Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

a special meeting that we're having on Wednesday, September 9th, 2026. We have one applicant before us tonight, and if you want to start with the first application, Kim.

Okay. Michael Salem, pursuant to Article 12.125-29C, is appealing the Town of Bedford Building Inspector's Determination rendered on 12.325, which determined that Loon Hollow Farm, located at 1055 Old Post Road, Bedford, designated as Section Block and Lot 74.9-1-7 on the Town Tax Map, in the residential four-acre zoning district that maintenance of horses is an accessory use as a right pursuant to Article III, Section 125, Page 25 of the Zoning Ordinance in the residential four-acre zoning district. Do you want me to read both of them?

No, that was 1st brought to us in March of 2026 and is now coming back. And we kept the public hearing open. So, if you'd like to make your presentation on this particular on this on this particular 1, then they do the 2nd 1. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the zoning board of appeals. I'd like to begin. My name is Jason crowns and I represent Michael Salem. Thank you for having me tonight. I'd like to begin with an application and I asked the board to understand that we don't do this lightly, but it's our view at this point that Miss Miss Michaela and I'm sorry, Mr. Michaela and this black should recuse themselves from these proceedings. As you may be aware, a subsequent to our March meeting, we came into possession of some additional documents through Michael sounds freedom of information act requests. And we believe that these documents compel recusal and I will explain, we believe the applicable standard here is the appearance of impropriety. That is the zoning board of appeals and its membership at all times avoid the appearance of impropriety. Subsequent to our initial meeting, and it's come to our attention that on November 17th, 2025, and that is a matter document 19 of your packet and I'm going to try and open it up on the screen in a minute. that the town attorney sent copies of the determination to Mr. Michaelis and Ms. Black before it was signed and issued by the building inspector. The town attorney solicited their comments in this document. Although much of the email is redacted, which suggests the town attorney was sharing his legal opinion of the very determination that he wrote, the town attorney did ask to schedule a call with Mr. Michaelis and Ms. Black to discuss. To be recalled is that the town attorney also specifically notified my client on September 25th, that's exhibit 11 in your packet, that if he disagreed with the determination, his redress was with this Board of Appeals. december 3rd 2025 the town planner notified 1055 owners in writing that mr michaelis had approved the determination adding and this is exhibit 22 in your packet it went pretty much as anticipated and if you give me a moment i'll sign back in and i'll put all these documents up on the screen so we can see them in real time

6, where are these documents?

They're in the, they're in the email that was sent on the packet that was emailed on September 4th, 2022. I'm sorry. 2026. Yeah, are they in here?

I'm looking in here and don't see anything that you're talking to talking about.

It's a 95 page document, a big document. I'm sorry, this is giving me trouble signing it. Could we ask that?

The man of the hour.

I'll continue. Let me continue with my presentation. I'll put these documents up on the screen shortly. As noted on December 3rd, 2025, the town planner notified 1055 owners in writing that Mr. Michaela said approved the determination, adding it went pretty much as anticipated.

Who said this?

The town planner, sir.

I'm sorry, when was this? On December 3rd, 2025. We hadn't even gotten the application. I agree. I agree. So why would I be opining on something that we hadn't even heard yet?

Sir, I can't speak to that. I can only tell you what was in the email. And I'll put it up on the screen now. We can all look at it.

Sorry, guys, this is pretty difficult for me.

Okay, let's address to Michael Salem.

There it is. Okay, so this is this is the 1st email. This is exhibit 19 in your packet and this says, if I scroll down a little bit, you will see the highlighted. I would like to get the determination out before Thanksgiving. So, if we could schedule a call for the coming Monday, that would be appreciated and you can see who's copied on that.

and so i'm gonna just let you know right now an email was sent to me i never opened it i never read it i have not accessed that email for a number of reasons so i understand that it was on copy to my bedford account but i did not read or access that i got a call asking if i'd gotten and read the email uh I think Peter actually called me and I told him, no, it was either Peter or Eric. And I told him I had not.

Okay. If maybe I can just finish my presentation.

Go ahead.

I'd like to go through the application.

It's not a problem.

Thank you, ma'am. So this is the second email I referenced where the town attorney said on September 25th, I told Mr. Salem, if he agrees with the building inspector's determination, he could appeal to the ZBA. Subsequent to that, he actually sent copies of the determination to Mr. McAllis and to Ms. Black is the third one I referenced. The determination is about to be signed by the building inspector and has been approved by the zoning board chair. It went pretty much as anticipated. Now, sir, I can't say whether any of this happened or not. I can tell you these are the emails we received.

None of this happened. Your email you're reading is from Christine Warner.

I understand, but it represents something that was said in my view. So it gives the appearance of impropriety. I'm not saying there was actual impropriety and this is why I preface this by saying it's with a lot of trepidation that I bring this application, but it certainly gives the appearance of impropriety. There's an email to 2 members of the board, but only 2. For the open meeting law, I understand that the email invites you to have a conversation to discuss it subsequent to that a matter of days later, somebody in the town reports. It went pretty much as expected. The chair of the has approved it. I don't doubt your word for a minute, but it does give the appearance of impropriety and that's the standard. I believe. Um, I will continue on April 21st long after we met this board. Here's an email from the town attorney and this was all found in FOIA subsequent to the meeting. Meredith, can you please call me at redacted number at your earliest inconvenience? This is regarding the Michael Salem appeal relating to 1055 old post from. Thanks. Here's another 1, this is 1 from Mr. Gordon to Mr. Michaela's copy. Request for recusal appeal concerning 1055 and it's entirely blacked out. Now, at this point, my understanding is that Mr. Gordon was no longer representing the. So, the capacity in which he contacted Mr. Michaelis is curious to me, but I can't say what this says. I don't do this lightly. I don't ask people to recuse lightly, but the appearance of impropriety is here. And when I continue the presentation and take you through the remainder of the documents that were revealed by FOIA, I think you'll understand that my concern is appropriate and is even heightened by other documents that we found. Nonetheless, this is my application at this time. At this time, I believe the appearance of impropriety exists, and I would ask the Chair and Ms. Black to recuse themselves.

Thank you. I have no intention of accusing myself. I could sit there and say right now, my long conversation with Mr. Salem, your client, in the driveway then should be taken into note, and that should then make me have to recuse myself. Any notice I got from the town attorney at the time, which the only one I'm aware of is the November 19th, was informing me that this was an application that would be coming before us as a board. I render no decision on these things and I can remain completely impartial on them. I do, however, get any notices about what may be coming forward, what applications might be of interest in terms of multiple people, that kind of thing. But I have no intention of accusing myself.

I believe Mr. Carlson, let me just have him for a second. I heard it sounded like you finished your opening. I know Peter was looking to respond, but I just want to say for the word. So throughout Mr. Carlson's presentation, he was referring to the town attorney. He's actually not referring to me. I'm here as as town attorney for this matter, only a special counsel. The town attorney is referring to is Eric Gordon, who's the typical attorney for Bedford, who's here in the room today, and I saw him standing up. So before either the board sort of decides the application or there's a back and forth here, I thought we could let Mr. Gordon get his word in, and then we can come back to... That's okay, but I did want to respond.

I thought Mr. Michalis said a minute ago that this November 17th date was before the application was even in front of them. Now, if that's the case, it is curious that he has the determination and is asked to discuss it With the town attorney before it's even signed before this matters, even before this board, it's hard for me to imagine how it's appropriate for a zoning board. The chair of the zoning board to review a determination that's later going to come before the same zoning board on appeal. I don't know what happened if that conversation ever occurred or not, but to me, the appearance of impropriety is here. I understand. Mr Gordon wants to speak, but I think that's as well. Curious Mr. Gordon isn't here representing the zoning board of appeals. He's certainly not here as a fact witness. Maybe here is a member of the public.

So let me, that's exactly how I'm interpreting him being here, Mr. Cronstein. So since your opening presentation was concluded and then we kicked it over to the chair, I think it's appropriate that it's okay to hear from a member of the public and then you can respond to the comments that we hear.

I always think of this capacity as a member of the public and not a fact witness.

It is a public hearing, and I will hear out what capacity he wants to speak as, but it is a public hearing.

I believe there's relevant information since I sent the emails regarding what the public should understand since there have been allegations made, and so I came here tonight to address some of those allegations. That's all. As far as the emails you put up in April, yes, those were because there was a request for recusal of the board members. And there were discussions with them regarding that proposed recusal. That was perfectly appropriate as town attorney. So that was the April meeting. That was in consultation with Mr. Lefkowitz as well. But that was what was discussed on those. That's where I learned Ms. Black never even received the emails and where Peter McAllis said he only reviewed the decision and that was it. I never had a conversation about him. I'm here tonight to address Mr. Krelenstein's claims he has made on behalf of his client, Michael Salem, that certain actions prejudice Mr. Salem's rights with respect to this proceeding. I also want to note that this is a public hearing, so I'm speaking in my personal capacity, although much of what I have to say concerns my longstanding role as the Bedford Town Attorney. My law firm, Keenan Bean, has served as counsel to the town of Bedford for over 30 years, and I have served as the primary town attorney since 2020. Throughout Westchester and Hudson Valley, my firm serves as counsel to numerous municipalities and school districts and has done so for many years. Specifically, I want to speak because Mr. Quellenstein has asserted that during my representation of the town, I requested that the ZBA chair, Mr. Michaelis, and another sitting member, Meredith Black, review the draft building inspector's determination that is the subject of one of the appeals that is being considered here tonight, and that this is somehow improper or impacts the board member's ability to impartially review Mr. Salem's appeal and requires recusal of the ZBA members. My actions were neither improper or prejudicial to either Mr. Salem or the other property owner of 1055 Old Post Road. I take very seriously my role as an independent legal counsel for the town of Bedford. And in fact, this is the reason why I advise the town to retain special counsel Lee Lefkowitz at Zarin and Steinmetz to represent the Zoning Board of Appeals in this matter. I was mindful that Mr. Krelenstein was making allegations concerning my actions, and I did not want my independence called into question. Given how seriously I take this action, I am concerned by Mr. Krelenstein's allegations and strongly disagree with them. First, Ms. Black has confirmed that she never reviewed the building inspector's determination, never even looked at the email, and therefore it could not possibly impact her ability to consider Mr. Salem's appeal. Second, Chairman Michaelis, I believe, has confirmed that merely because he may have reviewed the determination before it was officially issued, offering no comments or changes, that this does not in any way impact his ability to impartially decide the appeal that are being considered tonight, and that should end the matter. However, I also want to adjust Mr. Krelenstein's argument that the request I made to Mr. McAllis and Ms. Black to review the determination was somehow improper. I requested the review of the determination that was jointly prepared by myself, the planning department, and the building inspector because there were a variety of complex zoning issues that were raised, and I wanted to ensure the determination was as accurate as possible. Mr. Michaelis has served on the ZBA since 2005 and been the chair of the ZBA since 2013, and his opinion is highly valued in assessing zoning matters. Ms. Black has also served on the Bedford ZBA for a number of years and is an experienced attorney dealing with land use issues. I was seeking their input on the determinations as persons knowledgeable of zoning issues. I also asked the town supervisor and the town assistant planning director to review the determination before it was issued to get their input on the document. Requesting such input does not in any way diminish the validity of the building inspector's determination or prejudice the parties to the appeal, nor should it preclude Mr. McAllis from considering the appeal of the building inspector's determination since or if he will confirm it does not impact his ability to consider all arguments being made by both Mr. Salem and the owner of the property at 1055 Old Post Road and render an unbiased decision. The building inspector at all times retained his authority to issue the underlying determination just as the CBA and its members retain their authority to vote. on the pending appeals. Just as the building inspector is sitting here tonight and the ZBA is able to ask him questions and get his input while retaining their ability to disagree with him and reverse or modify his determination, I was serving as a liaison between them trying to bring points of view from people who have years of experience with the town zoning code and arrive at a reasoned determination based on the facts presented. Merely because the chair reviewed the determination before it was formally issued does not limit his ability to consider the arguments being made on behalf of Mr. Salem or the owners of the property at 1055 Old Post Road. The chairman did not make any change to the determination. We did not discuss it at the time he reviewed it, and there was no attempt to influence the chairman or in any way regarding the nature of the determination. Thus, the Chairman's review of the determination should not require recusal, in my opinion, and should not be considered to have any impact on this proceeding. So, I'll stop there. Thank you.

So, Mr. Feldstein, just to keep the quorum, is there anyone else who wants to be heard on this issue? So now I think you can respond, and then we can also have a back and forth with the board with their questions. So the floor is yours, Mr. Cronstein.

Thank you. I think what's interesting is that Mr. Gordon confirmed what we know. Mr. Michaelis did review the determination. He did not share that with us when we sat here for almost two hours in March. He did not indicate when we first met that he had reviewed the determination, the very one he's being asked to review again. I think this is highly improper. I do not do this lightly. I do not do this lightly, but I think it's highly improper. I think more than the appearance of impropriety exists here, but certainly the appearance of impropriety here. I think it's inappropriate for the town attorney to act as a fact witness and put facts into the record when he is here, presumably in the guise of a private citizen. We heard discussion and colloquy far more than what a private citizen will be privy to. He confirmed that Mr. Michaelis has read the determination and reviewed it in advance. And I think Mr. Michaelis and Ms. Black are obligated to recuse themselves. That's my application.

I just want to say one quick thing. Not a lawyer, read the emails, but certainly disappointed to see that the determination which I'm appealing today was sent to my appeal board, the chair of my appeal board, and then ultimately to see an email, whether it's true or not, to say that it had been approved by the chair of the ZBA before it had been filed, before I had appealed. I think you could understand why that would be disappointing as a citizen of Bedford. And I do trust Meredith and Peter, but that was certainly disappointing to see.

Well, please know that I never approved anything. I'm a little bit slow here, I suppose, because when I'm seeing the word draft now in capital letters, the way I interpreted when I got Mr. Gordon's email was that this determination had been made by the building inspector. and it would be coming before us at some point to the ZBA. That's why no changes were made. That's why I didn't approve anything because this happens not just with this particular application, it has happened on other applications and oddly enough it was another horse application between two neighbors and things were you know that where people tried to get involved the the previous town supervisor and so so people will ask me I don't opine anything I will listen to what they have to say and just know that it's going to be coming before me and I maintain an objective

review of what the application is i appreciate that and i would also i mean when we sat in your driveway i don't think i gave you any opinion that i wasn't listening to exactly 100 yeah but you can also understand from my perspective absolutely yeah and i also would just note that you know as we go through some of the um some of the results of the full request you know the redactions are quite heavy and you know in this one particular email there's redactions that You're aware of what's under there. The public's not aware of what's under there. There's also, I believe, in the email saying to give the context. What context was given? Why don't I know what context was given to you? Why doesn't the public know what context was given to you when this draft determination was provided for comment I don't know.

