] no reason to put a driveway in
[37:44] for my lack of road frontage to not be
[37:48] able to do anything.
[37:51] » That sense?
[37:53] >> No, I think that's perfect sense. If you
[37:55] can't put a house on it, no sense in
[37:58] doing going any further.
[38:00] >> So, no, that's fine. We can move
[38:01] forward.
[38:02] >> Okay,
[38:06] everybody in agreement
[38:09] moving forward?
[38:11] >> Yep.
[38:11] >> Otherwise, because I'll turn it over to
[38:14] um Karen here to
[38:17] >> walk through.
[38:20] >> Okay. As I go through these questions,
[38:22] as you provide your input and as you
[38:24] answer, if you can give a statement of
[38:27] your reasoning for why you're stating
[38:29] you feel that way, that would be helpful
[38:30] for us perfecting the record. So, number
[38:32] one is, will the requested variance
[38:34] produce an undesirable change in the
[38:36] character of the neighborhood or cause a
[38:38] detriment to nearby properties?
[38:40] >> Will not.
[38:48] >> And the reasoning
[38:50] fits in with the
[38:53] property, you know, fits in with other
[38:54] properties within the area.
[38:57] >> And he assured us of the intent
[39:01] for um what's planned?
[39:04] >> Right.
[39:08] » Okay. Can the benefit sought by the
[39:10] applicant be achieved through another
[39:11] feasible method without granting the
[39:14] variance?
[39:16] >> No. No.
[39:17] No. other access available to
[39:21] the property.
[39:27] » Okay.
[39:28] >> Is the requested area variance
[39:30] substantial? I believe it was 100 ft.
[39:32] Correct?
[39:34] >> 100 ft.
[39:40] » No,
[39:44] » I don't feel a substantial. No,
[39:47] >> I'm okay with it. Agreed.
[39:51] >> Good.
[39:53] >> And is that based on
[39:56] maybe um
[39:58] >> with him using a resident doing a
[40:00] residential use for this property? Most
[40:02] residential lots are 100 ft or narrower.
[40:05] So I think I think that the 140 is more
[40:10] than fair for a residential setting.
[40:12] Good point. So it's within a common
[40:14] throughout the area.
[40:15] >> Correct.
[40:19] » Okay. Will the requested variance
[40:21] adversely affect the physical or
[40:23] environmental conditions of the
[40:25] neighborhood or district?
[40:26] >> Will not will not
[40:30] >> no major construction and no
[40:34] um very little disturbance
[40:36] >> future major construction. just typical
[40:40] residential slash rural
[40:44] use. Yeah.
[40:53] Okay. Is the difficulty giving rise to
[40:56] the area variance self created?
[41:02] And I will remind you that this specific
[41:04] factor does not negate the entire thing
[41:06] the way that it does. experience
[41:11] » to a certain part of me. I want to say
[41:13] no on this one, but it's still it can be
[41:16] self-created.
[41:20] And my no would only be is because this
[41:22] has been subdivided a long time ago.
[41:29] » Okay. Um, is everybody good with that?
[41:31] I'm I'm I'm going to go with the the
[41:35] standard. Yes, it is. And I and I would
[41:38] go with yes, but I mean, as I say,
[41:39] there's there's a no part of me in there
[41:42] that But at the end of the day, yes.
[41:45] >> Okay.
[41:48] >> What did you choose? Or what did not you
[41:49] choose, but what did you write
[41:51] >> that? Yes, it is.
[41:52] >> Okay.
[42:17] The summary question
[42:20] does the benefit out
[42:38] And
[42:46] in consideration of these factors, does
[42:48] the benefit outweigh the judgment?
[42:54] I feel with those. Yes.
[42:57] I feel with those as well.
[43:01] Okay.
[43:02] >> Yeah, I concur.
[43:11] » Okay. Um so we at this it's it appears
[43:15] as though uh we have determined uh that
[43:18] the benefit to the applicant outweighs
[43:22] um the detriment to the um
[43:27] nearby community for um shortness of a
[43:31] sentence there. And um therefore I would
[43:34] uh seek a motion to adopt this
[43:38] resolution granting
[43:41] the uh area variance.
[43:46] » Well, I'll make a motion to approve the
[43:48] variance.
[43:49] >> Okay, I'll second. All right. Did you
[43:52] get those?
[43:53] >> Roll call, please.
[43:54] >> Mr. Stone,
[43:56] >> I.
[43:56] >> Mr. Collins,
[43:57] >> I.
[43:57] >> Mr. White,
[43:58] >> I.
[43:59] >> Mr. Smith,
[44:00] >> I.
[44:00] >> Mr. Brewster.
[44:01] >> I Okay, John, you got your uh variance.
[44:05] >> Great. Thank you.
[44:06] >> Building permit required.
[44:08] >> Yep. Yep. When we decide what we're
[44:10] going to do, I'll
[44:10] >> whatever you decide what you're going to
[44:12] do.
[44:12] >> Ordinance department with the site plan
[44:15] and everything we need.
[44:16] >> Thank you.
[44:17] >> Appreciate it. Sure. It's a long trip.
[44:18] We got there.
[44:23] » I will.
[44:24] >> Have a good night.
[44:29] » Yeah, that's good. We've got I'm sure we
[44:31] can find the Well, I'm gonna watch the
[44:34] video again to see what we talked about
[44:38] » because John Yeah, we we did something
[44:41] like that.
[44:42] >> I don't exactly know how we pulled it
[44:43] off.
[44:44] >> And this falls in that same guideline,
[44:47] >> but
[44:47] >> and then now we're we're looking at the
[44:49] very same code that we looked at before
[44:51] and it's just throwing us a curveball.
[44:54] >> Correct.
[44:55] >> So, yeah. Okay. Well, we got through
[44:59] managed that. So, now we uh have let me
[45:03] clear some screens here. We have um an
[45:08] interpretation tonight
[45:12] for um
[45:17] read the actual
[45:21] Okay. The desire is to or the
[45:25] interpretation is to interpretate in
[45:33] is to interpret.
[45:36] Yeah, there is.
[45:43] » I apologize for that, but
[45:47] is to uh interpret the um code
[45:51] enforcement officer's um interpretation
[45:54] of the town code. The applicant has a
[45:57] desire
[45:59] to um conduct business, short-term
[46:04] rental business via the platform Airbnb
[46:09] and the zoning interpretation. I'll read
[46:12] into the record as follows.
[46:17] We did receive a letter from the code
[46:19] enforcement officer invited him to be
[46:22] here tonight, but he had other
[46:23] commitments. So, the code enforcement
[46:25] officer. Well, hang on one second.
[46:29] Let me without objection open the public
[46:32] hearing for this interpretation
[46:36] before I read anything else into the
[46:37] record. Um, so now that is open and I'll
[46:42] read this to the record and then we'll
[46:45] invite the public to speak. The
[46:47] applicant is the applicant here actually
[46:49] I should ask. I'm not seeing the
[46:52] applicants. Okay.
[46:55] So, from the
[46:58] code office,
[47:00] it is my interpretation that short-term
[47:02] rentals, i.e. air B&B are not allowed
[47:06] uses under the zoning code of the town
[47:08] of Shenango.
[47:09] Chapter 73-44, attachment one contains
[47:13] the permitted uses in a residential
[47:15] area. It also contains a footnote that
[47:19] says, quote, "Any use not expressly
[47:22] permitted under this section is hereby
[47:24] expressly excluded. As such, short-term
[47:27] rentals would be excluded from permitted
[47:30] uses under 73-44, attachment one.
[47:35] The current zoning law of the town does
[47:38] not address the concept of short-term
[47:41] rentals in any zoning district. A
[47:43] short-term rental is generally defined
[47:46] as a very specific dwelling unit or
[47:48] rooms that can be rented for a period of
[47:51] 30 days or less. Zoning laws are for the
[47:54] purpose of maintaining a neighborhood's
[47:56] character piece as well as maintain a
[47:58] quality of life. Without local laws
[48:01] governing these very specific uses, such
[48:04] as STR, direct enforcement becomes very
[48:07] difficult. Sincerely, Randy Sheer, code
[48:09] enforcement officer. So that is his
[48:12] official interpretation
[48:14] of the code
[48:16] and the applicant is contesting that.
[48:22] Let me let me get their letter up here.
[48:45] and I don't have it like that.
[48:52] Okay, this is the
[48:59] Okay. Dated July 18th, 2026.
