Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021 2022 emails STR1. One of the points raised in favor of allowing Lakefront properties to have unlimited stays is that there has been, for many decades, a tradition of doing so and that allowing it to continue to do so will maintain its character. I am not trying to dispute that argument. Rather, I suggest that an analogy might be in order. Certain residential neighborhoods (Renwick Heights, for example) have been residential for many decades. Therefore, parity of argument would suggest that these neighborhoods (like Lakefront properties) ought to be allowed to maintain their character. Rich's argument is that those of us who live in Renwick Heights knew that, when we moved to Ithaca, we were joining a transient community and transient communities have a lot of rentals. I would suggest that this argument is specious for the following reason. To the extent that Ithaca is a transient community, it is largely students who make it so. Stu- dents are concentrated in College Town. Those of us who wanted to avoid living in a transient community chose to avoid living in College Town even though, for many of us, it would have been closer to Cornell. Specifically, we chose to live in residential areas. Thus, the fact that some portion of Ithaca residents are transient does not mean that all of Ithaca is a transient community. 2. 1 would like to echo the point about enforcement of violations. Marty Moseley (Director of Code Enforcement) wrote in an email: "We do not have the resources to enforce consequences related to individuals lying to us. Unfortunately, our department deals with this on a, sometimes, daily basis." This suggests two things. One is that STR rentals are more problematic than is often portrayed, in that there are more than a few "bad actors." The other is that, given how lucrative STRs are, it is only reasonable that the people who benefit from STRs financially should foot a chunk of the bill for increasing enforcement staffing. I am tired of having my plantings crushed and not being able to get out of my driveway because of "guests" cars and, in some cases trailers, blocking the road. Furthermore, an enforcement office is crucial; in our case, contacting the "host" did no good; she was unavailable and, when we did reach her, she said to deal directly with her guests. In addition, I truly don't understand the argument that bad actors will be bad actors no matter what the laws are. This would suggest that laws against, e.g., murder, theft, etc., are fairly use- less, because bad actors will act badly no matter what. The argument makes no sense. 3. Furthermore, I want to second the point that "hosts" should announce, in a way that can be visible without going inside, that they are renting STRs. Rich's argument that this would be ad- versarial makes no sense for four reasons. One is that, at some point, the presence of strangers and additional cars will make it obvious that certain people are hosting STRs. More importantly, perhaps, keeping that information hidden inside the house will appear devious and underhanded, and surely that will also be adversarial. The third is that it puts the onus on neighbors to monitor who is hosting STRs, rather than on the hosts who are benefitting from the STRs. The fourth, and arguably most important, reason why STIR operating permits should be clearly visible and placed on the outside of a host's house is related to enforcement. At the 7/22 STIR meeting, Marty Moseley said, "the operating permit should be posted in a window facing the street so anyone can tell they have a valid operating permit. It should be conspicuous to a public way." He also noted that this would be an advantage for Code Enforcement officers because they could then easily drive by and tell that the unit has a valid permit. If the Town is actually serious about enforcement, then it should facilitate making enforcement easy. 4. Finally, I want to underline Rich's point from an earlier meeting that even local governments ought to opt for transparency and people who have a conflict of interest ought to recuse them- selves from making decisions related to such conflicts. A lack of transparency would not only give the appearance of an adversarial situation, it would also create an adversarial situation, with lawmakers voting in their own interests, rather than in the interests of their constituents. Thank you for reading. Barbara Koslowski 18 Renwick Heights Rd. From: Carolyn Greenwald Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 1:13 PM To: Paulette Rosa; Becky Jordan; Bill Goodman _ Subject: Letter to STR Committee and Town of Ithaca Board Attachments: STR.Itr.12.10.20.pdf; email. 11. 14.19.png Kindly distribute the attached letter and accompanying attached email (labeled email.11.14.19) to the STIR committee and the Town Board. Best regards, Carolyn Greenwald To: Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board Members From: Carolyn Greenwald Date: December 10, 2020 Re: Lakeside District Continued Exclusion Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board, I write to zealously advocate for the continued exclusion of the lakefront district from the proposed STR regulations. My first argument in favor of the continued exclusion for lakefront properties is that the STR committee has been saying since at least 2018 that lakefront properties would be specifically excluded from the current and first imposed regulations. I have attended almost every STR committee meeting since May 2018 and I have heard the committee state that lakefront properties would be excluded no less than 30 times. I recall letters from lake property homeowners being set aside and excluded from consideration by the committee since the proposed regulations would not impact these homeowners. On November 14, 2019, 1 reviewed the proposed regulations after they had been edited by the Town's attorney. I immediately saw that the way she restructured the document inadvertently removed the lakefront exclusion. I reached out to Bill Goodman who assured me that the restructuring of the document was not intended to make substantive changes and, "shouldn't have any different implications than before." Attached please find a copy of this email from Bill. Despite the inadvertent substantive change and Bill's assurance to me, the changes made by the attorney remain. On February 10, 2020, the STR committee had a meeting with Susan Brock in attendance. The discussion at the meeting confirmed that Ms. Brock did not understand that the lakefront district was to be excluded when she restructured the document. She said something to the effect of, "just so I understand, let's go one by one through the restrictions and tell me which ones should apply to lakefront properties." Going through all the restrictions, Bill kept saying "no, it should not apply." At this point, Ms. Brock said something to the effect of "Ok, we need to talk about this in closed session." Since 2018, 1 have been relying on the repeated statements from the STR committee and its chair that lakefront properties would be excluded from restrictions. Many lakefront owners have not expressed their concerns and fears because of this position, and it is unfair to set aside or avoid their concerns and input only to add this small subset of properties late in the game. An inadvertent drafting error should not have substantive effect or cause constituents' to be ignored. My second argument in favor of the continued exclusion for lakefront properties is that there is a long history and tradition of short term rentals of lakefront properties in the Town of Ithaca that pre -dates Airbnb and the newfound popularity of STR in general. As some of you know, my husband and I purchase our house (which is now 889 Taughannock, then it was 887 Taughannock) in the summer of 2001. Even though we stretched our budget to the max, we bought a complete fixer -upper. We used credit cards to finance big jobs like siding the house (it was covered only in plywood) and would pay off the bills with help from short term renting. We listed our house with the Tompkins County Visitor Center and on craigslist. We didn't start using Airbnb until thirteen years later in 2014. Thus, we have a 20 year history of renting our home that pre -dates Airbnb by more than a decade. Year round short term rentals are in keeping with long established traditions of the lakefront properties. My third argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that tourist dollars are vital to the Town of Ithaca economy. At least 50% of the folks who stay at my property did not choose to come to Ithaca, they chose to rent my lakefront property. I can see this because the websites provide me with information as to which other houses a guest also considered. Many of these tourists will go elsewhere if there are no available lakefront houses for short term rent in the Town of Ithaca. Of the remaining percentage, some portion of them will elect to stay at the Marriott or another hotel owned by outside investors. It seems far better to me to keep that money in the local economy. I honestly and truly believe that the committee is seriously underestimating how much the local economy relies on tourism and how much tourism is now tied to short term rentals. I recommend local establishments to my guests all the time. I send them to The Commons, I recommend restaurants, I recommend local shops. This is not a time to cut off this supply of dollars spent locally. My fourth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that an entire industry has developed around successful management of lakefront properties and provides employment to low income workings, particularly working moms. Just this week I walked into my house and found the cleaner hard at work. She had her two year old son and four year old daughter with her. Her son was playing with a toy truck I keep at the house and the daughter was playing monopoly. I cannot think of another job Corinna could have done where she could bring her children along and they could safely play with toys while she worked. I use a house cleaning service run by Jess Aguilar. I met Jess about 10 years ago. She put herself through school by cleaning short term rental lake properties. She now helps other young women do the same. I know of at least four nurses who have worked for me through Jess and put themselves through school with the income. Ten years later, Jess, who now has a master's degree and works full time in a correctional facility, just bought her first rental property (it's not in Ithaca). In short, the economic impact of limitations on short term rentals is not limited to loosing tourist dollars, we will also be losing Town of Ithaca jobs. If short term rentals are only allowed during summer weeks, this employment opportunity disappears overnight, because these moms and young students need year-round employment. My fifth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that the committee's concern that STRs adversely impact neighborhoods is inapplicable to lakefront properties. As you are aware, due to the steep slope and the busy 55 mile per hour highway, the lakefront is not a neighborhood. There are no sidewalks or connections between the properties and as a result there is little interaction between neighbors. Short term summer vacations have been the norm for these properties for decades and are not out of character with the neighborhood. My sixth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that this exclusion will not impact the affordable housing stock of Ithaca. The lakefront properties are not 'affordable housing' nor numerous enough to impact the housing stock as a whole. We are talking only about a handful of vacation homes. The days of buying an inexpensive fixer -upper are long gone. Thus, there is no danger of short term rental owners buying otherwise affordable housing and converting it into an STIR. My seventh argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that it is a small number of the whole. Of the short term rentals in Ithaca, only a few dozen are lakefront properties. Excluding this small number of houses is of enormous benefit to Ithaca tourism with little adverse impact on Town of Ithaca policy goals. My eighth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that the exclusion will directly benefit Town of Ithaca residents. Often times, the people who rent our home are Ithacans, relatives of Ithacans, past Ithacans, and future Ithacans. I often have guests who live in Ithaca. They come for a staycation or they come to enjoy the lake. (Just last week, Michelle Berry stayed with us to work on her writing). I often have guests who are visiting relatives. I can think of half a dozen guests who stayed at our house and now live full time in the area. Short term lakefront rentals are enjoyed by Town of Ithaca residents all the time, all year round. I rent my house approximately 200 days per year and hope to continue to do so until we move back full time when the kids are grown. A shorter short term rental period would not allow us to keep the house because of general homeowner costs, mortgage costs, and real estate taxes. Our guests all sign an agreement that includes directions on where to park, quiet hours, and penalties for disturbing our neighbors. We limit the number of people allowed on the property to the signed guests only and do not allow any additional guests, except for the college student of a visiting family. We do not allow friends of that student on the property nor do we allow guests to invite a local family over for dinner. Our agreement says no parties not even small ones. We try very hard to be good neighbors. Thank you for your time and continued careful consideration of the concerns of lakefront homeowners. Carolyn Greenwald Attached: email dated 11.14.2019 Paulette Rosa From: Sheila Snyder <sheilasnyder857@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 8:02 PM To: Paulette Rosa Subject: Short Term Rentals on the Lake Hi Paulette, When I phoned tothe Town of Ithaca,to find out who I should send my letter to about the upcoming meeting with the STR on the agenda, the person told me to send my letter to you. Would you please forward this to the appropriate person and let me know that it was forwarded please? I would hate to think of all the time spent on writing this went to waste (as well as my stress of the situation). Thank you. We are writing about the proposed legislation to restrict Airbnb rentals to less than 30 days per year applying to lakeside rentals. We own a couple, adjacent single dwellings on. Cayuga Lake. Sheila retired in June of this year. We launched the Airbnb in our southern -most Cottage, just south of ours, at 855 Taughannock Blvd. We have had this property since 1983. We turned it into a yearly rental in 1990. Through the years, taxes, water bills, garbage fees, insurance and upkeep have grown faster than rental income. Last year it became about equal what we spent out and what we were able to take in. This is when we chose and planned to open an Airbnb. We have heavily invested in furnishings for the Airbnb ($15,000). When it was successful, Al retired in November, (last month). Our plan was to use the income for our health insurance. Our premiums are $2800 per month. How do you expect us to pay for that? Should we go without health insurance? If the town of Ithaca goes ahead with the proposal it takes some of our livelihood away. We want you to know that we have reached out to our neighbor, Marian Mumford who lives next door to the Airbnb and checked to make sure our Airbnb guests have not bothered them. She has our number to call should any issues arise. We were assured the guests have all been wonderful. In the past, we have had some students who have rented the house when it was a yearly rental. They were not always good neighbors. Should our lakeside dwelling become subjected to a 30 day STR limitation, we would be going back to a yearly rental. When a home is turned into an Airbnb, there is a level of expectation of quality. We took much care to make the house and the property look nice for curb appeal. Isn't that what the town wants? We calculated that $800 occupancy tax was paid to the town from our Airbnb, for the 6 months it has been open. This would be lost revenues for the town if the proposal passes. When Sheila went down to the welcome center when we were preparing for the Airbnb, they told her that was one of the biggest requests they have is for rentals on the lake. My Guests come and experience the lake. They can't do that from any area hotel. They take out the kayaks and canoes. They swim with the ducks. They watch the bald eagle, ospreys and other wildlife here. They have campfires; they roast s'mores with their kids. Closing down a lakeside Airbnb when it is considered a high demand item does not seem to be a good decision. At the end of each stay, we sort their garbage and recyclables. Almost all of the guests had been getting takeout food from area restaurants, visiting the local parks, visiting the commons, and buying products from our local wineries and breweries. We provide a list of local points of interests, restaurants and stores. One family took tennis lessons while they were here. Our guests came from down state, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and were here to experience the Fingerlakes as tourists. They were looking to be on one of the lakes. Had our lake property