Can I ask a silly question? In the email, Eric, it says privileged and confidential attorney-client communication. Then how is this possible that this is even in front of our eyes?

I don't get that.

Yeah, but why? What's the process here for that?

Well, I mean, it's To be fair, regardless of, I mean, presumably he put that thinking that it would not be subject to a FOIL disclosure.

No, that's speculative. I'm curious as to why privileged and confidential attorney-client communication is out.

I'm glad it is, because otherwise we wouldn't know.

Yeah, but how did you get it? Well, they FOILed it.

Okay.

All right.

I don't mean to make light of this, and I'd love to say that I spend a lot of time reading zoning board stuff, but truly I don't. On a normal, any day, monthly basis, I go out one or two days before the meeting, I look at the applications, and then I wait for the presentations here in the courtroom. I really honestly have no problem saying I can be completely objective about this application, and we put it off. I know that there were some attempts to try to find some common ground between you and your neighbor. I support that kind of thing, having gone through, as I say, another very sort of McCoy Hatfield type situation with another horse event in another part of town, was trying to avoid that, so letting other people talk. all seem like a good idea. But if it can't be, you're back here before us, and I feel that I personally can give you an honest response to what's before me. And as Meredith, I know she's incredibly busy. If she said she didn't see the email, I'm sure she didn't see the email. I did not see it.

I'll just just to clarify one thing, even just for the public's benefit. And I don't know if this was the question you were about to ask me, Mr. Kralenstein, but a point was raised about the redactions, just from a legal perspective, attorney client privileged communications which are communications between a lawyer and a client for the purpose of offering legal advice, is not subject to FOIL. So it is proper in responding to a FOIL request for the attorney who's responding to redact what he deems to be attorney-client privilege. So just for the public's benefit, it's very common that you would see redactions on a FOIL response like that.

And in fact, when we go through the rest of the documents, we'll see lots of productions. In fact, the email, the last email on this chain is entirely redacted. The final 1 to Peter is entirely redacted. That's from Mr. Gordon to Mr. Peter and it's headed request for recusal and this is dated April 27th. This has been bubbling up for a while. This is not a surprise. The surprise was that Mr. Michaelis didn't mention this at our first hearing. Ms. Black, I have no reason to doubt your word, and I certainly don't want to do that, but the standard is the appearance of impropriety. Just in the last colloquy, I thought we initially heard Mr. Michaelis say he didn't review this at all. He ignored it. I think Mr. Gordon has contradicted that and indicated that at least there was a review. For that reason alone, I think Mr. Michaelis is required to recuse himself I believe Ms. Black is as well, because this does carry the appearance of impropriety. I have nothing further on that application, and I'd like the ZBA to make its decisions.

So presumably, we'll hear more about the substance of it. But there's an application before you perform is black and Mr. Michaela is to recuse. So you're, you're welcome at this point to render your decisions on this recusal is within the power of the board member him or herself. So it's within your decision making as to whether to recuse or not, you can give your answer, and then we can move on to the substance.

May I ask a question that would leave the remaining board is only 2 only 2 members to make any decision, which is which is not possible.

We have to have the board if they recuse you actually wouldn't actually wouldn't have a quorum for the right beating.

So we would not make any decisions.

Right. In that scenario, you would need a quorum. So you would need to have a substitute member come in or, or, you know, you would need at least three members to vote.

Like I said, I had no intention of recusing myself. I never made, I never opined on this determination the way I took it. It was being told to me that this determination had already been made or, you know, was going to come before you. And that's the way I took it. And I, you know, then I wait for when it comes.

I didn't make any decision on anything. I didn't read anything. I didn't open any emails. I can honestly say I won't have an opinion on this until we finish hearing everything. That's the way I view every application in front of me. So I don't think it's necessary that I recuse myself at this point in time. There's nothing presented that makes me think otherwise.

Okay. Just to finish, I'm not quite sure what that email you put up from April 27th. That followed our March meeting when we then postponed and kept the public hearing open, but this application then was dealt with in other ways. And that's all I was being told was that possibly I was going to be asked to recuse myself, but I never dealt with anything at that point.

That's that's my understanding as well. The point I wanted to make is that this didn't bubble up tonight. Everybody in this room is aware that this has been bubbling up for a while. We made an application in writing an email. I've spoken to Mr. Lefkowitz about it. So. I don't want there to be any illusion that this is a surprise to anyone. Y'all have been aware of this.

Yeah, to be fair.

No, there's no sandbagging at all. We're upfront about it. And like I said, the FOIA request came subsequent to the initial meeting. At our initial meeting, nobody said I'd review this already. Okay. I want to start out here with a timeline. Again, this is based heavily on the FOIA documents that we received subsequent to our initial meeting. And you'll notice that there's an exhibit tab, Exhibit 1. Each of the documents and excerpts I'm going to discuss here Is in your packet in its entirety, so I want to be clear about something. Let's start from the beginning. It's clear that the 1055 owners had always sought to have an equine horse business. And even prior to purchasing purchasing the property, a realtor indicated to the out planning board that the long range plan would be to build a barn and an indoor. and an indoor rink on the top one acre. On June 2nd, 2025, the initial violation at 1055 Old Post Road was issued specifically running a business out of the residence without the required permits. And the corrective action that the town required was you must file for a special use permit with the town of Bedford. As noted, the full documents are in your packet. June 30th, Christina Warner, then Town Planner, Exhibit 3, got a neighbor complaint for 1055 Old Post Road, claiming they were running a commercial horse farm, lessons, boarding, et cetera. We confirmed by their website, which they substantially trimmed back since the violation, they do indeed engage in commercial activities. The reference they had redacted is because the rest of this email in our FOIA packet was redacted. August 1st, 2025, Mr. Gordon notified the town supervisor a new horse farm recently opened called Loon Hollow Road Farm at 1055 Old Pouse Road. The neighboring property owner has submitted a complaint operating as a commercial horse farm. same day christina warner oh wow they've scrubbed their website this is her review of noon hollow farm's website check it now it's all gone same day a little bit later 12 18 p.m exhibit 6. the website was in direct country contrast to the statements they made to both me and angel and the context there is the day and that is the 1055 old post road owners me and angel is me is christina and angel the building inspector Um, August 4th, now we can see that the town is starting to make its determination. Christina wanted Eric Gordon. I'd like to discuss what language we would like in the notarized statements. I'm scheduled to speak with Ellen, the town supervisor tomorrow at 130 about the language and assume you will be there as well. You'll see from your packets. This refers to the affidavit that Mr Gordon later relied on in his determination. In fact, he wrote that affidavit. emailed to Christina Warner, attaches the code as written and a factual account. You'll see from your packet this is mostly heavily redacted. We don't know really what was said here, but Ms. Warner describes in great detail both the scope of the operation, five or more instructors, presence of Facebook and Instagram, all instances, writing instruction was offered as well as numerous other services such as leasing horses, Carriage driving lessons and writing instructions after our July 30th meeting, all social media was scrubbed of discuss violations. And we continue August 18th. Christina Warner provides the document. The town attorney prepared Mr Gordon. In fact, wrote the affidavit that he then relied on to support his determination. Email from Christina wanted to Ellen Calvis on September 25th. Now, here's where we start seeing the town machinery getting a little bit nasty. I received a call from another neighbor of Michael Salem. She also claimed that Michael Salem is trying to get a petition started from surrounding property owners. And you will see this kind of sniping permeating these emails. Email from Eric Gordon, September 25th, 713. I had a lengthy discussion with Mr. Salem today. This is the one I put up on the screen. I advised him this was the town's position, and he could request a determination from the building inspector, and if he agrees that he could file an appeal with the ZBA. That should actually be if he disagrees. Sorry, that's a typo. The original says if he disagrees. So Mr. Gordon advised my client that he could file an appeal with the ZBA, September 25th. Christina Warner again, October 1st. Michael has been barraging me with questions and asking for a determination. Nobody else was characterized as barraging anyone but my client. And in fact, the initial email that we got from Mr. Gordon on this had most of the sentence crossed out, but there was another email that revealed it. October 1st, 824, 1055 owners to Christina Warner. We did put down new footing in an old arena that was overgrown when we moved in because they're going to build a big arena there. In hindsight, we should have asked if this type of thing needed a permit. We ran something called vaulting club. It was three girls who each had a 20 minute vaulting lesson, but stayed to watch each other go as well. We are grateful for your guidance in dealing with Michael's complaint earlier. Same day, October 1st. Mr. Gordon proposes that he meet with 1055 owners to discuss various issues raised by Mr. Salem. Again, next October 6, Mr. Gordon, I'm fine with 1055 wants to talk and would be happy to get on a call. Now, this is in contrast from the next set of emails where Mr. Salem asked Mr. Gordon for a meeting and that doesn't happen. Mr. Salem to Mr. Gordon. Exhibit 15. I'm asking for any neighbors that would like to be afforded the opportunity to meet with the building inspector to resolve any ambiguity. October 6, same day. Dear Eric. Hi, Eric. I want to make sure I'm clear in my understanding that the building department is not willing to meet with me nor any of my other concerned neighbors. Mr. Gordon replies, to the extent that you are now requesting an in-person meeting, which was not my understanding previously, and yet the email says what it says, I will discuss such requests with the town. This is in contrast to Mr. Gordon suggesting specifically, unambiguously, that he meet with 1055 Old Pulse donors, declining to meet with my client. October 13th email, 8.21 p.m. to Christina Warner from 1055 Old Post Road. Explaining the lesson program. Our lesson program consists of mostly adult beginners and a few children. Monday, Thursday, and Saturday, Fridays and Sundays off. Lessons scheduled between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. We have one instructor who teaches during the week, one who typically teaches Saturdays. I also teach. That's three instructors. November 7th, these are the emails we discussed before draft of the building inspector. This 1 went to the town supervisor. He sent the town supervisor drafted the determination on November 7th. He sent it to as we've just discovered. Mr. Michaelis and Mr. Black, a couple of days later, like to get the determination out for before Thanksgiving. So if we could schedule a call for this coming Monday, that would be appreciated. Two days later, 1055 Old Post Road owners, we're getting fresh attacks from Mr. Salem. There were no attacks. We're getting fresh attacks. We're expecting to hear something weeks ago. December 3rd, town supervisor, the determination is about to be signed by the building. I'm sorry, just wanted to confirm that the requested determination will be finalized and make its way to Mr. Salem and property owners today. December 3rd, Christina, it did happen that day. The determination is about to be signed by the building inspector and has been approved by the zoning board chair. I would like to offer to meet and review and discuss the content, which is nothing to be anxious about. It went pretty much as anticipated. December 4th to 4th, further gossip from the town planner. As I told Ellen, Nick told me that Michael Salem is bringing a suit against them for the easement for the driveway being specifically for residential use. Never happened. Okay, February 6th, 2026. Notice, building without a permit. A barn stable structure that was built for the boarding of horses requires to be filed with the building department to show it meets town code. March 1st, email from Old Post Rose to friends and neighbors. We teach on average one or two private lessons per day, five days a week. Our primary instructor and fire manager teaches here four days a week. We have one other who teaches one day a week. We advertised children camps a couple of summers ago, but when we looked into setting those up, we learned how complex the New York State requirements for even running a small camp and immediately pulled back from them. Those camps never happened. We hosted a few sessions, no more than once per week, where a small group of kids came to learn about a theme, Wild West, vaulting, and had individual riding lessons as part of that. Although the town didn't determine specifically against this, in fact it did, we stopped offering them at the first complaint. The appeal now is to reinterpret the Town Code to disallow any kind of commercial horse farm activities. That's right. You can't have a commercial horse farm in a residential district. That's correct. Including boarding horses and teaching lessons. After April 22nd, and now you'll see where after our initial meeting, and Mr. Sirocco, I am reviewing your application to legalize the barn zoning requirements. Note, I just wanna be clear by using code exception, no certificate of compliance shall be issued. The import of this email in this sequence is this. Subsequent to our initial meeting, I think at our initial hearing it was made abundantly clear that the determination never considered whether the lot was conforming, even though that's specifically in the first section of the applicable statute. Subsequent to that, the town legalized the barn and now conformity is no longer an issue because the barn has been legalized for zoning purposes and that's literally what the permit says. The building department issued the permit and it says, legalized barn circa 1976 for zoning purposes. Fines may be imposed, occupancy or use of a building or structure prior to obtaining certificate of compliance or occupancy per week. Now, in fact, that barn doesn't have a CFO or a certificate of compliance and it never will. Because as Mr. Sorocco pointed out, it's not eligible for one. There are lessons being given in that barn. April 23rd, 2026, Ellen Calvis, Bedford Town Supervisor to Michael. She points out, I'm sorry they are able to maintain the status quo by pushing the envelope of current codes. As I've explained, the impact to you and others might be worthy of a civil suit. Town Supervisor suggesting we sue. This is the one that we got only last Thursday, this text exchange, and this is telling. This is May 13th, 2026 to May 21st, 2026. The ZBA may not be aware of this, but the town selected, Ms. Calvis selected a mediator to help mediate this. And me and Mr. Patensky and our respective clients have been going at this now for six months, trying to mediate it. This is a text exchange between Ms. Calvis and the mediator that Ms. Calvis selected. is Calvis. And this is in your packet. It's the last 10 pages or so. Just because the barn is legal does not mean that it's not still a condition of keeping the horses to keep them more than 50 feet from the property line. The town's determination did not consider certain elements in the code that could be problematic for the town's account.

Those are the only two excerpts I'm putting. The rest are in your packet.