[49:03] Uh, I'm requesting a pre-application
[49:05] clarification regarding the
[49:06] interpretation of the zoning ordinance
[49:08] as it applies to my property at 399
[49:10] Oakill Road, Bingington, New York 13901,
[49:15] regarding my recent request for a use
[49:16] variance to to have me to uh for me to
[49:20] have an Airbnb, aka a short-term rental
[49:23] at said property. Before
[49:26] proceeding with my formal use variance
[49:28] application, I would app hang hang while
[49:30] this is preliminary.
[49:34] I would appreciate the opportunity to
[49:36] confirm the department's interpretation
[49:37] of the applicable zoning regulations and
[49:40] whether the proposed use is considered
[49:42] prohibited under the current zoning
[49:44] designation. Understanding the
[49:46] department's interpretation will help
[49:48] ensure that any future application is
[49:50] appropriately prepared and addressed and
[49:53] addresses the relevant standards.
[49:57] Specifically, I would appreciate
[49:59] clarification on the following. The
[50:01] applicable zoning provisions governing
[50:03] the proposed use, whether the proposed
[50:06] use is considered a permitted use,
[50:08] accessory use, conditional special use,
[50:10] or a prohibited use under the ordinance.
[50:14] the specific ordinance sections
[50:15] supporting that interpretation, whether
[50:18] a use variance is the appropriate
[50:19] entitlement to pursue or if another
[50:22] zoning process would be more
[50:23] appropriate.
[50:29] My intent is to ensure that any
[50:30] subsequent application is based on a
[50:32] clear understanding of the ordinance and
[50:34] the department's interpretation before
[50:36] committing the time and expense
[50:37] associated with a formal use variance
[50:39] request. to answer a few questions that
[50:42] were expressed as concerns during the
[50:43] planning board meeting on July 13th. One
[50:46] being parking. There is ample spacious
[50:48] parking following my long private
[50:51] driveway. My property setup accommodates
[50:53] all Quest vehicles,
[50:55] guest vehicles entirely off the street,
[51:03] specifically preventing any neighborhood
[51:04] congestion or overflow on residential
[51:07] roads. Secondly, there appear to be
[51:09] concern regarding the number of allowed
[51:10] guests. Multif family bookings will not
[51:13] be allowed. I will have a very specific
[51:16] booking restrictions written with
[51:18] exactly the details of my guest limits.
[51:22] My short-term rental agreement for said
[51:24] property will be written as such that it
[51:26] will be a single booking policy. That
[51:28] said property is only rented to
[51:32] one primary registered party at a time.
[51:35] I will not rent a separate unaffiliated
[51:37] groups or multiple families
[51:39] simultaneously. My house rules which
[51:41] will be incorporated into my A or Airbnb
[51:43] listing and will prohibit events,
[51:45] parties, and unauthorized visitors.
[51:48] I highly value our community and my top
[51:50] priority is ensuring the home operates
[51:52] smoothly without burdened neighbors or
[51:53] local resources.
[51:55] I've attached a copy of my intended
[51:57] house rules for your reference. Thank
[51:58] you for your time and assistance.
[52:00] Deborah Yarion of 399 Oakill Road. Now,
[52:05] I was hesitating there because I think
[52:07] that was from the original use variance
[52:08] application. So,
[52:12] let me find a followup.
[52:17] There is one.
[52:28] Do you know if that's Did she send a
[52:30] followup on that? That seems to be
[52:34] Yeah.
[52:43] » Yeah. Okay.
[52:55] » That is what I read.
[53:05] Okay. Well, I think we have a clear
[53:08] understanding of what her intent is
[53:09] anyway and what the code enforcement
[53:12] officer has uh stated.
[53:16] Um I do have a couple more.
[53:24] Uh, the town engineer
[53:28] has no engineering objections. Should
[53:30] this be allowed by code or should it
[53:32] require a use variance?
[53:35] That makes sense. Uh, and then the
[53:38] planning board's letter to us states.
[53:42] Uh, dear chairman and all board members,
[53:44] at their meeting on Monday, August 10th,
[53:46] the planning board considered the
[53:48] request for 2026-V05
[53:52] 399 Oakill Road application for an
[53:55] interpretation on an Airbnb in a
[53:58] residential zone in the short EAF. The
[54:00] planning board forwards this application
[54:01] to the zoning board of appeals to
[54:04] consider tableabling this application
[54:05] until we have written interpretation
[54:07] from the town's code officer regarding
[54:09] this use. This may determine whether a
[54:11] use variance is necessary
[54:14] signed by the vice chairman. So we
[54:17] actually have that
[54:19] now that interpretation
[54:23] and uh therefore we we can continue on
[54:27] our own because this is our um
[54:30] interpretations are our arena. So the
[54:33] planning board had their opportunity to
[54:36] advise us and they did to a certain
[54:38] extent. So, uh, we may we may continue
[54:41] on if the board chooses to do so.
[54:45] Um,
[54:46] I assume we're going to continue. Okay.
[54:50] So, given that,
[54:54] this is where it gets a little the
[54:57] structure gets a little interesting uh
[54:58] because we have no certain factors to go
[55:00] through, but we've done these before. So
[55:03] the general the general sense is we need
[55:05] to look at our code and the definitions
[55:08] within our code and look at what the um
[55:15] and discuss what the what the law states
[55:19] and the interpretation and then of
[55:22] course the request by the applicant. But
[55:24] before we get into that
[55:26] uh would anybody in the public audience
[55:30] like to speak for or against
[55:32] uh this interpretation. Any comments on
[55:34] that?
[55:40] » Okay,
[55:43] >> one second. Can we get Can we get her a
[55:44] mic or
[55:47] >> Oh, no. We have to So, we're we're we're
[55:50] live. So, that's why we're all like
[55:52] chewing on these things practically. So,
[55:58] » thank you for Thank you for that. Yeah.
[56:01] Well, our property a bus. Can you hear
[56:03] me?
[56:03] >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah.
[56:04] >> Okay. Uh, a bus with hers.
[56:08] And she's always been a very good
[56:10] neighbor.
[56:12] She doesn't live local most of the year.
[56:15] She's west. She comes in to see the
[56:20] kids,
[56:22] visit the family. I think
[56:28] we're a little concerned about people
[56:31] that she might rent to. Although I don't
[56:35] think that she's going to get a lot of
[56:37] renters.
[56:42] There's more in town. I don't know how
[56:47] many
[56:52] profitable they are.
[56:58] » That's a whole another topic.
[57:01] Go ahead. You have the floor.
[57:03] >> Um,
[57:09] do you have anything to say?
[57:11] Okay, I guess I've got the floor.
[57:13] >> You do.
[57:15] >> We're We're just kind of, you know,
[57:19] wondering how it's all gonna
[57:21] go.
[57:23] She's gonna be able to do better.
[57:27] » Okay.
[57:31] We've known her. She's she's lived there
[57:34] with her boys probably
[57:37] 20 years.
[57:43] » When the boys were younger, they were
[57:44] kind of boys. So anyway, okay.
[57:49] >> Okay. Thanks.
[57:53] Um,
[57:55] so yeah. So,
[57:59] I've read everything in
[58:01] uh I think and we've heard from the
[58:03] public. I think so. I can close it and
[58:06] we can continue on with the discussion.
[58:07] Correct.
[58:08] >> Yes.
[58:08] >> All right. Um unless any objection, I'll
[58:11] close the public hearing on this and we
[58:13] can
[58:16] » Oh, did
[58:19] no. Okay.
[58:22] Um
[58:24] so without any objection from the board
[58:26] I'll close the public hearing and we can
[58:28] uh move on uh to the next phase.
[58:32] Okay
[58:33] then I will close the public hearing at
[58:35] this time. The next phase uh is we will
[58:40] consider seeker. However considering it it is a type two action and therefore
[58:46] we don't have to do anything on the type
[58:47] two action. So we can now move on from
[58:49] Zer to discussing the matter at hand interpretation.
[58:58] So I'm going to open the floor up to the
[58:59] board for comments.
[59:03] Who wants to start? Because everybody's
[59:05] going to go.
[59:07] Okay. I was looking at the residential
[59:10] attachments that we all get and
[59:12] everybody can can uh look at and then
[59:18] the principal permitted uses home
[59:21] occupation is part of residence. Could
[59:25] this be considered a home occupation?
[59:28] Because it is part of the residence and
[59:30] it is a permitted use.
[59:34] So that is essentially what you guys are
[59:35] that's that's really what it boils down
[59:37] to. That's the question in front of you
[59:39] tonight is essentially whether renting
[59:41] the entire home for seven days versus a
[59:45] year or two years of tenency changes the
[59:49] use from residential
[59:52] just based on the length of teny or the
[59:56] length of the occupancy and who is
[59:59] occupying it. Is it owner occupied? Is
[1:00:01] it
[1:00:03] tenant occupied. Those are the things
[1:00:05] that you're you're looking at and those
[1:00:07] are things that are not defined in your
[1:00:08] code. So that is that is what you're
[1:00:10] here interpreting tonight and that is
[1:00:12] what your decision is going to end on.
