HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2021-12-29 Year End Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
Wednesday, December 29, 2021 - 11:00 a.m.
lo..w..n of �.th..a..ga Eu b].iL M e in s - YouTube
.................... ....... ................... .............. .......... ...........................................................
Agenda
1. Call to order
2. Public Hearing regarding proposed local laws associated with Short Term Rentals:
(1) A Local Law adding Short-Term Rental Provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of the
Town of Ithaca Code; (2) a Local Law to add requirements for Operating Permits and
Inspections for Short-Term Rental Uses to the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, titled
"Building Construction and Fire Prevention"; (3) a local law amending the definition of
Bed-and-Breakfast in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code and (4) a Local
Law amending Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 207, "Rental Property,"revising and adding
references to Rentals of Less than 30 Days
Consider: SEQR Adoption
3. Discuss Town of Ithaca Vision and Mission Statements and review Town Board Protocol
Manual
4. Consider award of the Forest Home Walkway Improvement Project
5. Consider Authorization for the Supervisor to accept and execute the Park Foundation
Grant as Financial Agent for the Cayuga Watershed Intermunicipal Organization (CWIO)
6. Consider actions associated with the Town's Deer Management Program 2022:
a. Deer Damage Permit application to DEC
b. License agreement with Conifer Realty for use of land—Lindermann Creek area
c. License agreement with the City of Ithaca for use of land— Six Mile Creek area
d. Variance for use of Culver Preserve
7. Consent
a. Town Board Minutes
b. Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Budget Amendments
d. Permanent Appointments—Engineering
8. Resolution of Appreciation
a. Pat Leary
b. Tee-Ann Hunter
Adjourn
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
1, Becky Jordan, being duly sworn, say that I am the Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York; that the following notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town Clerk of
the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper, Ithaca Journal:
ADVERTISEMENT/ c
1-11NOTICE OF C
HEARING
NOTICE OF ESTOPPEL
NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF PUBLIC
INTEREST ORDER TOWN OF ITHACA
Notice of Public Hearings
�► Short Term It! Rental ll ( ll�) The Ithaca Town hoard will
hold a public hearing;at its
December"29 2021 meet-
ing beginning at 11:00 a.m,
The meeting will be held
Location Sign o se or Posting: virtually due to Gov. Flotch-
ul's Executive Order sus-
Town Clerk's Cfliee pending certain provisions
215 North Tloga Street of Open Meetings Law,
Ithaca, NY 14 50 The proposed local laws scrciated with Short Terrarm
Rentals are:
(1) A Local Lathe adding
Town website at ww.town,ithaca,n ,us Short-Terra Rental Provi-
sions to Chapter 270,:Zon
Cciaof the Town of Ithaca
Code; (2) a Local Law to I
t t add requirements for Caper-
> ating permits and Inspec-
tlons for Short-Term Rental
Date of Publication: December q 2021 Uses to the Town of Ithaca
Code, Chapter 125, titled
"Building Construction and
Eire prevention°°, (3) a local
law amending the defini-
tion'' of Bed-and-Breakfast l
In Chapter 270, Zoning, of
the Town`of Ithaca Code
eCkJor and (4) a Local Law arnend-
y ihang Town of Ithaca Code
Deputy Clerk Cpter 207, "Rental
p y Fero a
rty`° revising and
adding references to Rent-
als of Less;than 30 Days
The meeting's Zoom 10 Is
8868 082 8447 and will also
STATE OF NEW YORK) be broadcast on the Town's �
`r°ouTubeLive site. Links
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: and the draft laves are post- ,
p ed to the Town's website.
TOWN OF 1 Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
12718/21
Sworn to and subscribed before awe this 21" day
of December 202 1.
Notary Public
DEBORAWKELLEY
NOT J'PUBUC,Mn OF NEW YORK
Reg6tition No.OIKE6025073
Oiwifiad
C ' w `Y i 7,2fl
Year End Meeting of the Ithaca Town Board
December 29, 2021 - 11:00 a.m.
This meeting was held via Zoom and broadcast via the Town's YouTubeLive channel.
Minutes
Board Members Present: Rod Howe, Supervisor; Members Eric Levine,Rich DePaolo,Bill Goodman,
Pamela Bleiwas, Tee-Ann Hunter and Pat Leary
Staff Present: Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town;Paulette Rosa, Town Clerk; Joe Slater, Director of
Public Works; Mike Smith,Environmental Planner
1. Call to order— 11:O0a.m.
2. Public Hearing regarding proposed local laws associated with Short Term Rentals:
(1) A Local Law adding Short-Term Rental Provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town
of Ithaca Code; (2) a Local Law to add requirements for Operating Permits and Inspections
for Short-Term Rental Uses to the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, titled"Building
Construction and Fire Prevention"; (3) a local law amending the definition of Bed-and-
Breakfast in Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code and (4) a Local Law amending
Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 207, "Rental Property,"revising and adding references to
Rentals of Less than 30 Days
Mr. Howe opened the public hearing at 11:03 a.m. and reviewed the changes that were made as
discussed at the December 13, 2021 meeting.
The laws will go into effect on April 1, 2022, clarifications were made about the interplay of
non-conforming uses in the Zoning Chapter of the Code and these laws and the amortization
provisions and that the Zoning Board of Appeals would be the legislative board to hear
amortization requests and made it clear that would not be a variance,but a determination.
Mr. Howe noted for the public that these are minor changes to the law that the public hearing
was held on last meeting and each person would have two minutes to speak. He asked that
members of the public please move to the Town's YouTubeLive channel if they were not
planning on speaking and to move there after speaking to make the zoom platform manageable
for him and the other Board members.
Craig Dunham spoke, saying that he was one of the retirees under which this legislation would
allow zero STR days and he was dismayed by the lack of empathy shown by board members
during and after the December 13th meeting and hearing from people this law would really hurt.
He said it seemed to him that the board had reached a point of groupthink in decision fatigue and
so they are no longer thinking rationally about the impact of this legislation.
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 1
Mr. Dunham said he had carefully studied the section which provides an exception for people
who had made a financial investment in STR property and created a loophole the size of a barn
door that allows professional STRs to continue.
He said he spoke to Mr. Goodman on Tuesday who told him he felt the laws as written would
prevent this, and the amortization section requires proof of dollars and cents of funds spent prior
to April 1, 2022 of substantial investment unique to short term rental use and the word"unique"
would prevent an owner who had previously purchased property uniquely for short term rentals
from claiming exemption. But, he said, Webster's dictionary has three definitions of unique and
the third states "belonging to or connected with only one particular thing place or person" and
therefore, any reasonable court would find that purchasing property solely for the purpose of
STR would fit the webster definition of being connected with only one particular thing and so
that will not help.
Mr. Dunham stated that the board has acknowledged on the record that there is a long term pre-
existing non-conforming use in the town, which opens up the town to expensive lawsuits once
this has passed.
He said that because there is no grandfather clause to address this,he is asking anyone who is
interested in joining a lawsuit against a town for this unfair restriction of pre-existing
nonconforming use to call him at 607-280-6100.
Mr. Dunham urged the board not to pass this because you are sick and tired of it, but to instead
rewrite it to be narrower and fairer.
Mr. Howe noted that the STR Committee has received comments since the last public hearing,
and they have been shared with all Town Board members.
Carolyn Greenwald spoke saying that she would like to talk about the fact that both sides are
not happy and therefore the this is the right compromise, and she has rented her lakefront home
since 2007 and in the past couple of years she has rented it more than 265 days and in fact last
year it was rented all but one day of the entire year.
She said that under this legislation, she will be limited to 245 days and that will mean the
property will be vacant and that serves no purpose, and she will probably raise the price to
maximize the 245 days she is allowed. That means less people and less tourists will spend their
money here and so it again serves no purpose and doesn't work to any of the objectives of the
Board because she will still have her house and still be renting STR, and this is just throwing the
baby out with the bathwater.
Ms. Greenwald said she thought the legislation as written doesn't give the Zoning Board of
Appeals enough leeway to consider situations that are positive for the town and not causing
harm.
She said she truly does not want her neighbors to be disturbed and her rental contract is very
detailed and outlines what is and what is not allowed and all the things they will be charged for
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 2
doing and that is all designed to make sure her neighbors are not disturbed because that is very
important to her.
Ms. Greenwald said at the same time, she wants to bring these tourists and money to the
community and benefit herself, adding that she started STR renting because she couldn't find a
long-term renter who wanted to deal with the winter on the lake and so she switched to short-
term.
Susan Terwilliger spoke, saying that she submitted emailed comments but basically, noise and
trash can be better managed with the proper leveraging of penalties specifically for STR owners.
She said the most obvious way to discourage out of town investors is to limit the number of days
per year on unhosted rentals, but the numbers the Board has come up with is like Goldilocks
trying out the first bed that was too hard and the second bed that was too soft and so on.
Ms. Terwilliger said that 145 days a year for the lake could be attractive to an out of town
investor this legislation is meant to discourage and if the Board felt the lakefront should have
more unhosted days than the rest of the town then think about 150 for lakefront and 90 for the
rest of the town as those numbers would not be big enough to attract out of town investors,but
yet would give homeowners some flexibility.
She said that both San Francisco and Washington DC allow 99 days per year of unhosted rentals
and a three bedroom hosted short term rental would logically be fine for five to six people but
under this legislation that isn't allowed except for unhosted, which makes no sense at all and
again does not align with the goal of discouraging out of town speculators and restricting hosted
short term rentals to only two bedrooms at any one time seems arbitrary and especially penalizes
hosts who are not lakefront owners.
Ms. Terwilliger said it is because a high cost of living in this area which doesn't pay a cost-of-
living wage. She said that she is a guitarist in New York City for many years and there are very
few jobs in this area and those dried up with the advent of COVID and her teaching salary does
not pay her bills.
She said that this legislation will have a minimal impact on her family,but it will on others and
she is speaking in support of them and urging the Board to consider them and the community,
and the need to attract good musicians and teachers.
Laurene Gilbert spoke, saying that she was shocked and appalled after the last meeting that the
consensus seemed to be "pass this law and we can tweak it later." She said she wanted to know
when it has ever happened that a law was passed with the intention of changing it later,just to
"get on with it"because a legislative board has spent too much time on it.
Ms. Gilbert said this law is messy at best, and when you consider how many laws are still "on
the books"long after they are applicable and how long it takes to change or remove them is
reason to not do this as the sentiment of"we will change it later"is a legislator's fantasy.
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 3
Ms. Gilbert said that if the Board does mean to change the law, that is not lawmaking, and the
Board should consider that those who spoke were overwhelmingly against it and really think
about that.
She said that she chose to operate her apartment as an STR with the intention of 1)being able to
use it for visiting family and 2)with the idea of perhaps needing it in the future for herself as she
is getting older, 73 years old, and she may need nursing care on a 24 seven basis and this
apartment would allow her to stay in her home rather than a nursing home.
Ms. Gilbert said that she would like to know what the Board was going to do about STR's that
stack up on each other on a daily basis or just allow one long-term rental with different people
coming and going or is that a scenario the Board is forbidding even though New York State and
Medicaid allow that type of use and establishment and she wondered if the Board had thought
about those types of other uses for accessory dwelling units and how that will be handled.
Michael MacAnanny spoke, saying he has been involved in this issue for four years and he has
seen a lot of opinions go back and forth and it seemed to him that the stumbling block is on the
number of days and how that affects people's ability to make their ends meet and so forth.
He said that most of the residents who live in the Renwick Heights area are opposed to this
because they are concerned about the quality of life in the neighborhood and about the safety of
their children and grandchildren walking back and forth to the many schools and do on.
Mr. MacAnanny said his neighborhood would like to see the law enforcement portion of the law
strengthened so that if there are complaints of say more than three complaints in a given period
the owner would have to come before the Board and argue for the renewal of the permit and that
would allow residents to weigh in on the impacts of a given permit for the Board to consider.
He said this process began under a complaint process and he felt the neighborhoods are going to
be the ones essentially enforcing this and it is only right that the neighborhood should be able to
weigh in because he thought the Town was not going to be able to keep up with the enforcement
and monitoring of this.
Megan Shay spoke, saying she is a native Ithacan and a retiree and her STR income will be
100% cut by this proposal because of the 185 day principal residence requirement. She said they
bought their house as a principal residence in 2014 but an unexpected early retirement changed
their plans and their financial picture but being able to return to Ithaca for long or short periods
of time throughout the year is critical to the support they give to their daughter and aging parents
who are still full-time Ithaca residents.
Ms. Shay said that scenario is obviously outside of a long-term rental scenario and she thought
there were four important changes that could be made to avoid penalizing moderate income
retirees without opening the door to commercial STR operators.
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 4
1. Define the residency requirement as 90 days per year and allow part time owners to
provide the reasons and proof of why they have residence elsewhere for tax purposes on
the annual application
2. Allow 120 days rental in these cases as no commercial venture STR can be profitable on
one fourth of the days in a year yet it enables the average moderate STR to come close to
covering annual property taxes.
3. Change the hosted rental definition to include an owner's representative living on site to
acknowledge live in property managers as a way of essentially grandfathering in out of
state owners
4. Allow proof of former primary residence as of the implementation date of this legislation
to protect those being deeply affected by this.
Ms. Shay said that none of these suggested changes will allow commercial STR operators to be
successful, she really hoped the Board would implement these to mitigate the harm this is
causing to moderate income property owners who deserve the Board's support and protection
while abiding by the broad consensus to limit commercial STR operators, which is achieved by
the other restrictions
She said that these small changes will support the success of the working class people who make
the community a vibrant and diverse place.
Adam Schaye spoke, saying that he had intended to say much of what Lauren stated and he
listened to the comments from the last public hearing and there were many comments from the
Board saying that they were aware of the flaws in the legislation but you know this will address
some problems, and so you want to move forward with the idea of making any necessary
amendments later and she thought that was really not a good basis for passing legislation.
He said he would use the analogy of a builder coming to build him a house and saying, well, I
know the foundation is not perfect and doesn't quite line up with the walls,but the electrical will
be done right, so we're just going to build it and we can tear down a room or move things around
and you would probably, as a legislative board, tell me that can not be done and I would need to
figure out how to fix it before moving forward.
Mr. Schaye said he could understand the frustration of spending so much time on a law and
thinking it might be a proper law, but the truth is that if it is true you do not think it is a proper
bill, it should not be passed.
He said the number of days allowed is especially arbitrary and does not address the issues you
have stated you want to address and there are better ways to target out of town investors and
guessing at numbers is not the way to do it and possibly grandfathering uses in would do it,
rather than just passing a flawed law to just"get it done."
Mia Slotnick spoke, saying that she wanted everyone to take a step back and really think about
their neighborhood where they live and think about whether they would rather have as a next
door neighbor; a short term rental business or a neighbor.
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 5
Michael Hayes spoke, saying that he is a longtime Ithaca resident and his wife was recently
disabled at age 58 and no longer able to teach and he is a commercial pilot who may not pass his
next physical, which will end his career, and as a sunbird couple, they will not be able to keep
their house they have owned for almost 15 years if they are forced to leave it empty all but 29
days of the year as that is not enough to cover the five or six months they are away due to her
medical needs for certain weather.