And I think they're worthy. And by the way, this is the end of this part of the presentation. If you look at the last exhibit 29, I think this is relevant. The barns needed to be legalized, but it is still a hindrance under the keeping of animals law. This is the town supervisor saying this months after our hearing. Just because the barn is legal does not mean that it is not still a condition to the keeping of horses to keep them more than 50 feet from the property line. We have heard Michael's proposed settlement based on my conversation with the town attorney. The town's determination did not consider certain elements in the code. That could be problematic for the tongues if challenged. So, if there's a private agreement that enables them to keep horses and minimal boarding and lessons that would avoid uncertain and legal challenges. Continuing on, Ms. Calvis again, the 21st, texting the neutral mediator. The determination did not address other things Michael could bring up that could be problems for the Tongs. We recognize that the determination is not the final word, but I think Salem will be satisfied and not bring further actions if the Tongs agree to reasonable terms. Further down on the exchange, it gets a little sarcastic actually. Michael has a bunch of other arguments that I'm not sure would hold up, but it doesn't mean he won't try and it won't take a long time and cost a lot of money in lawyers. And the mediator says, yep, and to what end? And Ms. Calvi's response, maybe he thinks he can stop his neighbors from having horses or limiting them to what he wants because he thinks he can win if he challenges them in court. I don't know how likely it is he would win, but he's paying a lawyer a lot to make a lot of different arguments to try. And the response is shocking. That's the response. I think these are telling, telling documents. I think that they indicate that the town closed ranks on this, and at this point, Having laid the factual background, I just ask the board to indulge me for two or three more minutes. I'll make the legal arguments, and then I will shut up. We believe as this board is aware, apparently, along with the town supervisor who shares our concerns. That their material areas in the determination, these areas and limitations, which have been long known to the town required that the determination be an old and overturned by this board. Initially, as a logical matter, there's no basis to shoe shoe horn into the commonplace pursuit of maintenance of horses. That's what the statute says. The right to operate a commercial academy of any kind in a residential district. The determinations errors are particularly egregious in this regard because the town attorney never attempted to explain how maintaining horses equates to a commercial horseback riding school. As noted in our last hearing, any number of ready analogies come to mind. Maintaining cars is not the same as running a driving school. Owning a pool or a tennis court is not the same as paying a private lifeguard to give swimming or tennis lessons, and yet that's exactly what's happening. Um, in terms of specifics, and I can put it up on the screen, if you'd like to see it, the board will be well familiar with the statute at this point, which restricts such pursuits, regardless of intensity to conforming lots. 1055 owners agree based on their filing last week. Their line is not conforming. And at our last hearing special counsel for the board made the very same point. Property owner, that's Mr. Lefkowitz, and I can give you the citation in the timestamp. The property owner is not asserting that their use is pre-existing non-conforming, so their use has to comply with the accessory use section. That's in footnote two of my April 9th reply brief, and it has the timestamp where that was said at the last meeting. In fact, it does not comply with the accessory section. A careful reading of the 1961 code relied upon the building inspector means that the buildings were never conforming. I said forth in my letter of yesterday, even in 1961, accessory buildings were limited to 600 square feet. And I can actually put that part of the code up on the screen if you like. Maybe that's not a bad idea. Maybe I'm unable to really do it.

Come on guys, guys, you're killing me here. Why can't I get this thing up?

Up here.

Open with Adobe. Okay, here's the excerpts from the town code 1961. Actually, it's probably better in Exhibit 22. I'm just going to skip down.

Mr. Cronstein, may I just ask, this is what you submitted relative to your second appeal. Am I correct about that?

It's actually submitted with respect to both appeals. Okay. Okay.

Are you dealing with them both right now together? Or were you planning to do this separately?

We could do it separately when the other hearing is called, but the comments are applicable all the way through. Right now, I'm dealing with the second appeal. And I'm sorry if that's been confusing. There's a particular document I want to open up. Okay, here's the ordinance. Here are the sections. All right. Even in 1961, accessory buildings were limited to 600 square feet. If you can see on the right side of the screen, Section 10, no accessory buildings other than for farm purposes and located upon a farm. I can show you as well the definition of farm. It's in your packet. It doesn't apply. Farm is specifically a farm in 1961. Also, buildings used to stable horses, and this is more subtle, but it's sections 2 and 3 of that same page. Buildings used to stable horses must be at least 50 feet from the property line if it has more than 5 stalls. In fact, at that time, it referred to garages, but the next section, section 3, says that horses are equated to cars. One horse is the same as one car. So the conclusion here, and it's not ambiguous, is that Any barn at that time had to be more than 50 feet away. The foregoing provision shall apply to private stables, one horse and one horse-drawn vehicle being considered as the equivalent of one motor vehicle. Any garage for more than five vehicles shall be at least 50 feet from every lot line. In fact, the building inspector cherry-picked the one aspect of this code that may have fit, but in so doing, he neglected to refer to these others. The barn was never conforming. It wasn't conforming when built and it's not conforming today. For that reason, 1055 cannot even be said then to be legally nonconforming. It's just nonconforming based explicitly on the very version of the code reviewed and relied upon by the building inspector. They are not then 1055 owners entitled to assert that they once met the setbacks and dimensional requirements. In fact, they never did. The determination makes no attempt to reconcile these issues with its expansive view that 1055 old coast road can operate its commercial business as of right. The board will also be aware that the code defines accessory use specifically use comma accessory as a use customarily incidental and subordinate to the primary again, the determination. Makes no reference to accessory use or the criteria. I'm sorry makes no reference to the definition of accessory use in the code or the criteria for an accessory use for a particularly used to be accessory. It has to be customarily incidental and subordinate. A riding school is not customarily incidental and subordinate to a residence. The determination ignores this. It ignores the fact that accessory use plainly has to meet this definition, and it verges a bit into word salad because it argues in effect that two different phrases within the same document mean the same thing. It argues the determination does that considered as an accessory use, something is considered as an accessory use, which means deemed, means the same as permitted as an accessory use. They're not at all the same. Permitted as an accessory use means if it meets all of the other criteria, including conformity. Considered as an accessory use means deemed an accessory use. And the determination neglects to make that distinction. It contorts the statute. The word should be given plain meaning. And the fact that two different words, considered and permitted, were used means that two separate thoughts or criteria or standards are being expressed. Finally, the determination holds that operation of a commercial equine business is allowed as of right in a residential area. Now that's a breathtakingly broad observation and one that is rightly of concern to the many neighbors who have written into the board. But I believe four out of five of Mr. Salem's neighbors on that lot says the same thing. The fact is that's not at all what the statute says. Clearly, for example, the offering of horses for compensation on an hourly or a daily basis is prohibited. But that's precisely 1055 owner's business model involving professional instruction, multiple daily lessons, boarding of horses for pay, and broad advertisement throughout the greater metro area. We are at a loss, frankly, to understand how this business could be considered customarily incidental and subordinate to home ownership. We're unable to understand how the town attorney failed entirely to consider that any maintenance of horses is limited to conforming lots. It's not even in the determination. Far from conforming, the barn has no certificate of compliance and it never will. It has no independent access to Old Post Road as required and it never will. Another example is the determinations comparison to customary home occupation. Again, it's hard to parse, but I think that I'll put it up on the screen. I believe what's being said. is that really the fact that horses require sometimes some assistance for maintenance or upkeep means that professional instruction is allowed on the property. And that's, again, a breathtaking and simply inaccurate assertion. I'm spazzing out. Here it goes. I just wanted to open the determination so we can go to that specific section. We're not alone in this. We're not at all alone. Most of, as I said, Mr. Salem's neighbors have written against this business. Those letters are powerful. They want in particular.

Okay. Okay, thank you, sir.

Got it. How about that?

Okay, there it is.

Let's go to the customary home occupation because, again, it just doesn't hold up. As a result, maintenance of horses as an accessory use on the property as of right, so long as the conditions are satisfied. That's true regardless of the number of horses that are kept, the number of riding lessons for a single pupil permitted throughout the day, or whether the maintenance of horses is the sole source of income for the property. This cannot be an accessory use in a residential area. Here, Michael asks, does the section allow for non-resident employees to provide riding instructors? And Mr. Gordon concludes it would be difficult to care for seven horses without some type of paid assistant. Any attempt to analogize the alleged employment of non-residents to care for horses on residential properties to a customary home occupation, but of course that's exactly what this is, is misplaced. Doesn't explain why. But the fact is, is that it's not correct to say that merely because horses require some care that paid instruction is allowed. And that's precisely what this determination says. Lots of things require care. Trees require care. Some pools require care. Tennis courts. Doesn't mean you can run a business there. The irony here is that the areas are well known to the town, and it appears from the correspondence painstakingly obtained by Mr. sound for request. The town is well aware that the determination distorts the code. And more to the point as that email from the supervisor indicates. That's exhibits 28 and 29, the 1055 old post road exceeds the outer limit accessory use. Timeline here is illustrative of the town's awareness of the errors, of the way the town closed ranks against Mr. Salem, of the way that after we pointed out that conformity is certainly an issue, the property became conforming. With one stroke of a pen, he legalized it for zoning purposes without even reading the rest of the applicable code. Among the most disturbing things that happened is that the lot all of a sudden became conforming. The building inspector issued a permit that is baffling and respectfully to Mr. Siraco beyond the scope of his authority. He legalized it for zoning purposes. He cherry picked one section of the 1961 code, ignored all the other relevant limitations and restrictions contained therein, and decided the 1055 Old Post Road is legal for zoning purposes. We are at a loss. The building inspector neglects to mention that the code contains a limitation on accessory buildings at 600 square feet. He ignores the fact that any building intended for five or more horses must be 50 feet from the property line. In fact, these buildings are not. Determination and Mr. Scirocco's permit doesn't discuss that the lot does not actually have adequate road frontage, and he makes no effort to determine whether such frontage was required in 1961. It is difficult to think of a better example of the town doubling down on its poorly reasoned and incomplete determination. The town purports to nullify a key aspect of maintenance with horses. Maintenance of horses is not running a commercial business. The town purports to nullify a key aspect of maintenance of horses with the building inspectors holding that the lot is legal for zoning purposes. I'm going to close with this, and I'm sure everybody will be happy about that. This is not academic. This is not theoretical. Mr. Salem and his neighbors have been living with this for more than a year now. Mr. Salem has been dealing with town officials who sneer at him in their written communications, who have sought to compromise this board, and who are well aware of the flaws in the determination, all the way up, and who instantly close ranks to nullify a key aspect of our appeal by making the property conforming. But for Mr. Salem's polite efforts, 1055 Old Post Road would be offering camps, trail rides, group lessons, hay rides, and leasings. This is all in their advertisements. And but for FOIA, Mr. Salem would not have known that 1055 owners were told that the chairman had approved the determination, that the town supervisor knows that the determination is flawed, knows that 1055 Old Post Road does not have the requisite setbacks and conformity, and that the town repeatedly issued and then voided violations against the property. We do know this, you know, what now while the determination, the permit they're under the subject of the peer of this appeal, we asked the board not look away from what has happened here and how this has occurred. And the challenges that Mr sale and space and seeking to apply the town code. I asked that this board do justice. I don't think that that's too grandiose a statement. But given the backdrop and the context and the factual underpinnings of this, I asked that this determination be nullified as materially incorrect, that it be voided, that the permit be nullified and voided as incomprehensible and not making sense and incomplete on its face. And I conclude with that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the Designing Board of Appeals.

Thank you again for hearing our appeal. Before I get started, I just want to do some housekeeping. At the end of the last meeting, there was some discussion about the building inspector completing an investigation about whether or not actually 125-25 requirements were met, and I respectfully ask what the result of that investigation concluded. Um, well, I don't have the transcript in front of me, but, um, within. The last meeting, um, there was some discussion that you were in the midst of an investigation. Uh, on regarding whether, um. The requirements under 125 dash 25 were met, including the 50 foot setback. Of the barn, and I was just wondering if that investigation if it can. That's where I issued the permit. Correct.

So that was my determination. Sorry. No, no, that was just a question of whether I don't understand where you're going with this.

Well, a permit a permit for a barn is obviously different from whether. the requirements, specific enumerated requirements under 125-25 , one of which is that the barn must be set back. A barn can obviously exist and not be set back 50 feet from the property line. Do you guys have a statue in front of us?

When you when you were rendering your determination on and the zoning compliance with the barn, did you reach a determination as to what year the barn was constructed?

That's what I did when the permit was when I, when they submitted for their permit. Yeah, because it was illegal at the time and they submitted for a permit application.

Yeah.

And then I was able to ascertain that it was built around. Well, it was definitely there in 1976 on a map. So that would lend to believe that it was prior to that. So it falls under the 48 code, which was amended in the sixties. And it is prior to the 83 zoning code. So, my, so my. And you want me to go forward and tell you why my interpretation? Well, I might as well. I mean, my interpretation word was a couple of different things. Yes. It's an accessory structures. Yes. According to the. They have the dimensions of it that shows that that's about 759 square feet. I know throughout the years that was made an argument that through the years, it's been a farm as it's called. So I did look at number 10, no accessory building other than for farm purposes and located upon the farm shall exceed 600 square feet. So that's why I made my determination the board might disagree or disagree. And basically, I called this a farm. And at that time, this is going back in the 1976, but it's probably prior to that, because that's when we saw it on the obviously, it was built prior to 76. So, if you look at the definition of farm in any parcel land, which is used primarily in the raising of agricultural products, livestock, poultry, and the production of dairy products from livestock and such farm, it includes necessary farm structures within the prescribed limits and the storage of equipment use. It excludes the raising of fur bearing animals and the operation of writing academies, livery or boarding stables and also the operation of dog kennels. I did not determine that it fell into any 1 of those. requirements there i mean i feel that it meets the requirement at that time you can agree now um

Just on that that was my determination. Okay.

Yep. I'll have 1 more question for you. So, had it, uh, 1976 to shut up on the map, but clearly then it was built sometime before 1976 on the map. The codes between, though, you said you went back to 48, but we have a code in 61. did it change those provisions?

Right? 48 was amended and then when the amendments, it runs to the 1983 zone.

And just a quick question on that. How did you determine it was a barn from the GIS? It was a sludge.

Yeah.

But I mean, how did you determine it was a barn? We have photos of what... Of today, but I'm saying, how do you know it wasn't converted from a shed to a barn?

And how do you know it was? I'm just saying. I don't understand. How do you know it was? Were you living there? No, I just...

There was a question I was asking you.

I made a determination of the materials I put before us. That was my determination. If they disagree, they have the right to disagree. Enough.

so i i'm going to make the direction that whoever's at the lecture we should be addressing the board not not not the individuals um and i also want to you know just for the sake of orienting us we've definitely crossed the two appeals that are that are here tonight at this point so so that the board the board may not understand this there are two appeals that are that are being heard tonight we've now definitely crisscrossed and discussed both of them so the first one is the one that was continued that's relative to the use the keeping of horses the accessory use that and mr carlson spoke about that he also spoke about and i'm sure salem is speaking about the second appeal which is strictly relative to the barn that's the determination that that mr soraka was mentioning and that's a question of um is the barn legal as a structure in that location nothing to do with with use so those are the two issues um and that's i think what what mr salem was discussing here yeah thank you and

It's for zoning purposes.

His legalized barn as a bar.

So yes. Mr. Lefkowitz, is it okay if I ask you a question?

Your questions should be directed at the board if I feel the need to jump in. Sorry.

So at one point, our last hearing, Mr. Lefkowitz mentioned that nobody is alleging that the requirements of 125 dash 25 B three do not need to be met. Um, so that's a, that's a pull out from the last meeting and I just want to just be very, very clear on the record that. From the survey that was provided for the permanent barn, the barn does not meet the setback requirement. in 125-25B3, whatever.