[1:00:18] » Valid point, John,
[1:00:21] anybody uh have anything anything else
[1:00:24] or want to tackle that?
[1:00:31] Because in my opinion, a home occupation
[1:00:34] is a service that you're supplying to a
[1:00:37] customer. And in this instance, you are
[1:00:40] supplying your house for them to stay
[1:00:43] overnight and getting monetary value for
[1:00:47] it.
[1:00:49] So to me, that would be considered a
[1:00:53] home occupation.
[1:00:55] It's just where does it where does the
[1:00:58] fine line end with
[1:01:01] the length of occupancy,
[1:01:05] you know, two, three, four days.
[1:01:09] >> Correct. And that is not defined in our
[1:01:11] code.
[1:01:12] >> I would I would disagree with it only
[1:01:15] because in my mind, home occupation is
[1:01:18] the owner themselves doing the
[1:01:20] occupation, their career, their focus
[1:01:22] within the house. I don't feel that the
[1:01:24] property
[1:01:26] classifies as the occupation itself.
[1:01:29] Okay.
[1:01:35] But isn't the owner there for the winter
[1:01:39] >> or the summer or whatever?
[1:01:41] >> Based off of the information that she
[1:01:43] gave us, sounds like she is only there
[1:01:46] visiting
[1:01:47] temporarily once in a while.
[1:01:51] >> You said she goes away for part of the
[1:01:53] year.
[1:01:54] >> What part?
[1:01:57] of the year?
[1:01:59] >> Part of the I don't know. We see her
[1:02:00] once a year, but that doesn't mean she's
[1:02:04] >> Okay.
[1:02:05] >> Right.
[1:02:08] >> So, the family is looking
[1:02:12] >> Yes. And they testified to that. Sorry
[1:02:14] to interrupt, but uh that's Yeah, that's
[1:02:16] in their application. I believe they
[1:02:18] said that uh last time we were here, but
[1:02:21] yeah.
[1:02:22] >> Okay. The boys are
[1:02:23] >> So, so the kids are there. So, the
[1:02:25] family is occupying the house for part
[1:02:28] of the year. That's my understanding.
[1:02:30] Yes.
[1:02:35] » You were asked a question, so I'm going
[1:02:36] to let it go.
[1:02:37] >> Yeah.
[1:02:39] >> So, yes, if you can finish answering.
[1:02:41] Sure.
[1:02:44] >> Okay.
[1:02:48] Okay. But has it hasn't moved out
[1:02:51] yet?
[1:02:59] That's bad.
[1:03:03] >> Oh no.
[1:03:05] >> So I guess I have one more thing then
[1:03:07] based on your information of is one
[1:03:09] week, two weeks, 3 weeks, 7 months, a
[1:03:12] year any different? I personally feel
[1:03:14] yes. I do feel that
[1:03:18] long-term rentals are being more,
[1:03:21] what's the word I'm looking for?
[1:03:24] They're a little more stringent. They're
[1:03:26] looking looking at the details more of
[1:03:27] who's running these places. Airbnbs are
[1:03:30] not. There's a standard rule
[1:03:33] set through Airbnb itself.
[1:03:36] And I apologize. I'm adamantly against
[1:03:38] Airbnbs.
[1:03:40] Um I just I don't think that they can
[1:03:43] control who's coming in and out. And I
[1:03:46] 100% agree with their concerns as to
[1:03:48] who's going to be in and out of those
[1:03:49] properties. Is it going to be one
[1:03:51] person? Yes, one person can rent the
[1:03:53] place, but that doesn't mean 20 people
[1:03:55] don't show up. So, I have a lot of
[1:03:58] reasons why I just don't don't feel that
[1:04:00] a short-term rental compares to a
[1:04:02] long-term rental. Anything over 6
[1:04:04] months, in my opinion, you're validating
[1:04:06] who's moving in, you're taking a little
[1:04:09] more of the responsibility.
[1:04:11] One night contracts to me, no, they
[1:04:13] don't.
[1:04:16] Okay.
[1:04:20] thoughts from others who have not said
[1:04:22] anything yet. Dan, you got anything?
[1:04:24] Anybody?
[1:04:31] » I know in the building code it gets into
[1:04:34] transient and long-term. Typically 30
[1:04:37] days is kind of like the is where they
[1:04:40] start dividing up the our one, two,
[1:04:42] three, four categories.
[1:04:44] And with the RB Airbnb, it's a
[1:04:48] transient, not a
[1:04:50] it's not be occupied like a residence.
[1:04:54] >> So I think that kind of
[1:04:57] changes the um
[1:05:00] the classification
[1:05:02] for that structure when it's treated
[1:05:04] that way as a transient property.
[1:05:07] >> Okay.
[1:05:17] Before we move on, if I could just kind
[1:05:20] of focus your view a little bit because
[1:05:23] you're you're supposed to be
[1:05:24] interpreting your code to answer this
[1:05:27] question.
[1:05:29] >> So,
[1:05:31] like we've said, we are you're
[1:05:34] essentially asking whether renting the
[1:05:36] entire home for seven days or less
[1:05:37] changes its permitted rent residential
[1:05:40] use. And in considering that question,
[1:05:42] you should take into account the code
[1:05:44] officer's reliance on 73-44,
[1:05:48] right? Because that's what he's hinging
[1:05:49] this decision on. That says any use
[1:05:52] expressly permitted under this section
[1:05:54] is hereby expressly excluded. as well as
[1:05:58] the fact and you should also with that
[1:06:01] take into account that the code does not
[1:06:04] define short-term rentals as a separate
[1:06:07] use and whether it is occupied by the
[1:06:10] owner or a tenant is also not defined
[1:06:12] and these points bear on whether the
[1:06:14] property remains in use as a one family
[1:06:16] dwelling or if it constitutes a
[1:06:18] different use and therefore the point
[1:06:21] that Randy is hinging on doesn't apply.
[1:06:24] So that is you're trying determine
[1:06:27] whether or not it falls within a
[1:06:29] residential use or if you find that it
[1:06:32] is better suited somewhere else defined
[1:06:35] in the code and whether or not that
[1:06:37] exclusionary provision will apply.
[1:06:46] » Mr. It seems to me that if
[1:06:49] >> if if rentals are allowed
[1:06:53] in the code, which it is, and it doesn't
[1:06:56] define whether it's by day or month or year, it just
[1:07:03] renting a home is
[1:07:07] permitted.
[1:07:09] And so it it seems like it seems to me
[1:07:17] we would be inserting a definition that
[1:07:21] that's not there.
[1:07:24] And and so it it seems to me as the code
[1:07:28] stands, it would have to be permitted.
[1:07:33] There's
[1:07:37] rental is permitted
[1:07:40] and
[1:07:42] whether it's short-term or long-term
[1:07:45] that's not spelled out. Rental is
[1:07:47] permitted.
[1:07:49] I think if if
[1:07:52] I I think these concerns are valid of,
[1:07:55] you know, neighbors and so on, but if
[1:07:58] that's the case, um that should be moved
[1:08:03] through the planning board and and
[1:08:06] insert a specific definition, but
[1:08:09] currently it's not there. I I I can't
[1:08:12] see the basis for for denying that that
[1:08:16] use. agree.
[1:08:21] » I'll be a little rhetorical here. Is
[1:08:23] renting your home permitted in code?
[1:08:27] I mean, we all know it it could be
[1:08:29] implied, but
[1:08:32] is it is it permitted?
[1:08:35] I mean, it's it's common practice
[1:08:36] apparently, but
[1:08:37] >> Oh, yeah.
[1:08:38] >> But
[1:08:41] when when you have zoning, I'm under the
[1:08:43] impression of it's permissive zoning.
[1:08:46] So, anything not in there is not
[1:08:49] permissive. And we actually call that
[1:08:51] out with that statement.
[1:08:53] But according to
[1:08:55] New York overview or oversight,
[1:08:59] if you have zoning, it's permissive.
[1:09:02] So, but we we specifically call it out.
[1:09:06] Our forefathers put that statement in
[1:09:08] there saying it's not. So, the question
[1:09:10] becomes that I have is renting your home
[1:09:13] permissive?
[1:09:17] And I'm just being rhetorical.
[1:09:19] >> Um
[1:09:21] I would say it must be or we'd have a
[1:09:25] lot of people arrested every
[1:09:27] couple days. Valid.