He said that what struck him as wrong about this law and why it shouldn't move forward is that
is sets up a 9:1 ratio or income. If you have a lakefront property, you have 9Xs more opportunity
to make the revenue you need to retain your home than if you do not live on the lake and he did
not think that would stand the legal muster in litigation and he felt the town was exposing itself
to litigation from every homeowner who does not live on the lake on that alone,based on inverse
condemnation which is that the highest and best economic value of the property is being
destroyed by a government taking or a government regulatory rulemaking with not purpose or no
discernible public benefit adequate for the economic loss to the homeowner for their property.
Mr. Hayes said that the town isn't paying the bills for any of these properties and never will,but
the town will raise taxes from everyone in the town to cover the costs of any litigation which he
thought the town would not survive. He added that he had been a party to an inverse
condemnation and it is quite an experience if you're on the wrong side of it and the government
passes legislation that destroys economic value and a taking.
Mike Scott spoke, saying that he lives in Maryland and although his property is not on the lake,
it is a four bedroom on over almost half an acre with a driveway of over a 1 Oth of a mile which
has been in his family for over 30 years and which they have been renting as a STR for the last
six years with approximately 150 reservations and about 120 positive reviews with many of them
being families coming to town for a wedding who simply did not want to stay in the standard
hotel setting and he has had one noise complaint from a neighbor who texted him and it was
addressed right away and the neighbor was surprised to learn that we had been doing this for
over 5 years.
He said that this limiting them to 29 nights a day is really going to impact his ability to keep the
property that has been in his family for years.
Mr. Scott said he is an engineer and up to Ithaca quite often and the income from STR makes the
property income neutral and allows him to be in Ithaca regularly,probably at lest 15 weekends a
year, and the ability to sleep 10 to 12 people, is what families really appreciate; the ability to stay
together and enjoy the attractions of the area and it would be really unfortunate that this will cut
that back and not allow it.
He said he thought the town had noise ordinances in place to deal with that type of problem and
have or could have parking regulations to deal with those issues, and this seemed a waste of time
and energy and he would be happy to join any litigation and the money the town gets in taxes
will be wasted and the money the town is leaving on the table in occupancy taxes and tourist
income was just crazy his opinion.
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 6
Mr. Howe stated that he did not see anyone else indicating that they would like to speak and he
asked Ms. Rosa if she had received any notifications or communications, which she said she had
not.
Mr. Howe closed the public hearing at 11:25 a.m. and brought the matter back to the Town
Board.
Ms. Leary said that many people have commented on this legislation over the years and
sometimes an issue doesn't come to the attention of others in the public until the Board is ready
to pass the legislation, and then with that, the Board hears things they may not have heard.
She said she is concerned about a couple of points that have been raised during this meeting and
the last, and that is the wide discrepancy between the number of days allowed on lakefront
properties and the rest of the town. She said that she was one of the members of the Committee
who was in favor of fewer days, and it wasn't until the Committee reported to the Board on
progress and highlights of the draft in progress that members of the Board really insisted that the
lakefront number be increased.
Ms. Leary said that the change was made because the feeling from the Board was that the
legislation would not be passed as a whole, if that number were not increased, and she said she
didn't really understand the reasoning behind that, but the discussions centered on the long
history of rentals on the lakefront and how they are different from the rest of the town and that
having STR makes lakefront living possible and more accessible for people who could not afford
to otherwise either by buying a house on the lake or renting for a vacation.
She said the rest of the Town does not seem to perceive that the same way, and instead feel that
we are giving special privileges to the lakefront owners, but she felt that was not the intention.
Ms. Leary said she felt if the number of days for lakefront homes is allowed at the proposed
number it will increase the price of lakefront homes because of the potential rental income.
She said that she felt it would be best to bring the number of days back to the original number
she remembered as about 80 days which will cover the summer season or homeowners can break
that up throughout the year and it would still provide, in her opinion, ample income for owners
of lakefront homes and it would lessen the perception that the Town is not being fair to the rest
of the town.
Ms. Leary said the other comment she wanted to address was the impact on retirees who do
spend a considerable amount of time in Ithaca but not necessarily half the year and, there are
ways to prove your residency on your taxes so that could be checked to make the residency
requirement less restrictive and go a long way towards helping people who use their homes in
that way, like "snowbirds" and allow them to retain their homes.
Mr. Leary said the 29 day maximum people are upset about could be from a misunderstanding
because she thought the definition was less than 29 days by more than one tenant, so someone
that rents a room or rooms or ADU for 30 days is not a short term rental and that would cover the
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 7
example of the healthcare workers here for a month or tow or three. They would not be
considered short-term renters.
She closed by saying that any thought of dragging this on past the four years it has already been
worked on is not something she wants, but little tweaks would be something she could agree
with.
The rest of you thought that it does need some tweaking in those areas I wouldn't be personally
upset if you wanted to extend it a little bit,but the Board has already said they are willing to
amend it, so her preference was to pass it as is and then tweak it,but she also would not be upset
if it was pushed out a few months to make those adjustments now, as long as it doesn't drag out
for months or years.
Mr. Goodman spoke, saying that he had a lot of comments,but wanted to address Ms. Leary's
comments first.
He said that the Committee always knew the lakefront was going to be a difficult area to address
and that is why over four years ago, the intent was to not even address lakefront property, and
just focus on medium-density and high-density residential areas where the complaints were, but
through drafting the legislation it was found that the whole of the town had to be addressed as a
whole but the different zones could be different.
Mr. Goodman said that he had always thought that the lakefront was unique and would be
handled uniquely because historically lakefront rentals have been done for decades, before these
STR platforms were a thing, and people just advertised them in newspapers and word-of-mouth,
and lakefront rental use has allowed many people to have access to the lake themselves and give
that access to many others who otherwise would not have that access because they can't afford a
home of their own on the lake.
He said in his mind, the Town is of a dual nature in many ways; a resort or vacation community
and a residential, long-term community. He said that other major vacation or resort towns may
have legislation much different than ours because resort or vacation rentals are the predominant
use, but here they are not.
Mr. Goodman said the Town has other zones that are much more suburban and other areas that
approach an urban definition, so the Town is unique, and this legislation is therefore unique,
creating different regulations for different zones that allow people to do certain things in certain
parts of the town that cannot be done in other parts of the town.
He reiterated that because of the historical nature of STR on the lakefront, people who live and
have lived on the lake are accustomed to that use and the constant change of people in and out,
especially during the summer season, and so anyone buying a house on the lake has those
expectations whether they are buying the house for their own primary residence or to use
themselves as a vacation home and STR.
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 8
Mr. Goodman said that putting these regulations in place addresses the argument that by giving
them more days is going to make investors look at these homes and that it will drive up the price
by setting some limits.
He said he sees a couple of faults but he was willing to listen to thoughts on that,but currently,
there are no restrictions on the lake and if investors wanted to buy up properties, they could have
done that in the past and there hasn't been a lot of lot, other than the one we heard about where
someone bought up three adjoining homes and advertised them as a wedding venue or a place
with a very large extended family to stay close to one another.
Mr. Goodman stated that lakefront homes have always been expensive, and wealthy people are
the ones that can afford them,but this legislation will help curb some issues yet allow historical
vacation rentals to continue.
He added that it was important to him that lakefront rental is available for regular people and
people from the Town and the county and he did not feel it was unfair to other areas of the town
that did not have that extensive historical use.
Mr. Goodman added that the Comprehensive Plan has areas on South and East Hill that are
anticipated to have higher density and people in that area may not like that either, but it is the
overall Plan to benefit the town as a whole and people could say, well, that isn't fair to me
because I am over the line in another zone, but that is zoning. Some benefits for the greater
community throughout the town are not going to be popular either.
Rich DePaolo said that he agreed with the vast majority of what Mr. Goodman said, especially
about the nature of zoning, but he wanted to specifically address some of statements heard by the
Board because he feels that they were based on a misunderstanding or assumptions that he didn't
agree with.
He said that the comment that Ms. Greenwald and many lakefront owners have brought up, the
issue that if we somehow limit the number of days on the lakefront that is going to result in a
limitation or disincentive to tourists and it's going to impact our economy, and he felt the
Committee has taken that into consideration and tried to balance the overall availability of units
throughout the town and throughout the lakefront with the demand and if certain properties are
limited by the proposed number of days, the demand will be met in other areas of the town, so he
did not see that as causing a decrease in tourism or tourism dollars, but instead the demand
would be spread out amongst available hosts.
Mr. DePaolo said the comment from Ms. Terwilliger who asked the Board to impose greater
fines cannot be done because the Town is limited by New York State law on the fines and fees
that can be imposed.
He said that Lorraine's concern, and others, that the Board is going into this with the intention of
modifying the law, is not what has been said,but rather that there is the possibility of changes in
the event of unforeseen consequences and he felt that although the legislative process is not
perfect, as it is not perfect at all levels of government, all legislation comes with a certain degree
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 9
of disagreement and elements that everyone is not going to agree with what is said or presented,
but the attempt is to balance all those disparate views. There is no intention to modify the law,
but the Board does have the ability to do so in the event of unforeseen consequences.
Mr. DePaolo said another issue is what constitutes a taking and he presumes that that the idea of
pre-existing non-conforming only applies when the zoning ordinance that was in place at the
time the practice was being undertaken was legal and, in the vast majority of the cases, the short
term rental practice exceeded the Town's occupancy limitations and was therefore not a legal
practice, and that the practice was a legally complied use to begin with would need to be
established in order to make that argument.
He added that in some cases, that may be true,but the idea that this legislation is a taking and
somehow the Town is limiting people's ability to extract value from their properties, in his
opinion, was not true.
Mr. DePaolo said the final comment he wanted to mention was the one about someone thinking
ahead to if they became sick and needed someone to come and live-in for help,but that he
thought that was a different situation and doesn't fit in this discussion.
Ms. Hunter said that she wanted to thank Ms. Leary for her comments, and she agrees with the
majority of them. She also urged the Board to really take some time to think of this through a
little bit more.
Ms. Hunter also said that she wanted to respond to Mr. Goodman's comments about zoning;
saying that she didn't see how granting 245 days to the lakefront owners hosts, of which there
are 112, and make an exemption for the primary residence requirement is a benefit for the greater
community and that it was a weak argument.
She said she thought there were some serious equity issues with this legislation, and she would
encourage the Board to listen to what some people have brought forward and perhaps look at the
special permit requirements and see how those might be modified to enable people who have
owned primary residence in the town for many years and would like to continue to do so even
when they live elsewhere for a significant time can do so.
Ms. Hunter said that she felt there was still some work to do on this law, and although she was
very aware it has taken a very long time and the Committee has gone to great lengths to
incorporate the comments that were heard, there are still problems and the community has
brought those problems to our attention over the last two meetings and more and out of respect
for the people the Board serves, those should be taken seriously.
Mr. Levine said he really appreciated all of the public comment on this and had heard a lot of
different and reasonable opinions about the how the law could vary, but he was still prepared to
vote in favor of the legislation right now because he believed that even in its current form, it is
much better than not having any law at all, and it balances the various impacts.
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 10
He said to try and make legislation that would make everyone happy and that everyone would
agree on is never going to happen, and although he would be in favor of going to 60 or 90 days
for hosted rentals, he is not going to stop what is otherwise a good law from moving forward
based on his personal view.
Mr. Levine said he would be open to changes in the future and did understand the comments
from people about passing something that the Board believes will need to be changed,but he did
not believe there was a majority of people on the Board who were willing to go in that direction.
He added that there may be a time in the future, and he would be interested in participating in
that, when a review is done, based on comments as this rolls out and under a new membership of
the Board,but right now, a majority wants to move forward now.
He said that as for the legality of it, the Town has extremely competent counsel and the
Committee and the Board always makes sure any legislation gets a lot of attention and review by
our counsel before it gets to this point.
Mr. Howe noted that the public is using the chat feature,but he was not paying attention to that
in order to focus on the Board discussion and as the public hearing has ended.
Ms. Bleiwas spoke again, saying that as one listens to the comments over the last two meetings
and over the last few months and even years, you see that people in town want to write this
legislation; no limits on the lake, no limits on anybody, special exemptions for people who have
moved but retained their house, and we could have 20,000 versions of this to satisfy ever single
person and that can't happen.
She said she felt a lot of the law was very good and the concept of limiting the number of nights
to discourage the use of properties at STR income properties is a very good thing to do and she
has always been a proponent of no limitations on the lakefront other than the registry and
inspections, but the compromise of 8 months is fair and reasonable and people saying that people
on the lake are being treated differently than people who are not, that is what zoning is. Property
is treated differently in many of the zones in the Town and that is perfectly legal and the Town
has done everything it can to ensure that is the case and there is legal precedent in New York
State that we believe we are well within, and if it is not, then the law will be modified by the
courts.
Ms. Bleiwas said laws are often challenged and this is the process of lawmaking and overall, it is
a decent law and she addressed the gentleman that stated that you don't build a house on a bad
foundation knowing that you are going to rebuild it; sometimes you build a cabin thinking that
one day you'll add on when your family grows, and that is more of how she saw this. Setting
some parameters and knowing that if things changes or if it doesn't work out the way we hope,
there are ways to modify it.
She told a story about a conversation this past Christmas with a friend who owns property in Ft.
Lauderdale, and,yes, a little different than Ithaca,but it is a vacation place, and this friend has
been renting STR through Airbnb and they were planning to retire there from New Jersey, and
they were approached by a corporation that is buying up Airbnb properties and offered 40% over
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 11
market rate. She said that is scary, and that tells here that we need to protect our properties right
now, with this law, even though it isn't perfect, it is good enough to start that protection and
make a stand to set limitations on unhosted rentals to protect our housing stock, which to her was
the prime reason for this legislation.
Ms. Bleiwas said she hopes people will continue to communicate with the Board about the law
and how it is working and ways that it could be tweaked. She added that there has been a lot of
pushback from realtors on this and she that is because taking the STR rental value from the
houses will affect the housing prices, so it is in their interest to oppose it.
Mr. Howe said there have been other laws the Town has had to revisit and change as it became
necessary or warranted.
Mr. Goodman wanted to make a statement
We have gotten to a point that we are all very tired of this and we just want to move it on and
group think is taking over. So yes, for folks who have sort of come to this recently it may
look like it we're just rushing this through, because we're tired, but for those of us who have
been involved with this for four and a half years it's not, I don't believe, the case.
We are ready to pass this now because we have spent so much time thinking about it, and we
have thought about lots of different implications and effects that this law might have and now
some folks are coming to us now at the end because they've just recently heard about it and
so they think that they're bringing to us new information but most of what we've heard we've
already talked about in the past, the comments we have heard recently and probably a little
bit more the last public hearing and this public hearing about the snowbird issue.
