The stage is set for a court decision that could have a lasting impact on tourist accomodations operating in the village that cater to the week-long stays for summer season Dreams Park visitors.

Aida Ostapeck operates a 6-unit apartment house at 2 Pine Boulevard and is asking the Otsego County Supreme Court to rule that she, too, should be covered by what is known as the "Soule decision" and allowed to continue to operate her short-term rental business.

The Article 78 proceeding filed by Ostapeck against the village, its zoning enforcement officer Al Keck and the zoning board of appeals is considered to be a test case that could open the door for other, similar tourist accomodations to continue operating out of compliance with the village zoning law.

The impact of tourist accomodations on the village is currently being reviewed during a 90-day moratorium enacted by the board of trustees. In a public hearing last week, it was tourist accomodations which serve Dreams Park visitors rather than the more traditional B&Bs that were more often the subject of residents' ire as they talked about the changes being brought about in residential neighborhoods.

Village attorney John Lambert agreed that Ostabpeck's action would establish case law in regard to tourist accomodations and short-term rentals.

Lambert declined to talk specifically about the case until he has formulated his response which is due seven days before the two sides go to court early in January.

He did say that everything has diffferent facts and circumstances and the extent to which a decision in the Ostapeck case could be applied to other tourist accomodations remains to be seen.

In June, Ostapeck was issued a notice of zoning law violation by Keck charging that she operated a tourist accomodation at her apartment house on Pine Boulevard.

A month later, in accordance with the law, she filed an application for an interpretation of the zoning law by the zoning board of appeals.

In August, Ostapeck told the ZBA the property had been rented out consistently since 1999 by the week to tourists. The use, she contended, was the same as David Soule's at 47 Chestnut Street when he was charged with violations of the zoning law.

Soule's case lead to an Appellate Division decision which upheld his use of the property. The village subsequently changed the zoning law, but Ostapeck believes her use is a pre-existing, non-conforming entity and should be allowed to continue in a manner consistent with the Soule property.

The ZBA held a public hearing on Ostapeck's request for an interpretation in September, but held off making a decision until November when they voted to uphold the zoning enforcement officer's decision.

Ostapeck is represented by Fly Creek attorney Lester Sittler who said Monday the zoning law allows for the "grandfathering" of pre-existing, non-conforming entities and that the vilage should not treat tourist accomodations differently than any other business that was operating before provisoins of the zoning law were enacted.

"The ZBA felt differently and now we have to have the court decide," he said.

Sittler said there are three categories of tourist accomodations working to provide short-term rentals in the village. There is Soule and the other property owners who sued and won earlier and continue to operate. Another group are those ostensibly like Ostapeck who claim they were doing the same thing at the time Soule was and should be allowed to continue. The third group are those who have come on the scene after the village changed the zoing law in regard to the Soule decision and don't have that agrument.

ZBA chairwoman Susan Snell could not be reached for comment.

The two sides will meet in court on January 10.