[1:09:32] I've never seen it, but I'm just saying.
[1:09:36] So, so then, so I I say that because
[1:09:39] then it comes back down to what Dan had
[1:09:41] just put out there and you agree with we
[1:09:44] have no defined timetable on rentals.
[1:09:50] >> That's correct. We don't we don't
[1:09:56] loan officer. He's saying it's generally
[1:10:01] defined as 30 days or less. Is that
[1:10:05] >> But you're you are interpreting your
[1:10:07] code as
[1:10:08] >> right.
[1:10:13] So the the question is where did he get
[1:10:14] that from? I mean uh is it in
[1:10:21] build building standards and code which
[1:10:24] Mike kind of alluded to
[1:10:28] of um you know the the the definition of
[1:10:32] a of an ST STR
[1:10:36] It's not in our code. There's no New
[1:10:38] York code. I think that
[1:10:42] >> I think it's possible that part of his
[1:10:45] interpretation comes from this is the
[1:10:48] same guy that works in another area.
[1:10:50] Right.
[1:10:51] >> Correct.
[1:10:52] >> Okay. So part of part of it might have
[1:10:55] come
[1:10:57] to
[1:10:59] be equivalent to what he enforces
[1:11:03] in his other other job.
[1:11:06] >> So experiential
[1:11:07] >> a totally different municipality,
[1:11:09] >> right? But so it's through his
[1:11:10] experience
[1:11:11] >> experience
[1:11:12] >> as opposed to the letter of the law.
[1:11:16] >> Our letter
[1:11:17] >> opposed to the letter of law. Correct.
[1:11:21] Now in 73-3 under word usage definitions
[1:11:26] dwellings multi dwellings one family a
[1:11:30] detached building designed for or
[1:11:33] occupied exclusively by one family
[1:11:38] multiple dwelling multiple as a dwelling
[1:11:41] which is either rented, leased, let out
[1:11:44] or hired to be occupied or is occupied
[1:11:48] as temporary or permanent residence or
[1:11:51] home of three or more families living
[1:11:54] independently of each other.
[1:11:58] So, and then a two family is a building
[1:12:01] designed or dwelling two family is a a
[1:12:05] building designed for or occupied
[1:12:07] exclusively by two families living
[1:12:10] independent of each other.
[1:12:13] Those are in the definitions in the town
[1:12:15] code. Mhm.
[1:12:16] >> So essentially
[1:12:18] by reading them definitions in a
[1:12:20] multiple multiple family dwelling it
[1:12:25] could be rented or leased out
[1:12:28] and but and it doesn't describe
[1:12:30] short-term long-term. It just says
[1:12:32] either rented leased or let out or hired
[1:12:37] to be occupied.
[1:12:40] But it doesn't say that in a one family
[1:12:42] dwelling
[1:12:43] in the in the definitions.
[1:12:45] >> Right. Okay.
[1:12:48] Well, and actually I think the the bottom line to his
[1:12:56] interpretation slashd disagreement with
[1:12:59] allowing Airbnbs comes down to
[1:13:04] this attachment and that one phrase, any
[1:13:07] use not expressly permitted under this
[1:13:09] section is hereby expressly excluded.
[1:13:15] So that's his argument and
[1:13:17] interpretation whether or not we agree
[1:13:18] with that. I mean it's it's fact.
[1:13:22] But that's what we're here to decide
[1:13:24] tonight as to whether or not it's the
[1:13:25] it's a correct interpretation. And
[1:13:28] that's all he gave us. He didn't say
[1:13:29] whether or not he considers
[1:13:32] this dwelling, well he did use the word
[1:13:36] dwelling um to be a hotel or a transient
[1:13:40] or uh one of the other definitions of
[1:13:44] housing in in our that's actually in our
[1:13:47] code. He did not define that. He just
[1:13:49] said
[1:13:50] if it's not in this little section, it
[1:13:54] cannot happen.
[1:13:56] >> Right? And even in the definition of
[1:13:58] home occupation, any use customarily
[1:14:01] conducted entirely within a dwelling and
[1:14:03] carried on by the inhabitants there
[1:14:07] thereof, which use is clearly incidental
[1:14:10] and secondary to the use of the dwelling
[1:14:14] for dwelling purposes and does not
[1:14:17] change the character thereof. Such
[1:14:19] occupations shall include but not be
[1:14:22] limited to beauty shop, barber shop,
[1:14:25] woodworking shop, ceramic shop, and
[1:14:27] garage sale as described and limited by
[1:14:31] definition included in this article.
[1:14:35] Reason I read that that supports what
[1:14:38] Brian was saying
[1:14:41] essentially well what a true definition
[1:14:43] of a home occupation is.
[1:14:57] I I almost feel like the same situation
[1:15:00] we had earlier tonight where this is
[1:15:01] mute if you're saying that
[1:15:04] and I'm going through everything I can
[1:15:06] find in here and there is nothing that
[1:15:07] states that they can't have a short-term
[1:15:08] rental. So unless we say all rentals
[1:15:13] aren't allowed
[1:15:16] then
[1:15:18] there's no difference here. So that's
[1:15:20] one miter.
[1:15:22] I think we need to revisit it
[1:15:25] right up in the code.
[1:15:29] It certainly would in times of, you
[1:15:32] know, changing times would behoove not,
[1:15:35] you know, our higher board to discuss
[1:15:38] the nuances and differences between and
[1:15:41] clarify short-term rentals versus
[1:15:43] general housing rentals, which is not
[1:15:47] defined except defined by the code
[1:15:49] officer using experience because there
[1:15:51] again, he only goes after this one
[1:15:53] statement. If it's not in here, it can't
[1:15:55] be done, which is a fact. Something we
[1:15:57] have to consider.
[1:16:00] But we we are also considering the fact
[1:16:02] that renting your home is not in here
[1:16:05] either.
[1:16:07] >> Therefore, it cannot be done.
[1:16:10] But it is done.
[1:16:12] >> And I'm just throwing these definitions
[1:16:13] out there.
[1:16:14] >> No, you just That's good.
[1:16:15] >> Just for process of getting
[1:16:18] >> get them on the record.
[1:16:20] Rooming house, a dwelling in which
[1:16:22] lodging facilities for three or more
[1:16:25] persons are supplied for pay over an
[1:16:28] extended period of time and which is a
[1:16:30] secondary use to the occupancy of the
[1:16:34] dwelling by a family.
[1:16:39] So, with that consideration, I'll also
[1:16:42] ask you to consider the information that
[1:16:44] was provided to you tonight, letting you
[1:16:46] know that the
[1:16:48] current resident of the property will
[1:16:50] not be occupying the property at the
[1:16:52] same time.
[1:17:00] I guess I want to keep in mind very last
[1:17:03] statement of the letter for that
[1:17:05] interpretation is him saying that the
[1:17:07] zoning laws were put in place in the
[1:17:08] first place to protect basically our
[1:17:11] neighbors, our our well-being. Um
[1:17:18] I I don't know. I kind of lean on the
[1:17:21] idea that if it's not in there, we
[1:17:22] shouldn't be What? Let me ask this. What
[1:17:25] is our choice tonight? What are we what
[1:17:27] are we looking to finish up? This is
[1:17:28] this ordinance is being passed or
[1:17:31] >> So, you're not making a decision
[1:17:33] tonight. Tonight, I am gathering as much
[1:17:35] information as possible for you and I
[1:17:38] will be typing up a report decision for
[1:17:41] you to consider at your next board
[1:17:42] meeting. And if that is in line with
[1:17:45] what you're voicing here tonight, then
[1:17:48] at that time, you would be making your
[1:17:49] decision.
[1:17:51] >> Thank you. I would like more time.
[1:17:53] >> Yeah, sure. and more information on
[1:17:55] this.
[1:17:56] >> Sure, we can we can take as much time to
[1:17:58] kind of narrow down the facts here
[1:18:02] tonight and before we come to a
[1:18:04] conclusion.
[1:18:05] Um,
[1:18:10] and I think we have a bit more
[1:18:11] discussion
[1:18:13] to to go go forth. At least I do. Um,
[1:18:16] but the you guys can uh tell, you know,
[1:18:21] come more, you know, tell me where
[1:18:22] you're where you're at and where where
[1:18:25] we need to be.
[1:18:30] » John, would you be willing to read that definition of the multifamily
[1:18:34] again,
[1:18:36] the dwelling multif family?
[1:18:47] Dwellings multiple. A dwelling which is
[1:18:51] either rented, leased, let out or hired
[1:18:55] to be occupied or is occupied as
[1:18:58] temporary or permanent residents of or
[1:19:02] home of three or more families living
[1:19:05] independently of each other.