not been available to them, they would not have rented from an Ithaca hotel, but instead gone further up the lake or to another lake; spending their money elsewhere. The lakeside rentals are really the only option to experience Cayuga Lake (there are no hotels on Cayuga Lake like Seneca Lake has in Watkins Glen and Geneva). It seems if the town of Ithaca passes the STR to 30 days per year and include the lakeside rentals, it could have significant affects on local tourism (essentially they would shut down completely and convert over to long term rentals, except for maybe the people who rent out on the Graduation weekends). After some investigation, we discovered that this proposal is driven from issues/complaints from Airbnbs established in Cayuga Heights neighborhoods. Lakeside housing "neighborhoods" are nothing like the residential neighborhoods of Cayuga Heights. Regarding any issues/complaints, the town should address them as they happen, enforcing the ordinances and laws that already exist. We recommend that the town board allow lakeside home owners to continue to provide a much needed service to the community that is not met by any other means (unlike the housing provided in residential neighborhoods like Cayuga Heights). This will also allow lake home owners the ability to earn retirement and supplemental income as planned. Sheila and Al Snyder Lake Residents Since 1983 Paulette Rosa From: Paulette Rosa Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 5:50 PM To: Mike MacAnanny Subject: Re: Open Meetings Law I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear... the recordings of the regular sessions is what I was talking about.. Closed or executive sessions are never recorded and would not be given out. Paulette Rosa Town Clerk On Nov 24, 2020, at 4:38 PM, Mike MacAnanny <macananny@gmail.com> wrote: Paulette- Thank you for your very comprehensive response and offer to research whether any of the closed session recordings (and minutes) can be made public. If they can be made public we would very much like to examine them if you can help us to obtain them. We may have some other points to raise with Ms. O'Neill- thank you for providing her contact information. Please have a nice and safe holiday. Mike On Nov 24, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Paulette Rosa <PRosa@town.ithaca.ny.us> wrote: Good Afternoon Mike, I just got off the phone with Kristen O'Neill from the Committee on Open Government to double check my answers to your questions. Public Body under OML The Short Term Rental Committee (STR), is a sub-committee/ad hoc committee consisting of 3 Board members and staff (regardless of how many attend). The STR has no authority to make any binding decisions nor were they granted any legislative authority (like the Planning Board, for example) to do so. The STR serves as an advisory committee to the Town Board and therefore does not fall under the definition of a public body under Open Meetings Law (OML) That said, the Town does conduct many of their committee level meetings under the same basic intent of the OML whenever possible. The STR Chair and I have tried our best to keep your group and others informed on the progress of the task. Advance notice and materials We have tried to establish a set date to aid in letting the public, and especially your group, know when it is meeting; though not required. We have sent out the draft legislation and materials or made them available during the meeting whenever possible; though not required. In the beginning I took some simple notes but they are no longer taken. When they were, I made them available to you; though not required. Executive Session or Closed session Again, this committee does not fall under the OML, but, even if it did, the instances where they have closed the meeting to the public have actually been done as if they were. I can say that even when they have closed the meeting to the public, they have followed the intent of the rules of Executive Session / Closed session guidelines and not wavered into aspects of the topic that could have been discussed in open meeting if they so wished. The meetings, once they began via zoom, may or may not have been recorded. I did not routinely record them and actually have not attended quite a few. Recording is not needed nor required. That said, I could look into that for you if you would like and see if the committee wishes to release them. Again, at this level, those recordings would be considered Intra-Agency, and not necessarily a record that must be made public, but that may be made public. Speaking to the Committee The Chair has allowed/invited discussion at many committee meetings, though not required. Next Step When this draft legislation is moved out of Committee to the Town Board level and scheduled to be heard, there will be a public notice and the draft legislation posted and any and all requirements met under OML for that public body. I have included the link to the Committee on Open Government for your convenience. Ms. O'Neill is very responsive and there is an entire library of past opinions on every possible subject both for FOIL and OML. https://www.dos.ny.gov/coop/oml listing/oindex.html If you have any further concerns, please let me know and I will be happy to research and respond. Regards, Paulette Paulette Rosa Town Clerk Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Ph (607) 273-1721 ext 110 www.townJ [haca.nv.us From: Mike MacAnanny <macanannv@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 4:46 PM To: Paulette Rosa <PRosa@town.ithaca.ny.us> Cc: Rod Howe <RHowe@town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Re: Open Meetings Law Hello Paulette, Thank you for your response. In looking at the OML, it requires advance notice to the public of meetings, advance posting of laws to be discussed, and the resulting minutes to be published. I know you are busy and you have always been helpful to us at the meetings by kindly providing such materials, and we thank you. However I don't think advance notices have always been made to the public at large, laws posted in advance, or minutes made public. Perhaps these are all available to the public at the Town Office(?) and that that is considered to be in compliance with the OML. With regard to Executive sessions we are puzzled. The OML is fairly clear on what is permitted to be discussed in Executive -only, non-public sessions. Minutes of Executive sessions, if taken, are also to be made public if they do not contain discussions of those non-public subjects. I do not think discussions with counsel are automatically a reason for Executive session- unless, the subjects are among those listed in the applicable section of the Law. So I am not sure the Chairman can simply empty the room by declaring Executive session, when no one but the Chairman knows what topics are to be discussed (those topics permitted by the OML). Please comment on the above when you have a moment. Hope you are all well and looking forward to the holidays. Cheers, Mike MacAnanny On Nov 16, 2020, at 10:20 AM, Paulette Rosa <PRosa @town.ithaca.ny.us> wrote: Hello Mr. MacAnanny, Rod forwarded me your question regarding Open Meetings Law adherence. As the Town Clerk and Records Management Officer for the Town, I am usually the one that deals with these types of questions. The Town does follow OML in all instances and levels of meetings with no exceptions or interpretations unique to the Town. Is there a specific aspect or concern you would like an answer to? Sincerely, Paulette Rosa Paulette Rosa Town Clerk Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Ph (607) 273-1721 ext 110 www.town.ithaca.nv.us Paulette Rosa From: Paulette Rosa Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:16 AM To: Paulette Rosa (Poosa@town.ithaca.ny.us) Subject: STR Chat copy 2020_11_09 From Warren Real Estate to Everyone: 04:14 PM Will this meeting be recorded and made available? Thank you. Is this available on the Town of Dryden website? From William Goodman to Everyone: 04:14 PM Yes, their public hearing is next Thurs Nov 19 From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 04:24 PM To Dryden Manager- how did you come to the number of allowed days, and any differentiation between hosted and unhosted? From Warren Real Estate to Everyone: 04:30 PM Can the system distinguish between bookings and date blocks? Thank you. From Ray Burger to Everyone: 04:31 PM Law can be viewed at: http://drVden.nV.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/201014-Draft-Local-Law-Regulating-Short- Term-Rentals LANGUAGE-FOR-PUBLIC-HEARING.pdf From Nick Helmholdt to Everyone: 04:32 PM Thanks Ray - I need to run. Please feel free to send questions to nhelmholdt@tompkins-co.org - have a good day :) From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 04:59 PM there is a huge difference between college town and a quiet residential neighborhood that you choose and pay more to live in (i.e property taxes). It is quality of life . From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 05:01 PM Folks bought in residential neighborhoods for the comfort of quiet streets, cut de sacs, safety, neighborliness. It's not squeamish to object to more traffic and strangers to account date someone's making money. From inezvermaas to Everyone: 05:02 PM When someone rents out for more than 30 days on a short term basis the long term rental laws do not apply. From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 05:02 PM anything over 30days ebven in single days should be regulated as a long term rental based on impact and current zoning as BUSINESS- Air BnB is a business- profit is the motive- NOT QUALITY OF LIFE for those who chose to live there AND PAY to live THERE From inezvermaas to Everyone: 05:07 PM I think it is a great idea that people wanting to rent out short term for more than 30 days should become professional registers businesses. What is your definition of a B&B? If they do not provide a fresh breakfast they are not a B&B! Level of inspection: Same as B&B's!!! Level the playing field..... From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 05:08 PM "accomodate" From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 05:11 PM What are the consequences for those who lie when they disclose information to the Town? It appears from recent conversations that there are insufficient resources to "FACT CHECK" those who rent LONG term- let a one short term..... Given the impact and profit of rentals on a neighborhood the Permit fee should be enough to pay for a compliance organization to remove any impact of costs being paid by residents. Given the profit margins for STA it wold seem a base permit level would be around $500-750/year- that would cover compliance and regulation without pitting neighbors vs neighbors- it should be independent Paulette Rosa From: Mia Slotnick <mjslotnick123@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 8:43 PM To: Rod Howe; Bill Goodman; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Paulette Rosa; Marty Moseley; Susan Ritter; Rich DePaolo; macananny; luisa macananny; Barbara Koslowski; Richard Newell Boyd; maralyn edid; Larry Blume; Inez Vermaas; kws5 @cornell.edu Subject: Fwd: Short Term Rentals Dear Rich, Thank you for your September 14 email response to a few points in our email of the same date. We look forward to hearing responses to the rest of our September 14 email as well as our September 8 email from the entire STR committee. Most of your September 14 comments were addressed by the response sent from our group on October 20, 2020. Below are a few additional comments (your words in blue): "To your main metric of the "success" of the Cayuga Heights ordinance... our proposals would also foreclose on the practice of people "buying up residences and using them exclusively as STRs." This is NOT our main metric of success of the Cayuga Heights ordinance, though it is definitely a part of it. "Success" is that both residents and hosts reach a working compromise on the number of days allowed, which in Cayuga Heights is 14 days for unhosted rentals OR 28 days for hosted rentals (a maximum of 28 days per year). As we have stated previously, it seems logical and sensible for the Town to implement this two year proven day limit for residential areas in the Town. The situation could then be reassessed after an initial period. As previously stated, there are multiple factors that justify a scaled approach to different areas in the Town of Ithaca based on the characteristics of the neighborhood. The STR committee has been discussing allowing more days for properties in less densely packed areas of the Town. Conversely, for areas with density and topographic constraints it seems that the 14/28 day limit would be a good starting point. Also important is as Linda Woodard said "When there have been complaints from residents, we have a law we can enforce beyond just a noise complaint and have used it a number of times." "Success" is laws that can be readily applied and enforced and that do not rely on neighbors' complaints to monitor compliance. Also essential are serious consequences that are consistently and uniformly imposed for those who do not follow the laws. "it would seem, simply based on the relatively low number of complaints, that the practice is not considered objectionable in the vast majority of occurrences" Equating the number of complaints with whether STRs are objectionable is not a valid comparison. Many people are extremely hesitant to complain due to the risk of angering neighbors. Others are not aware of what a STR is or that they are operating in their neighborhood. Many residents probably have no idea that they could complain about them, or who they would even complain to. A much more accurate method of assessing how people feel about the presence (or future presence) of STRs in their neighborhood would be through a survey. Also, as stated previously, the majority of Town residents are not aware that STR legislation is being discussed or the implications of allowing them in their neighborhoods, so are not as vocal as those who are actively benefiting from operating them. We also wanted to address the comment directed at our neighborhood from Carolyn Greenwald (her words below in red) at the end of the last STR meeting on September 14th: "Focusing on the number of days is not focusing on the problems in the neighborhood. Enforcing parking and noise would solve 90% of problems that they are having." The problems we have experienced are not limited to parking and noise. As we described in the past, increased traffic, damage to neighbors' property, and a complete change in the character of the neighborhood resulting in a decrease in our quality of life are some of the other negatives. For most of these issues, the only way to lessen their negative impact is by limiting the number of days allowed. Thank you for considering these thoughts, suggestions, and concerns. Mia On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 13:52, Rich DePaolo <RDePaolo @town.ithaca.ny.us> wrote: Mia- Whether you agree with it or not, residential rentals of any shape or form are considered a residential use and, as such, are in full compliance with our CURRENT zoning. That IS the opinion of the Town Attorney. We are now endeavoring to regulate a use that is currently ALLOWED. We have limited enforcement tools available in the current construct, including occupancy (related to our definition of "family") and prohibitions against certain "nuisances" like noise. Under our current zoning, the fact that people operate rentals as a "business" is immaterial. We are attempting to address that. I find it curious that you would be pushing back on a proposed 29-day limit on unhosted rentals, considering that there is no limit at all imposed by current zoning. To your main metric of the "success" of the Cayuga Heights ordinance... our proposals would also foreclose on the practice of people "buying up residences and using them exclusively as STRs." We have a principal -residence requirement in most zones, including yours, with an adjacent property exception under consideration. Reportedly, there are over 350 hosts in the Town of Ithaca. While there are certainly issues related to STRs, it would seem, simply based on the relatively low number of complaints, that the practice is not considered objectionable in the vast majority of occurrences. That said, a balancing test must be applied to try to address the needs and concerns of al stakeholders. Thank you for your continued engagement. Rich On Sep 14, 2020, at 7:47 AM, Mia Slotnick <mislotnick123@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Rich. Thank you for your email. Although our letter was a collective effort written by the 8 people who signed it and was based on notes that were taken during several Short Term Rental meetings, since you directed your clarifications to me, I will respond for the group. Point 4. Contrary to your opinion with respect to Cayuga Heights that "it has NOT worked", and in line with our understanding that it is working well, Linda Woodard, the Mayor of Cayuga Heights informed us that the laws they have in place have been successful. When asked last week how she felt the STR legislation in Cayuga Heights was working she responded: "1 think we have been successful. We have kept people from buying up residences and using them exclusively as strs. When there have been complaints from residents, we have a law we can enforce