Of the current code.

Of the current code. Of the current code.

But that's important. Should he be addressing me?

MR. SHELTON, YOU ASKED SOME QUESTIONS OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, AND I, WITHOUT JUMPING IN, BECAUSE IT APPEARED TO ME THAT HE WANTED TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION, SO I ALLOWED IT TO GO FOR A LITTLE BIT. WE SHOULD CERTAINLY KEEP IT BETWEEN THE PERSON AT THE LECTURER AND THE BOARD. TO RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION, I DID SAY THAT AT THE LAST MEETING, AND I ABSOLUTELY STAND BY THAT. I MEAN, WE'LL HEAR PRESUMABLY FROM WHEN THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MR. PETENSKY TO SPEAK. This is the difference between use and and for the way that the building inspector put it for zoning purposes. So the structure. So what we were talking about at the last meeting is the keeping of horses and the question of that use and whether the use is legal one way that a use can be legal is if it's pre-existing non-conforming in other words it's always been used that way since before that code provision came into effect um i said at the last meeting and i don't think mr patinsky disputed me that his client was not asserting that they had a continuous pre-existing use of the property as keeping horses so they cannot avail themselves of that way of attaining that use by saying it's pre-existing non-conforming the use is not pre-existing non-conforming um so their only way to legally keep horses is to comply with the statute which is what i said last time there's a separate question as to whether a structure not a use but a structure is pre-existing non-conforming that's a way that the structure could remain and be legal without complying with code provisions like setbacks. So that is the second appeal that we're hearing tonight, and that's the determination that Mr. Sirocco was mentioning, that when he looked at the barn and made a determination as to whether the barn, not the use of the barn, but the barn itself can remain or perhaps requires a variance or could lose its CO or would have to be torn down, whether the structure is legal,

mr siraco did determine that that it is pre-existing non-conforming at least to the 61 code and that's the code he applied to determine if it's legal at that time thank you um thank you so um my understanding is that the requirements under 125-25b3 are not met um but that's obviously for the zoning board to determine um So the determination as it stands, and I just want to be clear, I'm not saying this is what's happening, but as the determination stands, if you read the determination, it allows for a horse riding school that employs as many third party instructors as you want to offer 10 lessons a day. seven days a week and fall within an accessory use okay if you read the determination that's what it determines i ask the zba to consider whether that theoretical level of intensity is customarily incidental and subordinate to home ownership and consistent with the section of the town code that permits quote the maintenance and keeping of horses but as you can see the record here is disturbing and deeply concerning to me and others in this town the determination is unequivocally flawed the permit that was rubber stamped by the building department after our last meeting nonetheless is clearly invalid the town lawyer supervisor building department worked in concert in an attempt to distort this process and railroad me and my neighborhood. The record is very clear on that. Their work was careless and more focused on producing a result that involved town officials desired outcome than balancing the interests and concerns of me and my concerned neighbors. It is counter to the plain language of the statute and frankly, looks like it was made up as they went along. I called attention to it they decided to double down. I teach my children when they make a mistake, own up to it and fix it. Don't dig yourself into a deeper hole. I expect so much more from this town as I think we all should. Thankfully, the ZBA has an opportunity to correct this matter and respectfully the obligation. There were obvious missteps of this process and the determination. My request for determination asked if the keeping of horses is required to remain incidental and subordinate to a lot's primary residential use. Of course it does. And based on Mr. Patensky's papers, I actually think he agrees with that. Can I open a commercial chicken farm? Harvesting eggs of tens of thousands of chickens because I meet the requirements under the keeping of fowl Of course, I can't that's absurd, but that's The logic this determination uses to make the conclusions that it does Thankfully there's a simple fix reject the determination Bring common sense and sanity back into this conversation and work together to find a way where both me. My other neighbors and the tongs can enjoy the use of our residential properties. In a way that doesn't materially affect 1. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Keith Batensky, and I'm the attorney for Megan Tong and Nick Johnson. They're here with me this evening along with some of their supporters. We want to thank you for considering all of the information. And at this point in time, I know there's a lot of it. So thank you for considering all the facts in the record. tonight we're asking this honorable board to affirm the determination of the building inspector the appellant appealed that determination and as detailed in our memorandum in opposition the appellant has not met his burden of proof to overturn the building inspector's well-reasoned determination to refresh the board's recollection megan and nick purchased this property known as 1055 old post road approximately six years ago because they wanted to raise their family and enjoy horseback riding in the town of bedford The oversized 17 plus acre property in the R4A district was ideal for them because it was already built out as a horse farm. There was a three stable barn, paddocks, and trails. The property also connects to the Bedford Riding Lanes trail system. They spent a lot of time and money fixing up the farm and they have two beautiful daughters who are learning how to ride. When Megan and Nick found out that one of their neighbors was unhappy with the way in which they were running their farm, they immediately addressed it. They approached their neighbor and the town and asked what they could do to address the issue. The town asked them to take down their website, which they did immediately. Their neighbor expressed concern about the timing and frequency of the lessons, so they immediately scaled down the number of lessons and changed the schedule so that, for example, the lessons did not coincide with school bus drop-off and pick-up. The Atkinson family, who lived the closest to Megan and Nick's farm, submitted a strong letter in support. Clark Petchik also submitted a strong letter in support. Both letters are in the record. Megan and Nick have done nothing wrong. In fact, if you read the Town of Bedford's Comprehensive Plan and the Town Code, Megan and Nick did everything right. They rehabilitated this bucolic horse farm and invited their friends, neighbors, and community members to enjoy this farm with them. The Town of Bedford's Comprehensive Plan seeks to protect and promote equestrian uses. Properties like Megan and Nick's are what make Bedford unique. Yes, people who take lessons there pay for their lessons. We want to be very candid about that. Yes, that is expressly permitted in the code as of right in the R4 zoning district, so long as you meet certain requirements, which, as we explained in our opposition papers, they do. Megan and Nick carefully vet the pupils, many of which are friends or local children. While Megan did have aspirations initially to increase the intensity of the use, she now understands the restrictions in the code and has more than happened to comply with those restrictions. Yes, Megan and Nick board one horse that they don't own. And yes, that's permitted in the R4 zoning district. If you board more than 10 horses, then you need a special use permit. Under Bedford's code, homeowners in the R4 district, as I just mentioned, can board up to 10 horses without a special use permit. Megan and Nick have strived to be good neighbors as evidenced by the strong community support included in the letters and support from the Atkinsons and Clark Petchik. If you've been to the farm, you can plainly see that this is not a big commercial farm. It's not an old Salem farm like the one up in North Salem. It's certainly not the Kentucky Derby. This is a very modest three stable backyard farm. The farm is not open to the public and there are no competitions there, no loudspeakers, nothing like that. First and foremost, this is the home of Megan and Nick and their two young girls. Secondly, this is also a very modest antique horse farm that was built more than 50 years ago. In other words, the equestrian use is accessory to the residential use. Megan and Nick lived there full time with their girls. Megan and Nick did not build the barn. The barn's over 50 years old. They did not expand the barn or otherwise structurally modify the barn to increase the number of horses. They submitted a detailed sworn affidavit to that effect. The barn had three stalls when they bought it. The barn still has three stalls. It has not changed. We don't fully understand why Mr. Salem has filed this appeal. We don't believe he could even see the barn from his house. The equestrian portion of the property is set way back from the appellant's property on Megan and Nick's 17 acre property. Again, the Atkinsons live right next to the farm and they have no issue with it. The building inspector's determination was well-reasoned and well-drafted. He reviewed all the criteria in the code and found that the property meets those criteria. As far as the 50-foot setback for barns is concerned, the building inspector determined that the barn was a legal pre-existing nonconforming use because it met the zoning requirements at the time that it was constructed. We also noted in our memo in opposition that the building inspector has the authority to interpret the code under state law, and he did just that. We were asking this honorable honorable board to affirm that well reasoned determination. Please don't penalize Megan and Nick for doing what they have a right to do keep horses on their property. If you've been to the property, you can plainly see that the commercial nature of the equestrian use is de minimis. In fact, it doesn't even cover the cost to maintain the farm. This is a labor of love. It's not a for-profit venture. While perhaps Megan initially had aspirations to increase the intensity of the use, she set those aside and she's happy to comply with the code. Again, they want to be good neighbors and they want to be code compliant. We want to be clear that the exhibits that the appellant initially submitted in support of his appeal referencing certain websites and other advertising and horse leasing are old and antiquated and no longer exist. The website's been taken down, that sort of advertising no longer exists. We submitted sworn affidavits from Megan and Nick detailing the actual intensity of use, which is limited to one friend's horse being boarded and a few lessons per week during warm weather months predominantly, which again, we detailed in the affidavits from Megan and Nick. So I think the intensity of use is very clear in the record. If you've been to the property, you can plainly see that there's no appreciable traffic being generated. Megan and Nick have the right to use the shared driveway. The appellant bought this property a few years before Megan and Nick, and what he did, his property was already encumbered by the right-of-way that benefits Megan and Nick's property. To the extent that the appellant wishes to raise a legal challenge with respect to that right-of-way, he's within his rights to do so, but this is the wrong venue. That belongs in a court of law, not before a zoning board of appeals. Like many of Mr. Salem's other arguments, his argument that Megan and Nick's 17-acre lot is somehow non-conforming is based on flawed reasoning. For example, in his papers, the appellant suggests that Megan and Nick's property is an illegal subdivision that does not have enough frontage. This argument is flawed for several reasons. Most notably, Megan and Nick's properties, in fact, arrive from a deed, not a subdivision. and the deed predates all of the zoning codes submitted by the appellant. We today submitted a copy of a deed from 1957 along with a letter to the tax assessor from 1957 confirming that this same lot number and the same acreage existed as in 1957, which predates the excerpts of the codes that the appellant submitted in their exhibits. According to the town's building department, Megan and Nick's house may have been originally constructed as early as 1790. The assessor has records going back to around 1910, and their records indicate that the current lot was formed sometime prior to 1957, as I mentioned. Moreover, the lot frontage on Stonehill Road and the unrestricted deeded right-of-way via Old Post Road over which Megan and Nick gain access and which has existed for many years prior to Megan and Nick's ownership and Mr. Salem's ownership. The appellant also submits incomplete cherry-picked pages from prior zoning codes for the proposition at the barn is not conformant. These code sections serve only to support the building inspector's determination that the barn met the code requirements at the time it was constructed because at that time the setbacks were one-third of what they are currently. And the barn meets that one-third requirement as the building inspector mentioned in his permit. In any event, a proper analysis cannot be completed without reviewing an entire zoning code that was effective at the time the barn was built. Again, these cherry-picked excerpts are not enough to override a reasoned determination of the building inspector who included all of the facts and all of the codes available to him. Therefore, similar to his other allegations, the appellant has failed to prove that Megan and Nick's lot is nonconforming. again the building inspector is abundantly familiar with the property he thoroughly investigated mr salem's complaint and found that megan and nick were in compliance therefore tonight we're asking you to affirm that decision um thank you those are my comments in connection with the first appeal um i'll be brief um as far as the second appeal is concerned i want to echo something that council mentioned earlier about the Distinction between the 2 appeals, the 1st, 1 definitely focuses on the use, whereas the 2nd, 1 focuses specifically on whether or not the barn structure is code compliant. Okay. On the 2nd appeal. Again, the building inspector based his determination on substantial evidence in the record as determined as detailed excuse me in our memorandum and opposition. Mr has failed to meet his burden of proof in order to overturn the building inspectors determination. There is only 1 barn on the subject property and is nowhere near Mr. Salem's property. The neighbors who live closest to the barn submitted the letter and support that I mentioned earlier. The barn predates Megan and Nick's ownership and they haven't modified it. It's been there since 1976 and we know that because we have an aerial photograph from GIS showing the barn. If the barn were removed, it would create a hardship for Megan and Nick and their horses. Their horses are there year-round. They live there year-round. The horses need shelter. The hay needs a place to be stored. The barn serves an important role on that property. Mr. Salem has failed to prove that the barn was subject to the current zoning code or even the prior zoning codes. Rather, he submits text messages from the town supervisor and excerpts from prior zoning codes in a weak attempt to somehow discredit town officials. The lion's share of the additional 95 pages of voluminous exhibits submitted by Mr. Salem in support of his appeal are at best described as irrelevant, misplaced, and inappropriate. The only relevant question here is whether the building inspector based his determination on substantial evidence in the record, and the answer is that he did. The building inspector reviewed the surveys, photographs, floor plans, and other information submitted by Megan and Nick and determined based on all of that information and the codes available to him that the barn was legal for zoning purposes at the time it was built over 50 years ago. We know the barn existed in 76 as I mentioned, we also know that it complies with the code that was in effect at that time, because the building inspector included that information is in his determination and therefore asking the zoning board to affirm the 2nd determination as well. indeed if the zoning board were to grant mr salem's appeal it would be contrary to the town's code which allows legal non-conforming structures to remain again not the use but the structure and contrary to the comprehensive plan which seeks to preserve and promote not punish backyard barns and it would probably render many historic farms in bedford in violation of the code if the zoning board were to overturn the building inspector's determination thank you

Are there any other members of the public who want to speak before we allow a reply?

Do you want to speak? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just wanted to address some of the factual background that was put up there earlier in the presentation. So there was some I'm aware of the factual background because I was involved in it. You put it at issue here, so.

and addressing i think i'll leave it to mr so um mr crownstein it's a public hearing members of the public are allowed to speak justice mr betensky representing only a member of the public um who happens to be the property owner here certainly gave factual background and his view of the law so i'm not aware of any pro any provision in the code or town law that prohibits members of the public from speaking about facts um or law for that matter my understanding of this hearing is that

He's sharing facts within his knowledge, in his capacity as a town official. If he was a town official, he wouldn't have those facts.