[1:19:10] That's the definition.
[1:19:13] >> So you have to have three three or more
[1:19:15] family units on property.
[1:19:16] >> Correct.
[1:19:18] So I think a a a normal reading of that
[1:19:22] would apply to a two family as well
[1:19:27] and
[1:19:29] would apply to a single family whether
[1:19:31] it's it's a permanent residence or
[1:19:35] let out.
[1:19:36] >> Yeah. I mean a dwelling of one family.
[1:19:38] In here it says a detached building
[1:19:40] designed
[1:19:42] >> for or occupied exclusively by one
[1:19:44] family.
[1:19:46] >> And so
[1:19:49] yeah, again it seems inherent in that that
[1:19:56] definition that it would apply to a two
[1:19:59] family or a single family and that that
[1:20:01] rentals are are permitted and there's no indication of whether
[1:20:09] those should be long-term or short-term.
[1:20:12] It's just
[1:20:14] it's permitted.
[1:20:27] This is this is great. We have uh two
[1:20:30] definitions of family throughout the
[1:20:32] whole code. The zoning
[1:20:35] is
[1:20:37] let me click on it here.
[1:20:40] Simply family
[1:20:44] one or more persons with whom there may
[1:20:47] be not more than four borders, rumors or
[1:20:51] lodgers all living together in a common
[1:20:53] household. Any border, rumor or lodger
[1:20:56] residing within the family household is
[1:20:59] a person who pays a consideration
[1:21:02] therefore and such residence is not an
[1:21:04] incident to employment therein.
[1:21:10] And then
[1:21:13] the other definition of family comes out
[1:21:15] of the fair housing act that we have.
[1:21:19] And uh
[1:21:25] family includes a single individual
[1:21:32] just the messenger.
[1:21:37] I think I think in this case we have to
[1:21:40] lean on the one that's in our zoning.
[1:21:44] Uh but that was
[1:21:50] I don't know. Was it clear to any of you
[1:21:53] that particular
[1:21:56] now I can't get back to it.
[1:22:04] Gateway time out.
[1:22:13] Lost our internet. or at least the
[1:22:16] public one.
[1:22:27] » Oh, look at that.
[1:22:34] » Does anybody want me to read that again
[1:22:35] to them?
[1:22:37] Family.
[1:22:42] No, it was long. I agree. I can read it
[1:22:45] again.
[1:22:55] I I do too. I'm I was going to do it
[1:22:57] anyway. Family. One or more persons with
[1:23:01] whom there may be not more than four
[1:23:04] borders, rumors, or lodgers, all living
[1:23:08] together in a common household. Any
[1:23:12] border, rumor or lodger residing within
[1:23:15] the family household is a person who
[1:23:18] pays a consideration therefore and such
[1:23:22] residence is not an incident to
[1:23:24] employment therein.
[1:23:30] » And where was that from, Jim?
[1:23:32] >> That's in our zoning chapter. That is a
[1:23:34] definition of family within the zoning
[1:23:36] chapter
[1:23:37] >> 73-3.
[1:23:39] kind of like the one in the Fair Housing
[1:23:41] Act, but nonetheless,
[1:23:44] >> could you explain that last clause like
[1:23:46] I'm a 5year-old?
[1:23:47] >> So,
[1:23:49] that that's got lawyer speak all over
[1:23:52] it. So,
[1:23:53] >> I can I can help there.
[1:23:55] >> So, you are making your own
[1:23:57] interpretations, but my interpretation
[1:24:00] of that last sentence regarding
[1:24:02] employment is let's say there is an
[1:24:05] Opair living in the house taking care of
[1:24:07] the children. she's simply residing
[1:24:09] there as part of her employment. I would
[1:24:11] assume that that applies to that.
[1:24:21] Okay. So
[1:24:25] good that helps. Um so we can go back to
[1:24:27] the just the first part. One or more
[1:24:29] persons with whom there may be not more
[1:24:32] than four borders,
[1:24:34] rumors or lodgers.
[1:24:37] All. Now,
[1:24:40] all what does all mean? Living together
[1:24:42] in a common household.
[1:24:45] You could have a mix. You could have
[1:24:48] some that are family by blood. You could
[1:24:51] have some that are then say you have one
[1:24:55] or two people that are passing through.
[1:24:57] I need a room. Here's 100 bucks. I'm
[1:25:00] going to stay the night.
[1:25:04] You're a family. you're still considered
[1:25:06] a family.
[1:25:09] That's part of the family
[1:25:12] even if it's not by blood.
[1:25:16] Because if you looked in the true
[1:25:18] definition of in the dictionary, what is
[1:25:21] the definition of family in the
[1:25:23] dictionary?
[1:25:30] » I don't know.
[1:25:30] >> I was going to say, don't leave us
[1:25:31] hanging there, John.
[1:25:32] >> I don't know.
[1:25:34] So
[1:25:35] >> I don't have a dictionary in front of
[1:25:37] me.
[1:25:38] >> My my I guess my not interpretation
[1:25:41] question is
[1:25:43] define all in the family pun intended.
[1:25:47] Um
[1:25:49] so serious no in all seriousness all
[1:25:53] does that mean the owners
[1:25:57] family
[1:25:58] as well as borders have to or
[1:26:04] so so there's a limit there no more than
[1:26:05] four okay
[1:26:09] we've established that rumors or lodgers
[1:26:12] all living together correct is that with
[1:26:16] the family unit or without?
[1:26:19] >> Let me back that up. Is that with the
[1:26:22] owner ownership family?
[1:26:27] » Or
[1:26:31] transients on their own.
[1:26:38] » Well, like my my son and his two buddies
[1:26:40] would be considered a family if they're
[1:26:42] living in a single family home. Mhm.
[1:26:45] >> So they don't have to be related by
[1:26:46] blood. It can be it's a group of people
[1:26:48] living in the house.
[1:26:51] >> Okay.
[1:26:53] >> Yeah. And you own the house. Let's
[1:26:55] hypothetically say.
[1:26:56] >> Yeah.
[1:26:56] >> But you're not living there in your in
[1:26:59] your example.
[1:27:01] >> Yep. So like my tenants, I have three
[1:27:02] tenants that are unrelated living
[1:27:04] together. They are considered a family.
[1:27:07] >> Okay.
[1:27:10] as opposed to a sorority of 40 people
[1:27:13] living.
[1:27:14] >> That's more than four.
[1:27:15] >> That would not be a family.
[1:27:17] >> That's more than four, but that's a more
[1:27:19] of a um then it kicks up into another
[1:27:23] >> type of you're outside a single family,
[1:27:26] right?
[1:27:26] >> Residence. Now you're into
[1:27:28] >> a different type of
[1:27:32] classification in the
[1:27:34] >> So again, I will Well, I'll read what
[1:27:36] John read.
[1:27:39] Dwelling one family. A detached building
[1:27:42] designed for or occupied exclus
[1:27:44] exclusively by one family.
[1:27:58] But essentially
[1:28:00] you could have
[1:28:02] not more than four borders and that's
[1:28:05] considered a family.
[1:28:09] seems that way or at least
[1:28:12] I would agree with that interpretation
[1:28:14] >> breeding in our definitions within town
[1:28:17] code.
[1:28:17] >> Yes,
[1:28:19] >> that could change.
[1:28:22] >> So that would like So I I understand
[1:28:24] what you're saying. So four borders come
[1:28:26] through as a family.
[1:28:27] >> Correct.
[1:28:27] >> The next night four more borders come
[1:28:29] through as a family. Now you have two
[1:28:31] families. Now two different days it's an
[1:28:34] occupancy. That's what I'm saying. Can
[1:28:35] it change?
[1:28:37] How do we
[1:28:39] >> Well, we're not we're not in the
[1:28:40] business of
[1:28:42] >> so we're not in the business of of
[1:28:44] setting the the short well not even it's just
[1:28:48] setting the code. We're interpreting
[1:28:50] what's in what we have available to us
[1:28:54] >> and again the
[1:29:01] server. Yeah. Um,
[1:29:05] so, oh, there it is. Um,
[1:29:08] okay, I have it again. All he left us
[1:29:11] with was no reference to definitions
[1:29:16] in our code. All he left us with was the
[1:29:19] one chapter saying, "No, it can't be
[1:29:23] done because
[1:29:26] anything not expressly permitted under
[1:29:28] this action or section is excluded."
[1:29:32] Okay. So, we've established that res
[1:29:40] I don't know if we've established that,
[1:29:41] but we've talked about the residential
[1:29:44] district not
[1:29:47] permitting,
[1:29:49] and that's what he he he agrees, does
[1:29:52] not permit
[1:29:54] the activity of a short-term rental.