beyond just a noise complaint and have used it a number of times. Our residents view their houses as their homes, not businesses. The biggest issue is making sure all abide by our laws. Airbnb continues to make that a challenge. We don't have the administrative resources or sophisticated software to monitor compliance. That is why 1 am so encouraged by the county willing to pay for the basic service and hope the Town of Ithaca will pass their laws soon, so we can partner with them to know who is renting out their homes and for how long. With that information we can be proactive about compliance. Cayuga Heights is a small village; word gets around. My best suggestion for you is to keep things simple. Much easier for residents to understand and less problems with enforcement." Cayuga Heights has had a successfully working model for STR regulation in operation for over 2 years. it would seem logical and sensible for the Town to implement this proven plan for residential areas in the Town. The situation could then be reassessed after an initial period. Point 1. The following are your words from the August 10 STR meeting (please check your own meeting minutes for confirmation): "My recollection is that we paid some attention to information from Tom Knipe... Supplemental income versus a business ... Tom said 80-90 days." As stated in our previous letter, Tom clarified that this number only pertains to the specific situation of a 2 bedroom unit. It does not pertain to all size properties or properties in different neighborhoods. Therefore, it should not be used as a "point at which a potential STR business becomes more lucrative than a long-term rental of the same unit" since it only applies to the specific situation that Tom had estimated it for. Point 2. We all know the definition of a STR as being a rental of less than 30 days. However, the number of days allowed within this 29 days maximum is what is being questioned. Cayuga Heights settled on 14 days of unhosted rentals because that number included all the major Cornell, Ithaca College, and area events that necessitate increased housing. The number of days allowed should reflect the wishes of those who want to engage in STRs and those residents who do not. 14-15 days seems a fair starting point between the maximum (30) and minimum (0) days. Your opinion of considering one method of allowing more days for certain areas more "arbitrary" than another is simply that --your own opinion. As previously stated, there are multiple factors that justify a scaled approach to different areas in the Town of Ithaca based on the characteristics of the neighborhood. An overlay zone in both Renwick Heights and Forest Home would be easy to delineate and implement. Your labelling of residents who are concerned about STRs as "half a dozen folks from Renwick Heights, yourself included" is inaccurate. We presented the Board with a petition opposing STRs signed by 17 Renwick Heights residents in September of 2016. Our concerns are shared by at least 11 Forest Home residents (see their 11/27/18 letter to the STR committee) as well as members of the Ithaca Bed and Breakfast Association. We have attended nearly every relevant meeting and been seriously engaged with the STR committee for 4 years, bringing forth many examples of our grievances as well as many suggestions for the legislation. It is also well worth noting that the majority of Town residents are not aware that STR legislation is being discussed or the implications of allowing them, so are not as vocal as those who are actively benefiting from operating them. 3 Point 5. The reason we brought this to your attention has nothing to do with STRs or LTRs. It was meant to illustrate how difficult it will be to use neighbor complaints as part of the regulation process, especially in regards to proof of occupancy. As stated previously, complaint driven enforcement will not work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel to adequately monitor and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. Additionally, the Town is aware that the Owner of #20 Renwick Heights Road lied to the Town about her intentions for the property. The Owner reported that she was no longer renting it out and that she was living there herself. She requested to have her long term rental permit rescinded. She then moved back out of the state and continued to rent the house out to both long and short term tenants, which is what she has been doing for over two years without the home ever undergoing an inspection. Surely there should be consequences for this Owner's blatant dishonesty and deception. Refer to Town Codes 207-2 and 207-4, Operating Permit Required and Penalties, respectively. Point 6. Figures for the income potential of STR properties have been mentioned multiple times in the past by STR committee members when discussing proposed costs of permitting fees. Point 7. From our experience in our own neighborhood, being a hosted rental versus an unhosted rental has no effect on increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' properties, degradation of the character of a neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. A final comment is in order. It is clear from the existing Town Code, Article IX, 270-65, 'Purpose', that the MDR is intended 'almost exclusively' for residential purposes and minimal intrusion by commercial activities. Further there exists in the Code clear wording to discourage traditional B&Bs in MDRs. Yes we are aware of the very thin distinction between B&B's and STR's- but they are both unsupervised mini -hotels for transients in neighborhoods not zoned for them. Yet you are in effect through this proposed legislation adding a new and never intended purpose in our zone- all to suit a subset of your constituents engaged in a commercial activity. This is rezoning by any other name and we raise the question as to whether this is the correct process. We would be interested to see a written opinion from the Town's Attorney. Sincerely, Mia Slotnick, Kenneth Simpson, Mike MacAnanny, Luisa MacAnanny, Barbara Koslowski, Richard Boyd, Maralyn Enid, and Larry Blume rom: Rich DePaolo <RDePaolo(o-).town.ithaca.ny.us> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 10:11 Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals To: Mia Slotnick <mislotnick123aamail.com> Cc: Rod Howe <RHowe a0own.ithaca.ny.us>, Bill Goodman <bgoodman(o-).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Pam Bleiwas <PBleiwas(a�_town.ithaca.ny.us>, TeeAnn Hunter<THunter(a)__town.ithaca.ny.us>, Eric Levine <eLevi ne(o).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Pat Leary <Pleary(o).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Paulette Rosa <PRosa(a)_town.ithaca.ny.us>, Marty Moseley <MMoseley(a)-town.ithaca.ny.us>, Susan Ritter <sritter(o).town.ithaca.ny.us> Mia- Thank you for sharing your opinions. Many of your conclusions are erroneous. Please allow me to clarify, where I can. Regards, Rich On Sep 8, 2020, at 8:07 AM, Mia Slotnick <mjslotnick123(agmail.com> wrote: Dear Supervisor Howe, Deputy Supervisor Goodman, Town Board members, and others involved in Short Term Rental legislation, Below are several points about topics discussed at the August 10th Short Term Rental committee meeting. 1. 80-90 days was mentioned as a number that was taken from Tom Knipe's calculations, and was described at the August 10th meeting as being the difference between "supplemental income versus a business". In recent communication with Tom Knipe, he clarified that this number was an estimate of the average daily rate on Airbnb for a 2 BR unit compared to what a landlord could raise in 12 months of rent for an average 2 BR unit. He went on to state that the data also shows that some units (being rented as short term rentals) are pulling in many times what they could achieve on a long term lease. This 80-90 day estimated figure only applies to this specific situation in relation to long term rentals, and should not be used as a blanket "acceptable day limit". It may not apply to larger or smaller properties, or properties in all areas of Ithaca. It should not be used as an acceptable figure for all concerns since it was generated to address only the specific concern about housing being taken out of the long term rental stock. Allowing 80-90 nights of STRs in our neighborhood would dramatically and negatively change the character of our neighborhood. The committee is and has been aware that the 80-90 days cited by Tom Knipe was what he determined to be the the point at which a potential STR business becomes more lucrative than a long-term rental of the same unit. The committee never used that figure to delineate between what would be considered "supplemental income versus a business." We are more concerned that STR allowances don't incentivize removing long-term housing stock from the market. 2. A limit of 29 days for unhosted rentals has been proposed, though there has never been an explanation for how this figure was chosen. Bill Goodman mentioned that Brent Katzman, a local realtor and Airbnb host had discussed with him that he lives on a large lot, and would like to be allowed to rent for more than 29 days. Bill said that after this discussion, he felt in certain circumstances that the day limit could be greater --maybe 90-120 days since being on a larger lot will not impact the neighbors so much. Why is it that despite numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern about allowing up to 29 days, there has been no discussion or flexibility in decreasing that number, yet the number of days allowed may potentially be increased after a request from one individual? We have been told that special exceptions cannot be made for specific neighborhoods, yet exceptions to increase the number of days are being considered on an individual property basis. This seems both arbitrary and capricious. The 29-day figure has been explained many times. It is derived from the 2010 amendment to New York Multiple Dwellings Law, section (8)(a) which essentially defines anything less than a rental of "thirty consecutive days" as short-term. To answer your second question, the balancing test to determine the number of allowable rental days is largely being determined by our desire to not erode long-term housing stock, and incidents of nuisance, which are largely complaint driven. In the example you cite, it is assumed that rentals on a large parcel with faraway neighbors would not pose as great a nuisance risk. The geometric parameters needed to apply for more days would apply zone -wide, and, as such, would certainly not be considered "arbitrary," whereas the "neighborhood - specific" solution you allude to would require that different areas under the same Town zoning classification be treated differently, a much more arbitrary solution, requiring overlay zones and multiple justifying criteria. And, to be perfectly frank, "numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern," has basically been half a dozen folks from Renwick Heights, yourself included. This is a balancing test between people who perceive a threat from a particular use, and residents who don't and/or who derive a benefit from it. 3. The proposal of having a "threshold" of less than 14 days where no permit or regulations are imposed is unnecessary and will likely cause major problems including parking issues, large parties, noise, and increased traffic, which all lead to degradation of the character of neighborhoods where those 7 weekends of unregulated rentals occur. All units would require permits. The issue was whether or not to require inspections of properties only being rented less than a certain number of days. 4. The Cayuga Heights STR regulations have been in place and working for almost 3 years. As Linda Woodard described it, keeping it simple and consistent is the key. It makes sense to start with a limited number of days as they have done (14 unhosted or 28 hosted), and require that all properties obtain an operating permit and follow the same rules. This has so far proved a successful compromise for both hosts and residents. Linda Woodard has also described that Cayuga Heights has not been successful at regulating its rentals, regardless of the number of allowable days in their law. In short, it has NOT worked, which is why she is seeking to collaborate with other municipalities and the County on enforcement. 5. It has been proposed that enforcement will be partly "complaint driven". A recent example of how this will be problematic is the home at 20 Renwick Heights Road. The owner told the Town her home was owner occupied and no longer being rented. Several neighbors noticed that the owner had moved out of the property on July 6, and that a family of 4 moved into the property on July 7. For over 6 weeks the owner had not been seen, and the family of 4 had been seen living in the house, yet the Town Code Enforcement officer did not feel that there was enough "proof' to conclude that the owner was no longer living there and that a family of 4 was living there. We appreciate that he did come back for a second site visit, and then concluded that the neighbors' observations were correct. Drawing from this experience, it seems unlikely that a neighbor's complaint about a host not living in the property for a 1 or 2 day hosted STIR stay could be adequately proven. Complaint driven enforcement will not work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel to adequately monitor and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. The example you cite above, where a family of 4 moves in for 6 weeks, is not considered a short-term rental and would be totally legal under any proposed regulatory scenario. 6. The cost of the operating permit should cover all costs, including the increased number of personnel which adequate monitoring and enforcement will necessitate. As Linda Woodard mentioned, people can make $3000-$4000 in one weekend, so the cost of the permit should also take the income potential into consideration. Towns can not take into consideration the profit -making potential of a use when determining fees to cover the administration of laws associated with it. Any enforcement and personnel costs associated with STIR would be recouped by permit fees. The level of enforcement will be driven by compliance issues, not by the economics of the rental economy. 7. Hosted rentals were mentioned as not being a problem because "if the host is there on the property, they can tell their guests to be quiet if they are having a party". However, as brought up previously, noise from a party is only one neighborhood concern from renters. Other concerns are increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' property, and degradation in the character of a residential neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. These negative impacts do not disappear if the rental is hosted, so the number of days allowed for both unhosted and hosted rentals should be limited. Another issue with hosted rentals is that we have observed in our neighborhood that the host has learned to leave their car in plain site on the premises to give the impression that the home is currently hosted, whereas the owner has actually left in another vehicle and the unit is really unhosted. This practice may be curtailed by advising hosts that random and regular visits to the home by Town code enforcement personnel are part of the STIR regulating process. Again, this would necessitate further funds, which could be generated from permitting fees. The perceived advantages of having a host on the property have never been limited to "parties" or "noise." The committee has considered the benefit to be more comprehensive, and has assumed that oversight by the owner would also be more effective at curtailing the other nuisances you cite. Mia Slotnick <m1slotnick123@gmail.com to Rod, Bilk, Pair), TcwzeAnn, Eiriic, Riicll°r, Pat, P ualette, Maim , Susan, bcc: erne 0.: Dear Supervisor Howe, Deputy Supervisor Goodman, Town Board members, and others involved in Short legislation, Below are several points about topics discussed at the August 10th Short Term Rental committee meeting 1. 80-90 days was mentioned as a number that was taken from Tom Knipe's calculations, and was describ meeting as being the difference between "supplemental income versus a business". In recent communice he clarified that this number was an estimate of the average daily rate on Airbnb for a 2 BR unit compared could raise in 12 months of rent for an average 2 BR unit. He went on to state that the data also shows tha rented as short term rentals) are pulling in many times what they could achieve on a long term lease. This 80-90 day estimated figure only applies to this specific situation in relation to long term rentals, and sr blanket "acceptable day limit". It may not apply to larger or smaller properties, or properties in all areas of I used as an acceptable figure for all concerns since it was generated to address only the specific concern a taken out of the long term rental stock. Allowing 80-90 nights of STRs in our neighborhood would dramatic change the character of our neighborhood. 