I'm also a member of the public. This isn't a trial. There are no witnesses here. Everyone who's not the applicant is a member of the public and is permitted to speak about whatever they wish to speak about. There are no witnesses or evidence rules here. When I said member of the public earlier, I was referring to the fact that He's speaking as a member of the public, or in his capacity as town attorney, which on this matter he's not. So I'm going to allow members of the public to speak since you had your turn and any other members of the public to speak at which he is and then you can get back up and reply to anyone. Thank you.

so again just when when the town receives a complaint as it did from mr salem um regarding an allegedly improper use of a property or illegal use of the property the town acts to investigate which is what occurred in this case in this case when the complaints were raised by mr salem about the operation at the property at 1055 old post road the building department inspected the property and consulted with the assistant planning director and with me and it was determined that there may be certain uses at the property that were inconsistent with what was permitted with respect to the keeping of horses on a residential property therefore the town with my assistance took steps to address and ensure that the uses on the property at 1055 Old Post Road were in compliance with what was considered permitted uses. I understand there's a disagreement regarding what is considered, but those were the steps were taken to ensure compliance with that. So the idea that there was some kind of failure to address Mr. Salem's complaint is just, I want the board to understand how the process occurred. This took the form of the affidavit that delineated the uses that were permitted, which the town requested that the property owner submit to confirm that the use of the property was in compliance with zoning, or at least the interpretation of zoning the building inspector had based on that time. In other words, I did the legal work, I prepared an affidavit that the property owner could have chosen not to sign if they didn't believe it was appropriate, but essentially told the property owner that based on the building inspector's determination, if you wish to continue with your operation on the property, you need to comply with these following requirements. The affidavit was not meant to provide counsel to the 1055 Old Post Road or to give them any kind of benefit. To the contrary, it was to ensure compliance with the code. And I just want to let the board know also, I'm not sure there were emails put up about um discussions with with with 1055 with megan tong there was were discussions mr salem did have discussions with myself and the supervisor regarding this issue as well so i'm not sure if there was an implication that we were precluding him from having those discussions because there were was a lengthy discussion between myself the supervisor and mr salem at one point i think before this issue where we heard i don't believe it was right after the determination

Are there any other members of the public that would like to speak?

Thank you. I'll be brief. There were just a few things I want to address. With respect to Mr. Potensky's point, Potensky asserts the property is conforming. Our source, and he says we have no basis, our source for the assertion that the property is non-conforming is page two of Mr. Potensky's brief. A pre-existing structure retains the legal non-conforming status to which it has been entitled. Patensky doesn't assert the property is conforming. He asserts it's legally non-conforming. In fact, we've heard from Mr. Lefkowitz at the last hearing, property is not legally non-conforming with respect specifically because I don't want- I just want to correct you.

What I said at the last hearing is that the use, the keeping of horses use is not pre-existing non-conforming. That's what I said.

Okay. Very good. with respect specifically so that there's no confusion about cherry picking from sections of the code. I asked the board to turn to Exhibit 26, which is the documents that were submitted by Mr. Sirocco along with his permit packet. That's the section of the code that Mr. Sirocco relied upon, which makes sense. But this is the same section of the code upon which we rely. So if you look at our accessory buildings, And you look at Section 2, there's the section about garage space. Look at Section 5, where it applies to horse-drawn vehicles. Look at Section 10, where it talks about accessory buildings. We're not cherry-picking from the code. We're using the same page that Mr. Sirocco uses in his determination. There's no cherry-picking here. We're all on the same page, literally, literally the same page. With respect to definition of farm, I want to read that again because there's no universe in which this is a farm under that definition. And again, the same version of the code that was applied by the building inspector. A farm is any parcel of land which is used primarily in the raising of agricultural products, livestock, poultry, and the production of dairy products. That's never happened on this property. It's not happening now. It didn't happen in 1961 or 1976 or ever. Goes on. It excludes, I'm going to skip a little, because I'll skip the forbearing animals part. The operation of riding academies. It is not a farm. It's not a farm. So the 600 square foot setback on that very same page that Mr. Siraca relies upon is applicable here. There is no cherry picking. I guess the last part I'd say is with respect to Mr. Gordon's presentation, emails speak for themselves. Yes, for sure. He did speak to Mr. Salem. But compare the willingness and the desire to speak through the tongues with his comment to Mr. Salem that, oh, I didn't understand you want a meeting, but if you do, I'll take that up with the town. Thank you.

Are you going to say something? Yeah, I was going to. I understand what the underlying concern here. And part of the request for the determination comes down to your concern about the breadth of what is allowed for residential. Use, you know, core separations and to be quite Frank, this is not the best avenue to be. navigating this particular issue. You put it in front of us, we have to. But our code, as you've seen, has a lot of ambiguity in it. And it's usually not this board's intent to write up provisions. We are asked to interpret them and figure it out as we go where there's gray area. And this is one of those areas where we will have to deal with some type of determination, but my better recommendation for use in time here where this concern is, is to talk to BRILA and tell BRILA and the community to come forward with provisions that deal with residential use and writing and however you wanna pose it. Within the town and do it as a town code amendment to address it. That's to be quite frank That's a better way to administer this because what you're talking about is Let's I'm gonna deal with the second question first. The property here is a 17 acre property I don't think anybody's arguing on that the acreage allows for them to have horses here Nobody's arguing over that the question that we deal with when you talk to the structure. It's predates 1976 it's clearly built in as a stable, whether the use or not, we can document it. I don't think anyone has said definitively that they can document it, which is why you heard council say, I can't say definitively the use as a horse farm here has been documented as a preexisting nonconforming use, but the barn there is a preexisting nonconforming structure. The barn is not going to come down for itself. the second question that you comment is to the horse ability to then use it to stable horses well if it was built for horses and it's designed for horses it will probably horses there although not documented and that's not the question that's been before the board yet is actually the use of the barn it was the structure of the barn was in whether it's in conformance and allowed and that's what the building assessor granted by his permit was saying look i'm documenting this as a pre-existing non-conforming structure and i'm giving you a certificate of compliance indicating essentially that it was a legal pre-existing non-conforming one because there are many instances where you're asked to have a certificate of compliance as to the structure so the structure continued to be there without needing a variance or otherwise. I believe that was what was essentially being insinuated. Correct me if I'll go ahead.

Well, yeah. I mean, it was closed out because in construction, New York State building code does give you an exception for any type of building that houses animals, in this case, horses. So they did take that exception when it came to the building, but the state ordinance specifically states that a municipality may. May also ask for a billing permit to basically confirm zoning compliance. So that's why you see when I say that you're not getting a certificate of compliance. But that's because for the construction of the building. okay the zoning part of the building in my estimation they met the zoning requirements and that's where i stand there is no certificate of compliance closure to the structure itself because it's not required by new york state building code but we did ask for a permit and we did find that these i found that the zoning was in compliance and we closed it as such they do not get a certificate of compliance there are farms that go that Do ask for certificates because they have clients and they want to see a certificate and they and they follow through. So it's up to them. Uh, well, well, in their right to ask for that, um, that exception and we gave it to him and I was just making it clear. Like, I always try to make clear any code ordinance. I don't play favorites here. I tell everybody the way it is. And at this, they are a legal structure, right?

So it doesn't go to use.

It's not about the use. The structure itself was the question, and I found that it was a legal structure. It's a legal nonconforming structure. Okay. Didn't need the 50 feet, but according to what I saw in that.

Al, was there anything in the files that a title search would have found? Anything on the barn?

Well, no, I mean, we didn't have any records that type of document when it show up in a title search, because it goes to use on a deed or on a transfer document or a license agreement. They wouldn't have been precluding title search flag it as a.

Not being not on anything recorded document wouldn't have that type of thing.

What would happen in a title? So to indicate whether there's a certificate occupancy, a certificate of use, a building certificate, anything open as instructions that are that they couldn't detail the title search may have indicated that there's not a, maybe not a building permit or other thing that would be open on it. But that doesn't get closed out by. Uh, a vested title document, a recorded document, so the building inspector, so a lot of pre existing nonconforming structures or pre existing structures, let's say, not even just nonconforming pre, existing structures may not have documentation with the building department. For 1 reason, another, maybe the pre data requirements, a code provision.

maybe that there were damage to building documents that happens over time um any number of reasons it rises and an owner may want to close that out though so they can transfer the property or use it for certain purposes yeah I mean and just to in our research we always look at assessor records also to determine what and that's one and in this case we we couldn't find that actual structure uh but we did find it on gis maps and we did see that it was definitely there so if it if it was showing on the map in 76 it obviously was built prior to that and regardless even if it was built that day it was prior to the changing of the zoning court code which was in 83 um so i had to follow the code the section that i did in my determination i feel that i was correct and uh that's it can i just ask a question just about yeah since we're on the permit um so do we all agree that except for on a farm that

code at that time, limited accessory buildings to 600 square feet.

Yes.

Okay. So the definition of farm we've read, clearly it wasn't a farm before the building was built.

You say clearly, I don't see any evidence to you have wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. Let's not do this. Let's not do the years. I made my determination. I believe it up.

Right? Right. I think I think the point my client is trying to make is, it's, it's a, it's a distortion to say that this is a farm today, whether it was ever a farm. If it was ever a farm that you ceased and you will all know that if you ceases over time, it becomes a non conforming use. It stops being conforming. But I struggle with this because on the very same page that Mr. Sirocco based his determination on, we can see other instances of noncompliance. The code says it has to be on a conforming lot. So we are contorting this lot to make it conforming when it clearly is not. The structures aren't conforming. It doesn't have adequate road frontage. It's hard for me to understand how a permit can be issued when it can't even get a certificate of occupancy.

This would be traditionally a flag lot. We have hundreds of those in the community. If you said you couldn't have a use on a flag lot because it doesn't conform with every provision, we would have a more significant... I don't understand your point you're trying to articulate.

I'm not saying that your code says that.

I didn't say... The code would... If the code was truly interpreted that way, we would have many properties that could have no use on them.

I'm not saying there can be no use, ma'am. I'm saying there can't be a commercial forest farm on it.

I don't think anyone has said it can be a commercial horse farm. I think your client here, part of the dispute that's going on is the allegation what they're presenting is a commercial horse farm. To date, nobody has... First of all, I don't think the board has said a commercial horse farm is... is approved or applicable i think the question is what rises to the level of commercial horse farm your client believes it's what the actions that the applicant the homeowners have taken to date rises that level what you're hearing is that there's a disagreement here as to to what that level is thank you and i i do understand that what with what we're here for i'm sorry what we're here for is to determine whether the determination as written is correct

We've heard from the town supervisor it's incorrect. I've pointed out that it neglects to deal with conformity. I pointed out that it subsumes within accessory use the operation of a business. Nobody's disputing a business is operating there. That's what we're here to determine. In my view, that's all we're looking at. This almost has nothing to do with the tongues in the sense that we're asking, is this determination as written supportable? Is it correct? And I understand Ms. Black, your comment that this shouldn't be here. But the town attorney directed us here and candidly, as you all know, there is no other avenue for appeal. This is how New York state law works.

You're correct. Hold on. I gave you what I think is a clear way. I agree that this is the proper form to appeal from the building inspector's determination. But what I'm saying is that I don't believe this is the cleanest or best way to deal with the underlying issue is the code itself is not clear. And so when you say, you ask the billing inspector for an interpretation and he gave it to you, the correct approach, as we all agree, is to come here. I'm saying, though, as a practical matter, and I've said this on other code provisions, our code does not aptly deal with certain issues. Horses happens to be one of them. We happen to have different issues that come up with horses over the years because our code does not definitively lay out a clear plan of action for the variety of types of horse uses that our community encourages and facilitates in all kinds of ways that aren't covered clearly by this code. i'm trying to be generous in understanding what your concern is and laying out for you that we're going to reach a determination okay i i can't say what that is yet we're obviously here debating things but if i were in your shoes and i was asking these questions and i had this concern about what was going on in a proper the property next to me and it dealt with horses i would be going to brilla and saying brilla You're the acknowledged horse expert in this community. I've got this concern. I can't be the only neighbor who loves my horses, who loves having them here, but has this concern about the escalation of use and it really impeding on my ability to use my property. And the code creates all kinds of ambiguity and problems here that aren't clearly laid out. The code here, it says that they can happily, let's go to the provision here, right? It says you don't have to go to the planning board until you're boarding 10 or more horses. We don't have 10 or more horses yet.

Keep going. What about the 50-foot setback? Yeah, it says conforming lots.

So there's two things. The barn and manure storage areas is what you're focusing on here.

Oh, that's wonderful.

Okay, so we have to, again, separate the issues to begin with. If you look at what the term of determination, I'm trying to get to what your fundamental issue is. On the building inspector's determination, you're really opining you have a problem with his use of the word farm.

No, he doesn't use the word farm.

Ms. Black, if you wouldn't mind, can I just kind of tell you what my issue with the determination is?

Yes, of course.

It's really not complicated. The determination was excessive. It said, if you read the determination, it said unlimited lessons. Okay?

Hold on. Just wait a minute. I'm focused right now on the building department's determination, not the resolution. Yeah, yeah.

So the first thing is... No, the determination says that as of right, they can have unlimited lessons.

Do we have the resolution? Do we have the resolution? What... What am I not seeing here? We are not on the same page right now. I'm sorry. Let's get on the same page. We're not seeing what you're seeing, so please direct me to what you're thinking and looking at specifically.

In the determination. Can we pull it up here? Yeah. Let's just go straight to the determination. I'll tell you exactly what I have an issue with.

I just have to sign it again. I'm sorry.

determination. He's referring to a determination.

The request for determination, the determination that I'm appealing. If we can pull it up. I can pull it up. Here, guys, I'm going to pull it up on the screen. Okay, here we go. So I'll just take you through everything, every issue I have with the determination.

Yeah, Peter, we needed. Oh, there you go. Thank you.

Okay. So Okay. It says, as a result, 125-25B3 allows the maintenance of horses as an accessory use as of right. Doesn't mention conforming lot. Okay. Doesn't mention it has to be on a conforming lot. or customarily incidental support. So long as the conditions of section 125-B3A through F are satisfied. So it reads over the words conforming and accessory use. It doesn't say horses are permitted. It says permitted as an accessory use. That is a fundamental flaw in the determination. Okay? It also says, in this same section, regardless of the number of lessons that, where is that?

The number of riding.

Yeah.

Regardless of the number of courses.

Regardless of the number of riding lessons. So this determination says, OK, that someone could have 12 lessons a day and have their primary source of income derived off of the property and fall under this section. That is not true. What they're doing, yes, that could be considered an accessory use, but what are they going to do tomorrow? What are they going to do in four years? I don't know.

But go to what 125b, what its provisions are. When you look at 125b.

Yeah, we'll just read them.

125B, keeping of horses. And it's an accessory use. So in this, let's own fact, this is a residential property. We all agree it's a residential property. That's the primary use. All right? That's the primary use on the property. The secondary, so the primary use is residential, which means the other uses on it are accessories.

You could have two primary uses. I can't open up a bodega on my property.

This, I would tend to agree with the building inspector this is an accessory use because the way that when we look at accessory is you're allowed to have in this acreage, you're allowed to keep horses and you're allowed to ride horses and you're allowed to offer riding lessons. It's like two acres of first horse, one acre lot of area for each horse thereafter, right? We're in the right zoning district. Go on, Al.

Could I just add one thing?

Yeah.