But I will remind folks that about three or so years ago, we had a large public hearing in the
town boardroom where we invited everybody to come and we had about 50 or 60 people
there, and we heard from a retired couple that lives in Enfield and had a residence in one of
our agricultural zones and they rented it out,just as a short term rental, and so this idea of
retired people who don't live in the town of Ithaca anymore but want to keep a short term
rental is not new to us, and we decided in that case, and one of the things I would suggest is,
we could, if we wanted to accommodate those folks, we could apply to the agricultural zones
what we talked about doing in the lakefront zones. But town board has decided no, we don't
want to do that, we're going to treat the agricultural zones is same way we treat low density
medium density and high density zones, so those retired folks from Enfield, they're out of
luck and they haven't been around in any of our recent comments, but as I said, we've been
dealing with this issue of retirees who have left the town of Ithaca and don't live in the town
of Ithaca, and not being able to have a short term rental in the town of Ithaca years ago when
talking about this issue.
The sunbird issue to me is not really a new issue, even though some folks who are just
finding out about our short-term rental regulations think that they might have their own
special circumstances.
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 12
So again, this this goes back to sort of the nature of legislation; one of the purposes of this
law was to preserve housing stock in the town of Ithaca for long term use, either long term
rentals or long-term permanent residence and that is just one of a number of issues.
Other issues were the neighborhood quality of life, and the noise and the parking problems
and complaints we'd heard about. There are other reasons; the safety of units, the safety of
tourists and guests who are staying in places and inspecting those are the multiple reasons for
enacting this law.
Each town board member is separately elected and we all respond to the voters of the town,
and we can all decide which reason is primary for us, and it might vary from issue to issue
for each of us, but as I have said in the past that, for me, the reason I first got involved in
wanting to deal with this issue was to address the neighborhood's complaints about constant
churning of people next door to them and the noise and parking issues, but other issues do
have resonance for me, at times, and so, for this particular issue of the sunbirds, to me, the
issue of our wanting to keep housing stock in the town for long term use rises to the fore and
so that's why I am willing to draw my line. We draw our own lines at different places along
the different spectrums of the issues were dealing with.
And so, for me, if somebody has truly retired out of the town of Ithaca so they're not actually
town of Ithaca residents anymore, I am willing to draw the line there and say no, sorry, we're
not going to let you use what, even if it used to be your primary residence in the town of
Ithaca, as an STR because it is no longer we're you live, but you can use it for a long term
rental use,you can still rent it out, and if you want to rent it out on an academic year and
come back in the summertime for a couple of months from Florida fine, that's a long term
rental use of that unit,but that's where I am drawing my line personally.
As I have said, when we're dealing with a complicated issue, in a complicated law like this,
each of us on the town board gets to decide for ourselves which issues are primary
importance and where we're going to draw lines, and then we see where the majority of four
town board members will fall and that's the way legislation works at any level of legislative
body. I am sorry if some people are just sort of getting attuned to this now and just realizing
that. A German politician said legislating legislation is like sausage making, and it's not
pretty sometimes, and if you get into the details, it can seem very convoluted at times,but
what we're trying to do is we're trying to see where a majority of the elected representatives
of the voters of the town of Ithaca are going to fall on a certain issue, and this is how we do it
and that's how representative democracy works.
As to the complaints about well, this is, you know this is messy lawmaking, so we shouldn't
ahead well, as I said, legislating is messy but that's how that's how it works
To respond to a particular comment about well knowing it's a flawed law, and so we should
not go ahead with it, I would respond that we don't know that it's a flawed law yet. Some of
us may feel that there's some pieces of the law that we would prefer not to be there. but we
do know that in the future, it's subject to amendment and that's not a revelation of some big
secret and we're that we are trying to hide something and just push this law through because
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 13
we know that in the future, it might be amended, that's just a fact and there are lots of laws at
all levels of legislative bodies that get amended after they are passed because the legislature,
the assembly or the senate realizes okay, we put this law into place,but it's not quite working
the way we thought, so we're going to amend it and that is what happens. To say that we
should not move forward,because we know it's a flawed law now, that is the decision that
each of us makes on our own. Whether we're willing to, whether the one point of the law or
a couple of points of law that we think personally, we might not agree with, and will not
work out the way we thought they would, we all still decide whether we think that the law as
a whole is the best compromise, we can work out right now and put something in place, and
that is what a compromise is.
I have told other people and I have said this in the press, that there are folks on all ends of the
spectrums with multiple issues and there's multiple spectrums, not just one spectrum and so
we are trying to find some balance.
As the cliche goes, if you find some balance somewhere in the middle and you got people on
both ends pissed off at you, then you're probably somewhere around the right balance, and so
I think for me that's where we are right now.
Not everything in this law is what I necessarily would have done if I was writing it by
myself, and as Ms. Bleiwas was saying, if we had everybody write their own laws, we'd have
20,000 laws for the 20,000 residents of the town,but we do have to, at some point, come to
some compromise and I feel that the compromise we have today is something that I can live
with.,yet I will admit, if we find out some time in the future that it's not working quite right,
or we can make some other change, it might get amended at some point and that's just an
admission of fact, not an admission that we're just trying to push something through because
we're tired of dealing with it after four and a half years.
The final thing I will say is that the folks are talking about oh,you know, taxes are so high,
you gotta let us make as much money off of our houses as we can because it is required to
pay the taxes, well I am sorry but I don't feel it's my responsibility as a town board member
to help you figure out a way to maximize the amount of short term rental income you can get
from your unit, that is just not my role as a town board member, and so I'm not going to
really take that into account.
I will point out to people that the majority of your real estate taxes are the school taxes, the
school district generally is about two thirds of your real estate taxes, and we all get to vote, at
least if we're residents of the school district, of course, not the sun birds, who have retired
elsewhere and who are not residents and voters, but all of us who live here can vote on the
school board budget every year and so we help determine on our own by our vote in May,
how much our school taxes are going to be and, as I said, that's the majority of the taxes.
Again, getting back to the sort of spectrum and the balance, I am willing to allow some folks
in the town, people who are permanent town residents, who have a spare bedroom or two, to
rent that out to earn a little bit of money to help defray some of the taxes and I will point out
again that the town taxes are the smallest portion of your total real estate tax bill,because the
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 14
county has taxes, and they are a little bit higher than the town taxes, and I am willing to let
people rent out their house for a little bit of time when they're on vacation or their house is
vacant and they want to make a little bit of money, or if they want to make some money off
of Cornell graduation weekend and Ithaca College graduation weekend, band if they want to
make a little bit of money by short term rental then to help defray the town taxes, I am
willing to do that, but that's where I draw the line and that's where I fall on that spectrum of
that issue and concern and I could probably go on a lot longer, but I think I have made the
major points I wanted to make and just to explain why I think I am ready to vote today, and
why I am planning to vote yes.
Mr. DePaolo also had a statement, saying
I do want to go back to the core reasons why I think we entertained this legislation. To begin
with, number one, as has been identified, is to bolster the long-term housing market, both for
renters and buyers and there are quality of life issues.
I think we accomplished the first goal by limiting the ability to do short term rental to
principal residence for the most part. The idea was also to balance the quality of life and
housing market issues with the reality that people do supplement their income to offset their
taxes and mortgage by using their principal residences for short term rentals. I think we've
accomplished that by the number of days. We've considered in the majority of our zones to
take taxes into consideration and we're also not limiting anyone's ability to extract maximum
value as a hosted rental, so I think we also have accomplished that.
I think when you go down the list of 4, and you go down the checkboxes, I think that we
have struck a balance between the initial intent of the law, which was to allow people to
offset their cost of living to make a home ownership more affordable,but our intent was
never to sanction a hospitality boomtown. That practice has been ongoing, largely in
contravention of the occupancy limitations in our current zoning law, and so it was not our
job to say, turn the town of Ithaca into a tourist mecca. We recognize the tourists demand
and we've taken that into consideration, and I think we've struck a balance.
As other people have said, if it turns out over time that our calculations are inaccurate or
some unforeseen consequences occur, we can certainly entertain amendments down the road,
but I appreciate everyone's time and effort it's been a long haul.
Ms. Leary wanted to thank Mr. Goodman for everything he has done over the past four years and
her greatest concern is preserving the housing stock for long term renters and this accomplishes
that.
Mr. Howe said he also wanted to than the Short-Term Rental Committee.
Mr. Goodman wanted to quickly address the 29 days and remind people that that number has
been in the draft for years and was the initial number after considering the college and festival
weekends, and adding some more for owner's own vacations, but there was a rationale for the
number, it wasn't plucked out of thin air and the Village of Cayuga Heights, which is part of the
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 15
Town but has their own zoning, set their law at 14 days for unhosted and 29 days for hosted, and
some folks have urged us over the years to follow suit, so obviously, we are a lot less restrictive
than that and the Town of Dryden also passed 29 days,but neither of them have lakefront, but we
said no, we are not going to limit hosted nights.
Ms. Hunter made a statement to the Board that she wanted them to think about:
You really are privatizing access to the lakefront in the community and since my
involvement in the town which started 20 years ago, I have always urged the town in
whatever limited capacity that I had that they should be buying some lakefront because they
need to provide public access and you didn't do it. There are people on this Board telling
me, oh, we will never do that, and you never have, and stated that we couldn't afford to do
that, and I have told the Board they should set up a reserve account to save money so that
they can do that and now you are turning that over to private people to provide access to the
greatest resource that your community has.
I think we should be a little ashamed of ourselves that we haven't done that and that we count
ourselves as a community that really values equity, well, this is an area in which we have not
acted that out.
I am almost broken down and I am almost going to vote for this, but, here's the thing, you
have got that hotel tax that goes to the county and I have said this repeatedly, and I don't
know what authority you have over this,but you need to investigate this, that the hotel tax
should somehow go to the town. That should not go to the tourism bureau, if we want a
tourism bureau, we have to fund it some other way than through a hotel tax for renting
properties within the town of Ithaca, that should go to the town of Ithaca, and it should be set
aside to buy some lakefront property for this community.
SEQR Reaffirmation
Mr. Howe noted that SEQR was passed at the last meeting,but since some changes were made,
this is essentially a reaffirmation of the SEQR.
TB Resolution 2021-159: SEQR Regarding (1) "A Local Law Adding Short-Term Rental
Provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of The Town of Ithaca Code," (2) "A Local Law
Amending Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 207, "Rental Property," Revising And Adding
References to Rentals of Less Than 30 Days," (3) "A Local Law Amending The Definition
of Bed-And-Breakfast In Chapter 270, Zoning, of The Town of Ithaca Code, and (4)A
Local Law To Add Requirements For Operating Permits and Inspections For Short-Term
Rental Uses To The Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, Titled "Building Construction And
Fire Prevention."
Whereas, this action is the proposed enactment of:
1. "A Local Law Adding Short-Term Rental Provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of The
Town of Ithaca Code", and
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 16
2. "A Local Law Amending Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 207, "Rental Property,"Revising
and Adding References to Rentals of Less Than 30 Days", and
3. "A Local Law Amending the Definition of Bed-And-Breakfast In Chapter 270, Zoning, of
The Town of Ithaca Code", and
4. "A Local Law To Add Requirements For Operating Permits and Inspections For Short-
Term Rental Uses To The Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, Titled "Building
Construction And Fire Prevention"; and
Whereas, this is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead
Agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of these local laws; and
Whereas, the Town Board, at its regular meeting held on December 13, 2021, made a negative
determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the
Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Parts 1, 2 and 3, for this action, prepared by the
Town Planning staff, and
Whereas, as a result of Town Board discussion at its December 13, 2021 meeting of the public
comment and proposed local laws, the Town Board agreed to make substantive changes to the
proposed local laws (date changes in all four laws and clarification of the interplay between
amortization provisions and the nonconforming uses article in Chapter 270, Zoning); now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby reaffirms its negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation
Law, 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review, and Chapter 148
Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above-referenced action as
proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF
Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: Bleiwas, Leary, Hunter, Howe, Goodman, Levine, and DePaolo
Adoption of Local Laws
Mr. Howe noted that the vote is to adopt the local laws associated with Short-Term Rentals as a
whole.
TB Resolution 2021 — 160: Adoption of(1) "A Local Law Adding Short-Term Rental
Provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of The Town of Ithaca Code," (2) "A Local Law
Amending Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 207, "Rental Property," Revising And Adding
References to Rentals of Less Than 30 Days," (3) "A Local Law Amending The Definition
of Bed-And-Breakfast In Chapter 270, Zoning, of The Town of Ithaca Code, and (4)A
Local Law To Add Requirements For Operating Permits and Inspections For Short-Term
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 17
Rental Uses To The Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, Titled "Building Construction And
Fire Prevention."
Whereas, there has been an incremental increase of unregulated short-term rentals in the Town of
Ithaca and across the United States over the last several years, which has caused public safety
and health concerns such as increased noise, trash, traffic, and parking impacts to local
neighborhoods and communities, and
Whereas, to combat these secondary effects associated with short-term rentals, the Town of
Ithaca Short-Term Rental Committee began to discuss ways to establish appropriate regulations
for short-term rental uses that would balance the desire of some property owners to rent all or a
portion of their homes to generate income to defray the cost of homeownership, with the Town's
obligation to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the full-time residents in the Town,
and
Whereas, the purposes of the proposed local laws are to protect the health, safety and welfare of
the community and of persons occupying short-term rentals; to prevent to the greatest extent
practicable public safety risks and other impacts associated with short-term rental uses; to protect
neighborhood character and minimize the impact of short-term rental uses on neighbors and
residential properties; to protect property values of the community; to protect housing
affordability within the community for long-term residents, whether owners or renters; to assist
homeowners to stay in their homes by allowing some short-term rental use of their homes to
generate income to defray their cost of homeownership; to enable property owners to provide
lodging for visitors to the Town during periods of peak visitor and tourist demand, such as
university and college graduation weekends and holiday weekends; and to promote the efficient
use of housing stock, and
Whereas, the proposed short-term rental provisions were created and discussed, with significant
public input, at many meetings of the Town's Short-Term Rental Committee starting in July of
2017, and continuing through 2021, and were also discussed at various Town Board meetings
and study sessions over those four and a half years, and,
Whereas, on October 13, 2021, the committee referred their final draft proposal to the Town
Board for consideration, and afterwards the Town Board discussed further changes to the draft,
and
Whereas, on November 8, 2021, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca scheduled a public
hearing to be held by said Town Board on December 13, 2021, at 5:30 p.m., to hear all
interested parties on the proposed local laws, and
Whereas, said public hearing was duly advertised and held on said date and time and all parties
in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said
proposed local laws, or any part thereof, and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") and
its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, adoption of said local laws is a Type I
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 18
Action for which the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting as lead agency in an
environmental review with respect to adoption of these local laws, on December 13, 2021, made
a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3; and
Whereas, as a result of Town Board discussion of the public comment and proposed local laws,
the Town Board agreed to make substantive changes to the proposed local laws (date changes in
all four laws and clarification of the interplay between amortization provisions and the
nonconforming uses article in Chapter 270, Zoning) and scheduled a public hearing to be held by
said Town Board on December 29, 2021, at 11:00 a.m., to hear all interested parties on the
proposed revised local laws, now entitled:
1. "A Local Law Adding Short-Term Rental Provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of The
Town of Ithaca Code",
2. "A Local Law Amending Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 207, `Rental Property,' Revising
And Adding References to Rentals of Less Than 30 Days",
3. "A Local Law Amending The Definition of Bed-And-Breakfast In Chapter 270, Zoning,
of The Town of Ithaca Code", and
4. "A Local Law To Add Requirements For Operating Permits and Inspections For Short-
Term Rental Uses To The Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, Titled `Building
Construction And Fire Prevention"'; and
Whereas, said public hearing was duly advertised and held on said date and time and all parties
in attendance were permitted an opportunity to speak on behalf of or in opposition to said
proposed local laws, or any part thereof, and
Whereas, pursuant to SEQRA, the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, acting as lead agency in
an environmental review with respect to adoption of these local laws, on December 29, 2021,
reaffirmed its negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and
accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3; and
Whereas, the Town Board finds that the proposed amendments to the Town Code will further the
health and welfare of the community and are in accordance with the Town of Ithaca
Comprehensive Plan;
Now, therefore, be it:
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby adopts the following:
1. Local Law 16 of 2021: A Local Law Adding Short-Term Rental Provisions to Chapter
270, Zoning, of the Town of Ithaca Code,
2. Local Law 17 of 2021: A Local Law Amending Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 207,
"Rental Property,"Revising and adding References to Rentals of Less Than 30 Days,
3. Local Law 18 of 2021: A Local Law Amending the Definition of Bed-And-Breakfast In
Chapter 270, Zoning, of The Town of Ithaca Code, and
4. Local Law 19 of 2021: A Local Law to Add Requirements for Operating Permits and
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 19
Inspections For Short-Term Rental Uses To The Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125,
Titled`Building Construction And Fire Prevention";
and be it further
Resolved, that the Town Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the local laws with the
Secretary of State as required by law.