2. A limit of 29 days for unhosted rentals has been proposed, though there has never been an explanation chosen. Bill Goodman mentioned that Brent Katzman, a local realtor and Airbnb host had discussed with h large lot, and would like to be allowed to rent for more than 29 days. Bill said that after this discussion, he circumstances that the day limit could be greater --maybe 90-120 days since being on a larger lot will not in much. Why is it that despite numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern about allowing up to 29 days, the discussion or flexibility in decreasing that number, yet the number of days allowed may potentially be incr( from one individual? We have been told that special exceptions cannot be made for specific neighborhood; increase the number of days are being considered on an individual property basis. This seems both arbitr< 3. The proposal of having a "threshold" of less than 14 days where no permit or regulations are imposed i will likely cause major problems including parking issues, large parties, noise, and increased traffic, which of the character of neighborhoods where those 7 weekends of unregulated rentals occur. 4. The Cayuga Heights STR regulations have been in place and working for almost 3 years. As Linda Wo( keeping it simple and consistent is the key. It makes sense to start with a limited number of days as they h; unhosted or 28 hosted), and require that all properties obtain an operating permit and follow the same rule proved a successful compromise for both hosts and residents. 5. It has been proposed that enforcement will be partly "complaint driven". A recent example of how this w the home at 20 Renwick Heights Road. The owner told the Town her home was owner occupied and no loi Several neighbors noticed that the owner had moved out of the property on July 6, and that a family of 4 m on July 7. For over 6 weeks the owner had not been seen, and the family of 4 had been seen living in the f Code Enforcement officer did not feel that there was enough "proof' to conclude that the owner was no Ion that a family of 4 was living there. We appreciate that he did come back for a second site visit, and then cc neighbors' observations were correct. Drawing from this experience, it seems unlikely that a neighbor's cor not living in the property for a 1 or 2 day hosted STR stay could be adequately proven. Complaint driven ei work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel tc and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. 6. The cost of the operating permit should cover all costs, including the increased number of personnel whl monitoring and enforcement will necessitate. As Linda Woodard mentioned, people can make $3000-$400 the cost of the permit should also take the income potential into consideration. 7. Hosted rentals were mentioned as not being a problem because "if the host is there on the property, the to be quiet if they are having a party". However, as brought up previously, noise from a party is only one nE from renters. Other concerns are increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' property, and de( character of a residential neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. These negative impacts do r rental is hosted, so the number of days allowed for both unhosted and hosted rentals should be limited. Another issue with hosted rentals is that we have observed in our neighborhood that the host has learned 1 plain site on the premises to give the impression that the home is currently hosted, whereas the owner has vehicle and the unit is really unhosted. This practice may be curtailed by advising hosts that random and rE home by Town code enforcement personnel are part of the STR regulating process. Again, this would nec( which could be generated from permitting fees. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, The Renwick Neighbors Group Mia Slotnick, Kenneth Simpson, Mike Macananny, Luisa Macananny, Maralyn Edid, Larry Blume, Barbara Richard Boyd Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:34 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Becky Jordan; Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Ithaca Lakefront - Short Term Rentals FYI - another one coming also Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Ata Movassaghi <atamovassaghi@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:21 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us>; Becky Jordan <BJordan@town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Ithaca Lakefront - Short Term Rentals Hi Bill and Becky, I hope this message finds you and your family well. Ahead of the Town STR meeting, I wanted to reach out in light of the recent STR discussions around lakefront properties and share my perspective as a recent owner and Ithaca native. As someone who grew up in Ithaca and frequently visited throughout my life, it has been the most rewarding personal accomplishment this year for me to now own a lakefront property. It's something I'd talk about with my parents early on but due to the high cost and scarce availability, it was difficult to imagine. Many of my friends owned lake houses that we would enjoy to the fullest, especially in the summer months while the students were away. Now as an owner myself, I look forward to the opportunity to both share in these experiences with family and friends in addition to local and outside visitors who seek out short term rentals on Cayuga Lake. Tourism is one of the biggest drivers of economic stimulus in Ithaca. In a pandemic year unlike any other that we've experienced, it's difficult to imagine our economy without it. Even in a normal year, people seek out lakefront rentals with specific intentions year round and even my large community of Ithacans now living elsewhere find it's the desired method to come back to. If this was restricted, the Town will actually find that both tourism altogether and Ithacans won't visit to the same degree. Not to mention all the property managers, cleaning services, contractors, etc. that rely on this business to uphold their own employment and livelihood. Secondly, the lakefront is not Cayuga Heights or traditional neighborhoods that consist of family -owned homes while kids are in school going through K-12. The reality is that they're predominantly second homes by nature of location, school proximity, and higher cost of the properties. Thus, the same policy/standards for a residential area like Cayuga Heights shouldn't apply. Lakefront property is far more rare and giving the opportunity to people who could otherwise never experience it is the highest demonstration of "neighborhood." STR guests both staycationing within Ithaca and visiting from the outside are investing locally by not staying in major hotel conglomerates and taking local recommendations to experience everything small businesses have to offer - that's what our town is built on. If lake houses were included in these STR regulations, it would severely impact our economy with these people choosing to allocate their time elsewhere. Look forward to joining today's call and sincerely appreciate your time and continued investment in the considerations of all members of our community. Best, Ata Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 12:38 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Proposed STR regulations - Lakefront Hi folks, another STR comment re Lakefront Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Jyl Dowd <jyldowd@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 5:02 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Proposed STR regulations Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board, I am writing in favor of the exclusion of the lakefront district from the proposed STR regulations. I have lived in Ithaca since 1965. Raised by a single mom, 3 of us lived in a one bedroom apartment in the "flats". We had no money and no car, therefore nowhere we could go to swim. On hot days the best we could do was to sit in the creek to cool off. I don't believe I had ever swam in Cayuga Lake until I moved back to Ithaca after college. By renting out 2 bedrooms in my home (initially to locals, and now through Airbnb) I have been able to pay my mortgage, put my daughter through college, and treat myself to a 2 week rental on Cayuga Lake every summer when my daughter comes home to visit. It's the perfect "stay -cation" because she can see her old friends, people can bring their boats by, it's relaxing & beautiful, and we don't have to travel. And I know other locals do the same. Given the difficulty of accessing the lake otherwise (packing up supplies, coordinating meet -up times, driving time, parking fees, crowds, etc) I strongly believe that the availability of lake front rentals should not be restricted. EVERYONE deserves some time on the lake! Jyl Dowd Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 12:38 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Proposed STR regulations - Lakefront Hi folks, another STR comment re Lakefront Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Jyl Dowd <jyldowd@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 5:02 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Proposed STR regulations Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board, I am writing in favor of the exclusion of the lakefront district from the proposed STR regulations. I have lived in Ithaca since 1965. Raised by a single mom, 3 of us lived in a one bedroom apartment in the "flats". We had no money and no car, therefore nowhere we could go to swim. On hot days the best we could do was to sit in the creek to cool off. I don't believe I had ever swam in Cayuga Lake until I moved back to Ithaca after college. By renting out 2 bedrooms in my home (initially to locals, and now through Airbnb) I have been able to pay my mortgage, put my daughter through college, and treat myself to a 2 week rental on Cayuga Lake every summer when my daughter comes home to visit. It's the perfect "stay -cation" because she can see her old friends, people can bring their boats by, it's relaxing & beautiful, and we don't have to travel. And I know other locals do the same. Given the difficulty of accessing the lake otherwise (packing up supplies, coordinating meet -up times, driving time, parking fees, crowds, etc) I strongly believe that the availability of lake front rentals should not be restricted. EVERYONE deserves some time on the lake! Jyl Dowd 1067'raughannock Blvd Ithaca, " k Town Clerk Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 January 4, 2021 Subject: Proposed Short -Term Rental Restrictions Dear Members of the Short -Term Rental Committee: We are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed short-term rental restrictions for homes in the lakefront zone. We are two young families in the foreign service who recently bought 1067 Taughannock Blvd from a long-time Ithaca resident who, for the last ten years, has used it as a second home and short-term rental property. We both grew up in Ithaca and throughout our adult lives have returned several times a year with our spouses to stay with family and friends and to enjoy the natural beauty of the Finger Lakes. As we move around the world, Ithaca is still very much the place we call home. We stretched ourselves financially to purchase this dream home to have a place to bring our family and friends together and to deepen our lifelong connection to Ithaca. We plan to use the home as our primary residence for ourselves at least two months each year, and as a vacation home for our family and friends for another month. However, that leaves nine months where the home would be unoccupied, but for short- or medium -term rentals. While we acknowledge that we are very fortunate to have been able to pool our resources to afford a beautiful home on the lake, few owners, including us, can afford to leave our homes empty for nine months of the year. Short-term rentals are essential for us to be able to afford to maintain and improve the home. For example, our home needs to be repainted and a shared driveway repaved. These are costs we hoped would be offset through income from short-term rentals, but these investments would likely need to be delayed or the workmanship compromised if our home will sit empty for most of the year. Without short-term rentals, seasonal occupants incentives will be to keep expenses low, rather than to invest in maintaining and improving our homes. Keeping the homes occupied and owners investing in them is the best way to maintain the character of the lakefront neighborhood, which has always included short-term rental use. Long-term leases are not an alternative for us because it would prevent us from furnishing and enjoying our home ourselves. Moreover, the steep driveway and three -season construction limit the use of the house in winter for long-term renters. Finally, the purchase price we paid for our home and the assessed values of homes along the lake reflect their values as short-term rentals, not just their value as seasonal or vacation homes. Restrictions on short-term rentals will have a negative impact on the values of these homes and on real-estate and school tax revenue. For these reasons, we oppose restrictions on short-term rentals for the lakefront zone. Sincerely, Joshua Delara Nat alie Louge cc: Deputy Town Clerk, Becky Jordan Deputy Town Supervisor, Bill Goodman Board Member, Rich DePaolo Board Member, Tee -Ann Hunter Board Member, Pat Leary Elaina McCartney 845 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca NY 14850 1/5/2021 To: STR Committee I have owned and lived in my lakefront duplex home at 845 Taughannock Blvd. for 25 years. I bought the place as a severely run-down fixer -upper in 1996, as a full- time working single parent, and have invested significantly in improving the property over the years, which in turn has raised its value on the tax rolls. Now I am retired. I live upstairs and have always rented the downstairs apartment. Since 2015, the downstairs has been operated as an Airbnb short-term rental, is certified, and meets all inspection requirements. A 3% room tax is paid directly to Tompkins County through Airbnb. Like other properties along Cayuga Lake, we provide beautiful lakefront accommodations and water access to tourists, families visiting local residents, parents visiting or dropping off Cornell and Ithaca College attendees, tourists sampling the Wine Trail, Art Trail, Farmers Market, exploring parks, and sampling well-known restaurants, local Ithacans who want the lakeside experience for a staycation, or writers wanting peace and quiet. Sometimes we're the home base for reunion or conference attendees, families dropping off their college -bound children, kayakers, paddleboarders, boaters (mooring provided), swimming enthusiasts, birdwatchers, triathletes, bikers, hikers on the Black Diamond and Waterfront Trails, and so on. For me, as a retiree on a fixed income, short term rentals provide a stable way for me to pay the high lakefront property and school taxes, continue to maintain driveway, stairs, dock, and general upkeep, and continue to live here. This is a quiet neighborhood. All guests are vetted through Airbnb, and the number of guests is strictly limited. Parties and events are not permitted, and dock use after 10pm is prohibited. We have had zero complaints from neighbors regarding our Airbnb short-term rentals, including zero complaints about parking or noise. Recycling and trash are managed as any responsible homeowner does, and the premises are kept clean and well -maintained inside and out. There are professional cleaners who work regularly in the neighborhood between guests, who depend on this income. I live on the property so I can respond immediately should guests or neighbors have any concerns. I don't believe the general concerns that some Ithaca residents have raised about short-term rentals apply to the lakeside neighborhood. Examples of concerns raised elsewhere are parking, noise, and the presence of strangers. We have a small parking lot along the road where guests are allocated a parking spot. In addition, there is plenty of parking all along the west side of Route 89. The Town of Ithaca already has a Noise Ordinance should there ever be an issue with any short-term rentals along the lake. An anonymous call may be made to Ithaca Police Dispatch and an officer will deal with it promptly. We have made this information available to our neighbors but no one has had to use it. As far as concern about "strangers", that's what tourists are! We welcome them to quietly enjoy the lake and other features Ithaca has to offer, and of course only the number of guests appropriate to the space. I believe short term rentals along the shore of Cayuga Lake contribute to the local economy in a very positive way, and allow visitors to experience what makes Ithaca so special. I don't think an arbitrary restriction of number of nights deals directly with the concerns that are raised. It is impractical to switch back and forth between short- and long -terms rentals. If one does short term rentals, for example only in the summer, then the rest of the year is limited to the student market. But more than that, such restrictions to not directly deal with the concerns raised (parking, noise, strangers), but make a cause -and -effect assumption that may not be valid. Thank you for considering these thoughts. January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. Lakefront Rental Restriction Opposition Signature Page 1/8/2021 Timestamp Name Lake Property Address email address 2021/01/04 2:09:18 PM EST Jes Seaver 829 Taughannock BLvd Ithaca NY 0esseaver@gmail.com 2021/01/04 2:14:55 PM EST Kenneth Broadwell 2021/01/04 6:52:57 PM EST Carolyn Greenwald 2021/01/04 