SENNETT - A packed Sennett Town Hall, despite the inclement weather, learned a hard lesson about zoning disputes - the devil is in the details, not only regarding the letter of the law but also its interpretation.

The town of Sennett Zoning Board of Appeals continued a public hearing on Tuesday to consider the appeal of RyBach & Rig Properties LLC challenging various interpretations of the town's zoning ordinance and local laws. But there was little opportunity for public comment as the attorneys weren't even close to concluding their presentations.

The hearing actually began on Dec. 13, when Scott Chatfield, representing Pioneer Restaurant building owner RyBach and Rig, maintained that his clients had complied with zoning regulations. He presented their case over four hours but did not finish.

He was to complete the presentation at the next meeting.

John R. Langey, of Costello, Cooney, and Fearon, represented the town, while Donald Cheney and Thomas Blair represented code enforcement officer Paul Weiman.

The next meeting, on Jan. 24, was supposed to be a public hearing, but was postponed to Tuesday in order to allow a more thorough review of the minutes and tapes. At that time, ZBA chairman James Lent, indicated that the board had some 60 days to arrive at a decision.

But Tuesday, Lent said there would be no decision. Blair said the town had 62 days from the hearing's conclusion to decide. Meanwhile, Weiman's lawyers would probably need another hearing to finish their arguments.

Chatfield spent much of the time examining what the zoning laws did not say, sometimes moving into the area of semantics, for example, defining the word “restaurant.” He repeatedly described the Sennett's zoning laws as “unusually liberal.”

“Zoning goes agains the common law right of the landowner to use his property in favor of benefiting the whole,” Chatfield said. “Zoning board language must be strictly construed in favor of the landowner. If you don't specifically prohibit, it is permitted. Ambiguities must be resolved in favor of the owner. ”I consider this a relatively straightforward, simple issue. “It all hinges on one overarching question - whether or not a non-conforming restaurant can undergo changes in operation without constituting a change in use.”

The issue of whether the new owners would use the property for a purpose other than a restaurant came up when they added outdoor seating, a drive-up window, and an area on the second floor for video games in a space for children's parties.

They appealed three decisions made by Weiman: the requirement to have a site plan, approval by the ZBA for outdoor seating and a drive-up window as non-conforming use, and whether the restaurant had lost its non-conforming use status. Chatfied maintained these decisions were not supported by the town's ordinances.

Chatfield said his clients, John Ryan, Gregory Rigby, and Mark Bachman, were allowed to expand their property up to 50 percent for a non-conforming use, which would include the outdoor seating as long as they didn't exceed that percent. Chatfield admonished Weiman for “reading into” the ordinance. He read various correspondence previously exchanged between Weiman and his clients, trying to pin down why he made some of the decisions that they were appealing.

“What was the reason you had for thinking that the concept of outdoor tables and walk up serving windows were a change of use?” he asked Weiman.

“I had known in the past that the tables and window weren't available,” Weiman said. “It was a service that wasn't provided before.”

“It is Mr. Weiman's interpretation that is the issue,” Chatfield said. “The reasons for his opinion are the very crux of the argument.”

Letters written between Weiman and RyBach & Rig were examined in detail, with Chatfield pressing Weiman to justify his conclusions by returning to the zoning ordinances.

To retain rights to a non-conforming use, they were required not to stop operating as a restaurant within a year after acquiring the property. During the building's renovation, problems with the foundation delayed construction, so owners opened the business for a day in order to keep its restaurant function. They began to sell hot dogs, but were ordered by Weiman to close after a couple of hours. The health department did an inspection and issued no violations.

Chatfield insisted that a March 15 site plan that his clients submitted to the town board to get a variance from the town-declared building moratorium was unnecessary

Chatfield's clients acquired the landmark restaurant for $235,000 on Nov. 1, 2006, and invested an additonal $500,000 to renovate it. The original restaurant dates back to 1928.

Staff writer Kathleen Barran can be reached 253-5311 ext. 238 or kathleen.barran@lee.net