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: ayes—Howe, DePaolo, Hunter, Leary, Levine, Bleiwas and Goodman
Mr. Howe thanked the Committee members for all their work over the past four years.
Added Item—Discuss Town Mission and Vision Statement and Board Protocol Manual
Mr. Howe noted that the mission and vision statements have been a work in progress and asked
for any comments on the current draft.
Ms. Hunter said she would like to see action items to accompany this vision statement and asked
if the intention was to come up with some goals and strategies to achieve this vision statement.
Mr. Howe responded that Ms. Drake started this idea and she was very clear that they should be
followed by goals and strategies. He added that at the management retreat, each department
head was asked how they felt their team and efforts fit into these statements and how they would
set goals and implement strategies to meet them.
Ms. Leary said that unlike corporate or non-profit statements, we are a government who drafts
laws and actions based on the need at the moment and being to specific might tie our hands.
Mr. DePaolo had some grammar suggestions, saying the "quality of life"needs a modifier.
Mr. Levine commented that he has ben involved in this type of strategic planning and although
the town is not engaged in that type of process, it is good to have these as a basis for determining
values and making decisions and this is a good thing and a good start.
Some discussion followed and Mr. Howe stated that the goal is to have this ready for the launch
of our new website and to keep thinking about it and send comments to him.
Mr. Howe turned to the Protocol Manual and asked for comments.
Mr. DePaolo stated that he had a number of comments that could probably be discussed offline
as this is an internal document.
Ms. Hunter had concerns regarding the 3-day timeline for materials to the board and public.
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 20
Ms. Leary had concerns with a sense that the Board was delegating more autonomy and policy
setting to the management team.
Discussion followed and it was decided that this would be pulled from the organizational
meeting and discussed at P&O and brought to the study session.
3. Consider award of the Forest Home Walkway Improvement Project
Mr. Howe noted that this is the second time this has gone out to bid and they did come in lower
this round. There were no questions from the Board.
TB Resolution 2021 -161: Award Contract for the Town of Ithaca Forest Home Walkway
Improvements Proiect and Authorize Supervisor to execute same
Whereas on December 14, 2021, the Town of Ithaca Director of Engineering (Director) received
bids for the Town of Ithaca Forest Home Walkway Improvements Project (Improvement), for the
removal, grading, and replacement of approximately 510 L.F. of existing walkway with a new
gravel surface and 28 precast concrete steps, clearing and grubbing, installation of associated storm
drainage features, 416 L.F. of new railing, 47 L.F. of new concrete sidewalk, 15 L.F. of new
granite curbing, along with other work therewith, and
Whereas the Director has reviewed the bids and qualifications of the bidders and has determined
that the lowest responsive bid of$262,000.00 for the project was made by the lowest responsive
bidder,Procon Contracting, LLC, P.O. Box 1037, Vestal,NY, 13851 and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act("SEQRA") and
its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, approval of said Project, including
acquisition of associated easements and rights-of-ways (Easements) is an Unlisted Action for
which the Town Board, acting as the lead agency in an environmental review of the
Improvement, made a negative determination of environmental significance on August 9, 2021,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts
1, 2 and 3, and
Whereas on September 13, 2021, the Town Board authorized and approved the Improvement,
including Easements, at a total cost not to exceed $320,000, and authorized the Supervisor to
execute same, subject to review by the Attorney for the Town and after the end of a permissive
referendum period pursuant to the provisions of Town Law §220(3), and
Whereas the referendum period has expired, with no petitions against the Improvement being
received, and
Whereas, Barton and Loguidice, D.P.C. has provided a proposal totaling $6,000 for construction
inspection services; now, therefore be it
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 21
Resolved that the Town Board authorizes the award the Town of Ithaca Forest Home Walkway
Improvements Project contract to Procon Contracting, LLC, and authorizes the Town Supervisor
to execute same, subject to review of the contract documents by the Director and the Attorney
for the Town, and be it further
Resolved that the Director is authorized to approve change orders to said contract, not to exceed
$27,000.00 in aggregate, upon receipt of appropriate justification, and be it further
Resolved, that the Town Board approves and authorizes the Town Supervisor to
execute a supplemental agreement for construction inspection services with Barton and
Loguidice, D.P.C., not to exceed $6,000, subject to review by the Attorney for the Town, and be
it further
Resolved, that the Town Finance Officer is authorized to make the following 2021 budget
amendment for the Improvement:
From: A8540.500 Capital Projects $180,000
To: A7110.527 Forest Home Walkway Improvements $180,000
Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: ayes—Hunter, DePaolo, Leary, Levine, Goodman, Bleiwas and Howe
4. Consider Authorization for the Supervisor to accept and execute the Park Foundation
Grant as Financial Agent for the Cayuga Watershed Intermunicipal Organization
(CWIO)
Mr. Howe noted that the town has been a part of the CWIO and administrative agent for many
years and this is a continuation of that role. There were no questions from the Board.
TB Resolution 2021 - 162: Acceptance of and Authorization for the Town Supervisor to
execute the Park Foundation Grant 21-679, 21-718 for 2-year funding of a Watershed
Manager for CWIO as its Fiscal Agent
Whereas the Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal Organization applied for and received a
grant from the Park Foundation for$180,000 over two years for support of a Watershed Manager
with the Town acting as its Fiscal Agent, now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board hereby accepts the Grant and authorizes the Town Supervisor to
execute the necessary documents to complete the Grant.
Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas
Vote: ayes—Hunter, DePaolo, Howe, Leary, Levine, Bleiwas and Goodman
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 22
5. Consider actions associated with the Town's Deer Management Program 2022:
Mr. Howe noted the memo from Mike Smith and asked for questions.
Mr. DePaolo asked about the reference to three not recovered, and if that meant they are assumed
killed?
Mr. Smith responded that two were found the next day and one was not, but the hunters felt it
was a good shot.
Mr. DePaolo turned to the map and asked what the cross-hatching was about.
Mr. Smith responded that that is the area that we are focusing on and DEC wanted the boundary
notated and we are looking to pick properties in that area.
Mr. DePaolo asked about the deer-crash numbers and they are out of date and so although it
might be a good baseline, it would be good to know whether there was a decrease at some point.
Mr. Smith responded that 2020 and 2021 were fully active years.
Mr. Goodman added that when this was first proposed, there were a number of farmers who
wanted to be included and they are on the outskirts of the town and the DEC wanted us to focus
more into the town because they said the farmers could get their own nuisance permits.
a. Deer Damage Permit application to DEC
TB Resolution 2021-163a: Authorization to Submit a Deer Damage Permit Application to the
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation for 2022
Whereas,in May 2017, the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board presented a report (titled"Deer
Management: Recommended Actions for the Town of Ithaca") to the Ithaca Town Board regarding
the overabundance of White-tailed deer in the Town of Ithaca; and
Whereas,this report outlined the history and justification of deer management(health and human
safety, ecological, agricultural losses, car-deer collisions,NYSDEC Deer Management Focus Area),
provided a review of local deer management programs in Tompkins County (Village of
Trumansburg, Cornell University, Village of Cayuga Heights, Village of Lansing), and provided
recommendations for a potential Town of Ithaca deer management program (form sub-committee,
utilize NYSDEC Deer Damage Permits for a Town program, measure impacts of deer to asses
effectiveness of program, coordinate efforts with adjacent municipalities and Cornell University,
etc.); and
Whereas,in September 2017 the Ithaca Town Board established a Deer Management Committee
which met several times in spring and summer 2018 and held a public meeting in May 2018 seeking
feedback on the report and the potential of starting a deer management program, with the feedback
received being very positive; and
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 23
Whereas,pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA") and its
implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, the establishment of this Deer Management
Program and submission of annual Deer Damage Permit applications is an Unlisted Action for which
the Town of Ithaca Town Board, acting as lead agency in an uncoordinated environmental review
with respect to these actions, has, on February 11, 2019 ,made a negative environmental
determination of significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Parts 1, 2 and 3; and
Whereas,the Town applied for and received a Deer Damage Permit from NYSDEC in February
2019 and conducted the program at three locations,resulting in the harvesting of one deer; and
Whereas,the Town applied for and received a Deer Damage Permit from NYSDEC in January 2020
and conducted the program at six locations,resulting in the harvesting of 20 deer; and
Whereas,the Town applied for and received a Deer Damage Permit from NYSDEC in January 2021
and conducted the program at nine locations,resulting in the harvesting of 42 deer;
Now, therefore,be it
Resolved, that the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca,is hereby authorized and directed to file a new
Deer Damage Permit application with NYS Department of Environmental Conservation for activities
in 2022, including any associated future documents, forms, or reports.
Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: Ayes— Goodman, Howe, Leary, Hunter, Levine. Nays—Bleiwas and DePaolo
b. License agreement with Conifer Realty for use of land—Linderman Creek area
TB Resolution 2021 - 163b: Authorization to Sign a License Agreement with Conifer
Realty LLC for use of approximately 68 acres as part of the Town's Deer Management
Program for 2022
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca will be applying for a Deer Damage Permit from NYS Department
of Environmental Conservation to use nine bait locations in the Town of Ithaca for the deer
culling; and
Whereas, Town of Ithaca staff have identified two locations on Conifer Realty LLC owned or
managed lands adjacent to the Linderman Creek Apartments/Conifer Village at Ithaca and the
Overlook Apartments for the deer program; and
Whereas, Conifer Realty LLC authorized the use of two locations on their lands in 2021 and
have agreed to continue using two locations in 2022; and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca staff have prepared a"Revocable License to Authorize Town Use
of Conifer Realty LLC Property"; now, therefore,be it
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 24
Resolved, that the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca, is hereby authorized and directed to
negotiate and sign an agreement with Conifer Realty LLC for use of approximately 68 acres as
part of the Town's deer management program for 2022.
Moved: Eric Levine Seconded: Bill Goodman
Vote: ayes—Goodman, Levine, Leary, Howe and Hunter nays—Bleiwas and DePaolo
c. License agreement with the City of Ithaca for use of land—Six Mile Creek area
TB Resolution 2021 -163c: Authorization to Sign a License Agreement with the City. of
Ithaca for use of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area Property as part of the Town's Deer
Management Program for 2022
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca will be applying for a Deer Damage Permit from NYS Department
of Environmental Conservation to use nine bait locations in the Town of Ithaca for the deer
culling; and
Whereas, Town of Ithaca and City of Ithaca staff have identified three locations on City of Ithaca
owned lands in the Six Mile Creek Natural Area for the deer program; and
Whereas, the City of Ithaca has participated in the program the past two years and wish to
continue with using three locations on City of Ithaca owned lands in 2022; and
Whereas, a"Revocable License to Authorize Town Use of Six Mile Creek Natural Area
Property"has been prepared; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca, is hereby authorized and directed to
negotiate and sign an agreement with the City of Ithaca for use of the Six Mile Creek Natural
Area as part of the Town's deer management program for 2022.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes—Goodman, Levine, Leary, Howe and Hunter nays—Bleiwas and DePaolo
d. Variance for use of Culver Preserve
Mr. DePaolo asked what the parameters are for the use on town preserve lands.
Mr. Smith responded that the DEC permit allows the program to run 24 hours a day, but the
other sites seem to be used from about 4pm to early evening as the most effective time at the
feeders.
Mr. DePaolo asked if there were any other town-owned lands being used.
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 25
Mr. Smith responded that we have used the Finger Lakes Land Trust Sweidler Preserve on South
Hill and the City's Six Mile Creek Watershed.
Mr. DePaolo stated that he felt this is a dangerous precedent and he is not in favor of this.
Mr. Goodman asked Mr. Smith to elaborate on why they chose this site.
Mr. Smith responded that the program has used similar lands with public uses and this would be
a trial. The city and the FLLT encouraged us to do this because of the native vegetation the deer
are eating and with the Town having started this a couple of years ago now and have some
experience and the Town has a lot of preserves we would like to consider for the Program and
help with that destruction of native vegetation.
Mr. Goodman pointed out that if you look at the map for West Hill, next to Coy Glen, closer to
the City, has a large parcel near there that is used and there is a private parcel we brought into the
Program and they took a number of deer from there, and Mr. Ranchich property is no longer
being used because hunters didn't participate well in that. The Culver Rd Preserve adjoins the
Cornell lands, which we allow their program to pass through our Preserve to get to theirs, so this
is an area that is active, and we might get better results and this would be a trial to see if that
would happen.
Mr. DePaolo responded that the table showed only 2 deer taken.
Mr. Slater asked if the town parks and preserves would be opened up to hunters who pay for
licenses or just this program.
Mr. Smith responded he is not aware of any discussions for that.
Ms. Hunter asked about whether we could limit the hours and what kind of signage is posted.
Mr. Smith responded that signs are posted on the trees about what is happening up ahead and
yes, we could limit the hours of hunting under the variance, which this resolution relates to,
separate from the DEC permit.
Discussion followed and the Board decided that dusk to dawn would be a limiting factor for this
trial run to limit intermingling public use and the Program use, noting that this is not "hunting"in
the normal sense of the term,but is culling with feeders and lights permitted.