[1:30:02] He pulled definitions from
[1:30:06] experiential
[1:30:07] evidence
[1:30:09] to support that.
[1:30:13] And there is nothing to support that
[1:30:16] especially on the timetable
[1:30:19] within our code. And again, I go back to
[1:30:22] arguing.
[1:30:24] I'm not 100%
[1:30:31] determined that actual rentals of a home
[1:30:34] are are allowed.
[1:30:36] At least I can't without somebody
[1:30:37] showing it to me. And and this is from a
[1:30:39] person who rented their home before they
[1:30:42] bought it. So, I have experience in
[1:30:44] renting
[1:30:46] and it was a short-term rental. It was
[1:30:48] 90 days, but that's that's not a year.
[1:30:52] It's not. So,
[1:31:00] I'm just going to stop there. Let
[1:31:02] everybody kind of keep mulling that
[1:31:03] over.
[1:31:08] Well, I guess that's where I was with
[1:31:10] the conversation we we a few minutes ago
[1:31:12] here saying like, you know,
[1:31:25] Each footnote stating that is not
[1:31:26] expressly permitted by the section is
[1:31:28] hereby excluded. I do agree with that
[1:31:31] which puts an end to it almost except
[1:31:33] for like you're saying and that's where
[1:31:36] I'm trying to find how do we get to a
[1:31:37] happy medium there. We can't prove that
[1:31:39] we even have rentals in the first place.
[1:31:42] >> There is no definition of rental in the
[1:31:44] town code. No,
[1:31:46] >> just rooming house
[1:31:49] which I which I've read in and that's it
[1:31:53] other than the dwellings and what you've
[1:31:55] read in for family.
[1:32:01] So essentially because there isn't a
[1:32:03] definition of rental.
[1:32:10] Well, so
[1:32:14] it it would stand to it stands to reason
[1:32:18] that he could also be tapping. There are
[1:32:20] other factors that go into,
[1:32:24] you know, his decision perhaps his
[1:32:25] decision-m which is outside the scope of
[1:32:28] what we're talking about. But he could
[1:32:29] be bringing in like the various
[1:32:32] occupancy and fire codes from another
[1:32:35] resource into his thought process, which
[1:32:38] he didn't give to us. He only gave us
[1:32:40] that section. That's all he gave us,
[1:32:44] >> right?
[1:32:45] >> And we don't have we can't introduce
[1:32:47] those
[1:32:49] because really only only Mike being a
[1:32:52] code officer would understand, you know,
[1:32:54] most of them or at least be readily
[1:32:56] available to to interpret that. And I
[1:32:58] don't think we we should go down that
[1:32:59] road. We need to stay within the
[1:33:00] framework of our of our town code.
[1:33:06] Um,
[1:33:09] he defined short-term rental. Great.
[1:33:12] Hopefully someday a code officer or he
[1:33:14] would be able to assist
[1:33:17] the main board into talking about this.
[1:33:20] However, this is what we're this is what
[1:33:22] we're left with.
[1:33:27] I tend to be purist personally. Um, so
[1:33:30] my my face value until before the
[1:33:33] discussion tonight was to was to lean on
[1:33:36] his interpretation.
[1:33:38] It's black and white. However,
[1:33:42] that's not necessarily my view at this time.
[1:33:48] » I would agree.
[1:33:50] I also
[1:33:57] » so it's we well it's up to you guys when
[1:33:59] we want to bail. Uh it's like um
[1:34:03] I'm satisfied to keep talking about this
[1:34:05] but it's your it's your board. I'm
[1:34:07] >> do we have an
[1:34:08] >> I'm the facilitator. Oh wait is there a
[1:34:10] time cut off for meetings here?
[1:34:12] >> Like another
[1:34:15] >> Oh outanding.
[1:34:17] >> Yeah. No. Like, my god. No. Do we have
[1:34:21] enough information to
[1:34:25] come up with something, right? I know
[1:34:26] you can't give me a decision, but do we
[1:34:28] have enough?
[1:34:28] >> You guys have raised a lot of good
[1:34:29] points. I think that if you could hone
[1:34:32] your points and really
[1:34:35] express exactly how each of you are
[1:34:37] feeling, that would help us move forward
[1:34:40] because at this point, you guys have
[1:34:42] raised essentially all the points that
[1:34:44] you're considering.
[1:34:45] Now I would ask you to voice what those
[1:34:47] considerations are leading you towards
[1:34:50] interpreting
[1:34:53] » like with what he provides here is a
[1:34:56] pretty brief
[1:34:58] interpretation
[1:35:00] but I think there's also more that goes
[1:35:03] into the uh international codes that's
[1:35:07] adopted by New York State into this what
[1:35:09] he's figuring here that he's not giving
[1:35:11] us. So, I think there's a lot more when
[1:35:14] looking at the building code. There's a
[1:35:15] lot more definitions and
[1:35:18] a lot finer detail that we're we're not
[1:35:20] getting.
[1:35:25] But does that supersede town town code?
[1:35:28] >> Tonight, you're being asked to interpret
[1:35:30] your town code.
[1:35:31] >> I would say no.
[1:35:34] >> That's that's where I'm
[1:35:36] going with it. Now when you look at the
[1:35:39] definition of a motel, a building or
[1:35:42] group of buildings detached or in
[1:35:45] connection connected units used as
[1:35:47] individual lodging facilities designed
[1:35:50] primary primarily for transient
[1:35:53] travelers and providing off-street
[1:35:56] parking facilities and may be provided
[1:35:58] with a restaurant or eating
[1:36:00] establishment.
[1:36:06] No, that is a completely separate
[1:36:08] definition from what a a rooming house,
[1:36:14] a family, one multiple family, single
[1:36:18] family, two family,
[1:36:24] right?
[1:36:28] » Did you read us boarding house or
[1:36:29] rooming house earlier?
[1:36:31] >> Yes.
[1:36:32] >> Okay, thanks. I I won't do that.
[1:36:34] >> But it says nothing in our our our
[1:36:37] zoning timelines of anything about a
[1:36:40] rooming house,
[1:36:42] >> right? Uh well, and we can presume Well,
[1:36:46] it's not spelled out. So, we can presume
[1:36:48] that a room we can't have a rooming
[1:36:50] house or a boarding house in a
[1:36:52] residential area.
[1:36:55] Can we agree on that?
[1:36:58] because I don't think there's anything
[1:37:01] I mean like in a PDDC zone, you know,
[1:37:04] you got the hotel motel, but doesn't say
[1:37:08] anything else about, you know, like a
[1:37:10] rooming houses.
[1:37:11] >> Mhm.
[1:37:13] >> Well, there's a rooming house
[1:37:14] definition.
[1:37:15] >> Correct.
[1:37:16] >> There's a definition, but yeah, it's not
[1:37:17] included in there. words in any of
[1:37:20] these. Well,
[1:37:30] so
[1:37:34] the one while we while there's a pause,
[1:37:36] the one the one thing that just jumped
[1:37:38] right out at me now and I don't know why
[1:37:39] it's now, but specifically
[1:37:42] what is allowed a family dwelling.
[1:37:45] There's a definition in the code in this
[1:37:48] particular section that is allowed a
[1:37:50] family dwelling,
[1:37:52] >> a one family.
[1:37:53] >> We've defined that.
[1:37:58] We haven't defined whether or not it's
[1:38:00] allowed to be rented overall, let alone
[1:38:02] short term.
[1:38:03] >> Nothing says it can't or can.
[1:38:05] >> Nothing says it can or can't.
[1:38:09] >> So, there's a definition for tourist
[1:38:11] home in the code.
[1:38:13] >> You're right. There is
[1:38:17] » I would invite you to interpret that
[1:38:21] entirely. So if somebody would like to
[1:38:23] read that into the record, it might be
[1:38:25] helpful.
[1:38:27] >> So a tourist home, a dwelling in which
[1:38:30] lodging facilities or overnight
[1:38:32] accommodations are provided to transient
[1:38:35] guests for compensation
[1:38:38] and which is a secondary use to the
[1:38:40] occupancy of the dwelling by a family.
[1:38:53] So we define it in the code,
[1:38:58] but where is it allowed?
[1:39:01] Hold on a second.
[1:39:02] >> Yeah.
[1:39:04] The secondary use of the occupancy of
[1:39:07] the of the dwelling by a family.
