Shandaken ZBA Weighs Event Hosting Use

By Wildert Marte

SHANDAKEN — The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and a quick reality check minutes from the prior session weren’t in the folder, so the board skipped approval and took roll. Present were Chair Mark Loy, members Christian Lynch and Henry Williams. One big item sat on the agenda, an “appeal for interpretation” tied to the Leeway property on Route 28.

Right away, the board and staff clarified what was actually before them. Zoning Enforcement Officer Grace explained that the Planning Board had already approved Leeway’s site plan with conditions at its meeting the week prior. Separate from that approval, a neighboring property owner filed a third-party appeal of Grace's earlier determination that event use is an accessory use to a hotel/motel/lodge in town code. In other words, the ZBA wasn’t reviewing the site plan or the tent layout they were being asked to interpret the code: is hosting events an allowable accessory to a pre-existing nonconforming lodge/motel?

Board members pressed on the code sections cited in the appeal 116-10 and 116-58(A)(1) and (3) (limits on enlarging/extending or changing pre-existing nonconforming uses). Grace said her determination leaned on how such uses have historically been treated in town events run by hotels, motels, and lodge developments have been considered accessory, not a new principal use or an expansion. She noted she had trouble calling something both an “accessory” and an “expansion” at the same time adding rooms would clearly be an expansion, she said, while an occasional, lodge-run event is different. She also produced copies of prior operating permits for tents at other local venues, and said she could find no record of past enforcement actions that treated event use as a violation. Board members asked for specifics where in code is “event use” written? It isn’t, Grace acknowledged the town’s accessory-use definition is broader and covers uses “not otherwise specified,” provided they’re incidental and on the same lot. The size or construction of the tent itself, she added, is a planning and building-code matter, not a ZBA interpretation question.

Still, members flagged a separate definition sheet someone had pulled from the town website that listed “tents” as structures Grace said that page lives in a mass-gathering chapter, not the zoning chapter, and isn’t what she enforces for land use. Next, neighbor Jeanie Maloney who said her porch sits about 25 feet from Leeway’s main building read a detailed statement supporting the appeal. She argued a 40×60 wedding tent with amplified music, catering, traffic, and up to 75 guests would intensify a quiet nine-room motel use beyond what code 116-58 allows. She cited the code’s language against enlarging/strengthening nonconforming uses, warned of noise, lighting, traffic, and flood-risk in the floodway, and questioned whether “accessory” could be customary, incidental, and subordinate when events might dominate summer weekends. She also referenced past floods (including Irene) and said the site’s constraints made relocating a tent out of the flood area difficult. Later, another resident urged the board to weigh community character and the town’s comprehensive-plan goals.

An attorney for the applicant (Perpetual Space LLC) spoke briefly, submitted a memo for the record, and asked that the ZBA’s counsel attend the next session. He argued the event tent is a temporary, seasonal, subordinate use run by lodge staff that no land disturbance or fill is proposed, that other local lodges have hosted events with permits and that case law recognizes accessory uses to nonconforming uses. He also pointed to Planning Board conditions, noise monitors and a 13-events-per-year cap and said the floodplain administrator determined no flood permit was needed because the tent isn’t permanent development.

Board members circled back to nuts-and-bolts how would the town enforce the noise code after 7 p.m.? Could the sheriff or county assist? What exactly does “50% expansion” mean in 116-58(A)(1) if it were ever relevant? They also noted that regardless of anyone’s impatience, the ZBA is legally required to hold a public hearing before deciding an interpretation.

They then voted to schedule a public hearing on the appeal (interpretation of codes 116-10 and 116-58(A)(1), (3)) for Wednesday, November 19, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. Notices will go to adjacent owners, and materials (including Grace’s responses and the attorney’s memo) will be added to the online record. Members also indicated they may conduct site visits with permission from neighbors. With that, the chair adjourned.