TB Resolution 2021 - 163d: Granting a variance from the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter
200 "Parks & Recreation Areas" to allow the Culver Road Preserve Babcock Ridge)be
used in the Town's Deer Management Program
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Deer Management Program is requesting a variance from Town
Code Sections 200-3.A and 200-5.E to allow the Town Deer Management Program to operate a
bait/hunting site on the Babcock Ridge portion of the Culver Road Preserve (Town of Ithaca Tax
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 26
Parcel No.'s 31.-1-14.2 and 31.-1-14.4), which, if granted, would permit participants to be on the
Culver Road Preserve during normally closed hours and to possess and discharge firearms and/or
archery equipment (compound bow or crossbow), and
Whereas, the Town's Deer Management Program has been operating for the past three years on
private property and City of Ithaca owned property throughout the Town of Ithaca, and
Whereas, the Town's Culver Road Preserve with its 155-acres of land (74-acres in just the
Babcock Ridge portion) presents an opportunity for the town to support and actively participate
in the deer management program for the many reasons described in the Conservation Board's
report, but especially the potential ecological benefits, and
Whereas, the Town Board has discussed the request and determined that good cause exists for a
time-limited variance, now therefore be it
Resolved, that the Town Board grants a variance to the Town's Deer Management Program from
Town of Ithaca Code Sections 200-3.A"General Regulations" and 200-5.E "Prohibited
Activities"to allow participants to be on the Culver Road Preserve during normal closed hours
(24 hours per day) and to allow participants to possess and discharge firearms and/or archery
equipment as part of the Town Deer Management Program, with the following conditions:
1. Program participants must adhere to all DEC regulations related to hunting activities
contained in the Deer Damage Permit issued to the Town of Ithaca, and
2. This variance is valid February 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022, from '/z an hour before
sunset to '/z an hour before sunrise, and
With the following findings:
1. The Town Board finds good cause to grant this variance. The benefit to the Town's Deer
Management Program outweighs the detriment that would result from strict enforcement
of Chapter 200, and
2. The Babcock Ridge portion of the Culver Road Preserve is approximately 74 acres with
adequate space to operate a bait site, and
3. Using the Town owned Culver Road Preserve will support the Town's Deer Management
Program and will help to reduce deer browse on Town natural lands.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes—Goodman, Levine, Leary, Howe and Hunter nays—Bleiwas and DePaolo
TB Resolution 2021 - 163d: Granting a variance from the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter
200 "Parks & Recreation Areas" to allow the Culver Road Preserve Babcock Ridge)be
used in the Town's Deer Management Program
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 27
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Deer Management Program is requesting a variance from Town
Code Sections 200-3.A and 200-5.E to allow the Town Deer Management Program to operate a
bait/hunting site on the Babcock Ridge portion of the Culver Road Preserve (Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No.'s 31.-1-14.2 and 31.-1-14.4), which, if granted, would permit participants to be on the
Culver Road Preserve during normally closed hours and to possess and discharge firearms and/or
archery equipment (compound bow or crossbow), and
Whereas, the Town's Deer Management Program has been operating for the past three years on
private property and City of Ithaca owned property throughout the Town of Ithaca, and
Whereas, the Town's Culver Road Preserve with its 155-acres of land (74-acres in just the
Babcock Ridge portion) presents an opportunity for the town to support and actively participate
in the deer management program for the many reasons described in the Conservation Board's
report, but especially the potential ecological benefits, and
Whereas, the Town Board has discussed the request and determined that good cause exists for a
time-limited variance, now therefore be it
Resolved, that the Town Board grants a variance to the Town's Deer Management Program from
Town of Ithaca Code Sections 200-3.A"General Regulations" and 200-5.E "Prohibited
Activities"to allow participants to be on the Culver Road Preserve during normal closed hours
(24 hours per day) and to allow participants to possess and discharge firearms and/or archery
equipment as part of the Town Deer Management Program, with the following conditions:
1. Program participants must adhere to all DEC regulations related to hunting activities
contained in the Deer Damage Permit issued to the Town of Ithaca, and
2. This variance is valid February 1, 2022 through March 31, 2022, 30 minutes prior to
sunset through 30 minutes prior to sunrise.
With the following findings:
1. The Town Board finds good cause to grant this variance. The benefit to the Town's Deer
Management Program outweighs the detriment that would result from strict enforcement
of Chapter 200, and
2. The Babcock Ridge portion of the Culver Road Preserve is approximately 74 acres with
adequate space to operate a bait site, and
3. Using the Town owned Culver Road Preserve will support the Town's Deer Management
Program and will help to reduce deer browse on Town natural lands.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: Ayes—Goodman, Howe, Leary, Hunter, Levine. Nays—Bleiwas and DePaolo
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 28
6. Consent
TB Resolution 2021 - 164: Consent Agenda
Resolved that the Town Board hereby approves and/or adopts the following Consent Agenda
items:
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes -None
b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Budget Amendments, Transfers and Modifications
d. Permanent Appointments—Engineering
Moved: Rod Howe Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes—Howe, Levine, Leary, Hunter, Goodman, DePaolo and Bleiwas
TB Resolution 2021 -164b: Town of Ithaca Abstract No. 24 for FY-2021
Whereas the numbered vouchers have been presented and audited for payment by the Ithaca
Town Board, now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of said vouchers in total for the
amounts indicated below;
VOUCHER NOS. 1439— 1539 (voiding vouchers 1465 & 1466)
General Fund Town Wide 131,235.03
General Fund Part-Town 92,081.38
Highway Fund Town Wide DA 12,331.61
Highway Fund Part Town DB 69,767.17
Water Fund 29,721.18
Sewer Fund 1,696,872.10
Gateway Trail—H8 32,934.17
Risk Retention Fund 795.37
Fire Protection Fund 280,000.00
Forest Home Lighting District 237.98
Glenside Lighting District 81.02
Renwick Heights Lighting District 99.64
Eastwood Commons Lighting District 204.67
Clover Lane Lighting District 24.00
Winner's Circle Lighting District 76.37
Burlei h Drive Lighting District 81.83
West Haven Road Lighting District 253.54
Coddin ton Road Lighting District 151.43
TOTAL 2,346,948.49
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 29
TB Resolution 2021 - 164c: APPEoval of Budget Transfers,Amendments and
Modifications for the Quarter Ending December 31, 2021
Whereas, the Town Finance Officer has reviewed all budgetary revenue and appropriation
accounts for the quarter ending December 31, 2021, and
Whereas, this review disclosed certain budgetary revenues and expenditures requiring transfers,
amendments or modifications summarized below:
General Town-wide Fund
Budget Transfers
Account Description From To
A1010.410 Conferences & Mileage 952
A1010.400 Contractual 952
A1316.400 Contractual 200
A1316.408 Postage 200
A1340.100 Regular 557
A1340.410 Conferences & Mileage 557
A1430.425 Apprenticeship Program 2,000
A1430.400 Contractual 2,000
A1340.100 Regular 42,215
A1680.291 Hardware & Equipment 16,215
A1680.400 Contractual 26,000
A1680.490 Network Support 6,640
A1680.491 Hardware & Equipment 4,700
A1680.492 Software 1,940
A1680.494 Maintenance & Repairs 950
A1680.492 Software 950
A1990.499 Contingency Account 880
A1920.488 Taxes/Assessments on Town Property 880
Budget Amendment:
Account Description From To
A1340.100 Regular 27,248
A9950.921 Gateway Trail 27,248
To cover the cost of a Procon change order authorized by resolution#2021-026.
General Part-Town Fund
Budget Transfers:
Account Description From To
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 30
B 1680.490 Network Support 8,640
B1680.291 Hardware & Equipment 8,640
Highway Part-Town Fund
Bud et Transfers:
Account Description From To
DB1680.490 Network Support 2,800
DB1680.492 Software 2,800
DB 1650.415 Communications - Telephones 4,000
DB5130.276 Park& Turf Equipment 3,807
DB1680.291 Hardware & Equipment 7,807
DB 1680.400 Contractual 663
DB 1680.497 Tools & Supplies 500
DB 1680.491 Hardware & Equipment 1,163
Water Fund
Bud et Transfers:
Account Description From To
F1680.490 Network Support 6,515
F 1680.291 Hardware & Equipment 2,403
F1680.400 Contractual 1,500
F1680.492 Software 2,612
Sewer Fund
Bud et Transfers:
Account Description From To
G1680.490 Network Support 6,515
G1680.291 Hardware & Equipment 2,403
G1680.400 Contractual 1,500
G1680.492 Software 2,612
Bud et Amendment:
Account Description From To
G599 Appropriated Fund Balance 1,144,642
G8150.522 IAWWTF-SJC Capital Projects 1 1,144,642
Resolution#2021-118 approved $2,800,000 for IAWWTF sewer repairs, this amendment
funds our share from fund balance, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town Board authorizes the Finance Officer to record all budget transfers,
amendments and modifications, including all other changes deemed appropriate and necessary.
TB Resolution 2021 - 164d: Approve Permanent Appointments of Enj!ineerinj!
Department Staff
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 31
Whereas, Daniel Thaete, David O'Shea and Justin McNeal were all provisionally appointed to
their titles pending the next civil service exam, due to the re-creation of the Engineering
Department; and
Whereas, Tompkins County Civil Service has provided the certificate of eligible listing for their
titles, and all are reachable candidates; now, therefore be it
Resolved, the Town Board hereby approve the permanent appointment of Daniel Thaete,
Director of Engineering, David O'Shea, Senior Civil Engineer and Justin McNeal, Civil
Engineer, with no change in current compensation or benefits,retro-active to December 20,
2021; and be it further
Resolved, a twenty-six (26) week probationary period applies to Justin McNeal and an eight-
week probationary period applies to David O'Shea with no further action by the Town Board if
there is successful completion of the probationary periods as determined by the Director of
Engineering.
7. Board and Department comments
Ms. Rosa stated that Bruce Brittain has emailed her to thank the Town for being open this past
year or so and so productive.
Mr. Howe reminded members to send in pictures for the new webpage.
8. Resolutions of Appreciation
TB Resolution 2021 -165: Resolution of Appreciation and Recognition of Service for
Patricia Leary
Whereas, Patricia"Pat" Leary has served as a Town Board member for the past 16 years, serving
from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2021; and
Whereas, Pat had previously served as a Town Board member for two terms from 1986 through
1993; and
Whereas, Pat also served as the appointed Deputy Town Supervisor from May 2008 through
December 2009; and
Whereas, Pat served for the past 16 years on the Town's Codes and Ordinances Committee,
helping to shape new and amended Town Ordinances on topics as varied as Stream Water
Riparian Buffer Setbacks, Lakefront Residential Dock Lengths, Guinea Hens in backyard
Chicken Coops, and Eruv's near the Cornell campus; and
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 32
Whereas, Pat provided strong advocacy for the staff as part of the Personnel & Organization and
Employee Relations Committees, helping to guarantee fair wages and benefits as well as a safe
and satisfying work environment for Town employees; and
Whereas, Pat also served at various times on the Town Board's Budget, Planning, Public Works,
Sidewalk and Short-Term Rental Committees; and
Whereas, Pat's skills as a writer and editor have helped immensely in the drafting and
proofreading of the Town's written materials and communications; and
Whereas, Pat's interest in and advocacy for Affordable Housing has helped pave the way for the
Town's decision to provide funding for and join the Community Housing Development Fund
Program efforts to promote more Affordable Housing; and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca has greatly benefited from Pat's combined Twenty-Six (26) years
of devotion and desire to serve our community in order to make it a better place for us all to live;
now, therefore,be it
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca, on behalf of the Town and all its citizens,
expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Patricia Leary for her distinguished and
dedicated service to our community.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes - Goodman, Levine, Howe, Hunter, Bleiwas, and DePaolo
Ms. Leary thanked the Board.
TB Resolution 2021 - 166: Resolution of Appreciation & Recognition of Service for Tee-
Ann Hunter
Whereas, Tee-Ann Hunter retired from the Town after being the Town Clerk for over six years
and was appointed to the Town of Ithaca Town Board on June 9, 2008; and
Whereas, Tee-Ann was elected to serve from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2021; and
Whereas, Tee-Ann's ability to listen to constituents and her sincere interest in understanding
their perspectives made her a valued representative; and
Whereas, Tee-Ann's personal experience as Town Clerk laid the foundation for cooperative and
caring relationships with Town staff during her tenure on the Board; and
Whereas, Tee-Ann's love of the natural environment, her sense of its fragility, and of its value to
the larger community inspired her to re-energize the Cayuga Lake Watershed Intermunicipal
Organization, piloting it from a multi-year holding pattern to a thriving and forward-looking
State-relevant planning entity; and
TB 2021-12-29 (Filed 2/7) Pg. 33
Whereas,Tee-Ann also took a keen interest in sound long-range fiscal policy, championing the
use of asset management practices and capital improvement planning as a way of efficiently
anticipating and preparing for large-scale expenditures; and
Whereas,Tee-Ann recognized the nutritional and general wellness benefits of gardening and
catalyzed the creation of the West Hill Community Garden, which, with modest To support,
provides opportunities for members of our community who might otherwise not have ready
access; and
Whereas,Tee-Ann's appreciation for and understanding of land-use planning and architectural
aesthetics made her a valued participant in the Town's continuing efforts to balance ongoing
development with conservation and sustainability priorities; and
Whereas,Tee-Ann could always be counted on to contribute collegial, common-sense questions
and perspectives during otherwise complex,contentious or stalled deliberations; and
Whereas,the To of Ithaca has greatly benefited from Tee-Ann's over twenty(20) years of
devotion and desire to serve our community in order to make it a better place for us all to live;
now, therefore,be it
Resolved,that the To Board of the Town of Ithaca,on behalf of the Town and all its citizens,
expresses its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Tee-Ann Hunter for her distinguished and
dedicated service to our community.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas
Vote: Ayes- Howe,Bleiwas, Leary, Levine, Goodman, DePaolo
Ms. Hunter thanked the Board for all the work that they do and said it has been a great honor and
pleasure to work with them all.
She said she has done her best to serve the community and, in the process, has learned so much
from each of you and the staff and the town is privileged to have such a good staff that works
tirelessly on behalf of this community.
She wished the Board and staff the best of luck and best wishes
Adjourn
Meeting was adjourned at 1:42 pm. by Rod Howe,seconded by Rich DePaolo, unanimous.
Submitted by
Paul ttell own Clerk
TB 2021-12-29(Filed 2,17) Pg. 34
Paulette Rosa
From: Craig Dunham <ctdunham5@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2021 12:30 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Cc: Rod Howe
Subject: Letter to Town Board re: December 29 STR Public Hearing
Attachments: Town of Ithaca Board Letter 12_26_21 Dunham_Shay.pdf
Dear Town of Ithaca Town Clerk
Attached is a letter to the Town of Ithaca Board to distribute to the Board in advance of the December 29 meeting
regarding proposed Short Term Rental regulations. We recognize that the Town of Ithaca Board was not intentionally
trying to hurt retirees and property owners not privileged to be on the lake-and hope that our letter will help with a
course correction. .