6:53:21 PM EST Adam Schaye 2021/01/05 10:51:30 AM EST Elaina McCartney 2021/01/05 10:56:28 AM EST Randall Corey 2021/01/05 11:09:56 AM EST Nathalie Louge 2021/01/05 11:32:23 AM EST Joshua deLara 2021/01/05 12:11:38 PM EST PAUL FAIRBANKS 2021/01/05 2:22:46 PM EST Chuck Henderson 2021/01/05 34 3 4 PM EST T 5 Ben Weiner 2021/01/05 8:16:51 PM EST Barb Bassette 2021/01/06 7:09:26 AM EST Patrick Burns 2021/01/06 8:25:26 AM EST Chuck Baxter 2021/01/06 10:26:59 AM EST Christine Henseler 2021/01/07 9:17:53 AM EST Paulette Baxter 2021/01/07 4:47:28 PM EST Tony Baxter 2021/01/07 6:16:43 PM EST sally mennen 2021/01/07 7:04:34 PM EST Sheila and Al Snyder 2021/01/07 7:12:11 PM EST Kash Iraggi-Wiggins 2021/01/07 7:54:38 PM EST Ata Movassaghi 2021/01/08 8:38:55 AM EST Daniel Kraak 2021/01/08 9:33:47 AM EST Wendy Kenigsberg 2021/01/08 10:42:08 AM EST Richard mennen 2021/01/08 11:19:48 AM EST John &Carolyn Neuman 2021/01/08 11:29:52 AM EST Jennifer Engel 2021 /01 /08 12.21.36 PM EST ohn el JAb 829 Taughannock Blvd 0esseaver@gmail.com 889 Taughannock Blvd cbgreenwald@gmail.com 907 Taughannock Blvd ars@millermayer.com 845 Taughannock Blvd. emm5@cornell.edu 979 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca nccorey@gmail.com 1067 Taughannock Blvd natlouge@gmail.com 1067 Taughannock Blvd irdelara@gmail.com 935 Taughannock Blvd PAULIERAYBAN@GMAIL.COM 839 Taughannock Blvd cph5@cornell.edu 847 Taughannock Blvd benerikweiner@qmail.com 839 Taughannock Blvd. barb.bassette@gmaiI.com 1089 Taughannock Blvd patrick.burns@cornell.edu 1085 taugh. blvd. asicservices@gmail.com 841 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD henselec@union.edu 1085 taughannock blvd paulettechuck@yahoo.com 1083 Taughannock Blvd. antonvibaxter@gmail.com 997 Taughannock blvd mennens@gmail.com 855&857 Taughannock Blvd Sheilsnyder857@yahoo.com 967 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD kash.balance@gmaii.com 831 Taughannock Blvd atamovassaghi@gmail.com 891 Taughannock Blvd, Ithaca NY dpk3@cornell.edu 891 Taughannock Blvd, Ithaca NY 14850 wfkl@cornell.edu 997 Taughannock Blvd mennenster@gmail.com 1077 Taughannock Blvd. iohn neuman@mindspring.com 927 and 931 Taughannock Blvd Jmengel22@gmail.com 1001 Blvd Taughannock g fay@cornell.edu �i January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. February 8, 2021 To whom this may concern, I am writing in opposition to the proposed short term rental legislation being discussed at the upcoming STR committee meeting. It is important for any community to have variety of income levels. Yet more and more, lakefront property is controlled by the wealthiest individuals. Short term rentals allow those of middle and lower income brackets to live on Cayuga Lake. My fiance and I are examples of this as we are both music teachers. For over 7 years, the supplemental income generated through renting our primary residence has allowed us to afford the high cost of living, not just on Cayuga Lake, but also in Ithaca itself. In years past we have rented our small home for over 50 nights, often staying locally with family so that we can be available should a guest or neighbor require anything at all. With the uncertainty of the post pandemic economy, I expect we will depend on short term rentals of our home more than ever. A 29 day limit on un-hosted rentals would likely force us and many others in the low to middle income bracket to relocate. Additionally, the provision restricting the parking to driveway spaces on the rented parcel would ultimately terminate our ability to host short term rentals, again force us to move. While our home is set on the lake, we share parking with 2 other residences on a widened shoulder along East Shore Dr. Understanding the potential for parking congestion, we have long restricted guests to a one vehicle limit while also removing our own vehicles from the premises. This effectively reduces the total number of cars parked rather than add to it. If it's inevitable that the a parking provision be implemented, I request that exceptions be made for situations where parking is not affected by the short term rental. I recognize the need for regulation and fully support the implementation of safety standards, inspections and host registries. With rents and home prices rapidly rising, it's important to target individuals who abuse the system and purchase vacant properties for the primary purpose of short term renting them. However the blanket restrictions being proposed will negatively and disproportionately affect those of lower and middles incomes who depend most on short term rentals. Sincerely, William Tobin 928 E. Shore Dr Ithaca NY 14850 315-567-1671 January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. March 8, 2021 Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Town of Ithaca Short Term Rental Committee - Tompkins County Tourism Economy Dear Bill, We are writing today to urge the Short-term Rental Committee to share the importance of lake rentals to the economic vitality of Tompkins County. Visit Ithaca, the destination management organization for Tompkins County, actively promotes all vacation rentals who are registered with Tompkins County. We value the lake rentals immensely, as this is the only option for visitors who wish to have a lake experience in Tompkins County. A visitor who wishes to stay on the lake wants to stay on the lake. The visitor wants the experience that comes with a lake rental, which is very different from a stay in town. In 2020, there were not enough lake homes to fill the demand. Visitors were looking for a safer way to escape with their family pods and lake rentals were the first places they booked. We feel strongly that short term rentals in the lakefront zone should be treated differently from short term rentals in the other zones. We firmly believe that hosted rentals should have no limit in any zone. We also believe that the demonstrated value to the tourism economy indicates that there should be no limits to any rentals in the lakefront zone, hosted or non -hosted. A 90-day limit or even 180-day limit still limits the economic return, not just to the host/property owner, but to the entire community through visitor spending at area restaurants, at grocery stores, at gas stations, wineries, breweries, etc. We also feel strongly that all health and safety insurances should be included in the permitting process by the Town of Ithaca. We urge that all short-term rentals should be registered with Tompkins County, and should collect and submit all applicable sales and occupancy taxes. Thank you for your consideration of the impact on the tourism economy. Sincerely, Jennifer Tavares, CEcD President & CEO Co - Peggy Coleman VP Tourism/CVB Director 904 East Shore Drive I Ithaca, NY 14850 607-273-7080 1 jtavares@tompkinschamber.org www.tompkinschamber.org www.visitithaca.com I1 re a, N ew Yo r Town Clerk Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Members of the Short -Term Rental Subcommittee: My name is John Butler. I own 1067 Taughannock Blvd with my wife, Nathalie Louge, and another couple, Joshua and Sabina deLara. We are two young families in the United States foreign service posted abroad. Nathalie and I are currently serving in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Joshua and Sabina are posted in Moscow. Joshua and Nathalie are lifelong Ithaca residents and have parents and siblings who live in the area. We're millennials from working class and immigrant backgrounds. We saved up and pooled our resources to purchase a house on the lake to share with friends and family when we are on leave from post to maintain our connection to Ithaca. While the amount of time that we are away from post and staying here in Ithaca varies from year to year — it's likely to be two or three months most years. (We expect to use the house more this year due to the COVID pandemic and the birth of our first child). When we are not using the home for personal use, we rent it out on Airbnb for one or two weeks at a time. The home is popular and guests enjoy their stays. Our guests include families visiting their children at one of the Universities, young professionals looking to telework from a new location, families on summer vacation, and tourists looking to go cycling, swimming, or wine -tasting. We also rent to our neighbors when they have extended family visiting. Our neighbors have rented from us for about a month this year. Short-term rentals are ideal for us for a number of reasons. First, our home, like many others on the West Shore is not easy to access in winter due to the steep slope from Taughannock Blvd down to the lake, which makes it difficult to access by car or on foot when there's snow or ice. Even if we could rent the home to a single resident, that would mean that we would lose use of the home for ourselves, families, and friends. And we love short-term renters. In our experience, they are almost considerate of our home and our neighbors. They have to be to maintain access to the Airbnb platform. When we bought the home it had been used mostly as short-term rental for the last decade, and we counted on continuing that. Short-term rentals on the lake aren't new. The classifieds in the Ithaca Journal have ads for them going back to the 1910s (as far back as we could search in the archives), and for years there was a dedicated section in the classifieds for lake rentals. There are for sale ads that talk about the income potential of lake -front homes as well - long before apps made it easier and safer for folks to rent their vacation homes. Short-term rentals on the lake have made it possible for generations of people from the town, the city, and farther afield to enjoy the lake with their families. That's my main point: the limits being proposed are a significant departure from how families have owned and managed homes on the lakefront as far back as there have been classified ads, and the proposed limits are likely to do what the committee is trying to avoid - dramatically change the character of the lakefront in unpredictable ways. In some cases, limiting access to only to the very wealthy who are content to leave their homes empty when they aren't using them, in other cases, families of more modest means having to postpone repairs and maintenance. Let me explain what I mean. Limiting the number of days for unhosted rentals in the Lake Front Zone to 90, 120, or 180 days will mean that our home sits empty for months each year. With many part -year residents on the lake, limits on short-term rental days is likely to mean that many other homes will sit empty for months each year. While very wealthy owners may be able to continue to maintain and invest in homes that are only used a few months a year, many other owners will make the choice to delay all but the most essential work on their homes. To emphasize that point - the income that we earn from short-term rental is essential for us to afford the mortgage payments and property taxes, and to invest in repairs and improvements for the home. We are currently planning to hire local contractors to paint the house, make repairs to the front deck, improve the staircase that leads down to the lake, encapsulate the crawl space (to improve energy efficiency and keep out critters), install smart thermostats for the electric baseboard heaters to make the house more energy efficient, address some drainage issues, connect to the municipal sewer, and repair a retaining wall. Without the income from short-term rentals, we will not be able to undertake most of these projects, which is a loss to local small businesses, to the appearance of the home, and to our enjoyment of the home. We also rely on a number of local small businesses to keep our house comfortable for our guests, including local cleaning, landscaping, and snow removal companies. With limits on rental days, we will have to reduce our reliance on these companies. The lakefront is one of the town's most valuable assets. While some guests who come to stay in our home might still come to Ithaca and stay in a hotel if they have a particular reason to visit, many others will choose to travel elsewhere on the lake or to a different destination entirely because it's the experience of renting a house on a lake that they are looking for. Even if some of our guests do shift to hotels, that just feels like a transfer of wealth from homeowners to big hotel companies, while depriving visitors of the type of accommodation they would have preferred. Let me say, we do support the requirement for operating permits as well as collection of sales, occupancy, and other taxes, and requirements that homes meet safety and reasonable occupancy standards, enforcement of parking and noise ordinances, etc. We also support reasonable enforcement provisions that won't require us to cancel on guests who've often been planning family vacations many months or a year in advance. But we strongly oppose limits on the number of days that owners may rent their homes unhosted on the lake front because it's: • a change from at least a century of practice • deprives access to the lake for people who want to enjoy it, but can't afford to buy a home on the lake • leads to more poorly maintained homes • leads to empty homes for much of the year on the lake We appreciate the opportunity to share our views and thank you for your effort to balance the concerns you've heard with the benefits that short-term rentals bring to home owners, small businesses, and the community. Sincerely, John G. Butler cc: Deputy Town Clerk, Becky Jordan Deputy Town Supervisor, Bill Goodman Board Member, Rich DePaolo Board Member, Tee -Ann Hunter Board Member, Pat Leary Town Board, Comments from the floor Aug 9th 2011 Kenny Simpson At the June 14, 2021 STR committee meeting, Rich DePaolo stated "Who on the Town Board operates STRs? The public has a right to know. This should be asked in public session." To put this in context : At the regional and national level, elected officials must reveal when they have vested interests in a decision making process and bill, and recuse themselves if needed. Professionals and employees in all walks of life are frequently compelled to disclose all sources of revenue outside of their employment and relationships with individuals and companies. These are reviewed for conflict of interest. Consultation with the Tompkins County Legislators confirmed this viewpoint and indicated that anyone or their immediate family who is involved in conducting STRs, or has a relationship with a business involved in STRs and could benefit now or in the future from the legislation that is being crafted to govern STRs, has a civic, moral, and ethical duty to disclose this conflict of interest and recuse themselves from being involved in constructing these laws or voting on them. Other local municipalities such as Cayuga Heights have also subscribed to this policy barring individuals with conflicts from the legislative process. On this basis, we are requesting that members of the Town Board and STR planning committee who are involved directly or through family in conducting STRs, or have a relationship with a business involved in STRs, and could benefit now or in the future from the legislation that is being crafted to govern STRs, ensure they disclose this conflict of interest and recuse themselves from participating further in crafting or approving this legislation. STR Committee, Comments from the floor Aug 9th 2011 Kenny Simpson For years STR meetings had been clearly limited to discussions about un-Hosted STRs, and we were told that Hosted rentals were to be considered later. Without discussion it was decided that the rules for un-hosted STR would also apply to hosted STR, with the exception of a limit on days: Unhosted-STR would be allowed to rent for an unlimited number of days. Bill's quote (from Tompkins Weekly, 12/3/19) "We assume if the Owner of the property is present on the property, they'll take care of problems as they arise" covers many issues that may arise within the rental property. However, hosted STR still cause many of the same negatives for the neighborhood as unhosted- STR. Linda Woodard's quote from Dec 14, 2020 STR meeting: "The comings and goings of people who neighbors don't know, even when the Host is home, negatively impacts the quality of life of those who live in the neighborhood". Not only quality of life but loss of community. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(7):e2118134. