The zoning board of appeals made two interpretations of the zoning law during its meeting Tuesday afternoon.

One of the interpretations was in regard to the meaning of "principal use" in the village's zoning law.

A request for the interpretation came from Randel Scharf who expressed concerns about the process involved in the planning board's approval of a subdivision of property at 29 Lake St., next to his home. The land was subdivided with the intent to sell it for a new rental home.

Scharf questioned if a site plan review was required as part of the subdivision process.

ZBA chairman Susan Snell said the interpretation may be somewhat moot because the planning board had revisited the subdivision and went back through the process. The subdivision has since been approved a second time.

"It's an old issue, but we still have a job to do," she said.

Snell researched the question and prepared an interpretation which was discussed by the board. It was her contention that an application to subdivide did not require a site plan review because there had been no change in the principal use of the property.

"Vacant property is vacant property. It doesn't have a use," she said. "There is more than one potential use. Until we have a specific proposal it can't go through the site plan review process. There is no way to evaluate specifics because there are no specifics."

Board member Rick Jagels argued that he didn't want to take anything away from the village's ability to review a subdivision.

Snell said a subdivision would have to meet the requirements of the subdivision law and a review would also come following a subdivision when a particular use is proposed for the subdivided property.

"I'm comforted by the fact there is another process that will give scrutiny to development," she said.

The board approved the interpretation unanimously.

A second opinion was rendered in an interpretation of the zoning law in regard to the meaning of "residential lot."

The request came from Andre Rudenko, who lives at 70-72 Susquehanna Ave.

Rudenko had been storing more trailers and unregistered vehicles on his property than the law allows. He asked that because his lot has two dwelling units he should he be allowed to store more than one trailer or vehicle.

Snell prepared an interpretation of "residential lot" which was based on minimum lot sizes. Despite the fact Rudenko's lot has two dwelling units, the lot itself does not meet the size requirements for two lots.

Because it meets the requirements for only one lot and not two, the boat interpreted it to mean he was entitled to store only one trailer, boat or car.

The interpretation was approved unanimously by the board.