Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 2017-11-131 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING COMMITTEE SUMMARY OF NOVEMBER 13, 2017 MEETING Committee Members Present: Rich DePaolo (Chair), Rod Howe, Pat Leary (facetime). Staff/Board Members/ Town-Related Others Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Bill Goodman, Town Supervisor; Tee Ann Hunter, Town Board Member; Pam Bleiwas, Town Board Member; Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk. Others: Several members of the public. Chair Rich DePaolo called the meeting to order at approximately 4:30pm. Committee Announcements and Concerns: None. Consider September and October Meeting Minutes: Approved as amended with minor editing. Discuss and consider comments received on the laws pertaining to accessory dwelling units and a rental operating permit program: -Rich: Opened the meeting by summarizing the current status of the legislation and listed those elements that the board/committee members expressed an interest in revisiting. This included compliance timelines and fines and penalties. The committee began with a discussion on the 30-day compliance timeline (in Operating Permits for Certain Residential Rental Units, requirement that rental units be vacated thirty days after notice of violation, unless property is brought into compliance). -Bruce: Pointed out that the 30-day compliance period is in reference to the amount of time the owner has to address a non-compliance issue and does not pertain to the submission of an application or the time between the application submission and the inspection. It is period of time that begins after an inspection has occurred. -Susan B.: Indicated that the problem with the requirement is that it does not address/recognize situations where compliance is not possible within the 30-day time frame. -Rich: Suggested increasing the amount of compliance time. -Bruce: Stated that the time is variable and dependent on the severity of the issue. He suggested allowing the department flexibility in working with the property owner. -Tee Ann: Replied that it is hard to pick a number out of the hat. She also expressed concern for how the law would be administered overall, including fees, and stated that these various questions warranted further discussion. -Pam: Added that she would also be interested in understanding the fees, the application form that will be used, and the impact to staff and residents before going forward. -Rich: Responded to the general comments expressed, stating that the committee’s charge for today’s meeting was to address the specific list of issues raised at the Board meeting. He would prefer to address these now so we can progress the draft documents. - Bruce: Suggested language to allow the timeline to be extended upon agreement of the applicant and the Code Department. -Rich: Supported providing discretion, but raised the issue of addressing the accrual of violations; how violations accrue needs to be addressed. He suggested possibly waiving the weekly fine when there is an ongoing effort to resolve non-compliance issues. 2 -Susan B.: Noted that Town Code Section 125-12-Violation; Paragraph C: states that “Violation orders shall be in writing, shall identify the property or premises, shall specify the violation and remedial action to be taken, shall provide a reasonable time limit for compliance, and shall state the time within which an appeal may be taken.” Given that this language already exists in Town Code, she suggested that similar language be used in the new legislation, which provides Code Dept. discretion by not specifying a time frame for compliance. The committee next discussed the requirement that “owners of rental units not rented after the effective date of this Chapter must apply for an operation permit at least 15 days prior to rental.” -Tee Ann: Recommended modification of this language, given its confusing nature and that it seemed to suggest that an operating permit would be required before each new tenant, not just before it becomes rented. She added that this needs to be squared with short-term rentals (STR). -Rich: Suggested changing the language to “prior to rental” and removing the number of days (15 days). - Committee: Agreed to proposed change with additional clarifying language to be added by Susan. -Susan: Further recommended that if the committee does not want this to apply to STRs that the language should be clarified. - Committee: Agreed to add in the applicability section that the provisions do not apply to dwelling units that are rented for less than 30 consecutive days. The committee discussed the rental inspection list prepared by Bruce Bates: -Tee Ann: Suggest that the list of inspection elements be referenced in the law. -Pam: Added that there could be some benefits from not having it hard wired into the law. -Susan B.: Responded that she would look into whether it is ok to just reference the list in the law. She will review other community’s laws to see how they handle this. If they provide a list in the law, then she will advise that the town do the same. She will get back to the committee on this. -Rich: Suggested deleting G. – “Broker’s responsibility”. - Committee: Agreed to the change. - Tee Ann: Asked what “sufficient enough to allow for enforcement of this chapter” means in section 3, regarding the application form. - Committee: Discussed the statement and agreed to remove it and instead refer to the existing operating permit language provided in Section 125-8 B. Discussion of Penalties: -Rich: Proposed to eliminate the prison option in the 1st and 2nd offense and to retain it for the 3rd offense, while also maintaining the option to pay a fine instead. -Tee Ann: Asked whether the fines would be mandatory. -Pat: Answered yes and explained that including mandatory fines was in response to the current discretion held by judges and the committee’s concern that some cases might be handled too leniently. -Rich: Stated that it was his assumption that by the time the situation gets to the court there has been a serious attempt at resolving the situation administratively, with considerable communication between the property owner and the department. He felt that at this point a mandatory fine would be warranted. -Tee Ann: Explained that she was not in favor of having set fines, especially given the potential for accumulating fines, per the legislation. -Pam: Asked for an explanation of what constituted a violation and whether it is a failure to apply for a permit or failure to bring the unit up to code? 3 -Bruce: Responded that a violation occurs when you are renting a property without having an operating permit. A person is subject to a fine if there is no permit. -Pam: Suggested removing “misdemeanor” in Penalties (4. A). She explained that a misdemeanor is a serious charge and involves a criminal record. It is also a much more involved process, given that a person charged with a misdemeanor is entitled to a jury trial and can be assigned counsel. She feels that if things are so unsafe in the apartment it should/could be addressed through criminal law. The town can call the District Attorney if it warrants that type of prosecuting. - Susan B.: Suggested replacing “misdemeanor” with “violation”. -Committee: Agree to the change. Staff Updates and Reports: No staff updates or reports. Next Meeting Date and Upcoming Agenda Items: The next meeting is December 21st. Meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30pm.