To your point, though, before Meredith made a point, is this is a code that we're reading here. You might disagree with the code. No, I don't disagree. What I'm saying is I would disagree with the code. I don't think the code is clear, but here it says writing instructions is permitted provided that no paid advertising is used to announce such use and provided that instruction is limited to a single pupil at a time. So, what I'm what our code is basically saying is that you can pay somebody. You can pay somebody. There's nothing here that says you can't pay somebody. There's nothing here that says that. You want the code changed, that's a different story. This says here that a... They're used to announce such use and provide that instructions limited to a single pupil at a time. There's nothing there that says that that person can't charge somebody.

There's nothing here in our code.

What I'm saying is I'm reading our code, and that's how I interpreted our code. That's how it's written. It's confusing, yes, but... But we looked at all aspects. We looked at how many horses were on there. We did have an issue with the paid advertisement and they addressed that. So we did. All we could do with what we have before us. That's all it is. That's it.

Based on what, though?

Where do you use the word conforming in the determination?

Look at Exhibit 26. We'll go through the code one more time, and you'll see on the same page, even when it was built, the very sections, it's got to be 600 square feet in stock. It has

No, no, you're talking about that 1 building, but my determination was that the building did meet the code because I that it is.

We need to keep the core up here. So I want to make sure that, Al, you as well, we're talking to the board, to the person at the lectern, or Al, to the board. I don't want there to be this crosstalk between the attorney and the building inspector or the applicant.

I agree, but I would say this. I have this work title.

I'm not saying that.

I'm not saying that. Okay.

But the fact is we have a determination that the town attorney advised us to take to the ZBA. So it's in front of the ZBA. And the question for the ZBA does not, let's say Mr. Salem's mind or what our real goal is. Our real goal is to get this determination to know, because we think it's incorrect. That's it.

It's not complicated. The determination. says does not require conforming law to keep horses which it says right there in the code horses on conforming lots the termination does not require that the mr gordon

a phone call i had with him recently agreed that the determination missed that okay okay so that was mr gordon i need to point out something here the we're a we're the zoning board is a quasi judicial body that operates independently of the town of bedford we were appointed by the town supervisor and by the town board and all of that The town supervisor, what she says in this particular case has no bearing on anything. She can surmise all she wants, but she's not a zoning board person. These are only her opinions. I've had this problem before where we've had town council And town council sometimes is at odds with our own view of how things should move forward, which is why we have our own separate town council or our own council, because our own council might be in complete disagreement with something that the town's attorney talked about. So there's a difference here. So I'm just saying don't get hung up on the various things.

So let me just address then you, Peter, as the chair of the board. is in order to keep horses under this section of the code does it have to be a conforming lot

According to this, it says a conforming lot, but that's, again, where I'm going to take Meredith's position on this, where that's very confusing in the sense that we have, you know, you're saying it's not a conforming lot because it doesn't have frontage on a road, and yet... Well, one of the confusions that needs to be taken away is that this is written as, the town code is written as if it is new.

right? You're a property owner, you're buying a lot, right? You got under two acres or you got something and you come to the building apartment and say, I want to do this. The building person is like, under the coat, you can't do that. That's if you're starting from scratch. We're not starting from scratch here. So non-conforming, pre-existing, all those kind of things,

all come into play no but that's it i'm talking about the determination my question for the zba is just does the keeping of horses is that required to be on a conforming line mr i'm going to jump in on this question it's a legal question um and i don't want the zba to be boxing it's their job to to struggle with this and debate it that the code clearly states the words of the code on conforming lots so there's no question that those words are there but the legal question of what does conforming lot mean from a legal perspective um in the land use parlance conforming lot typically means although it's not defined in this code so as meredith indicated there's ambiguity in this code which is up to you to determine um in the land use parlance conformal typically means is the lot undersized or not. So even when I see it say unconforming lots in the R2A and R4A districts is an indicator to me that it's discussing is the lot the right size for the district or is it undersized? Was it subdivided before these zoning provisions were put into place? And I'll add that makes sense with the way that that provision is written because what it's requiring is If you're going to keep horses, your lot better be the right size. If it's too small, we don't want you keeping horses on it. So typically, that's what conforming lot means. It doesn't have to do with whether every structure on the lot or every aspect of the lot is in compliance. So you can have a conforming lot, but your barn might be in violation of the code, but the lot is still conforming. So that's... Typically in the land use parlance, what conforming lot means. That being said, the ways that Mr. Salem is indicating that he believes that there's nonconformities, one is the barn, which we've spoken about a bunch. The other is what Meredith indicated, the flag lot. There is a provision in your code which states that to get a permit, your lot must have frontage on the same location that it has access, which this lot does not. It has frontage in a different place than it has access via an easement. You heard Mr. Betensky indicate earlier that he was referencing when the lot was created. The reason he was doing that is the lot's compliance with that provision could be preexisting nonconforming. It's up to you to decide if that lot was formed as a flag lot before this code provision came into effect requiring you to have frontage where you have access, then that code provision doesn't prevent them from getting a permit. There are a lot of issues here, as you can tell. The different aspects of the code are interplaying with one another, but I at least wanted you to understand those indications here in terms of what it means to be a conforming lot.

Could you also just explain to the ZBA the difference between legally non-conforming and conforming for a lot?

A conforming lot typically means whether it's undersized or not, then you might have within a lot a pre-existing non-conforming use or a pre-existing non-conforming structure. You could have a pre-existing non-conforming lot, but as I understand this lot does not need to avail itself of that because it's the right size.

Why would frontage on a different road not make a lot non-conforming conformance required in the code means means it meets the definition of the code today so it can be legally non-conforming but not a conforming lot today would this lot be approved today and the answer is no not without a variance because it needs frontage where right but the lot that that that

The question is, is it pre-existing non-conforming as to that code provision? So in this case would be, is its access pre-existing non-conforming? In this case, it is. The question of is the lot pre-existing non-conforming, typically in the land use policy, again, there's no definition in your code, means is the lot the right size or is it too small?

And they've always had access to the right of way.

Right. What that means not to do with is the lot pre-existing not conforming, but does this property owner need to comply with that code provision which says you need access where you have frontage? If the lot was formed, if the access was formed is what I should say. If the access was created and the frontage was created before that code provision grandfathered and they don't have to comply with that code. Which, to Merida's point, I would bet you have many, many properties in Bedford that are flag lots, that have access via an easement. Every municipality does. Most times, either they got a variance when they were formed, or they were formed before that couple.

The determination doesn't use the word conforming in the determination. okay so whether or not the building inspector is not done an analysis of whether the law is conforming okay so i haven't seen any analysis of whether the law is conforming the second point i would make in this section the maintenance of horses is permitted as an accessory use what do the words accessory use mean in that context it's different statutory construction would say that It's different than saying the maintenance of horses is permitted subject to the conditions below. So what do the words accessory use? What weight are they using in that sentence?

I can opine on this also. There's a well-known case called Mamaroneck Beach and Yacht Club versus the ZBA of Mamaroneck. The site is 5383, 494, 2nd Department, which is the appellate division that governs where we're sitting now. And this exact argument was made. In that case, A club in Maranek wanted to construct a bunch of seasonal dwellings, which in that code was allowed as an accessory use. And an applicant made an argument that it shouldn't be allowed as an accessory use because they were using more land than the club. The homes were actually going to be a bigger part of this property than the club was. So it wasn't accessory, right? The argument was made that it was too big. And the court said, no, if it's... if it's delineated in the code as an accessory use, it's an accessory use, as long as you meet the provisions of the code for accessory use, you've satisfied it. So there isn't a separate requirement that, the ZBA is not empowered, what that case said, to come up with its own separate requirements for whether it's accessory enough, whether it's insubstantial enough to be deemed subordinate to the primary use. It is a legislative finding that it is subordinate as long as you meet those characteristics in the code. So it is not a separate determination that you decide, did they meet the provisions in the code or didn't they? So that was what I was saying at the last meeting that at least on the first appeal, your question is, did they meet these elements in the code for accessory use?

I'll just, you know, to throw out to, you know, somewhat similar to what you were just talking about this case, just for an example, the first subject condition, A, is that two acres of lot area shall be required for the first horse. One acre of lot shall be required for each horse thereafter. To somewhat bolster what Meredith was saying earlier is if you have a 100-acre piece of property, you can have 99 horses on it. Now put a 50-acre pond in the middle of that 100 acres. How many horses can you have on it? 99. So even though there's this 50% of that just got taken away, you can still, by our code, have 99 horses on it. And that would be conforming. So, I mean, there's a lot of...

Except then it gets thrown into the special permit.

Well, you'd have to get a special permit after 10. Yes, exactly. But I'm just saying, based on that line alone. I mean, that's why it's not as easy here. Um, and so when you're asking, do we, is it is it is there a property conforming or not? Um, I mean, like, you know, we didn't.

Yep. We're not we're not asking that. We're not asking that question. We're so far field. What we're saying is the determination doesn't reckon with this at all. It doesn't even consider the issue. All it says is, if you meet a through F, you're in the box, but that's not right. That's not what the code says. And when we even move, it says, unconforming loss, the determination never mentions it, doesn't cover it, doesn't discuss it. The town supervisor knows that's a mistake, she wrote it. I realize that that's not binding on you, but I also realize that the determination was shared in advance. So it's difficult for me to accept that in the one sense, what the town supervisor says is of no moment and just idle, and in the other sense, What the town attorney says seems to have weight. You are separate from the town attorney, and I ask the board to remember that. The second point I would make, besides the fact that that's plain, obvious error, it doesn't reckon with conformity at all, is we're cherry picking through the sections of the code to see if these people, the Tongs, meet these requirements. And we didn't focus on the one about the 50-foot barn setback. So we've discussed whether they have two acres or can board 10 horses. We've never discussed the fact their barn's not in conformity. And again, the town supervisor acknowledges that. These are facts that make the determination wrong. So we're not discussing particularly, okay, what the Tongs are doing as much as you're construing, in my view, respectfully, whether this determination is correct, whether it can be sustained, whether it's a basis for the town to proceed. And there are at least two manifest errors that I've just pointed out that are not disputed by anyone.

So are you arguing that the barn, the barn can, this can only be in effect if the barn was 50 feet away?

I'm arguing that that's what the code says.

Okay, so if there was a variance given for that, let's just say, right, whether it's required or not, if the variance was given for that, right, then it's okay.

Well, actually, and I don't mean to be a smart guy, but I prefer not to answer hypothetical questions. We're not at the variance level now. We're construing, and I want to stick to this because it's important. We're construing strictly, strictly whether this determination is correct, not what may, and respectfully, sir, I don't mean to be a wise guy, not what may happen in the future or what this board may do. They're a different set of criteria entirely for variances. One of them is whether it disturbs the character of the community and the neighbors. That's one of them. And we'll argue that at the right point. All we're here tonight to argue is whether this determination, which is the product of a lot of effort by a lot of officials in the town, is correct. And I don't smirk at Mr. Sirocco. I understand where he's coming from and I understand how he read the code. Respectfully, we just disagree. I think he missed a couple of sections. He thinks it's okay. Okay. The board will decide that as well. Sections are on the same page. The board can read them and decide. That's all we're here for, in my estimation, not to determine whether they are conforming or nonconforming. The determination doesn't cover it at all.

So the first thing you're right, and your question that you asked, if you read what your request was in the determination or how it was outlined, the request was the first one. Does Section 125-25 permit any level of commercial activity so long as the conditions listed in a subsection A through F are addressed, right? That was the question. That's what he addressed. The conformity issue is in the preamble in three. So you're saying go by what? You're now refining what you're saying and asking. He didn't address it. You're right. The question wasn't framed of, is it a conforming or non-conforming R4 acre lot? That wasn't the question that was asked. The presumption is that the flag lot that's there and is operating as a residential property on 17 acres is conforming with R4 acre district zoning. To the extent that it's a flag lot, it must be legally conforming in the sense that it's allowing residential operations.

Okay, but we're talking about a commercial business.

We're not talking about a commercial business.

We're talking about a business.

Your question is whether he could keep horses. Excuse me. Finish. Your question in response, I'm reading from here, in response to your email regarding the keeping of horses, not a commercial operation, not a residential operation. You go on to ask additional questions in here. He lays out a response to you through A through F, just like you asked him to. You said he overlooked something. He didn't address a specific question that wasn't asked. That's fair. I don't think anyone's disagreeing here. And the supervisor can say, there may have been gaps in his determination. Quite frankly, nobody's perfect here. And I don't think anyone is. But as to the matters he addressed on A through F, I'm going to look at it and say A through F, when he's addressing them and going through, is he talking about it? Are we looking at the right questions? We haven't gotten past the preamble because we've gotten hung up on conforming or non-conforming. Now you want to go to the question. You guys are smirking at the board here when we're taking to a... Nobody's smirking.

We're on camera.

Nobody's smirking. I have a question.

We've heard this for a series of meetings. We examined and discussed this facility and what kind of operation it was. In accordance with our code, we, I believe... came to a conclusion that it's not a commercial operation, but I keep hearing this is a commercial operation, but I've heard enough evidence and testimony and submissions of affidavits and visitations that I like the correction to be made that there is no proof that this is a commercial operation, but yet it keeps coming up.

The proof is that they acknowledge that they're giving lessons for fee, that it's a business. It has a name and it's a business. They're running a business. But that's allowable under there. That's the question. The question is whether the determination is correct. Look, I am getting a sense here that we're, bad pun, beating a dead horse. Perhaps literally very well said, right? Perhaps it's time. Perhaps it's time so that we stop beating this horse. Perhaps it's time to take an informal poll of the board to see which way they're leaning and then we can see where we're going with this.

I don't have the option to take a vote of the board or an informal.

That would be up to right up to the chair. And that's what I request at this point. Perhaps an informal poll to understand this to see where we're going. That's what I would request of the chair at this point.

What would you say? So so the board has a number of options. You could there are two questions before you. One is compliance with the accessory use. So we would do one vote on that and then separately whether to uphold the building inspector's determination separately with respect to the to the legality for zoning purposes of the barn structure. So you could take a straw vote on each of those. You could then direct me to draft a resolution for each of those, which I could do, and then you could approve at the next meeting. You could vote immediately tonight in a formal vote, if you wished, on something as complicated as this you may wish for me to draft a formal resolution. And so take the straw vote path. Or if you, for some reason, require more information, you could adjourn either of these, but it's been, we've gone for quite some time. It didn't seem that was your predilection. So those are your options.

I think so. Yeah, so, and in the letter from from you to the board, it's kind of expressing.

And which also state is a attorney client privilege memorandum, which hasn't been shared with anyone in the public. Okay.