Best regards,
Craig Dunham and Megan Shay
1024 Hanshaw Rd, Ithaca, NY 14850, USA
607-280-6100
1
December 26, 2021
1024 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850
607-280-6100 email: ctdunham5@gmail.com
Dear Town of Ithaca Board,
We are writing you regarding the proposed Short Term Rental legislation in advance of your December
29, 2021 Board meeting vote. We were dismayed by the lack of concern shown by Board Members at
the December 13 public hearing after hearing from many people who would be hurt by this proposed
legislation including schoolteachers, lower income residents and retirees. It seemed to us that the
Board had reached a point of Group Think and Decision Fatigue so that its members were no longer
thinking rationally and compassionately about the impact of your decisions. This is a really poor place to
be for a group making critical decisions that hurt people's lives and livelihoods. We encourage you to
vote down or table the current regulation and then to take a step back with the assistance of your two
new Board members who start in January.
Sargeant Ryan Slocum from the Tompkins County Sheriff's office made it extremely clear on December
13 that their department is fully prepared to enforce existing noise and nuisance ordinances-and have
been doing so when asked. We recognize that some Ithaca Town residents may not be fully satisfied but
we are firm believers that creating duplicative regulations does not solve a problem when those
regulations already exist.
We share your concern about businesses impacting the housing supply by buying up houses solely for
short term rentals. However, we believe that issue would be better addressed with a much simpler, less
hurtful and less burdensome regulation. We volunteer to assist with this by providing you some ideas to
work with.
Since the December 13 meeting, we have been carefully studying section G which provides for an
exception for people who have made a financial investment in a short-term rental property. The
wording makes it challenging for us as retirees to qualify for this. However, for the short-term rental
businesses that your legislation is aimed at stopping, it would be very easy for them to qualify to be
exempt from the new STR legislation for a long time. During your discussion on December 13,you said
that you did not want to modify the language to help us as retirees or the multiple people who shared
with you how this proposed legislation would severely hurt them because you were concerned about
creating loopholes that the professional STRs could get through. However,you have already created a
loophole the size of a barn door that allows professional STRs to continue. We urge you not to pass
legislation which financially punishes your residents and includes a loophole that enables professional
STRs to waltz right through!
We also wanted to point out that the Board has previously acknowledged on the record that there is
long term pre-existing nonconforming use which will open up the Town to expensive and time-
consuming lawsuits if this regulation is passed. You have not provided grandfather clauses,which would
be a standard and reasonable approach to mitigate the damage these new regulations will cause.
We are confident that it was not intention of the Town of Ithaca Board to penalize retirees and lower
property value owners with this legislation. However, we believe that is the net result of this
complicated, costly and unfair proposed regulation. We urge you to vote down or at least table the
current proposal and then develop much narrower, simpler legislation to address the specific issue of
businesses purchasing houses solely for short term rentals.
Thank you,
Craig Dunham (Cornell '78 and long-term area resident)
Megan Shay(Ithaca native,Wells '83) ''
Paulette Rosa
From: Bill Goodman
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 11:05 AM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: FW: Short term rental law
Hi Paulette, For inclusion with other STR comms. Thanks,
Bill Goodman
Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca,NY 14850
607-592-6745, cell
-----Original Message-----
From: Martha Armstrong <martha.j.armstrong@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:18 PM
To: Bill Goodman<BGoodman@town.ithaca.ny.us>
Subject: Short term rental law
Bill, please share with the board. Thanks, Martha
Dear Town of Ithaca Board,
After listening to the board meeting on December 13, I believe the lake house neighborhood should be treated
the same as all other neighborhoods (same restrictions on rental days). The lake front has become less and less
accessible to locals in the past ten years as high priced short term rentals drive the cost up to own property, and
it becomes a more exclusive domain of out-of-town visitors.
If the Town supports the high-cost exclusive waterfront of extensive short term rentals, there should be more
efforts to create public access locations. The Town's East shore park is extremely popular and overused. Let's
create at least one more similar public access point.
Thank you for your work on this and other important issues,
Martha Armstrong
146 Homestead Circle
Ithaca,NY 14850
607-592-0695
Sent from Martha's iPhone
i
Paulette Rosa
From: Mia Slotnick <mjslotnick123@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2021 9:30 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Fwd: Short Term Rentals
Hi Paulette.
Could you please forward the letter below to all members of the Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals?
Thanks very much,
Mia
Dear Supervisor Howe,Town Board members, and all those involved in Short Term Rental legislation,
At the December 13th Town Board meeting, it was decided that the effective dates of the laws would be pushed
forward.This change was partly motivated to accommodate two Short Term Rental Hosts:
1. Craig Denham and Megan Shay are a former Ithaca couple who have now retired to Florida and become Florida
residents.They live the majority of the year in Florida.They use the house they own in Ithaca as an income property,
and stated in the public hearing that they rent it for 80-100 days per year at$200 per night.They also have an ADU on
the property that is occupied as a long term rental. A conservative estimate on their yearly rental income of their Ithaca
property would be over$30,000 per year.
Regardless of the potential income,why should these particular individuals be exempted from the Committee
recommended limits on Unhosted STRs as well as the primary residence requirement?
2. Alexa Schmitz owns Hayt's Schoolhouse and Chapel on Trumansburg Road.She participated in the large STR working
meeting in April 2019. At that time, she was living in the property and claimed she rented it as a STR to afford its upkeep.
Alexa has since moved and rents Hayt's Chapel as a full time year round STR. Her Airbnb ad states:
This is a rare find.
Alexa's place on Airbnb is usually fully booked.
Alexa has had 302 Airbnb reviews, and already has 4 reviews from the month of December!
A conservative estimate of 300 nights per year at$145 per night means the property makes over$40,000 per year.This
income supplements Alexa's salary as a postdoctoral researcher in Biological and Environmental Engineering at Cornell.
Alexa has chosen to no longer live in her property because she can make substantially more money using it as a Short
Term Rental business.
Once again why should this individual be exempted from Unhosted limits and the primary residence requirement?
The stated goals of the STR legislation include protecting housing affordability for long term residents whether owners
or renters, and to assist homeowners to stay in their homes by allowing some STR use to generate income to defray
their cost of homeownership.Another stated goal of the legislation is to protect neighborhood character and minimize
the impact of STR uses on neighbors and residential properties.
In both of the above situations,the home is no longer their primary residence and it is being used as STR businesses,
thereby depriving locals from purchase or long term rental of these properties.The rental income generated is far
beyond what would be considered necessary to defray the cost of homeownership.The impact on the neighbors is
surely greater because the Hosts are not on the premises.
We worry that encouraging and perhaps granting a variance in these situations will open the floodgates to allow others
in similar situations to do the same,thus obviating the major goals of the STR legislation.
1
We also urge you to please reconsider the two recent changes that were made to the proposed law. Increasing the
lakefront days to 245 creates a pronounced parity issue compared to the number of days allowed in the rest of the
Town. Part of the reason the STIR Committee decided unanimously on 150 days for the lakefront could have been to
avoid creating such a huge disparity. Increasing the number of days of Unhosted rentals for other residential areas
would not be a fair solution to those who are opposed to the negative impact STRs bring to these residential
neighborhoods. Doubling the number of permits allowed from the STR Committee's unanimous recommendation of one
to two greatly increases the negative impact STRs will have on neighborhoods.
Thank you for considering these comments.
And thank you to the Short Term Rental Committee members for your years of research, brainstorming, deliberation,
discussion, and listening to public input. We greatly appreciate all the time and effort you have put into this issue.
Sincerely,
The Renwick and Forest Home Neighbors
2
Paulette Rosa
From: Patricia Leary <pll7@cornell.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2021 2:28 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Cc: mjslotnick123@gmail.com
Subject: Fwd: Short term rentals
For the correspondence file... I couldn't let some of the statements she made go unchallenged, especially about the
good people of Renwick Heights and Forest Home.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Patricia Leary<PI17@cornell.edu>
Date: December 23, 2021 at 12:59:40 PM EST
To: Sonja Sandstrom <soniasandstrom@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:Short term rentals
Thank you for communicating your thoughts about the Town of Ithaca's proposed regulations for short-
term rentals. Since you do not live in the town,you may not be aware of the impetus for the proposed
law. We began working on this legislation four years ago, in response to requests for help by community
members whose lives had been disrupted by a steady stream of out-of-town visitors who treated their
neighborhood like their personal playground.
The houses that were rented out to these transients were owned by a few wealthy neighbors who
used their properties to get even wealthier. Some of these owners were, in fact, rarely in town
themselves and were essentially absentee landlords.
Your assertion that the neighbors who have issues with strs are "mostly well-off entitled white men
who want to control others" is simply not true in this case. For one thing, at least as many women as
men have asked us to alleviate the situation.And the only thing they want to control is their own lives,
which have become a nightmare by partying outsiders with no connection to, or respect for,the local
community. It is these vacationers who act entitled.
Meanwhile, Ithaca has a shortage of rental housing for local residents who can't afford to buy their
own home. I am one of them: I have lived in an apartment complex for 40 years. Like most of the rental
housing stock in town,the building is aging. But new housing is very expensive to build, and multifamily
housing development is usually opposed by homeowners. Many of the low-and moderate-income
workers in Ithaca are forced to commute from surrounding counties.
Since the advent of Airbnb (a big business, btw) and other online reservation apps,the scarce spare
rooms available for rent have often gone to people just passing through, rather than people who live
and work in the area. Not only must they compete for rentals with students, now they must compete
with tourists.The problem is that short-term rentals can be more profitable per night for the
landlord/homeowner than renting the same room to a long-term resident.
We therefore want to limit the number of nights that rooms can be rented on a short-term basis if
the owner isn't present,to lessen the financial incentive to privilege vacationers over residents needing
to rent.This also lessens the negative impacts that rapid turnover can have on stable neighborhoods. At
the same time,we are trying to balance these interests with the needs of homeowners to rent their
spare rooms on a flexible basis:we know that long-term tenants are not always suitable.
In the four years that we have worked on this law,we have met with and heard from dozens of
stakeholders on all sides of the issue. We have learned that the majority of property owners and guests
1
are responsible,just as you describe. But to utilize the scare resource of housing equitably and
efficiently, we need to have some regulation.
If you haven't seen the commentary of the many interested parties and the discussion by the Town
Board, I encourage you to look up last Monday's meeting(Dec. 13) on the Town of Ithaca's YouTube
channel. It might ease your concerns at least about the motivations of those seeking change, and
illustrate the complexity of our efforts.
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 13, 2021, at 10:02 AM, Sonja Sandstrom <soniasandstrom@yahoo.com>wrote:
Hello
I understand that the town of Ithaca is meeting to consider a new law to limit short term
rentals.
I do not currently live in the town of Ithaca, but my family and I stay in many of these
when we visit. We have several children and this is how we can afford to stay and travel.
It would not be be possible for us to afford to stay at a hotel and we dislike supporting
big business.We like supporting families and small mom/pop places.
The families that host us have always been amazing.They are attentive and ensure the
place is nice and safe. We have never been a source of complaint. I'm fact the airbnb by
our house (not Ithaca) is the nicest on our block.They always have kind people and are
respectful.The neighbors with older teens actually are the worst and their parents own
the place.Truth be told I have never had an issue with any Airbnb that could not be
resolved by already existing laws but with my continuous neighbors I have to resort to
police. All you need is contact info for the host. We don't need to be babysat by
someone 'watching'.The proposal sounds like stalking your neighbors and that is
terrible for community feelings.
From experience, I know that the neighbors who have issues with any str have mostly
been well off entitled white men who want to control others. Sometimes it is because
they have fears as they age orjust don't deal well with change. I'm sure you know the
type.As a woman married to a bipoc woman,we run into them from time to time. I
would hate for them to stop people like the good families who we stay at(they live
about a mile away) and the other places we stay from providing such a needed and
wonderful place. I would hate to have to start staying in the city and send our money
their. I like supporting the people of the town of Ithaca.
Please do not pass these restrictions.
The home owners deserve to use their property. Sure have safety code inspections, but
don't make it more restrictive than a long term rentals.That is just a way to have the
rich control the ability for those of us struggling. Because that is what this proposal is, a
way to control who gets to live in your town. It says if you can't afford to pay for it while
you raise families,work and struggle, you can't do this to help. Only those with better
jobs.
I also know that some fear speaking up.There is a lot of targeting by various people.The
person we stay with asked that we not use her name.That should also tel you
something. Some of your community are targeting others. Maybe 'just'with words, but
2
that does not encourage community. I'd like my kids to grow in a world where we own
our mistakes and look out for each other.Yes that means equal treatment for all rentals
- in code and in contact. Limiting Airbnb rentals does not do that.
Thank you.
Sonja Sandstrom
3
29 Dec 2021
Town Board of the Town of Ithaca
215 N Tioga St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Michael Hayes
161 Snyder Hill Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Strong opposition to the arbitrarily discriminatory proposed STR regulation regards Jon
Goodman's comments
Greeting Mr. Goodman and Town Board members.
Who are you to decide the best use of MY property!!! The heck with your silly math of 29
days napkin math. I sold our home in Cayuga Heights,that is red hearing.
Sir you do not seem to understand the meaning of sunbirds at all!
We will keep Ithaca as our primary and only residence legally and functionally!!! Where did
you grow up? What makes you Lord of the Town of Ithaca, rather than one citizen only?
We will simply rent a place in a warm climate for less than half a year during Ithaca winter
and return to our home for the spring summer and fall. My wife is from Malaysia and I am a
USAF veteran and a US citizen. We are not ceasing to be legal Ithaca residents as your
purport in your dissertation. This is not your Town. You are minimizing our ability to
Number one point: There should be parity between Lakefront and not lakefront homes in
Ithaca!!!! Failure to do this will get the Town sued. Your proposal is an after the fact
imposition of reduction of value in our home vs when purchased! As long as we are legal
resident's here, say 185 days a year,the rest of the days allow us to be snowbirds for wife's
health in winter. You are taking value from our owned property!! I agree with Megan and
her 4 points as we age here and want to keep our home here to live in!!
Why does "Lakefront"get preferential treatment? Long term renters do not rent for a Nov-
May absence (hence un-hosted by your definition)to protect my wife's health. This is not at
all fair or legal in all likelihood.
I write in opposition to the regulations as written and presently being pushed in the face of
clear opposition by those you are voted in to represent. Clearly, by the majority of
comment, there are major errors as presently written. As to being put out by having to take
more comment, what entitlement leads you to disparage a clear listening to the points of
view of your constituents, who loathe the economic effects this intends to inflict on their
personal finances and the highest and best economic use of THEIR/OUR property?!
The Town does not pay for our property at all. Each homeowner pays for their property, all
of its costs, including paying very high property taxes to live in the Town! We are legally
entitled to generate whatever revenue we can to meet our costs in the use of our private
personal property. This proposed STR rental seeks to prejudicially restrict a notable stream
of funds thus restricting by Government fiat the highest and best economic value of our
property. I think here of any owner who wants or needs to be a sunbird while paying for
their months away from their Ithaca home part of the year.