[1:39:13] her house rules what family
[1:39:22] » no
[1:39:29] » words in that in that definition such as
[1:39:33] dwelling
[1:39:34] >> the secondary use of a dwelling by a
[1:39:36] family
[1:39:36] >> dwelling and family
[1:39:38] >> and the secondary use
[1:39:41] Because essentially in this situation,
[1:39:45] if somebody comes back and stays for a
[1:39:48] little bit in their own home,
[1:39:50] that's the primary objective. The
[1:39:52] secondary objective is to rent it out to
[1:39:57] somebody to gain financial value or
[1:40:00] financial gain.
[1:40:08] I'm comfortable with secondary use and
[1:40:10] family and dwelling
[1:40:15] and the fact that a family dwelling is
[1:40:18] allowed in a residential area. I would
[1:40:21] concur.
[1:40:31] » Thoughts? Chair, would you mind
[1:40:33] repeating what you just said? You're
[1:40:36] comfortable with
[1:40:39] >> I'm kind of one and done on those. Um,
[1:40:41] I'm comfortable with
[1:40:45] I'll even add to it. I'm comfortable
[1:40:47] with tourist home, which is a secondary
[1:40:49] use
[1:40:52] dwelling and family. I believe that's
[1:40:54] what I said. Not a complete sentence,
[1:40:56] but uh
[1:41:00] oh, and a family dwelling is
[1:41:05] um permitted in a residential district.
[1:41:10] I'm not specifically finding a call out
[1:41:14] for a tourist home, but I'm not I don't
[1:41:17] think it needs to be called out because
[1:41:20] in in code
[1:41:23] unless I find it real quick because of
[1:41:26] the fact that the definition says
[1:41:27] secondary use and these would be
[1:41:31] principal uses that are called out in
[1:41:33] these sections of the code.
[1:41:40] So, uh, the floor remains open to the
[1:41:43] board. I'm that's my that's my my
[1:41:50] that's those are my words. That's what
[1:41:52] I'm comfortable with. So,
[1:41:54] >> um,
[1:41:57] anybody, uh, have any, you know,
[1:42:00] discussion further on that or new
[1:42:02] points? Although I think we may have
[1:42:04] covered everything that's in the code.
[1:42:07] Uh so where where are we all where are
[1:42:09] you all
[1:42:11] lining up?
[1:42:16] So my line of thought
[1:42:20] single family dwelling is permitted
[1:42:24] and a single family dwelling can be used
[1:42:26] as a tourist home
[1:42:30] for transient guests.
[1:42:34] according to that definition. So
[1:42:38] >> as a secondary use which is what we're
[1:42:43] looking at.
[1:42:51] » It's okay to disagree. It's it's
[1:42:53] perfectly fine.
[1:42:58] Just and what's the primary use? If
[1:43:00] we're classifying this as secondary use,
[1:43:03] what is the primary use of this house
[1:43:04] then?
[1:43:09] » I have not heard that information from
[1:43:10] anyone in this meeting.
[1:43:13] They stated
[1:43:15] when we asked earlier she had stated
[1:43:17] that he was living there,
[1:43:20] moving out, getting a new home. They
[1:43:22] visited once a year. That's all the
[1:43:24] information we've given on it. And the
[1:43:26] home, the entirety of the home is being
[1:43:28] rented out from what I understand as an
[1:43:30] Airbnb
[1:43:32] or tourist tourist home, whatever you
[1:43:35] want to call it, second, but it doesn't
[1:43:38] classify to me as secondary if that's
[1:43:40] going to be the primary use of the home
[1:43:42] going forward.
[1:43:44] But there's no vehicle in place, Brian,
[1:43:46] in order to apply for special permit or
[1:43:50] anything of that nature in this instance
[1:43:52] because
[1:43:55] it's not explicitly
[1:43:58] expressively written into it.
[1:44:00] >> I agree.
[1:44:01] >> But that's essentially by town by town
[1:44:06] definitions
[1:44:09] essentially this could happen. It could
[1:44:11] be done. And if he says that he and all
[1:44:15] they really have to do is say, "Well,
[1:44:16] I'm going to live there one, you know,
[1:44:18] every so often, every couple weeks or
[1:44:20] something, that falls under that
[1:44:22] guideline."
[1:44:23] >> And she she actually does well and and
[1:44:26] we've heard testimony that she she does
[1:44:28] come back at least once a year for the
[1:44:31] primary use of the owner's home. So she
[1:44:34] is
[1:44:36] to me there is a potential that that
[1:44:39] building exists as a a a homeowner's
[1:44:43] dwelling which correct is not defined
[1:44:45] but nonetheless a dwelling and a family
[1:44:47] dwelling
[1:44:49] >> which definitions
[1:44:50] >> right and could it be a lot of gray area
[1:44:53] possibly
[1:44:55] >> but all they would have to do to make it
[1:44:56] a family dwelling is say okay well the
[1:44:58] house isn't available for tourist
[1:45:03] from this date to that date and we're
[1:45:05] going to move back in for x number of
[1:45:07] weeks, months, whatever, and then they
[1:45:09] might go somewhere else after that or or
[1:45:12] even decide to stay,
[1:45:14] >> right?
[1:45:16] >> So, I will note for the board in their
[1:45:19] interpretation because we're kind of
[1:45:21] interpreting tourist home also at this
[1:45:23] point that when you're interpreting
[1:45:26] secondary use similarly to how there are
[1:45:29] not um timeline limitations on defining
[1:45:34] rentals or anything else. There is also
[1:45:37] not a timeline or duality defined in the
[1:45:41] tourist home definition.
[1:45:43] So when it says which is a secondary
[1:45:45] use, it's not really defining or telling
[1:45:47] you whether or not that is whether the
[1:45:51] occupancy is occurring at the same time
[1:45:53] or if they are going to be living there
[1:45:55] in between rentals and whatnot and
[1:45:58] whether that secondary use um
[1:46:02] is secondary to if it is residential in
[1:46:05] nature principally. So that is something
[1:46:08] that you should consider when you are
[1:46:10] looking at that.
[1:46:17] » I I feel based on the information that I
[1:46:18] was given and that I've heard tonight
[1:46:20] that this
[1:46:22] what we are calling secondary use of a
[1:46:24] tourist home is going to be the primary
[1:46:26] use of this home.
[1:46:28] So I would my personal I think that
[1:46:33] >> okay
[1:46:33] >> I would go along with code enforcement
[1:46:34] officer.
[1:46:35] >> Okay.
[1:46:40] I mean ultimately you know after
[1:46:43] whatever is synthesized we'll be voting
[1:46:45] on it next month. So um the chips will
[1:46:48] fall you know we need to just narrow
[1:46:50] down to something and we either vote it
[1:46:53] up or we vote it down however it comes
[1:46:55] out. So, what is that something? Um, I
[1:46:58] think we're still working on almost
[1:47:01] there, but we're we're still working on
[1:47:02] it because we haven't heard from
[1:47:03] everybody. So, um,
[1:47:06] who's next?
[1:47:09] You've heard from me, you've heard from
[1:47:10] Mike, Brian,
[1:47:12] John mostly, unless he wants to say
[1:47:14] anything again.
[1:47:20] » I I'm good for now.
[1:47:22] >> Okay. Dan or Scott, fight over it.
[1:47:32] » Okay, Dan. Uh, okay, Dan. Go ahead,
[1:47:35] Scott.
[1:47:36] >> All right. Um,
[1:47:41] I don't know how long they've owned the
[1:47:42] house.
[1:47:44] I think that they've occupied the house
[1:47:47] during most of the ownership until
[1:47:50] recently.
[1:47:51] Uh, I think age is a consideration of
[1:47:55] why they're changing
[1:47:57] uh the use of the house possibly. Not
[1:47:59] sure, but I'm guessing that uh maybe uh
[1:48:03] the long-term occupant now is maybe
[1:48:08] spending parts of the year somewhere
[1:48:10] else, either in another home or in
[1:48:14] another part of the country or something
[1:48:16] like that.
[1:48:18] Um,
[1:48:22] I think that uh could happen some more
[1:48:26] in the future, but we don't know. We'd
[1:48:28] have to ask them, I guess. is she going
[1:48:31] to fly south for the next five years or
[1:48:35] what whatever the plan is. We don't
[1:48:37] necessarily have to know exact details,
[1:48:38] but it would be helpful to know in order
[1:48:41] to uh um
[1:48:45] to consider a family dwelling as a
[1:48:47] primary if she's going to be there. I
[1:48:49] mean, she has enough years in there
[1:48:51] already to average it out over 40 years
[1:48:55] or so, but if she's never coming back,
[1:48:59] Um, so the tourist home to me the
[1:49:01] tourist home u
[1:49:03] name fits
[1:49:07] and there's a secondary use
[1:49:10] because the primary use could change at
[1:49:13] any time. I mean once they're working
[1:49:14] with Airbnb or whoever to fill their
[1:49:18] calendar they can block the calendar for
[1:49:20] longterm short term anytime they want to put her back in the house.