So, before you reveal any details, I just want to know, I don't want to reveal any details, but it felt like the board had some options. In making some requirements, if it chose to do so. And it almost sounds a little bit like special permit light. It's not a true special permit, but it might give a little bit more meat to the applicant's concern that there is maybe a trust issue in terms of the neighbor acting faithfully, even though actions have been taken, like website has been taken down, promises have been made, there's limited lesson. But if we don't add anything, then the applicant might be left with not a good sense that might be a good faith turns into good behavior.

so um again without divulging any attorney client communications what i could say is in terms of substance so i i outline the procedural options for you which i i think was rosemary's question um substantively your board could vote to affirm the book either or both determinations you could vote to deny uh you know affirm the appeal and and reject either or both determinations um but your board could also in directing a resolution issue it vote on an issue of resolution which alters or changes or modifies something the building inspector did um and and i'll add actually one concrete um item which which mr krelstein brought up with respect to the conforming lot issue which as i read the determination he's correct that that isn't mentioned in here as meredith pointed out it may not have been asked of the building inspector to do it so that may be one reason But that is an example where your board, anything that Al didn't address, your board can modify and address. So it is sort of a de novo review here where you can sort of do as you wish.

Are you reading the determination?

Yeah.

Did we have any, is there in there the number of lessons or just that they can do lessons?

Just that they can do lessons. Yeah. Single rider lessons. Yeah. Just what the code is.

Gotcha.

So pretty much what's written in A through S. The problem is I'm not, it's not this board's purview to try to write code. Right? And that's the problem that I have. And that's why I started out saying what I have said about, I don't believe that this is the appropriate forum to really address the concern. That you have, and I'm not saying it to belittle the concern. I genuinely understand. I would be frustrated. Having people coming and going all day, whether or not the code allowed allowed it. All right. I would have the same frustration. All right. I, I hear you. My problem is, is that the board's role is not to write rewrite the code. And so the code is so ambiguous here that that is where my problem lies. And I appreciate your attempt to figure out how the code can be interpreted and the confines of it can work. And my problem is when I go and apply what the ask is, so you're asking on the question of conforming and nonconforming, I have been doing this type of law for over 20 years. I understand how conformity and nonconformity works. as lee points out like when i look at it in the context of this question and issue it's pointing to really to me scale of the size which is pointing to an r2 and r4 having that as your minimum because it's really looking at acreage more than anything else as being the qualifier for the horses which is why the next provision under it requires a certain amount of acreage for the horse itself but i appreciate the concern about conforming non-conforming if i was bringing this up and writing this as a town code provision myself and I was talking about the use of horses and I was thinking about flag lots. I would be asking the town to look at itself and say, when you have a flag lot, what is the right amount of use that you should be seeing going over a roadway that narrow and that whatever. That is not how the code reads when you interpret conforming and the question of non-conforming broadly across the code. And I appreciate the fact that the building inspector did not address the question of non-conforming and conform because probably like myself, when he looks at it, he says it's really pertaining to when it raises the question, as the broad area of acreage. So I can appreciate your point of view of saying, look, the question of conformity or nonconformity, when I deal with it, there are certain things on this 17 acre property that still don't conform with what the current code provides, i.e. my frontage on the roadway is not what that you should have for a scale of our four acre. I'm not dismissive of that. My frustration comes because as I started at the beginning of this hearing, this code does not provide the kind of direction and guidance that I feel comfortable with writing into it or interpreting into it to say when we have 10 plus people coming to the property today, I've moved from an accessory use to a commercial use. The code doesn't define that.

So, this is this is this. There's 2, there's 2 issues at hand, and this is also part of the issue that I.

have an IC. We have a pre-existing non-conforming structure. Everybody can agree on that. It was also likely constructed for horses. At the time the code existed and when it was defined as what is a quote unquote farm use, Or a barn use horses probably weren't included in the definition of farm because many, many people just had horses as a mode of transportation or recreation. They wouldn't have considered it a standalone distinct function at that time of being a farm function. Most of the properties in town had Barnes that had horses in them. And so I struggle there. I understand the definition of farm. I absolutely understand the legal argument that's made there. I understand also where the building inspector is looking at and saying, look, the reason that I'm categorizing this, this is a barn and I'm looking at this provision as the farm. They're all ambiguous. Go on. Yeah, go on.

The record is too clear because I wasn't asking whether the barn was legally non-conforming. My question was, does the code say today's code to keep horses, your barn must be set back 50 feet from the property.

The code says that on the face of it. And I think where we run into an issue is where we have a pre-existing non-conforming structure that was clearly built for horses. Now the question is then use, and we have not been able to get any pre-existing non-conforming line of use here.

so there there is a discrepancy there there's more problems with that because in four acres owning it says any property line so it could be 50 feet from the front yard even though the front yard in four acres is 75 feet so there's these conflicts in the whole my my feeling would be that i don't want to rewrite code i think we all realize there are difficulties and complications in this interpretation

But I think our responsibility is to make our decision based on the current, the current code that's before us and the other issues have to be resolved in another manner. So, I realize all these questions, but we have a request before us to review and discuss the determination based on Pre existing buildings. Whether it's right, whether it's wrong, whether the building is 50 feedback or not, because it's been in existence. I have a, I live in an old barn that was built at the turn of century and it's pre existing nonconforming. Accessory structure, so I kind of understand, you know, where. This facility came from, so we're talking about what changes need to be made and how we can reinterpret it.

but i feel our decision must be made on what the current code is and i thought we have we addressed all this at the first hearing and now again the second hearing i don't know whether the choice because the code says to keep horses i mean and you can you can jump in that a threat must be met and we're saying a threat are not met so we're not actually following the code you're choosing where to follow the code and you're choosing where not to follow the code Sorry, draft pad.

We did not find any evidence when we investigated the question.

The question is, because the code he's saying, because the code, the current code says, the Barnes must be at this location that then the barn being within the setback is not about that. But that's what he's referring.

Yes. But the question was, when was the barn built? I went with the code at the time that it was built. Right? So. Those are 2 different questions, everything else that he's bringing up writing instructions, permit all the other letters. We did not find any evidence that there was any violation of those of those. Of any of these requirements, there is a violation.

It's not a violation. I think the question is whether that the barn is acceptable in its location because it's a pre existing non conforming and what I would say here respectfully is again, if we look at this page, you'll see it wasn't conforming then.

It says a garage for more than five vehicles shall be at least 50 feet from every lot line. And it says further, the foregoing provision shall apply to private stables. One horse being considered the equivalent of one motor vehicle. There are more than five horses in that barn. As the code was written then...

If I could please just briefly respond to a few of the comments here. I think part of the problem again is that we don't have the full codes from the time that this barn was built. We've only received bits and pieces of them that the applicant finds favorable to them. The code provision that the applicant is relying heavily on refers to this five car, five horse. That's not what we have here. This is a three stable barn that has three horses in the barn. So that code provision with those limitations simply doesn't apply. There was a 92 page submission from the applicant just a few short days ago. What I would ask is that If the board does not render a decision tonight, that'll leave the public hearing open so that we have an opportunity to read and digest those provisions and respond to them in a meaningful way. We submitted a submission today that responded to just 1 piece of that. But we'd like some additional time and. I think, again, you know, as far as these code provisions are concerned, if the board is reviewing it de novo and it finds that the building inspector perhaps didn't address certain things, the board's free to address those. That's my understanding of the law. And as far as this 50-foot setback requirement goes, you know, there's a separate section of the code that deals with pre-existing nonconforming requirements. And you have to read the code I would submit as a whole and in total, and not just look at this section, but look at in the context again, how many historic. Horse farms are there in Bedford? Are you start ripping down all the Barnes? I don't think that's the intent. So, thank you.

Thank you because he's been more than patient, but I didn't finish my comment. Okay. The Board is assuming, it seems to me, that this is pre-existing nonconforming. The law actually says that it's going to be Mr. Patensky's burden to prove that it's preexisting nonconforming. We're not cherry picking from the code. We're reading from the exact same page that Mr. Sirocco relied upon. There are more than four or five horses on the property, and hence that storage facility for those horses, even in 1961, had to be more than 50 feet away. But honestly, I very much appreciate your patience, Mr. Patensky's patience, Mr. Sirocco's patience. We're beating this to death if we could get a sense if the board is willing and if the chair is willing, if we could get a sense of which way the board is leaning. I submit maybe that might be appropriate. I'm not asking for a binding vote. Of course, unless that's your prerogative. But I, I feel like we're starting to joust a little bit and I, I don't see any further point to it. I don't know if you agree or not, but maybe it's time to think about where we are.

What's the, you want to take a straw poll?

Sure.

On where we are in this? I don't know where you're getting it from. I was out there, I guess, a week or two, a week and a half ago, and there were three horses, a pony, and two goats. Okay. Okay. Yep. Just as clarification.

Do we...

I mean, and let's not, I mean, we can put aside conditions for the moment unless you want to state state some conditions.

I mean, and Mr chair, I heard you use the word conditions. You are sitting in your capacity. This isn't like a special permit where you're putting conditions. So you're sitting in your capacity today, or even a variance. So, you know, it's kind of on a variance conditions. You're sitting in your capacity on both of these appeals in your appellate capacity. So, really what you're doing is either you're affirming the determinations, you're denying them, or you can modify them, but you're not placing conditions on ease.

Okay, gotcha. That's something that could come up later.

I mean, I... I would suggest that the, we look to amend the building departments. Determination to address the gap so that it's clearly defined for the applicant here. I think the appellant has raised some questions and some. Concerns that he doesn't feel were addressed by the building inspector. I think it's fair that those conditions or issues be identified and responded to. Yeah. so you know that i would look to walk through that uh can we amend the uh modified yeah so you can affirm deny or modify um so so that it's wholly responsive to the question of really the conformance with 125 3 not just limited to a throughout but the totality of it i think there's also the question as to um when it comes to the structure how it conforms and the determination around conformity of the structure and i think the other thing that is missing in the conversation is the actual use of that structure because it's the keeping of the horses it's going to go to then whether or not the structure that's there is going to be permitted to be used for the horses if we leave that open then it remains that really one of the questions at hand and it impedes both the appellant as well as the um the

Uh, actual property owner here, do you mean keeping any horses whatsoever or the horses that are there?

So it's the keeping of horses in the barn. Previous nonconforming barn, because while fundamentally, that wasn't the question that was answered in the building inspectors determination. And I think the question is to the keeping of horses. on the property belies the use of the barn itself for that purpose also and leaving that question open-ended i don't think fairly addresses the full gambit of the issue that's being really presented um to us so i think the building inspector's determination needs to be amended in some way to address those open issues so that they're not lingering To the extent that we can without changing code to the extent that we can, there's still going to be issues. This is a matter of interpretation and I'm going to go back to my true directive to the to the appellant here is it is a code issue where the code needs to be better defined and refined. The way to do that is to seek to amend it via the town board. And that is that is a better way to deal with this particular, but that would not nullify a decision here.

That would be in the in the future.

That would be in the future. I can't direct the town board to do to take a particular action. I can make a recommendation to the town board that they take this up as 1 of the issues that they discuss. We have done that on other topics where there has been a lack of clarity. Because I think the applicant, the appellant here has raised, I think, genuine and fair questions and I don't think the code clearly articulates or defines a line and given the growing recreational use of properties throughout the town, but also the desire to maintain a horse community and find a balance between neighbors. I think it's probably about time that that be looked into in more depth and clearly defined and it should have the input of the communities that are impacted, which are largely represented by the largest organization in town and but also the residents and neighbors that are impacted by these farms and their use and everything else. I think that's a fair conversation.

So I have a question. Have we established that this is not a commercial operation in all of our previous discussions and debates as far as the what's been presented?

Um, we have an affidavit from the, um, from the landowner indicating that they are essentially. Using the property, their, their application horses is conformance with what the code. Has they removed advertising previously posted advertising that was in violation of code that brought that aspect into compliance so far as we're aware that their operations are consistent with what the code allows. It may be more broad than. What some wouldn't we're not looking for further proof of an affidavit has to be staff has to suffice. That's the homeowners represent. If they're volatile of that. Of those those covenant and what they've represented, then that can lead to violations again by the building inspector in the town. Okay, so we don't have to reexamine that.

Okay. I am, I would ask a question. What's the difference between a commercial operation and a business? There's no dispute. There's a business here. Is it business allowed in a residential area?

There were other other items in the that aspects of the commercial operation that were very different than the backyard more small, right? Bring in much more payments and. You know, I mean, we read and they were distinctive of a commercial and I think that's fair.

My point here is that as Mr Salem pointed out 1 of the issues with the determination is it doesn't restrict the scope or intensity of the business. If we agree that there is a business operating there, the determination is entirely open-ended as to the scope and intensity. But I don't want to distract from maybe just getting a sense of where the board is.

So let me jump in on two things. So one, there has been talk about commercial and business. So let me just weigh in on that. It's a residential zone. That doesn't mean that you can't You can't do commercial activity in a residential zone. There are lots of places in the code where that's allowed, like Council brought up a home occupation. You may be in a residential zone, but the code provides a way for you to operate commercially in the residential zone. The keeping of animals section generally, there are... places in the keeping of animals section where that same trend occurs. For example, in the section dealing with fowl, there's indication that you can sell eggs. There's indications here that there's a contemplation that if you're keeping animals, there's some profit to be derived from keeping the animals, at least for some of these. There are no items in the horses section that limit the number of lessons you can do. It just says writing instruction is permitted, provided that no paid advertising is used to announce such use. So it doesn't say you can't charge for those lessons. And there's a provision in land use law that you interpret the code in a way differential to the property owner. So in other words, unless zoning takes away a right, you assume that you have it. So if it says writing instructions permitted, unless it says except for profit, you would infer that you can. And even the next sentence, which says provided no paid advertising, That is an indication by the legislators that they're trying to confine how intense that use could be by saying, well, we imagine you may want to give instruction, but we don't want it to be too big. So don't pay no paid advertising, but you can. It says paid advertising. It says no paid advertising.

And that's one discussion that we had at the original meeting that these were not paid ads. I believe that's reflective of our agricultural background because naturally farmers who have chickens are going to be selling it. You know, utilize them for some, perhaps profit, maybe they're holding pay somewhere. I don't know, but but I, I find that rather consistent, but there's really distinction between that. Which it seems that proper explanation to a commercial works, but we all know that there are farms in Bedford or horse farms. That have huge commercial operations, so I see them as very 2 distinct things, right?