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.18134 "Themes emerged with respect to awareness and believed causation of despair -related illness, and participants identified 4 common associated factors:: including deteriorating sense of community. Intervention strategies focused around 2 themes: (1) building resilience to despair through better community and organizational coordination and peer support at the local evel and (2) " STRs in a residential neighborhood are businesses and should be regulated as such. This is confirmed by scholarly legal opinion. Making a Business of "Residential Use": The Short -Term -Rental Dilemma in Common -Interest Communities, 68 Emory L. J. 801 (2019). Available at https: //.vcholarlycommons. law. emory. edu/el %vol68/iss4/3 "When a property becomes a short -term -rental business, much like a hotel or bed and breakfast, it is no longer a residential use, but rather a commercial one. " "This interpretation prevents the most harmful short -term -rental activity from infiltrating residential communities." "Granting unrestricted license to engage in commercial activity that has the potential to be so disruptive allows enterprising owners to undermine the residential character of a neighborhood in a way that elevates the rights of the individual far above those of the community. " Days for hosted -STR should not be unlimited. STR is a business An individual short -term -rental transaction is indeed commercial activity for a number of reasons: (i) short- term rentals are a monetary transaction and fit within the definition of commercial activity;150 (ii) they often require a business permit or license;151 (iii) governments often classify them as commercial;152 (iv) they are often subject to the same transient occupancy taxes as hotels;153 and (v) the IRS requires real estate rental income to be separately reported either as "supplemental" or "business income."154 https: //.vcholarlycommons. law. emory. edu/el %vol68/iss4/3 Residence and residential. "In common parlance and according to some legal definitions, a person's "residence" refers to the location where a person actually lives for an extended period.12' A short-term rental, by contrast, is transient: It gives a paying occupant a temporary place to stay.124 Thus a person staying in a hotel or an Airbnb rental for a week, or even a month, could not reasonably declare that they were "residing" therein.125 Yet it would be inapposite to allow a hotel or bed and breakfast into a residential community, `8 and the same goes for a de facto hotel being operated via short-term rentals" "the intent behind a residential "a desire to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and to make the neighborhood more attractive for residential purposes."146 Violation occurs when business activity is so disruptive as to "alter the character of a neighborhood. ,14' hops: //.vcholarlycommons. law. emory. edu/el lvo168/iss4/3 Accessory dwellings: The situation in the Town of Ithaca is compounded by Accessory dwelling units being considered hosted- STRs. Given the independence of an accessory dwelling unit it is highly likely the owner will be present as a true hosted STR where the host is in the same physical location.. These accessory dwellings are often in closer proximity to neighbors than bedrooms within a principle residence. Many accessory dwelling are solely intended for STR- vs housing aging or visiting relatives — they are unambiguous commercial ventures. The impact of unlimited days for accessory dwellings could be massive e.g. Forrest home 4/7 units on the Byway. The number of days for hosted should be limited until it's impact is determined: start low and increase if impact on the neighborhood allows. 1. One of the points raised in favor of allowing Lakefront properties to have unlimited stays is that there has been, for many decades, a tradition of doing so and that allowing it to continue to do so will maintain its character. I am not trying to dispute that argument. Rather, I suggest that an analogy might be in order. Certain residential neighborhoods (Renwick Heights, for example) have been residential for many decades. Therefore, parity of argument would suggest that these neighborhoods (like Lakefront properties) ought to be allowed to maintain their character. Rich's argument is that those of us who live in Renwick Heights knew that, when we moved to Ithaca, we were joining a transient community and transient communities have a lot of rentals. I would suggest that this argument is specious for the following reason. To the extent that Ithaca is a transient community, it is largely students who make it so. Stu- dents are concentrated in College Town. Those of us who wanted to avoid living in a transient community chose to avoid living in College Town even though, for many of us, it would have been closer to Cornell. Specifically, we chose to live in residential areas. Thus, the fact that some portion of Ithaca residents are transient does not mean that all of Ithaca is a transient community. 2. 1 would like to echo the point about enforcement of violations. Marty Moseley (Director of Code Enforcement) wrote in an email: "We do not have the resources to enforce consequences related to individuals lying to us. Unfortunately, our department deals with this on a, sometimes, daily basis." This suggests two things. One is that STR rentals are more problematic than is often portrayed, in that there are more than a few "bad actors." The other is that, given how lucrative STRs are, it is only reasonable that the people who benefit from STRs financially should foot a chunk of the bill for increasing enforcement staffing. I am tired of having my plantings crushed and not being able to get out of my driveway because of "guests" cars and, in some cases trailers, blocking the road. Furthermore, an enforcement office is crucial; in our case, contacting the "host" did no good; she was unavailable and, when we did reach her, she said to deal directly with her guests. In addition, I truly don't understand the argument that bad actors will be bad actors no matter what the laws are. This would suggest that laws against, e.g., murder, theft, etc., are fairly use- less, because bad actors will act badly no matter what. The argument makes no sense. 3. Furthermore, I want to second the point that "hosts" should announce, in a way that can be visible without going inside, that they are renting STRs. Rich's argument that this would be ad- versarial makes no sense for four reasons. One is that, at some point, the presence of strangers and additional cars will make it obvious that certain people are hosting STRs. More importantly, perhaps, keeping that information hidden inside the house will appear devious and underhanded, and surely that will also be adversarial. The third is that it puts the onus on neighbors to monitor who is hosting STRs, rather than on the hosts who are benefitting from the STRs. The fourth, and arguably most important, reason why STIR operating permits should be clearly visible and placed on the outside of a host's house is related to enforcement. At the 7/22 STIR meeting, Marty Moseley said, "the operating permit should be posted in a window facing the street so anyone can tell they have a valid operating permit. It should be conspicuous to a public way." He also noted that this would be an advantage for Code Enforcement officers because they could then easily drive by and tell that the unit has a valid permit. If the Town is actually serious about enforcement, then it should facilitate making enforcement easy. 4. Finally, I want to underline Rich's point from an earlier meeting that even local governments ought to opt for transparency and people who have a conflict of interest ought to recuse them- selves from making decisions related to such conflicts. A lack of transparency would not only give the appearance of an adversarial situation, it would also create an adversarial situation, with lawmakers voting in their own interests, rather than in the interests of their constituents. Thank you for reading. Barbara Koslowski 18 Renwick Heights Rd. Paulette Rosa From: Paulette Rosa Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:16 AM To: Paulette Rosa (Poosa@town.ithaca.ny.us) Subject: STR Chat copy 2020_11_09 From Warren Real Estate to Everyone: 04:14 PM Will this meeting be recorded and made available? Thank you. Is this available on the Town of Dryden website? From William Goodman to Everyone: 04:14 PM Yes, their public hearing is next Thurs Nov 19 From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 04:24 PM To Dryden Manager- how did you come to the number of allowed days, and any differentiation between hosted and unhosted? From Warren Real Estate to Everyone: 04:30 PM Can the system distinguish between bookings and date blocks? Thank you. From Ray Burger to Everyone: 04:31 PM Law can be viewed at: http://drVden.nV.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/201014-Draft-Local-Law-Regulating-Short- Term-Rentals LANGUAGE-FOR-PUBLIC-HEARING.pdf From Nick Helmholdt to Everyone: 04:32 PM Thanks Ray - I need to run. Please feel free to send questions to nhelmholdt@tompkins-co.org - have a good day :) From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 04:59 PM there is a huge difference between college town and a quiet residential neighborhood that you choose and pay more to live in (i.e property taxes). It is quality of life . From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 05:01 PM Folks bought in residential neighborhoods for the comfort of quiet streets, cut de sacs, safety, neighborliness. It's not squeamish to object to more traffic and strangers to account date someone's making money. From inezvermaas to Everyone: 05:02 PM When someone rents out for more than 30 days on a short term basis the long term rental laws do not apply. From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 05:02 PM anything over 30days ebven in single days should be regulated as a long term rental based on impact and current zoning as BUSINESS- Air BnB is a business- profit is the motive- NOT QUALITY OF LIFE for those who chose to live there AND PAY to live THERE From inezvermaas to Everyone: 05:07 PM I think it is a great idea that people wanting to rent out short term for more than 30 days should become professional registers businesses. What is your definition of a B&B? If they do not provide a fresh breakfast they are not a B&B! Level of inspection: Same as B&B's!!! Level the playing field..... From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 05:08 PM "accomodate" From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 05:11 PM What are the consequences for those who lie when they disclose information to the Town? It appears from recent conversations that there are insufficient resources to "FACT CHECK" those who rent LONG term- let a one short term..... Given the impact and profit of rentals on a neighborhood the Permit fee should be enough to pay for a compliance organization to remove any impact of costs being paid by residents. Given the profit margins for STA it wold seem a base permit level would be around $500-750/year- that would cover compliance and regulation without pitting neighbors vs neighbors- it should be independent Paulette Rosa From: Mia Slotnick <mjslotnick123@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 8:43 PM To: Rod Howe; Bill Goodman; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Paulette Rosa; Marty Moseley; Susan Ritter; Rich DePaolo; macananny; luisa macananny; Barbara Koslowski; Richard Newell Boyd; maralyn edid; Larry Blume; Inez Vermaas; kws5 @cornell.edu Subject: Fwd: Short Term Rentals Dear Rich, Thank you for your September 14 email response to a few points in our email of the same date. We look forward to hearing responses to the rest of our September 14 email as well as our September 8 email from the entire STR committee. Most of your September 14 comments were addressed by the response sent from our group on October 20, 2020. Below are a few additional comments (your words in blue): "To your main metric of the "success" of the Cayuga Heights ordinance... our proposals would also foreclose on the practice of people "buying up residences and using them exclusively as STRs." This is NOT our main metric of success of the Cayuga Heights ordinance, though it is definitely a part of it. "Success" is that both residents and hosts reach a working compromise on the number of days allowed, which in Cayuga Heights is 14 days for unhosted rentals OR 28 days for hosted rentals (a maximum of 28 days per year). As we have stated previously, it seems logical and sensible for the Town to implement this two year proven day limit for residential areas in the Town. The situation could then be reassessed after an initial period. As previously stated, there are multiple factors that justify a scaled approach to different areas in the Town of Ithaca based on the characteristics of the neighborhood. The STR committee has been discussing allowing more days for properties in less densely packed areas of the Town. Conversely, for areas with density and topographic constraints it seems that the 14/28 day limit would be a good starting point. Also important is as Linda Woodard said "When there have been complaints from residents, we have a law we can enforce beyond just a noise complaint and have used it a number of times." "Success" is laws that can be readily applied and enforced and that do not rely on neighbors' complaints to monitor compliance. Also essential are serious consequences that are consistently and uniformly imposed for those who do not follow the laws. "it would seem, simply based on the relatively low number of complaints, that the practice is not considered objectionable in the vast majority of occurrences" Equating the number of complaints with whether STRs are objectionable is not a valid comparison. Many people are extremely hesitant to complain due to the risk of angering neighbors. Others are not aware of what a STR is or that they are operating in their neighborhood. Many residents probably have no idea that they could complain about them, or who they would even complain to. A much more accurate method of assessing how people feel about the presence (or future presence) of STRs in their neighborhood would be through a survey. Also, as stated previously, the majority of Town residents are not aware that STR legislation is being discussed or the implications of allowing them in their neighborhoods, so are not as vocal as those who are actively benefiting from operating them. We also wanted to address the comment directed at our neighborhood from Carolyn Greenwald (her words below in red) at the end of the last STR meeting on September 14th: "Focusing on the number of days is not focusing on the problems in the neighborhood. Enforcing parking and noise would solve 90% of problems that they are having." The problems we have experienced are not limited to parking and noise. As we described in the past, increased traffic, damage to neighbors' property, and a complete change in the character of the neighborhood resulting in a decrease in our quality of life are some of the other negatives. For most of these issues, the only way to lessen their negative impact is by limiting the number of days allowed. Thank you for considering these thoughts, suggestions, and concerns. Mia On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 13:52, Rich DePaolo <RDePaolo @town.ithaca.ny.us> wrote: Mia- Whether you agree with it or not, residential rentals of any shape or form are considered a residential use and, as such, are in full compliance with our CURRENT zoning. That IS the opinion of the Town Attorney. We are now endeavoring to regulate a use that is currently ALLOWED. We have limited enforcement tools available in the current construct, including occupancy (related to our definition of "family") and prohibitions against certain "nuisances" like noise. Under our current zoning, the fact that people operate rentals as a "business" is immaterial. We are attempting to address that. I find it curious that you would be pushing back on a proposed 29-day limit on unhosted rentals, considering that there is no limit at all imposed by current zoning. To your main metric of the "success" of the Cayuga Heights ordinance... our proposals would also foreclose on the practice of people "buying up residences and using them exclusively as STRs." We have a principal -residence requirement in most zones, including yours, with an adjacent property exception under consideration. Reportedly, there are over 350 hosts in the Town of Ithaca. While there are certainly issues related to STRs, it would seem, simply based on the relatively low number of complaints, that the practice is not considered objectionable in the vast majority of occurrences. That said, a balancing test must be applied to try to address the needs and concerns of al stakeholders. Thank you for your continued engagement. Rich On Sep 14, 2020, at 7:47 AM, Mia Slotnick <mislotnick123@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Rich. Thank you for your email. Although our letter was a collective effort written by the 8 people who signed it and was based on notes that were taken during several Short Term Rental meetings, since you directed your clarifications to me, I will respond for the group. Point 4. Contrary to your opinion with respect to Cayuga Heights that "it has NOT worked", and in line with our understanding that it is working well, Linda Woodard, the Mayor of Cayuga Heights informed us that the laws they have in place have been successful. When asked last week how she felt the STR legislation in Cayuga Heights was working she responded: "1 think we have been successful. We have kept people from buying up residences and using them exclusively as strs. When there have been complaints from residents, we have a law we can enforce beyond just a noise complaint and have used it a number of times. Our residents view their houses as their homes, not businesses. The biggest issue is making sure all abide by our laws. Airbnb continues to make that a challenge. We don't have the administrative resources or sophisticated software to monitor compliance. That is why 1 am so encouraged by the county willing to pay for the basic service and hope the Town of Ithaca will pass their laws soon, so we can partner with them to know who is renting out their homes and for how long. With that information we can be