Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
O’s Eatery goes to higher court; wins
by Paul Crossman
Hudson-Catskill Newspapers
AUSTERLITZ — One of the bigger issues in Austerlitz recently has been the motocross track behind O’s Eatery on Rigor Hill Road, and whether or not the track — used by the owner of the restaurant and his friends — needs to have a site plan review by the town.
The issue, according to the town, is whether or not the track behind the restaurant can be considered a business, in which case it would need site plan review from the Town Planning Board.
According to owner Otto Maier the track is just a recreational facility for him and his family which doesn’t charge admission or make money, and thus cannot be considered a business, or require site plan review. He also believes that the town’s zoning draft law is not “friendly to motorized sports since the examples listed of allowed recreation types do not acknowledge any motorized forms of recreation.”
The matter was brought to the Supreme court of Columbia County, before Judge Patrick J. McGrath, where the town sought to get a preliminary injunction “enjoining and restraining defendants from using an alleged motocross track constructed on their property.”
The court record shows that Otto had originally constructed jumps in the motocross area out of mounds of earth, but had since removed them after the Town Planning Board determined that site plan review was necessary.
The town zoning law which they based this decision on states that site plan review is necessary when land in question is being used for “active recreation,” which is defined as “A defined area reserved for and specifically designed to accommodate outdoor sports and outdoor activities, such as, but not limited to, racquet sports, ice skating, roller skating, horseback riding, swimming, baseball, soccer, softball and motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle, snowmobile, and car operations.”
The court ruled that since the jumps had been removed and the property returned to its original state, it could not be considered to be specifically designed to accommodate dirt bikes, and thus is not subject to site plan approval. On a similar note, it was also decided that the tracks and worn areas caused by the cycles do not constitute “active recreation,” as it is meant by the zoning law. Because of this, the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.
Maier says that he hasn’t heard anything from the town since the court ruling, and hopes that the decision will put an end to the issue.
To reach reporter Paul Crossman call 518-828-1616, ext. 2266, or e-mail pcrossman@registerstar.com. .
The issue, according to the town, is whether or not the track behind the restaurant can be considered a business, in which case it would need site plan review from the Town Planning Board.
According to owner Otto Maier the track is just a recreational facility for him and his family which doesn’t charge admission or make money, and thus cannot be considered a business, or require site plan review. He also believes that the town’s zoning draft law is not “friendly to motorized sports since the examples listed of allowed recreation types do not acknowledge any motorized forms of recreation.”
The matter was brought to the Supreme court of Columbia County, before Judge Patrick J. McGrath, where the town sought to get a preliminary injunction “enjoining and restraining defendants from using an alleged motocross track constructed on their property.”
The court record shows that Otto had originally constructed jumps in the motocross area out of mounds of earth, but had since removed them after the Town Planning Board determined that site plan review was necessary.
The town zoning law which they based this decision on states that site plan review is necessary when land in question is being used for “active recreation,” which is defined as “A defined area reserved for and specifically designed to accommodate outdoor sports and outdoor activities, such as, but not limited to, racquet sports, ice skating, roller skating, horseback riding, swimming, baseball, soccer, softball and motorcycle, all-terrain vehicle, snowmobile, and car operations.”
The court ruled that since the jumps had been removed and the property returned to its original state, it could not be considered to be specifically designed to accommodate dirt bikes, and thus is not subject to site plan approval. On a similar note, it was also decided that the tracks and worn areas caused by the cycles do not constitute “active recreation,” as it is meant by the zoning law. Because of this, the motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.
Maier says that he hasn’t heard anything from the town since the court ruling, and hopes that the decision will put an end to the issue.
To reach reporter Paul Crossman call 518-828-1616, ext. 2266, or e-mail pcrossman@registerstar.com. .
Share this Article
 |
 |
|
| Truck route upsets K’hook residents | Ridgelines and hilltops: viewsheds or building plots? |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of registerstar.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