Let's cover the most serious law violation this ordinance creates. First, discrimination at a 9
to 1 (9:1) ration of STIR rental days per year in favor of only Lake properties vs regular
homeowners. I have a 5 year rental permit for renting our home when my work as airline
captain moves us for a year or two. One inspection, one fee, follow the rules no issue to
anyone. The rule is the same for any home in the Town.
There is a legal process known as inverse condemnation. It applies to what you are
seemingly without an open mind determined to pass here. "Inverse Condemnation applies
when a government (the Town Board)takes a property for public use that greatly damages
the value of the plaintiff's property. To successfully bring an action for inverse
condemnation the property owner must show that a government's taking has failed to
promote substantial governmental interests or has deprived the owner of the economic
value of their property. A government that takes a private property for public use may be
required to provide just compensation even where there is no physical invasion of the
property, such as in regulatory taking where a government permanently deprives the
property owner of all or the highest beneficial use of their property.
The STIR proposal,to even be debated as a legal Government ordinance, needs to have the
SAME maximum days per year for ALL areas of the Town!!!!! Lake owners are not more
privileged than non-lake homeowners.
That alone will fall in a Court challenge which will certainly promptly come if this is passed as
written. The proposed also will raise costs to the Town by tracking the internecine
requirement to report every STIR event. I doubt that version stands muster in Court
challenge. Further there are laws on the books now for police to solve the "issues from 4
years ago"that motivate this dubious exercise today. Those police departments already
have budgets that are unchanged addressing any noise or parking violations without raising
our Town taxes. This is a sledgehammer being used to drive a tack, a solution in search of a
problem by the Town Board.
Michael Hayes
607-370-5310
29 Dec 2021
Town Board of the Town of Ithaca
215 N Tioga St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Michael Hayes
161 Snyder Hill Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Strong opposition to the arbitrarily discriminatory proposed STIR regulation as proposed
Greeting Mr.Goodman and Town Board members.
I write in opposition to the regulations as written and presently being pushed in the face of
clear opposition by those you are voted in to represent. Clearly, by the majority of
comment,there are major errors as presently written. As to being put out by having to take
more comment, what entitlement leads you to disparage a clear listening to the points of
view of your constituents, who loathe the economic effects this intends to inflict on their
personal finances and the highest and best economic use of THEIR/OUR property?!
The Town does not pay for our property at all. Each homeowner pays for their property, all
of its costs, including paying very high property taxes to live in the Town! We are legally
entitled to generate whatever revenue we can to meet our costs in the use of our private
personal property. This proposed STIR rental seeks to prejudicially restrict a notable stream
of funds thus restricting by Government fiat the highest and best economic value of our
property. I think here of any owner who wants or needs to be a sunbird while paying for
their months away from their Ithaca home part of the year.
Let's cover the most serious law violation this ordinance creates. First,discrimination at a 9
to 1 (9:1) ration of STIR rental days per year in favor of only Lake properties vs regular home
owners. I have a 5 year rental permit for renting our home when my work as airline captain
moves us for a year or two. One inspection, one fee,follow the rules no issue to anyone.
The rule is the same for any home in the Town.
There is a legal process known as inverse condemnation. It applies to what you are
seemingly without an open mind determined to pass here. "Inverse Condemnation applies
when a government (the Town Board)takes a property for public use that greatly damages
the value of the plaintiff's property. To successfully bring an action for inverse
condemnation the property owner must show that a government's taking has failed to
promote substantial governmental interests or has deprived the owner of the economic
value of their property. A government that takes a private property for public use may be
required to provide just compensation even where there is no physical invasion of the
property, such as in regulatory taking where a government permanently deprives the
property owner of all or the highest beneficial use of their property.
The STR proposal,to even be debated as a legal Government ordinance, needs to have the
SAME maximum days per year for ALL areas of the Town!!!!! Lake owners are not more
privelaged than non-lake homeowners. That alone will fall in a Court challenge which will
certainly promptly come if this is passed as written. The proposed also will raise costs to the
Town by tracking the internecine requirement to report every STIR event. I doubt that
stands muster in Court. Further there are laws on the books now for police to solve the
"issues from 4 years ago"that motivate this dubious exercise today. Those police
departments already have budgets that are unchanged addressing any noise or parking
violations without raising our Town taxes. This is a sledgehammer being used to drive a
tack, a solution in search of a problem by the Town Board.
Michael Hayes
607-370-5310
Paulette Rosa
From: Brent Katzmann <brentkatzmann@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 1:38 PM
To: Bill Goodman
Cc: Paulette Rosa; Becky Jordan; Rod Howe; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;TeeAnn Hunter; Pat
Leary; Eric Levine
Subject: Re: STR Moment of Opportunity
Thank you for reaching out, Bill.
I was responding to the proposed workaround you offered for hosts that hold hosted permits, but want to be
able to use STIR for periods when they are out of town, for instance, a month or two in the winter or a
sabbatical. As I understand it, your idea was that a property owner could rent to someone unhosted for
whatever length of time a normal STIR reservation would entail (say, 3 to 14 days), but would create a 30 day
lease so the unhosted permit isn't required.
Basically, if a property owner signs a 30 day lease with a tenant to circumvent the STIR legislation, but asks the
tenant to only occupy the property for a shorter period and bases the lease rate accordingly, the tenant now
has inherited rights of tenancy that would enable them to stay for that full period without further
compensation to the landlord. Even if the property owner were to agree to this (though I can't imagine why
anyone would), and then they did this 3 times total for a 90 day period, their total STIR nights could well be
much less than the 29 nights an unhosted permit allows, or perhaps many more, but the Town would have
even less authority or knowledge than if the owner had registered for an unhosted permit.
Lastly, securing true 30 to 90 day tenants is highly uncommon. Stays of 1 - 2 weeks are fairly common and are
typically parents coming to visit their kids at the local colleges, especially foreign parents, or visiting professors
or PhD candidates in for a particular short term program. Without an unhosted permit,these visits could not
be accommodated by a local property owner holding a "hosted" permit when they themselves are out of
town, even if they have a local property manager available 24/7.
The Town Board heard from many property owners in situations not unlike the ones I've described here. Their
only desire is to comply with the new legislation and be responsible property owners, but to have the
flexibility to be able to use unhosted STIR while they're away. These are local people, some working families,
some retired, for whom the money really does matter. And people with whom there have been no
complaints from area residents, to the best of our knowledge. A simple change to allowing owners to hold
both hosted and unhosted permits and to raise the cap to 90 days would go a long way towards balancing this
legislation without negatively impacting its effectiveness or penalizing those property owners most in need of
the revenue STIR offers.
Thank you again.
Respectfully,
Brent
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 1:13 PM Bill Goodman <BGoodman@town.ithaca.nv.us>wrote:
1
Hi Brent, since folks will only have a few minutes to speak at the public hearing Wednesday, if you have the time before
then, I would be interested in hearing more about why you think renting for 30 day periods would be untenable.
Bill Goodman
Deputy Supervisor,Town ofIthaca
215 North Tio0aStreet
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-592-6745, ce||
From: Brent Katzmann
Sent:Wednesday, December 15, 20Z112:44PM
To: Paulette Rosa Rosa ; Becky Jordan
Cc: Rod Howe< ; BiUGoodman ; Rich DePao|o
' PannB|ekwas TeeAnn Hunter
' '
Pat Leary Eric Levine
Subject: STIR Moment ofOpportunity
Dear Town of Ithaca Town Board-
First of all, let me say thank you for agreeing to not vote the legislation into law during Monday's robust
meeting of the Town Board. I think you will agree that, for many of our Town citizens,there is a lot in this
legislation to digest and to interpret the impact on their individual circumstances.
|, for one, found it profoundly important tO hear the stories our residents shared about why and how they
use short term rental as an important part of their lives, from supplementing their dual career modest
incomes,to ensuring the care and upkeep of their home and principal investment,to serving as ambassadors
for our community to visitors who value the kind of care and lodging they receive with short term rental
properties. I think passing this legislation will be felt on a real, personal level for those who can least afford to
lose the opportunities this practice offers them.
As you move forward with your "significant change" to the legislation to change the effective date (which |
imagine Alexa and our retiree residents are grateful for), I ask that you take this opportunity to make two
other changes that, from what you heard clearly on Monday evening, would make a significant difference for
these hosts while not diminishing the results you seek to obtain. Those changes are:
2
1. Allow any host who otherwise complies with the qualifying criteria (principal residence, obtains permit,
etc) to get both a hosted permit and an unhosted permit for STR. We heard many stories of people who host
guests periodically throughout the year and then spend periods of time away from home. With either permit,
these are allowed practices. It's unclear why, if they otherwise have this right,they should have to choose
between the two. Suggesting that a host could sign a 30 day lease to allow a guest to stay for a few days
while the host is away introduces a whole litany of tenancy rights issues that would be untenable.
2. Raise the unhosted stay cap to 90 days. It's been clear from the beginning that this threshold would enable
most local homeowners who utilize STR to meet both the demand of the market and their financial needs. By
requiring that a local representative be available 24/7 addresses the unlikely event that disturbances occur,
as do the penalties proposed. It also would reflect positively on the Board as addressing the concerns of
disparity of rights being raised between Lakefront owners and non-Lakefront owners.
I respectfully disagree with the position that the Town "can always make changes to loosen the regulations if
they seem to be working." By starting out with them as written, it will not be possible to know which of the
many regulations are reducing the nuisances or preventing investor purchasing. It seems vastly preferable to
start with a baseline set of regulations and then impose greater restrictions specifically targeted at where
they seem to fall short in effectiveness.
Again, thank you all for your efforts over the years to strike a balance with this legislation. I believe these
changes will more effectively, and equitably, accomplish that. And,for the record, the regulations as written
don't impact my personal use of STR. My appeal is purely out of a genuine interest in doing the right thing by
our fellow Town residents and the guests they seek to serve.
Kind regards,
Brent
3
Paulette Rosa
From: Alexa Schmitz <alexa.schmitz@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 4:45 PM
To: Rod Howe; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;TeeAnn Hunter; Pat Leary; Eric
Levine
Cc: Paulette Rosa; Marty Moseley
Subject: Please consider for STR legislation - Limited Historic Commercial
Dear Town Board,
Many thanks for your consideration of Hayt's Chapel and other unhosted STRs when deciding on the effective dates for
the new legislation. I was relieved by the change, which will give me considerably more time to figure out how best to
move forward.
As for my own property,I would like to propose a simple change to the legislation that will align with the legislative
intent for creating the Limited Historic Commercial(LHC)Zone. From Chapter 270,Article XVIIIA, Section 142.2:
"In particular, one of the purposes of the Limited Historic Commercial Zone is to facilitate preservation and protection of
historically significant residential buildings by authorizing uses that will provide a wide range of opportunities for
making such preservation and protection financially feasible."
Although my property is still zoned as Medium Density Residential,I have considered re-zoning to LHC for a while, as
the property is on the National Register of Historic Places, and I have every intention of preserving its history. Also on the
property is a one-room schoolhouse(part of the historic listing)that I rent out full time. By direct comparison I can say
that the short-term rentals have allowed me to bring in much more money than a year-round rental, and that the amount of
income generated by two year-round rentals would just about cover my escrow payments,leaving me very little for the
upkeep and preservation of the historic aspects of the property. Furthermore,having breaks between guests allows me to
enter the space regularly to maintain humidity,heating,window care(of the original windows),etc.
Over the years of short-term rentals,I have been saving up money for major historic restoration projects, such as re-laying
the boulder/sand foundation, and a few other projects in consultation with a local contractor who specializes in historic
restorations. These types of projects are much more expensive than standard home updates or renovations. I believe it is
this sort of work that inspired the creation of the LHC zone. Additionally,through short-term rentals,I am introducing a
part of Ithaca's history to visitors, such as the Town's role in the Underground Railroad(as is the case for Hayt's Chapel).
Converting the Chapel into a short-term rental has been vital to my ability to maintain ownership of the property,whereas
selling it would most likely result in demolition and construction of modern rental units. I expect that owners of other
historic properties face a similar situation and might also benefit from short-term rental allowance if they converted to
Limited Historic Commercial.
To this end I would like to suggest three small changes to the proposed legislation that would help me and others with
historic properties (changes to text in brackets):
1. Add a section to allow for STR in LHC:
[Section X: Chapter 270(Zoning),Article XVIIIA(Limited Historic Commercial Zones) of the Town of Ithaca
Code, Section 270-142.5, titled"Principal uses authorized by special permit only,"is amended by adding a subsection J
reading as follows:
'T Short-term rental uses, subject to the limitations on short-term rental uses set forth in § 270-219.7."]
1
2. Modify section D. (1)to include LHC in the primary residence exception: "Except in the Lakefront Residential Zone
[and Limited Historic Commercial Zone]..."
3. Allow for the 245 days rented in Section F.2.c: "No unit shall be used for an unhosted short-term rental use for more
than 245 days in any calendar year in the Lakefront Residential Zone[or Limited Historic Commercial Zone]."
With these changes to the proposed legislation in place,I will still need to re-zone the property as LHC and ask for the
special permit for the principal use, and then address the permitting requirements in the rest of the STR legislation,but at
least there will be an avenue I can take to continue with my short-term rentals, and thus my restoration plans.
I greatly appreciate your previous acknowledgement of the difficulty a historic property like Hayt's Chapel may pose to
an owner. Considering how few(if any?)properties are zoned LHC, or could be zoned LHC,I hope that these changes are
small enough to be considered at tomorrow's meeting for inclusion in the current proposed legislation.
Many thanks again,
Alexa Schmitz
Owner of Hayt's Chapel and Schoolhouse
2
Paulette Rosa
From: Bill Goodman
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2021 113PK4
To: Brent Katzmann; Paulette Rosa; Becky Jordan
Cc Rod Howe Rich OePao|q Pam 8|eimms;TeeAnn Hunter; Pat Leary; Eric Levine
Subject: RE: STIR Moment ofOpportunity
Hi Brent, since folks will only have a few minutes to speak at the public hearing Wednesday, if you have the time before
then, I would be interested in hearing more about why you think renting for 30 day periods would be untenable.
Bill Goodman
Deputy Supervisor,Town ofIthaca
215 North Tio0aStreet
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-592-6745, ce||
From: Brent Katzmann <brentkatzmann@0mai|.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 15, 20Z112:44PM
To: Paulette Rosa <PRosa@tovvn.ithaca.ny.usx; Becky Jordan<BJordan@toxvn.ithaoa.ny.us>
Cc: Rod Howe<RHoxve@toxvn.ithaca.ny.us'; Bill Goodman <BGood man @tovvn.ithaca.ny.usx; Rich DePao|o
<rdepao|o@tovvn.ithaoa.ny.us>; Pam B|eivvas<pb|eivvas@toxvn.ithaca.ny.us>;TeeAnnHunter
<thunter@tovvn.ithaoa.ny.us>; Pat Learyxp|eary@tovvn.ithaoa.ny.us>; Eric Levine xe|evine@toxvn.ithaca.ny.us>
Subject: STIR Moment ofOpportunity
Dear Town of Ithaca Town Board-
First of all, let me say thank you for agreeing tO not vote the legislation into |3xv during K4Ond3y'S robust
meeting Of the Town Board. | think you will agree that, for many Of our Town citizens, there is 3 lot in this
legislation to digest and to interpret the impact on their individual circumstances.
|, for one, found it profoundly important to hear the stories Our residents shared about why and hOvv they use
short term rental as an important part of their lives, from supplementing their dual career modest incomes,to
ensuring the care and upkeep of their home and principal investment,to serving as ambassadors for our
community to visitors who value the kind of care and lodging they receive with short term rental properties. |
think passing this legislation will be felt on a real, personal level for those who can least afford to lose the
opportunities this practice offers them.