proactive about compliance. Cayuga Heights is a small village; word gets around. My best suggestion for you is to keep things simple. Much easier for residents to understand and less problems with enforcement." Cayuga Heights has had a successfully working model for STR regulation in operation for over 2 years. it would seem logical and sensible for the Town to implement this proven plan for residential areas in the Town. The situation could then be reassessed after an initial period. Point 1. The following are your words from the August 10 STR meeting (please check your own meeting minutes for confirmation): "My recollection is that we paid some attention to information from Tom Knipe... Supplemental income versus a business ... Tom said 80-90 days." As stated in our previous letter, Tom clarified that this number only pertains to the specific situation of a 2 bedroom unit. It does not pertain to all size properties or properties in different neighborhoods. Therefore, it should not be used as a "point at which a potential STR business becomes more lucrative than a long-term rental of the same unit" since it only applies to the specific situation that Tom had estimated it for. Point 2. We all know the definition of a STR as being a rental of less than 30 days. However, the number of days allowed within this 29 days maximum is what is being questioned. Cayuga Heights settled on 14 days of unhosted rentals because that number included all the major Cornell, Ithaca College, and area events that necessitate increased housing. The number of days allowed should reflect the wishes of those who want to engage in STRs and those residents who do not. 14-15 days seems a fair starting point between the maximum (30) and minimum (0) days. Your opinion of considering one method of allowing more days for certain areas more "arbitrary" than another is simply that --your own opinion. As previously stated, there are multiple factors that justify a scaled approach to different areas in the Town of Ithaca based on the characteristics of the neighborhood. An overlay zone in both Renwick Heights and Forest Home would be easy to delineate and implement. Your labelling of residents who are concerned about STRs as "half a dozen folks from Renwick Heights, yourself included" is inaccurate. We presented the Board with a petition opposing STRs signed by 17 Renwick Heights residents in September of 2016. Our concerns are shared by at least 11 Forest Home residents (see their 11/27/18 letter to the STR committee) as well as members of the Ithaca Bed and Breakfast Association. We have attended nearly every relevant meeting and been seriously engaged with the STR committee for 4 years, bringing forth many examples of our grievances as well as many suggestions for the legislation. It is also well worth noting that the majority of Town residents are not aware that STR legislation is being discussed or the implications of allowing them, so are not as vocal as those who are actively benefiting from operating them. 3 Point 5. The reason we brought this to your attention has nothing to do with STRs or LTRs. It was meant to illustrate how difficult it will be to use neighbor complaints as part of the regulation process, especially in regards to proof of occupancy. As stated previously, complaint driven enforcement will not work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel to adequately monitor and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. Additionally, the Town is aware that the Owner of #20 Renwick Heights Road lied to the Town about her intentions for the property. The Owner reported that she was no longer renting it out and that she was living there herself. She requested to have her long term rental permit rescinded. She then moved back out of the state and continued to rent the house out to both long and short term tenants, which is what she has been doing for over two years without the home ever undergoing an inspection. Surely there should be consequences for this Owner's blatant dishonesty and deception. Refer to Town Codes 207-2 and 207-4, Operating Permit Required and Penalties, respectively. Point 6. Figures for the income potential of STR properties have been mentioned multiple times in the past by STR committee members when discussing proposed costs of permitting fees. Point 7. From our experience in our own neighborhood, being a hosted rental versus an unhosted rental has no effect on increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' properties, degradation of the character of a neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. A final comment is in order. It is clear from the existing Town Code, Article IX, 270-65, 'Purpose', that the MDR is intended 'almost exclusively' for residential purposes and minimal intrusion by commercial activities. Further there exists in the Code clear wording to discourage traditional B&Bs in MDRs. Yes we are aware of the very thin distinction between B&B's and STR's- but they are both unsupervised mini -hotels for transients in neighborhoods not zoned for them. Yet you are in effect through this proposed legislation adding a new and never intended purpose in our zone- all to suit a subset of your constituents engaged in a commercial activity. This is rezoning by any other name and we raise the question as to whether this is the correct process. We would be interested to see a written opinion from the Town's Attorney. Sincerely, Mia Slotnick, Kenneth Simpson, Mike MacAnanny, Luisa MacAnanny, Barbara Koslowski, Richard Boyd, Maralyn Enid, and Larry Blume rom: Rich DePaolo <RDePaolo(o-).town.ithaca.ny.us> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 10:11 Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals To: Mia Slotnick <mislotnick123aamail.com> Cc: Rod Howe <RHowe a0own.ithaca.ny.us>, Bill Goodman <bgoodman(o-).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Pam Bleiwas <PBleiwas(a�_town.ithaca.ny.us>, TeeAnn Hunter<THunter(a)__town.ithaca.ny.us>, Eric Levine <eLevi ne(o).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Pat Leary <Pleary(o).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Paulette Rosa <PRosa(a)_town.ithaca.ny.us>, Marty Moseley <MMoseley(a)-town.ithaca.ny.us>, Susan Ritter <sritter(o).town.ithaca.ny.us> Mia- Thank you for sharing your opinions. Many of your conclusions are erroneous. Please allow me to clarify, where I can. Regards, Rich On Sep 8, 2020, at 8:07 AM, Mia Slotnick <mjslotnick123(agmail.com> wrote: Dear Supervisor Howe, Deputy Supervisor Goodman, Town Board members, and others involved in Short Term Rental legislation, Below are several points about topics discussed at the August 10th Short Term Rental committee meeting. 1. 80-90 days was mentioned as a number that was taken from Tom Knipe's calculations, and was described at the August 10th meeting as being the difference between "supplemental income versus a business". In recent communication with Tom Knipe, he clarified that this number was an estimate of the average daily rate on Airbnb for a 2 BR unit compared to what a landlord could raise in 12 months of rent for an average 2 BR unit. He went on to state that the data also shows that some units (being rented as short term rentals) are pulling in many times what they could achieve on a long term lease. This 80-90 day estimated figure only applies to this specific situation in relation to long term rentals, and should not be used as a blanket "acceptable day limit". It may not apply to larger or smaller properties, or properties in all areas of Ithaca. It should not be used as an acceptable figure for all concerns since it was generated to address only the specific concern about housing being taken out of the long term rental stock. Allowing 80-90 nights of STRs in our neighborhood would dramatically and negatively change the character of our neighborhood. The committee is and has been aware that the 80-90 days cited by Tom Knipe was what he determined to be the the point at which a potential STR business becomes more lucrative than a long-term rental of the same unit. The committee never used that figure to delineate between what would be considered "supplemental income versus a business." We are more concerned that STR allowances don't incentivize removing long-term housing stock from the market. 2. A limit of 29 days for unhosted rentals has been proposed, though there has never been an explanation for how this figure was chosen. Bill Goodman mentioned that Brent Katzman, a local realtor and Airbnb host had discussed with him that he lives on a large lot, and would like to be allowed to rent for more than 29 days. Bill said that after this discussion, he felt in certain circumstances that the day limit could be greater --maybe 90-120 days since being on a larger lot will not impact the neighbors so much. Why is it that despite numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern about allowing up to 29 days, there has been no discussion or flexibility in decreasing that number, yet the number of days allowed may potentially be increased after a request from one individual? We have been told that special exceptions cannot be made for specific neighborhoods, yet exceptions to increase the number of days are being considered on an individual property basis. This seems both arbitrary and capricious. The 29-day figure has been explained many times. It is derived from the 2010 amendment to New York Multiple Dwellings Law, section (8)(a) which essentially defines anything less than a rental of "thirty consecutive days" as short-term. To answer your second question, the balancing test to determine the number of allowable rental days is largely being determined by our desire to not erode long-term housing stock, and incidents of nuisance, which are largely complaint driven. In the example you cite, it is assumed that rentals on a large parcel with faraway neighbors would not pose as great a nuisance risk. The geometric parameters needed to apply for more days would apply zone -wide, and, as such, would certainly not be considered "arbitrary," whereas the "neighborhood - specific" solution you allude to would require that different areas under the same Town zoning classification be treated differently, a much more arbitrary solution, requiring overlay zones and multiple justifying criteria. And, to be perfectly frank, "numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern," has basically been half a dozen folks from Renwick Heights, yourself included. This is a balancing test between people who perceive a threat from a particular use, and residents who don't and/or who derive a benefit from it. 3. The proposal of having a "threshold" of less than 14 days where no permit or regulations are imposed is unnecessary and will likely cause major problems including parking issues, large parties, noise, and increased traffic, which all lead to degradation of the character of neighborhoods where those 7 weekends of unregulated rentals occur. All units would require permits. The issue was whether or not to require inspections of properties only being rented less than a certain number of days. 4. The Cayuga Heights STR regulations have been in place and working for almost 3 years. As Linda Woodard described it, keeping it simple and consistent is the key. It makes sense to start with a limited number of days as they have done (14 unhosted or 28 hosted), and require that all properties obtain an operating permit and follow the same rules. This has so far proved a successful compromise for both hosts and residents. Linda Woodard has also described that Cayuga Heights has not been successful at regulating its rentals, regardless of the number of allowable days in their law. In short, it has NOT worked, which is why she is seeking to collaborate with other municipalities and the County on enforcement. 5. It has been proposed that enforcement will be partly "complaint driven". A recent example of how this will be problematic is the home at 20 Renwick Heights Road. The owner told the Town her home was owner occupied and no longer being rented. Several neighbors noticed that the owner had moved out of the property on July 6, and that a family of 4 moved into the property on July 7. For over 6 weeks the owner had not been seen, and the family of 4 had been seen living in the house, yet the Town Code Enforcement officer did not feel that there was enough "proof' to conclude that the owner was no longer living there and that a family of 4 was living there. We appreciate that he did come back for a second site visit, and then concluded that the neighbors' observations were correct. Drawing from this experience, it seems unlikely that a neighbor's complaint about a host not living in the property for a 1 or 2 day hosted STIR stay could be adequately proven. Complaint driven enforcement will not work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel to adequately monitor and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. The example you cite above, where a family of 4 moves in for 6 weeks, is not considered a short-term rental and would be totally legal under any proposed regulatory scenario. 6. The cost of the operating permit should cover all costs, including the increased number of personnel which adequate monitoring and enforcement will necessitate. As Linda Woodard mentioned, people can make $3000-$4000 in one weekend, so the cost of the permit should also take the income potential into consideration. Towns can not take into consideration the profit -making potential of a use when determining fees to cover the administration of laws associated with it. Any enforcement and personnel costs associated with STIR would be recouped by permit fees. The level of enforcement will be driven by compliance issues, not by the economics of the rental economy. 7. Hosted rentals were mentioned as not being a problem because "if the host is there on the property, they can tell their guests to be quiet if they are having a party". However, as brought up previously, noise from a party is only one neighborhood concern from renters. Other concerns are increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' property, and degradation in the character of a residential neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. These negative impacts do not disappear if the rental is hosted, so the number of days allowed for both unhosted and hosted rentals should be limited. Another issue with hosted rentals is that we have observed in our neighborhood that the host has learned to leave their car in plain site on the premises to give the impression that the home is currently hosted, whereas the owner has actually left in another vehicle and the unit is really unhosted. This practice may be curtailed by advising hosts that random and regular visits to the home by Town code enforcement personnel are part of the STIR regulating process. Again, this would necessitate further funds, which could be generated from permitting fees. The perceived advantages of having a host on the property have never been limited to "parties" or "noise." The committee has considered the benefit to be more comprehensive, and has assumed that oversight by the owner would also be more effective at curtailing the other nuisances you cite. Mia Slotnick <m1slotnick123@gmail.com to Rod, Bilk, Pair), TcwzeAnn, Eiriic, Riicll°r, Pat, P ualette, Maim , Susan, bcc: erne 0.: Dear Supervisor Howe, Deputy Supervisor Goodman, Town Board members, and others involved in Short legislation, Below are several points about topics discussed at the August 10th Short Term Rental committee meeting 1. 80-90 days was mentioned as a number that was taken from Tom Knipe's calculations, and was describ meeting as being the difference between "supplemental income versus a business". In recent communice he clarified that this number was an estimate of the average daily rate on Airbnb for a 2 BR unit compared could raise in 12 months of rent for an average 2 BR unit. He went on to state that the data also shows tha rented as short term rentals) are pulling in many times what they could achieve on a long term lease. This 80-90 day estimated figure only applies to this specific situation in relation to long term rentals, and sr blanket "acceptable day limit". It may not apply to larger or smaller properties, or properties in all areas of I used as an acceptable figure for all concerns since it was generated to address only the specific concern a taken out of the long term rental stock. Allowing 80-90 nights of STRs in our neighborhood would dramatic change the character of our neighborhood. 2. A limit of 29 days for unhosted rentals has been proposed, though there has never been an explanation chosen. Bill Goodman mentioned that Brent Katzman, a local realtor and Airbnb host had discussed with h large lot, and would like to be allowed to rent for more than 29 days. Bill said that after this discussion, he circumstances that the day limit could be greater --maybe 90-120 days since being on a larger lot will not in much. Why is it that despite numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern about allowing up to 29 days, the discussion or flexibility in decreasing that number, yet the number of days allowed may potentially be incr( from one individual? We have been told that special exceptions cannot be made for specific neighborhood; increase the number of days are being considered on an individual property basis. This seems both arbitr< 3. The proposal of having a "threshold" of less than 14 days where no permit or regulations are imposed i will likely cause major problems including parking issues, large parties, noise, and increased traffic, which of the character of neighborhoods where those 7 weekends of unregulated rentals occur. 