The way that the again, like Meredith's been saying, it's not necessarily the most artfully drafted section, but the limiters that are placed in here are in the number of courses, which is limited by the special permit provision as well as the size of the lot. Um, and. You know, it says the boarding of 10 more horses requires a special permit and no paid advertising and it says no commercial livery stables, which we talked about at the last meeting. You don't know no rentals by the hour. So there are ways that they're trying to confine how commercial the operation becomes. But the indication is that. you know there's no indication here that you can't charge you know even a dollar for for a writing lesson or a ride um if i can make one recommendation because council also asked um that the public hearing be kept open and further submissions um and since i hear the board is is sort of struggling with it um one option also you could if you didn't want to take a straw vote now, you could adjourn with a date, you know, close the public hearing with, say, 10 days for further submission so that the public hearing is closed. There won't be any further discussion by the public at the next meeting. But then we could utilize the next meeting to sort of walk through what a determination might look like based on those submissions. And we can go line by line. And then you could sort of direct me what what how you'd like the resolution to look and so we rather than having a another show of it with a public hearing, we could just sort of focus on what what kind of a determination you want.

So would that also be a public hearing? No, that would be no, no, that would be acceptable.

Can you come up to the mic, please?

Having been through this, been through this on different different angles. I just have a question. Is Megan limited in any respect from seeking ag status? And then if she seeks ag status, is she limited from building she can build what? 17 stalls, 18 stalls on that property. She can have an indoor. and then really the town at that point can't do anything, right? So what would be the limitations?

Ag status, as I understand it, asks that you go through the town zoning laws first. If something, if there becomes a conflict between the town law and what the person wants to do, then they can appeal to the New York State Ag uh for to get it overridden uh but they they they don't just just because you're in the ag district you can't just do what you want on your property you have to still go through the town's zoning codes and ag does view horses horse farming as farm status it's ag status there's still certain criteria that you have to

um i think it's me in satisfying order to qualify under as an agricultural you know um property or like and you have to show a certain amount of income and you have to document that and has to be proven and as as peter points out it's not an exemption of zoning's intendance to have a co kind of coexistence with it to make it work so yes she could if she were doing wanted to do a more significant operation and comply with what the minimum requirements for an act she could certainly apply for ag districts you know conformance and then seek an exemption if she needed to um but i think that the the question at hand is currently the interpretation of what the provisions around the keeping of horses where that line is is to to what is really a commercial use or you know that supersedes that of an accessory use The code is not clear on that and again, I think that's we see that repeatedly come up. In town, when we have force force issues, not just this concern specifically about the code, but on actual properties when they come in, whether it's staples that they're looking at, or they're looking at manure issues. Or they're looking at the number of writing lessons being in how much traffic we have coming and going from the sites. These are all kind of coexistence questions when you have farms in a community, but there are substantial benefits.

If you can meet the requirements to having being in the act district, including tax exemption, et cetera, but yet, I believe it's 10,000 dollars, maybe a year in terms of income.

But so we're talking about a 3 stall structure right now. Yeah. that could easily become a much bigger farm. Exactly. 17 acres.

Yeah.

So what she has right now is complies, at least from her operations, complies with town code.

That's what the question of interpretation is. Exactly.

And so the biggest issue is how it's close to the property line. But Which is a big argument, I understand. But she could, in theory, knock down the barn and put up a much bigger barn if she has ag status.

So I guess it's kind of like the... She could always knock down the barn and put up a barn that's conformance with setback and why it could be a bigger barn. A much bigger barn. The 17-acre property lets you do a lot more than that.

And a very large operation. the question at hand. I know what the question is. My point is more on a relative thing. We're talking about just as a big picture, we're talking about a three-stall barn, which could, in theory, take it out. It could be really big. And she could have an indoor, which would be really big. And that's a completely different operation. However, she can still be compliant with the standards of Bedford.

Correct.

So, I'm just throwing that out because it does, it's just more comparative and that's all I'm saying.

I understand.

Well, thank you for raising it because it is a factor.

I mean, the access really.

I'm going to go back to the question isn't whether the applicant can can. Have horses under the code at all. The applicant can of course, under the code on this property. What's been asked is an interpretation of how the property is impacted by 125 25, and then how you interpret that as per the property and the operations and the building inspectors determination on that. And what's been highlighted is that there are gaps in the building inspectors determination that should be closed, which we have the ability to close and ask for a determination on in itself again. And I'm going to reiterate those deal with the question of conformity nonconformity of a lot and how we interpret that broadly. or interpreted i should say rather the question that is not um not asked but really does need to be answered in part is the question of use of the barn that's what the implied question is is whether the existing structure can be used for horses despite being within a setback if there's a way that code allows for that and then the balance of the determination of whether what the building inspector made whether that that is appropriate and we agree with it whether we overturn it or modify it So, my suggestion is that we modify, I think we use suggestion of, you know, we could close the public hearing. I, I know both sides are very invested in this, and it would be easier for the board to close the public hearing and limit responses to a certain timeframe. I'm apt though, to let the, let the hearing stay open. Let the applicant continue to ask the parties to really do their best to the extent you want to respond to respond. No, later than 10 days before the next public hearing so that then everybody has a chance to review all the materials. Then, if you have any open comments at the public hearing, you can then comment and say, redress or whatever it is, because we do want to get to a point of closure to the extent that there are still facts or questions that. At issue, it makes it hard to do that. I'm not trying to carry on just to carry on. But I also know as a lawyer, I like to get my final say in and I don't like when someone submits documents and I don't get a chance to respond to Meredith.

Does that does that timeline include our conference with our attorney?

We will be meeting with him in advance. There are limited facts that need to be addressed. There are certain questions that both parties are hard with those questions and then then open the hearing. So there will be 2 things that will be at executive meeting, probably with the board review what the potential resolution is. There will be open questions though. A determination will not be made in advance of that. We will discuss what options are and what we foresee is the questions and issues. Yeah, and both sides will be submitting whatever they want to further supplement the record to address the questions. We've tried to narrow that as to what we think the issues are. Um. I think that's my point on the 1st, sir.

Thank you. Mr. chairman just briefly on the issue of the public hearing. We would have no objection to the board, closing the public hearing, but allowing it to remain open for written submissions only for a period of 10 days. I think these issues have been heavily brief. The code is what it is and we're prepared to buy by whatever decision the board makes. Thank you.

Thank you question. We're talking about both the deals, right?

Yes, yeah, yeah, it's going to be, I haven't commented on the 2nd, 1 yet and closing the public hearing tonight, but leaving it open for written comments. All that does is, it means that at the next meeting, there won't be speakers. So we would still everyone would still get their last word. So, Mr. potentially, we get a final word and Mr. could make a final submission as well. But then at the next meeting, it would be strictly for the purpose of discussing the resolution or voting. It would be closed today, but the board could still speak amongst themselves and speak with me and vote, do a straw vote, direct me to draft a determination.

So the next meeting with the individuals present would not be next month. It would have to be after we have our discussion.

It could be next month. It could be another special meeting. It could be whatever you wish.

All right. I'm good. I'm good. I'm good. I'm good. I'm good. I'm good. I'm good.

I'm good. I'm good. I'm good. I'm good. I'm good.

Yeah, but we can actually, I just want to ask, do they need to do a notice for a special meeting?

Yeah.

We still need to notice that. Yes.

Was it 10 days?

I have to notice. Yeah, it has to be mailed to neighbors and put the paper 10 days before.

Are you around? Most likely our next meeting is the 1st.

I just want to point out that there's 2 people on zoom and I just want to ask if either 1 of those wanted to speak. raise your hand i just don't want i don't want to not everyone i don't want to ignore anybody 23rd i'm sorry yeah exactly i don't see any hands can i can i see that yeah well let's see i'm going to be able to get it into the paper so we're looking at the 23rd

Uh, September, September. Do you guys want it out further? I was trying to just get us wrapped up, but if it's not going to work for Meredith, this would have happened for me.

No, no.

Can we do it? The 24th? Are you away that week?

I can't get it into the paper in time pushes to like, I can't get it.

I need another week to get it into the news in the 30s.

Right? No, we will meet in person.

A person with him. Yeah. And when, when will that meeting?

We want with him. Yes, we're fine. Probably do that by zoom with him because we're going to do it as an executive session.

Yeah, I can't drive from the analytics.

So there's 2 things as the meeting with your special, especially. another week before it would come. She needs another week out to get in, so she can't get it in paper to cover the 23rd. She needs it to come out to at least the 30th.

But that meeting doesn't have to be advertised if it's a consultation, does it? No, the consultation doesn't have to be advertised.

I have a question for the board. Do you have a schedule that you might help? I'm looking at my schedule. Next meeting is October 1st. On October 1st, right now we have six scheduled. Is there a way that we could do a special meeting before or after on the same day?

I'm going to vote. No, I'm going to have no time to do a meeting before and where meetings have been going lately. I'm not guaranteeing we will have patients. All right.

I'm just pointing out there was 6 applications.

Well, we, we had this meeting as a gesture of trying to resolve this problem and tomorrow night we have probably. 10 or 11 people, and we'll be here until 1030. and so it's very, you know, we thought this would be a good opportunity for. Giving them the time they need.

So, this is really my best week, but okay.

Well, at the end that we can, we can, we can take a session on that.

What day are you talking about? Special meeting special, I guess. Can we put out 2 dates? And then then I'll go back and check. I have to go back and check. I could do the 7th.

Of October 7th meeting the 23rd.

Humphrey, the 23rd executive just in October 7th and October 7th, or the public. Yeah, the closed closed public hearing.

I'm afraid that October 7th, October 7th papers 10 days before October 7. no, October 1st. October 7 will be the next time we have other point on this. Can you alert? Can you participate by Zoom? I can participate by Zoom.

So if we're here, then you can participate by Zoom. Does any, okay, to the interested parties here. We're trying to pick your date for the 7th. Does anyone have an objection to rosemary participating by zoom that particular day? I'd rather not call in another board member who is okay. All right. Okay. Great. Rosemary is going to be participate. The rest of us will be here in person by zoom so that we can move this forward without bringing in an alternate to deal with it. Yeah.

Okay, September 25th. Yes.

And what time? Do we want to start that?

Let me tell you what my child's schedule is. The earlier, the better, please.

My work schedule.

That's the papers.

I know. Can't they get it before we have our exec session?

Well, maybe we just look at changing our exec.

That's fine. We could also do it the same night of the 7th, or we could do it the day before. Then we could do it by Zoom as well. Yeah.

Okay. All right on this, so the 25th, you'll get us your final papers. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. This is going to be 630. Thank you.

Can we make it 645645?

So we get Meredith here? 645?

Yeah.

And we would have our additional at least 1 additional member, not a standby at that session.

No, you're going to be by zoom and ask where we're required to be involved.

How would they want to be when they weren't involved in this? Oh, okay.

So we wouldn't have Howard hasn't been fully that. Okay. Yeah. Okay. No, good. Good.

So we just, I guess, need a vote to close the public. Close the public hearing, leave it open until September 25.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, just wait a second. Just wait. Because on the on the on the first one, we know that I've made my suggestion and I think the board is okay.

Yes.

On the second one, the building permits to to legalize Um, I don't have, I don't have any recommendations on that at this time. Anyone have any thoughts on the 2nd, 1, I'm just trying to hear it. So the 2nd application, right? That was pending tonight deals with appealing the town of bed for building sections of a building permit to legalize a barn circa 1976 for zoning purposes at room hollow farm. That's that's the structure question.

And that's the 1 page. I don't have any legalize. I'm, I'm looking at pre, existing non.

You're dealing with this. That was what the building inspector issues. So, they're, they're appealing that determination that building permit. Okay. I don't I don't have any comments. Questions or or issue beyond with the building inspection that is normally what they would issue as a. Al, is there any other writing or bit that you would normally have on a building permit? I understand on the determination how to address or how to comment or how to Okay, tweak it what I would say to the board, you know, and I'm looking for some input from the. On the open issues from the parties at play here, but on the question of the building permit, you issued a permit. Is there any additional language? So far as I know, you wouldn't normally have any additional language or qualifiers on the permit or a language associated with it.

No, you don't wish to add any addendum or anything to the what you've already written period. Right?

No, it was my determination with the code at the time.

So, yes, I would say since it's since this is about the building. Yeah. To go with the building inspector, but we deal with the use.

In its termination, I know. Well, that's why I'm just I just paused us on talking about what we want to do. The parties kind of are aware. I will mull it over whether I. I think there's anything further here as far as.

You know, we can tie this to that.

No, no, there are 2 different 2 different things. So, at this point, I don't have when I'm not looking for any further input. I don't have any questions on it, but parties can feel free to add if they think any other documentation is needed elements, but I don't have anything in particular our conversations about in preparation for these upcoming meetings.

How is the best way to handle it? Are we doing in person zoom calls? Are we doing texts or emails? I would like to be reassured that our conversations were totally above board or within whatever range you are suggesting.

So, in order to comply with the open meetings law, if the 4 of you were to meet or meet with me, Um, it needs to either be an executive session, like Meredith indicated. Okay. Um, in which case you need to state the reason for the executive session, or it needs to be a duly notice public hearing, which is what we're doing on October 7th. If you want to reach out to me individually, so by email or phone, you can do that. That's not a meeting. So you can call or email me individually.

That would be helpful. Thank you.

So you want to, um, I'm scheduling executive sessions.

Okay. Okay. So, do you want to close the public hearing after the 25th?

But they have to, they can submit their writings so we keep the public hearing up until the 25th.

So, is that our motion tonight to keep them until the public hearing up until the 25th?

The public hearing to close subject to submission of written comments, which can be done until the 25th. Exactly. Thank you.

Second, I'll second now. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Yes. Right.

So we do the same vote a second time just for the record. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Thank you all for coming.

Did we set a date for the executive session?

Um, we didn't get the 7th.

I think we're thinking about the 7th is the 7th is the meeting.

Yeah, I can't do before. Yeah, so at 645, we would go into executive session. I think that's going to be enough time.

Okay.

Yeah, we can do the 23rd then if you want to do Zoom. All good.

Yeah, the 23rd, I would like to allow a little time before the actual meeting rather than the 23rd.

Did I hear that? Right?

Let's do the 23rd.

And then what time we're going to be 2 is going to be the 23rd, the executive session and then October 7 follow up and the, and you need to set a basis for the executive session, which can be advice of counsel counsel. Exactly.

Okay. And that would be what time on the 23rd.

I can do any time of the 23rd. Evening, daytime?

This is acceptable to notice on the website rather than the newspaper.

Okay. The special meeting?

The executive session.

The executive session does not need to be in the newspaper.

Executive session on the 23rd will be at 645. Perfect.

64645, Mr. check.

It has to be, I mean, if some people want to personally attend, but I didn't hear that anybody wants to do that.

Mr. chair, it's 645. we said on the 23rd 23rd in person or.

It's going to be a combination on the 23rd. Yeah, I can be here too. And whoever else otherwise it would be by. But we should do it in here if it's possible. Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, emotionally and close the meeting.

All those in favor.