Once again, the meaning of the village's zoning law is going to boil down to one word.

In the past, it was the infamous missing word, which cost the village a court case and left open the door for some weekly rental operations that are still in business today despite being out of compliance with the zoning law.

This time, the meaning of the term "owner occupied" is being called into question by attorney Martin Tillapaugh, who represents bed and breakfast owner Doug Walker.

The term is used in the zoning law in reference to tourist accommodations and the condition that the owner must "occupy" the residence as a condition of the required special permit.

However, "owner occupied" is not specifically defined in the village's zoning law.

Walker was cited last fall for a violation of the zoning law by the village's enforcement officer Al Keck because it was found he had spent some nights at his camp on Otsego Lake when there were guests staying at his bed and breakfast on Chestnut Street. Walker's sister and her husband, who also reside at the bed and breakfast, were on site while guests were present.

In the village court, Tillapaugh contended that Walker did "occupy" the bed and breakfast and therefore met the conditions of his special permit and was not in violation of the law.

Village attorney John Lambert did not agree. The village's stance is that "owner occupied" requires the owner to be on site overnight when there are guests. It is an issue of safety and maintaining the residential character of the village, he said.

Tillapaugh filed a motion to dismiss the case, but village justice Enid Hinkes adjourned the case to allow an interpretation of the zoning law.

The two attorneys were at the zoning board of appeals meeting Tuesday afternoon to request that interpretation of the law to settle the question of what "owner occupied" means.

The village court is not empowered to make the interpretation, but instead, it falls to the zoning board of appeals to decide exactly what village officials intended when they wrote the law.

"We'd like to have a hearing by the board in an attempt to make a ruling," Tillapaugh said.

The dilemma, he said, is whether Walker, or any other bed and breakfast owner, has to occupy the premises "24/7" when someone is staying there.

There was some issue about which side should file for the interpretation because neither wanted to be seen by the court as being unsure about the rightness of their client's argument.

"I know what occupy means so I don't need to ask," Tillapaugh said. "It sounds silly, but we're dealing with such a serious question for Mr. Walker, I wanted to be correct in my approach."

The definition is needed, he said, because the court has nothing to give it any guidance in the context of the zoning law.

Lambert told the board that the village may take a more common sense approach to the meaning of "owner occupied."

"Martin will take a more technical approach," he said.

"I'm espousing a wider definition than Al or the village may be comfortable with," Tillapaugh said.

The board's definition has the potential to have far-reaching impacts.

"It is a bigger issue than 2 Chestnut Street," Lambert told the zoning board.

The two attorneys agreed that the definition they are seeking from the board is not specific to the violations with which Walker was charged, but should be applied generally to all holders of special permits to operate tourist accommodations in the village.

If the board finds that "owner occupied" does not require owners of tourist accommodations to be present overnight when there are guests, it will significantly change what has often been described by village officials as one of the most important conditions of a special permit. That condition is much of what separates tourist accommodations from hotels and motels.

The zoning board of appeals will conduct a public hearing in regard to the interpretation of "owner occupied" when it meets again on Tuesday, June 7, at 5 p.m. in the village municipal building.