As you move forward with your "significant change" to the legislation to change the effective date (which |
imagine Alexa and our retiree residents are grateful for), I ask that you take this opportunity to make two
other changes that, from what you heard clearly on Monday evening, would make a significant difference for
these hosts while not diminishing the results you seek to obtain. Those changes are:
l. Allow any host who otherwise complies with the qualifying criteria (principal residence, obtains permit, etc)
to get both a hosted permit and an unhosted permit for STIR. We heard many stories of people who host
guests periodically throughout the year and then spend periods of time away from home. With either permit,
these are allowed practices. It's unclear why, if they otherwise have this right,they should have to choose
1
between the two. Suggesting that a host could sign a 30 day lease to allow a guest to stay for a few days while
the host is away introduces a whole litany of tenancy rights issues that would be untenable.
2. Raise the unhosted stay cap to 90 days. It's been clear from the beginning that this threshold would enable
most local homeowners who utilize STR to meet both the demand of the market and their financial needs. By
requiring that a local representative be available 24/7 addresses the unlikely event that disturbances occur, as
do the penalties proposed. It also would reflect positively on the Board as addressing the concerns of
disparity of rights being raised between Lakefront owners and non-Lakefront owners.
I respectfully disagree with the position that the Town "can always make changes to loosen the regulations if
they seem to be working." By starting out with them as written, it will not be possible to know which of the
many regulations are reducing the nuisances or preventing investor purchasing. It seems vastly preferable to
start with a baseline set of regulations and then impose greater restrictions specifically targeted at where they
seem to fall short in effectiveness.
Again, thank you all for your efforts over the years to strike a balance with this legislation. I believe these
changes will more effectively, and equitably, accomplish that. And, for the record, the regulations as written
don't impact my personal use of STR. My appeal is purely out of a genuine interest in doing the right thing by
our fellow Town residents and the guests they seek to serve.
Kind regards,
Brent
2
Paulette Rosa
From: Susan Terwilliger <suzegitar@mac.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 12:12 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Pls Forward to Town Board - Comments on STR Legislation
Hi -Would you be so kind as to forward this to the Town Board? I plan on attending the meeting tomorrow but it would
be great for my comments to be seen by the Board prior to the meeting, if possible.Thank you for forwarding, and thank
you to the Board for taking the time to read my comments-Sue Terwilliger
I support STR legislation to address the issue of out-of-town speculators buying up houses, caring only for income
stream and not quality of life in our community. I also support inspections and permitting to insure safety.
IMO issues of noise and trash can best be managed with proper leveraging of penalties and a much steeper escalation of
fines specifically for STR owner offenses. Even a $1000 fine could be viewed as just the cost of doing business. Only with
much higher fines, like$5000 for a second offense and $10,000 for a third offense by a STR owner within 2 years,will a
persistent violator feel pain.This may also discourage absentee investors.
The obvious way to discourage absentee investors is to limit the number of days per year of unhosted rentals. However,
I feel the Boards' numbers are like Goldilocks trying the first 2 bear beds-one is way too soft and one is way too hard.
245 days a year for the Lakefront Zone is attractive to an out of town speculator, supposedly the type of investor this
legislation is meant to discourage. If the Board feels the Lakefront Zone should have more unhosted days than the rest
of the Town, what about 150 days for Lakefront and 90 for the rest of the Town?Those numbers are not big enough to
attract out-of-town speculators, but would give homeowners some flexibility. Both San Francisco and Washington DC
allow 90 nights per year of unhosted rentals.
§270-219.7Short-term rental uses.(E)(2)(c)No unit used for a short-term rental use shall be rented for the
accommodation of more individuals than two times the number of legal bedrooms in such unit.
This logically implies the number of legal bedrooms in a unit determines occupancy.A 3 bedroom hosted STR would
logically be fine for 5 -6 people, but it's only allowed for Unhosted Rentals, which makes no sense, again not aligning
with the goal of discouraging out of town speculators. Restricting Hosted STRs to only 2 bedrooms at any one time is
arbitrary and especially penalizes hosts who are not Lakefront owners.
Ithaca is a high cost of living area,with many jobs that don't pay correspondingly.As someone who lived and worked as
a guitarist in NYC for many years, I can tell you there are very few paying gigs here. My travel gigs dried up with Covid,
and teaching does not pay the bills. While this legislation will have a minimal impact on my family as we own adjacent
properties, I would urge the Board to consider that other Town of Ithaca residents who are not well heeled enough to
have property on the lake may need to supplement their income with 3 bedroom rentals or more unhosted nights.
Especially if we as a community want to attract and keep good teachers, musicians and artists.
1
Paulette Rosa
From: Susan Terwilliger <suzegitar@mac.com>
Sent: Monday,January 3, 2022 6:12 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Short Term Rental Legislation
Would you be so kind as to forward this to the Town Board members - thank you - Sue
Dear Board Members:
Thank you for taking public comments on this issue. I appreciate the goal of keeping housing stock available for
residents, and to preserve the quality of neighborhoods. It was extremely helpful to hear the Board's discussion
following the public comments. I was disappointed to hear that fines are controlled by the state, so the Town
can't wield that tool as aggressively as I had hoped. Perhaps the granting or suspending of permits could be a
tool for making sure STR owners are considerate of their neighbors.
Hopefully this law will be a living document, able to adapt and respond going forward as needed.
I really appreciate Tee-Ann Hunter's comment about the Lakefront: there's almost no public access to the Lake
in the Township. As she asked, could the hotel tax that all STR hosts pay go towards purchase of Lakefront
property that would allow public access? As far as I know, the only Town of Ithaca public access to the Lake is
at East Shore Park, which is a beautiful but tiny spot that does have a small kayak launch/beach(but an equally
small parking lot). A lofty long term goal might be to establish a small park with swimming/picnic area, and
parking permits for Town residents only (similar to Myers Park but smaller).
- Sue Terwilliger
i
Paulette Rosa
From: Richard Ballantyne <richardballantyne@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday,January 5, 2022 12:18 PM
To: Rich DePaolo
Cc: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Re: Short term rental law
Hi Rich,
Thanks for your reply. I "registered" my complaint in 2016 when I spoke
at the public hearing, along with other landlords who were there that the
board just ignored. I also wrote an article in the paper about your law.
Just because you have been working for years on regulations does not
mean you must necessarily pass them. Some people, especially the loud
vocal minority here in Ithaca, will never be appeased because they're just
miserable. Thus it is a waste of time trying to appease them with laws
that restrict everyone. Legislators like you often fail to foresee many
consequences of your laws. In my opinion the primary function of
government is to protect individual liberty and property rights, protect
the environment, provide for national defense, and finally to incentivize
its citizens to be as self sufficient and as rugged as possible. The strength
of our society is only as strong as the members who comprise
it. Currently, local, state, and Federal governments are doing the exact
opposite of that -- they strip us of our liberty, tax us to death, create
dependency which weakens individuals and our economy, and
disincentivizes people from maximizing their production by punishing the
most productive and most responsible in order to reward the lazy and
the irresponsible. You should never enact any law that cannot be
enforced affordably, effectively, and unilaterally without selection.
If tenants have issues with health and safety then they can let their lease
expire and move out, or even sue their landlord for bodily harm. They can
I
vote with their dollars and their feet. My leases were autorenewing
every month-to-month and then later to every millisecond so my tenants
were essentially free to leave anytime. Thus I as the landlord was
incentivized to make sure that they enjoyed their stay, and they were
incentivized to not be difficult or they would have to leave. Worked out
great. I only had to ever kick out 1 tenant who claimed his vaping wasn't
the same as smoking.
You should have added an exemption to the law for landlords who have
autorenewing leases with durations of 24 hours or less, or who do things
like have a pay by the hour system. That way tenants are free to leave
anytime they feel the slightest amount of discomfort in their rented
space.
Cheers,
Richard
On Wed,Ian 5, 2022 at 11:23 AM Rich DePaolo <RDe Paolo@town.ithaca.ny.us>wrote:
Dear Mr. Ballantyne,
Thank you for sharing your sentiments. Ms. Hunter has retired from the Board and is not copied on this response.
It is clear from reading your email that you are not delineating between the City and Town of Ithaca, and that you are
confused about which regulations apply in those respective municipalities. I am also unclear as to how one health and
safety inspection every three years on a rental property could be seen by a landlord as"onerous." Apparently,your
threshold is lower than every other landlord in the Town, including those who have many student rentals, as you are
the only one to either register a complaint, or discontinue offering rental property.
Regards,
Rich
>On Jan 5, 2022,at 10:50 AM, Richard Ballantyne<richardballantyne@gmaii.com>wrote:
>Thank you Mrs Hunter for opposing this.
> Rich DePaulo I wish you would resign.
> I quit being an Ithaca landlord in 2016 due to the onerous and intrusive residential rental regs the board passed back
then. My family's move to quit being landlords after 30 years reduced the supply of Ithaca housing for 10
2
students. Sold one property in Cornell Heights and the other unit I've just kept vacant and am using for storage. I also
decided not to buy some of the I_ucente duplexes they just sold for fear of having to deal even more onerous landlord
regulations that you guys might pass. Your law ultimately lowers the demand for property here and suppresses home
values,and thus tax revenues.
> I would have left Ithaca years ago due to high property taxes and due to the politics but am trapped here until my
daughter graduates from the local social justice warrior factory otherwise known as IHS.
>
> Every new reg you pass just reduces the supply of whatever you're regulating,which drives up costs, lowers
competition, and creates barriers to entry. Then when you attempt to rectify the very shortage you created with
subsidies,abatements, and other forms of crony capitalism,you must raise taxes to pay for this,which just drives away
your tax base.
>
> Please start repealing the existing regulations and stop making new ones to oppress us and to hurt the competitive
free market.
> I'm confident the board will eventually be forced to repeal both the short and long term regs, as well as put an end to
things like "right to renew" and the new law that forces developers to hire locally 75%of their workers. You will need
to repeal in order to attract capital investment as well as new residents once the money runs out, once interest rates
rise, asset bubbles pop, and once the Federal government can no longer afford to recklessly back all student loans
(regardless of major or ability to repay). Student loans have been keeping Ithaca afloat for decades since they
dramatically drive up IC and CU revenues and help the Ithaca economy.
>
> Happy new year.
> Richard Ballantyne
3
Paulette Rosa
From: Susan Terwilliger <suzegitar@mac.com>
Sent: Monday,January 3, 2022 6:12 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Short Term Rental Legislation
Would you be so kind as to forward this to the Town Board members - thank you - Sue
Dear Board Members:
Thank you for taking public comments on this issue. I appreciate the goal of keeping housing stock available for
residents, and to preserve the quality of neighborhoods. It was extremely helpful to hear the Board's discussion
following the public comments. I was disappointed to hear that fines are controlled by the state, so the Town
can't wield that tool as aggressively as I had hoped. Perhaps the granting or suspending of permits could be a
tool for making sure STR owners are considerate of their neighbors.
Hopefully this law will be a living document, able to adapt and respond going forward as needed.
I really appreciate Tee-Ann Hunter's comment about the Lakefront: there's almost no public access to the Lake
in the Township. As she asked, could the hotel tax that all STR hosts pay go towards purchase of Lakefront
property that would allow public access? As far as I know, the only Town of Ithaca public access to the Lake is
at East Shore Park, which is a beautiful but tiny spot that does have a small kayak launch/beach(but an equally
small parking lot). A lofty long term goal might be to establish a small park with swimming/picnic area, and
parking permits for Town residents only (similar to Myers Park but smaller).
- Sue Terwilliger
i
29 Dec 2021
Town Board of the Town of Ithaca
215 N Tioga St.
Ithaca, NY 14850
Michael Hayes
161 Snyder Hill Rd.
Ithaca, NY 14850
RE: Strong opposition to the arbitrarily discriminatory proposed STIR regulation as proposed
Greeting Mr.Goodman and Town Board members.
I write in opposition to the regulations as written and presently being pushed in the face of
clear opposition by those you are voted in to represent. Clearly, by the majority of
comment,there are major errors as presently written. As to being put out by having to take
more comment, what entitlement leads you to disparage a clear listening to the points of
view of your constituents, who loathe the economic effects this intends to inflict on their
personal finances and the highest and best economic use of THEIR/OUR property?!
The Town does not pay for our property at all. Each homeowner pays for their property, all
of its costs, including paying very high property taxes to live in the Town! We are legally
entitled to generate whatever revenue we can to meet our costs in the use of our private
personal property. This proposed STIR rental seeks to prejudicially restrict a notable stream
of funds thus restricting by Government fiat the highest and best economic value of our
property. I think here of any owner who wants or needs to be a sunbird while paying for
their months away from their Ithaca home part of the year.
Let's cover the most serious law violation this ordinance creates. First,discrimination at a 9
to 1 (9:1) ration of STIR rental days per year in favor of only Lake properties vs regular home
owners. I have a 5 year rental permit for renting our home when my work as airline captain
moves us for a year or two. One inspection, one fee,follow the rules no issue to anyone.
The rule is the same for any home in the Town.
There is a legal process known as inverse condemnation. It applies to what you are
seemingly without an open mind determined to pass here. "Inverse Condemnation applies
when a government (the Town Board)takes a property for public use that greatly damages
the value of the plaintiff's property. To successfully bring an action for inverse
condemnation the property owner must show that a government's taking has failed to
promote substantial governmental interests or has deprived the owner of the economic
value of their property. A government that takes a private property for public use may be
required to provide just compensation even where there is no physical invasion of the
property, such as in regulatory taking where a government permanently deprives the
property owner of all or the highest beneficial use of their property.
The STR proposal,to even be debated as a legal Government ordinance, needs to have the
SAME maximum days per year for ALL areas of the Town!!!!! Lake owners are not more
privelaged than non-lake homeowners. That alone will fall in a Court challenge which will
certainly promptly come if this is passed as written. The proposed also will raise costs to the
Town by tracking the internecine requirement to report every STIR event. I doubt that
stands muster in Court. Further there are laws on the books now for police to solve the
"issues from 4 years ago"that motivate this dubious exercise today. Those police
departments already have budgets that are unchanged addressing any noise or parking
violations without raising our Town taxes. This is a sledgehammer being used to drive a
tack, a solution in search of a problem by the Town Board.
Michael Hayes
607-370-5310