[1:49:29] Can I say something, Scott? And her
[1:49:31] letter of intent, I do believe right now
[1:49:34] she's in Arizona due to business
[1:49:37] reasons. So, it's not like it's
[1:49:42] she's out there for business and
[1:49:43] eventually she'll come back.
[1:49:46] was my intentions, I think, with reading
[1:49:49] her letter of intent of why she wanted
[1:49:51] to do this for to be able to just since
[1:49:55] her kids moving out to be able to have
[1:49:57] money coming in to probably pay for the
[1:49:59] house. Um,
[1:50:02] I do believe that was in her letter of
[1:50:04] intent.
[1:50:12] Yeah, I've got it up here. I'm looking
[1:50:14] um
[1:50:26] yeah I'm going to take take your word on
[1:50:29] that. Um,
[1:50:39] » while you're looking for that, chair, I
[1:50:40] will note for the board that if if
[1:50:43] you're getting hung up on whether or not
[1:50:45] this is considered a tourist home, the
[1:50:49] reason why I'm asking you to consider
[1:50:50] that second part of secondary use is
[1:50:53] because if you're considering this a
[1:50:55] tourist home, which is a secondary use,
[1:50:58] then you need to the primary use which
[1:51:00] is why you're here tonight inter that's essentially your interpretation
[1:51:04] that you guys are trying to do tonight
[1:51:06] anyway. So it brings you full circle
[1:51:08] back to the exact question that you're
[1:51:10] trying to interpret in the first place.
[1:51:13] >> Correct.
[1:51:18] We have opinions on that, but have we
[1:51:20] actually done that
[1:51:23] cohesively
[1:51:28] » that it's a family dwelling?
[1:51:31] >> That's what I'm asking. That's what the
[1:51:33] question is. The whole the overall
[1:51:34] question
[1:51:35] >> at at one point until her son moved out,
[1:51:38] it was a family dwelling.
[1:51:41] So the the question is will it continue
[1:51:45] to be a family dwelling? And that's
[1:51:47] where I thought in her letter of intent
[1:51:50] she wrote why she wanted to do it
[1:51:52] because of
[1:51:56] Yeah, I remember it. Um
[1:52:12] just trying to find
[1:52:15] there's so many pages. Um
[1:52:26] signature page
[1:52:40] I can't seem to find it here in the this
[1:52:42] the interpretation application. Do do
[1:52:45] you think you we could have seen it in
[1:52:46] the use?
[1:52:49] >> That's what I was that's what I was
[1:52:52] wondering if that was what I remember.
[1:53:03] Well, I recall that she wrote her that
[1:53:07] uh she was,
[1:53:11] you know, it is a family dwelling.
[1:53:13] She'll be back to use it.
[1:53:17] Therefore, my in my mind, but that's
[1:53:18] just my interpretation. I'm trying to
[1:53:20] look for the facts here, but uh
[1:53:23] I wonder if it was in the use
[1:53:25] application that I don't seem to have,
[1:53:26] would it be back in July, maybe? Would
[1:53:29] that still be living back there?
[1:53:35] How far down this rabbit hole do we want
[1:53:37] to go? If we're going to recall, if
[1:53:40] we're going to call this home her
[1:53:41] primary residency or her primary house,
[1:53:44] this house is her primary
[1:53:47] purpose of it as her primary dwelling or
[1:53:49] whatever you want, however you want to
[1:53:50] word that,
[1:53:52] then we need to consider where she's
[1:53:55] staying in Arizona. What is that? Then
[1:53:57] that would to me and I'm pretty sure New
[1:54:00] York State's going to agree with me. If
[1:54:01] you're spending 48 weeks of the year in
[1:54:04] Arizona and two weeks of the year here
[1:54:06] or four weeks, sorry, 52. Either way,
[1:54:09] you're spending the majority of your
[1:54:10] time there, you're going to be primary
[1:54:12] residency is going to be considered in
[1:54:13] Arizona, which will make this.
[1:54:18] Does she get mail in Arizona?
[1:54:21] >> That would be
[1:54:22] >> I I mean, I don't know. I'm just
[1:54:25] >> I'm just throwing that out there to for
[1:54:27] the sake of conversation is there should
[1:54:30] be We want to make sure we don't get off
[1:54:31] track. We are not interpreting whether
[1:54:33] or not it was considered her primary
[1:54:35] residence.
[1:54:35] >> Okay.
[1:54:36] >> You are you are interpreting
[1:54:38] >> Yeah. Let's go back to the definition.
[1:54:39] Dwelling one family. A detached building
[1:54:42] designed for
[1:54:44] >> or
[1:54:46] occupied exclusively by one family.
[1:54:48] >> Oh, defined for one family. It doesn't
[1:54:52] say anything
[1:54:54] >> the Well, and the dwelling
[1:54:56] >> with that ore in there.
[1:54:58] >> Correct.
[1:54:58] >> Yep.
[1:54:59] >> I think you got it. So now that kind of
[1:55:01] eliminates the occupancy issue.
[1:55:03] >> I think I think as a property matter the
[1:55:05] building is designed as a one family
[1:55:07] >> family
[1:55:08] >> residence. It has been used as a one
[1:55:10] family residence. It's still owned by
[1:55:12] and then anybody that transits through
[1:55:14] there is considered a family.
[1:55:16] >> Y
[1:55:19] the secondary use
[1:55:22] >> for the tourist home.
[1:55:27] » It's a good statement.
[1:55:28] >> Mhm.
[1:55:34] Uh,
[1:55:38] anything to add, synthesize,
[1:55:42] bring us home?
[1:55:45] Either way, man, I really don't have
[1:55:47] much to add. It just seems
[1:55:52] Yeah, it would have been
[1:55:55] very nice if it were in the code specifically that
[1:56:00] short-term rental definition
[1:56:03] >> and either allowed or not allowed. Um,
[1:56:06] without that being in the code, I still
[1:56:11] don't
[1:56:12] see the reason why it can be denied.
[1:56:17] If we allow rentals,
[1:56:20] I think it's a reasonable
[1:56:26] just a normal reading of the code that
[1:56:28] we would allow rentals.
[1:56:31] >> Okay.
[1:56:36] Uh, so I guess at this point, um, are we in the zone,
[1:56:43] do you think, for something to write up
[1:56:47] along the lines of,
[1:56:50] again,
[1:56:51] it doesn't matter how how we're going to
[1:56:53] vote for it. I think we we've come to a zone that she can
[1:57:00] document give to us and a conclusion
[1:57:05] >> and if it doesn't will there will there
[1:57:07] be adjustments
[1:57:09] >> on the fly?
[1:57:09] >> We can make adjustments.
[1:57:10] >> Okay. So if if there's adjustments, you
[1:57:14] know, next month
[1:57:17] or if you're, you know, convicted one
[1:57:19] way or the other, we vote. We vote on
[1:57:25] the synthesis that we've kind of hashed
[1:57:28] out
[1:57:29] in a direction that we sort of seem like
[1:57:32] it should fit.
[1:57:34] And again, like I said, still don't like
[1:57:36] it, vote no
[1:57:38] or yes. Whichever way, whichever way the
[1:57:41] wording comes out, I'm not sure. So, um,
[1:57:47] are we are we concluded
[1:57:50] or so, how do we formally handle this?
[1:57:52] We just table it. We just toss it to old
[1:57:54] business.
[1:57:55] >> I believe we would carry it to the next
[1:57:56] meeting for the decision to be voted on at that time.
[1:58:01] >> Okay. So no formal yeah
[1:58:07] one of the trainings I had said don't
[1:58:09] hang on Robert's rules of order anymore
[1:58:12] just just go for just talk. So uh with
[1:58:16] the exception of things we have to do.
[1:58:19] Um we're going to kick it into old
[1:58:21] business for next meeting.
[1:58:26] » That'll work.
[1:58:27] >> Okay. Comfortable
[1:58:30] everybody.
[1:58:30] >> Yep. I'm comfortable.
[1:58:32] >> Okay.
[1:58:32] >> All right.
[1:58:34] Um, that brings us to the end of
[1:58:36] tonight's business. Anybody got anything
[1:58:39] else for the good of the order?
[1:58:43] >> I'm good.
[1:58:44] >> Okay.
[1:58:46] Without any further objection or any
[1:58:48] objections, I will bring this meeting to
[1:58:51] a close.
[1:58:54] Thank you everyone. We are We are done.
[1:58:59] Good work.
[1:59:14] That's an offuit.