4. The Cayuga Heights STR regulations have been in place and working for almost 3 years. As Linda Wo( keeping it simple and consistent is the key. It makes sense to start with a limited number of days as they h; unhosted or 28 hosted), and require that all properties obtain an operating permit and follow the same rule proved a successful compromise for both hosts and residents. 5. It has been proposed that enforcement will be partly "complaint driven". A recent example of how this w the home at 20 Renwick Heights Road. The owner told the Town her home was owner occupied and no loi Several neighbors noticed that the owner had moved out of the property on July 6, and that a family of 4 m on July 7. For over 6 weeks the owner had not been seen, and the family of 4 had been seen living in the f Code Enforcement officer did not feel that there was enough "proof' to conclude that the owner was no Ion that a family of 4 was living there. We appreciate that he did come back for a second site visit, and then cc neighbors' observations were correct. Drawing from this experience, it seems unlikely that a neighbor's cor not living in the property for a 1 or 2 day hosted STR stay could be adequately proven. Complaint driven ei work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel tc and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. 6. The cost of the operating permit should cover all costs, including the increased number of personnel whl monitoring and enforcement will necessitate. As Linda Woodard mentioned, people can make $3000-$400 the cost of the permit should also take the income potential into consideration. 7. Hosted rentals were mentioned as not being a problem because "if the host is there on the property, the to be quiet if they are having a party". However, as brought up previously, noise from a party is only one nE from renters. Other concerns are increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' property, and de( character of a residential neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. These negative impacts do r rental is hosted, so the number of days allowed for both unhosted and hosted rentals should be limited. Another issue with hosted rentals is that we have observed in our neighborhood that the host has learned 1 plain site on the premises to give the impression that the home is currently hosted, whereas the owner has vehicle and the unit is really unhosted. This practice may be curtailed by advising hosts that random and rE home by Town code enforcement personnel are part of the STR regulating process. Again, this would nec( which could be generated from permitting fees. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, The Renwick Neighbors Group Mia Slotnick, Kenneth Simpson, Mike Macananny, Luisa Macananny, Maralyn Edid, Larry Blume, Barbara Richard Boyd Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:34 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Becky Jordan; Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Ithaca Lakefront - Short Term Rentals FYI - another one coming also Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Ata Movassaghi <atamovassaghi@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:21 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us>; Becky Jordan <BJordan@town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Ithaca Lakefront - Short Term Rentals Hi Bill and Becky, I hope this message finds you and your family well. Ahead of the Town STR meeting, I wanted to reach out in light of the recent STR discussions around lakefront properties and share my perspective as a recent owner and Ithaca native. As someone who grew up in Ithaca and frequently visited throughout my life, it has been the most rewarding personal accomplishment this year for me to now own a lakefront property. It's something I'd talk about with my parents early on but due to the high cost and scarce availability, it was difficult to imagine. Many of my friends owned lake houses that we would enjoy to the fullest, especially in the summer months while the students were away. Now as an owner myself, I look forward to the opportunity to both share in these experiences with family and friends in addition to local and outside visitors who seek out short term rentals on Cayuga Lake. Tourism is one of the biggest drivers of economic stimulus in Ithaca. In a pandemic year unlike any other that we've experienced, it's difficult to imagine our economy without it. Even in a normal year, people seek out lakefront rentals with specific intentions year round and even my large community of Ithacans now living elsewhere find it's the desired method to come back to. If this was restricted, the Town will actually find that both tourism altogether and Ithacans won't visit to the same degree. Not to mention all the property managers, cleaning services, contractors, etc. that rely on this business to uphold their own employment and livelihood. Secondly, the lakefront is not Cayuga Heights or traditional neighborhoods that consist of family -owned homes while kids are in school going through K-12. The reality is that they're predominantly second homes by nature of location, school proximity, and higher cost of the properties. Thus, the same policy/standards for a residential area like Cayuga Heights shouldn't apply. Lakefront property is far more rare and giving the opportunity to people who could otherwise never experience it is the highest demonstration of "neighborhood." STR guests both staycationing within Ithaca and visiting from the outside are investing locally by not staying in major hotel conglomerates and taking local recommendations to experience everything small businesses have to offer - that's what our town is built on. If lake houses were included in these STR regulations, it would severely impact our economy with these people choosing to allocate their time elsewhere. Look forward to joining today's call and sincerely appreciate your time and continued investment in the considerations of all members of our community. Best, Ata Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 12:38 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Proposed STR regulations - Lakefront Hi folks, another STR comment re Lakefront Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Jyl Dowd <jyldowd@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 5:02 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Proposed STR regulations Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board, I am writing in favor of the exclusion of the lakefront district from the proposed STR regulations. I have lived in Ithaca since 1965. Raised by a single mom, 3 of us lived in a one bedroom apartment in the "flats". We had no money and no car, therefore nowhere we could go to swim. On hot days the best we could do was to sit in the creek to cool off. I don't believe I had ever swam in Cayuga Lake until I moved back to Ithaca after college. By renting out 2 bedrooms in my home (initially to locals, and now through Airbnb) I have been able to pay my mortgage, put my daughter through college, and treat myself to a 2 week rental on Cayuga Lake every summer when my daughter comes home to visit. It's the perfect "stay -cation" because she can see her old friends, people can bring their boats by, it's relaxing & beautiful, and we don't have to travel. And I know other locals do the same. Given the difficulty of accessing the lake otherwise (packing up supplies, coordinating meet -up times, driving time, parking fees, crowds, etc) I strongly believe that the availability of lake front rentals should not be restricted. EVERYONE deserves some time on the lake! Jyl Dowd Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 12:38 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Proposed STR regulations - Lakefront Hi folks, another STR comment re Lakefront Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Jyl Dowd <jyldowd@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 5:02 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Proposed STR regulations Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board, I am writing in favor of the exclusion of the lakefront district from the proposed STR regulations. I have lived in Ithaca since 1965. Raised by a single mom, 3 of us lived in a one bedroom apartment in the "flats". We had no money and no car, therefore nowhere we could go to swim. On hot days the best we could do was to sit in the creek to cool off. I don't believe I had ever swam in Cayuga Lake until I moved back to Ithaca after college. By renting out 2 bedrooms in my home (initially to locals, and now through Airbnb) I have been able to pay my mortgage, put my daughter through college, and treat myself to a 2 week rental on Cayuga Lake every summer when my daughter comes home to visit. It's the perfect "stay -cation" because she can see her old friends, people can bring their boats by, it's relaxing & beautiful, and we don't have to travel. And I know other locals do the same. Given the difficulty of accessing the lake otherwise (packing up supplies, coordinating meet -up times, driving time, parking fees, crowds, etc) I strongly believe that the availability of lake front rentals should not be restricted. EVERYONE deserves some time on the lake! Jyl Dowd 1067'raughannock Blvd Ithaca, " k Town Clerk Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 January 4, 2021 Subject: Proposed Short -Term Rental Restrictions Dear Members of the Short -Term Rental Committee: We are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed short-term rental restrictions for homes in the lakefront zone. We are two young families in the foreign service who recently bought 1067 Taughannock Blvd from a long-time Ithaca resident who, for the last ten years, has used it as a second home and short-term rental property. We both grew up in Ithaca and throughout our adult lives have returned several times a year with our spouses to stay with family and friends and to enjoy the natural beauty of the Finger Lakes. As we move around the world, Ithaca is still very much the place we call home. We stretched ourselves financially to purchase this dream home to have a place to bring our family and friends together and to deepen our lifelong connection to Ithaca. We plan to use the home as our primary residence for ourselves at least two months each year, and as a vacation home for our family and friends for another month. However, that leaves nine months where the home would be unoccupied, but for short- or medium -term rentals. While we acknowledge that we are very fortunate to have been able to pool our resources to afford a beautiful home on the lake, few owners, including us, can afford to leave our homes empty for nine months of the year. Short-term rentals are essential for us to be able to afford to maintain and improve the home. For example, our home needs to be repainted and a shared driveway repaved. These are costs we hoped would be offset through income from short-term rentals, but these investments would likely need to be delayed or the workmanship compromised if our home will sit empty for most of the year. Without short-term rentals, seasonal occupants incentives will be to keep expenses low, rather than to invest in maintaining and improving our homes. Keeping the homes occupied and owners investing in them is the best way to maintain the character of the lakefront neighborhood, which has always included short-term rental use. Long-term leases are not an alternative for us because it would prevent us from furnishing and enjoying our home ourselves. Moreover, the steep driveway and three -season construction limit the use of the house in winter for long-term renters. Finally, the purchase price we paid for our home and the assessed values of homes along the lake reflect their values as short-term rentals, not just their value as seasonal or vacation homes. Restrictions on short-term rentals will have a negative impact on the values of these homes and on real-estate and school tax revenue. For these reasons, we oppose restrictions on short-term rentals for the lakefront zone. Sincerely, Joshua Delara Nat alie Louge cc: Deputy Town Clerk, Becky Jordan Deputy Town Supervisor, Bill Goodman Board Member, Rich DePaolo Board Member, Tee -Ann Hunter Board Member, Pat Leary Elaina McCartney 845 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca NY 14850 1/5/2021 To: STR Committee I have owned and lived in my lakefront duplex home at 845 Taughannock Blvd. for 25 years. I bought the place as a severely run-down fixer -upper in 1996, as a full- time working single parent, and have invested significantly in improving the property over the years, which in turn has raised its value on the tax rolls. Now I am retired. I live upstairs and have always rented the downstairs apartment. Since 2015, the downstairs has been operated as an Airbnb short-term rental, is certified, and meets all inspection requirements. A 3% room tax is paid directly to Tompkins County through Airbnb. Like other properties along Cayuga Lake, we provide beautiful lakefront accommodations and water access to tourists, families visiting local residents, parents visiting or dropping off Cornell and Ithaca College attendees, tourists sampling the Wine Trail, Art Trail, Farmers Market, exploring parks, and sampling well-known restaurants, local Ithacans who want the lakeside experience for a staycation, or writers wanting peace and quiet. Sometimes we're the home base for reunion or conference attendees, families dropping off their college -bound children, kayakers, paddleboarders, boaters (mooring provided), swimming enthusiasts, birdwatchers, triathletes, bikers, hikers on the Black Diamond and Waterfront Trails, and so on. For me, as a retiree on a fixed income, short term rentals provide a stable way for me to pay the high lakefront property and school taxes, continue to maintain driveway, stairs, dock, and general upkeep, and continue to live here. This is a quiet neighborhood. All guests are vetted through Airbnb, and the number of guests is strictly limited. Parties and events are not permitted, and dock use after 10pm is prohibited. We have had zero complaints from neighbors regarding our Airbnb short-term rentals, including zero complaints about parking or noise. Recycling and trash are managed as any responsible homeowner does, and the premises are kept clean and well -maintained inside and out. There are professional cleaners who work regularly in the neighborhood between guests, who depend on this income. I live on the property so I can respond immediately should guests or neighbors have any concerns. I don't believe the general concerns that some Ithaca residents have raised about short-term rentals apply to the lakeside neighborhood. Examples of concerns raised elsewhere are parking, noise, and the presence of strangers. We have a small parking lot along the road where guests are allocated a parking spot. In addition, there is plenty of parking all along the west side of Route 89. The Town of Ithaca already has a Noise Ordinance should there ever be an issue with any short-term rentals along the lake. An anonymous call may be made to Ithaca Police Dispatch and an officer will deal with it promptly. We have made this information available to our neighbors but no one has had to use it. As far as concern about "strangers", that's what tourists are! We welcome them to quietly enjoy the lake and other features Ithaca has to offer, and of course only the number of guests appropriate to the space. I believe short term rentals along the shore of Cayuga Lake contribute to the local economy in a very positive way, and allow visitors to experience what makes Ithaca so special. I don't think an arbitrary restriction of number of nights deals directly with the concerns that are raised. It is impractical to switch back and forth between short- and long -terms rentals. If one does short term rentals, for example only in the summer, then the rest of the year is limited to the student market. But more than that, such restrictions to not directly deal with the concerns raised (parking, noise, strangers), but make a cause -and -effect assumption that may not be valid. Thank you for considering these thoughts. January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. Lakefront Rental Restriction Opposition Signature Page 1/8/2021 Timestamp Name Lake Property Address email address 2021/01/04 2:09:18 PM EST Jes Seaver 829 Taughannock BLvd Ithaca NY 0esseaver@gmail.com 2021/01/04 2:14:55 PM EST Kenneth Broadwell 2021/01/04 6:52:57 PM EST Carolyn Greenwald 2021/01/04 6:53:21 PM EST Adam Schaye 2021/01/05 10:51:30 AM EST Elaina McCartney 2021/01/05 10:56:28 AM EST Randall Corey 2021/01/05 11:09:56 AM EST Nathalie Louge 2021/01/05 11:32:23 AM EST Joshua deLara 2021/01/05 12:11:38 PM EST PAUL FAIRBANKS 2021/01/05 2:22:46 PM EST Chuck Henderson 2021/01/05 34 3 4 PM EST T 5 Ben Weiner 2021/01/05 8:16:51 PM EST Barb Bassette 2021/01/06 7:09:26 AM EST Patrick Burns 2021/01/06 8:25:26 AM EST Chuck Baxter 2021/01/06 10:26:59 AM EST Christine Henseler 2021/01/07 9:17:53 AM EST Paulette Baxter 2021/01/07 4:47:28 PM EST Tony Baxter 2021/01/07 6:16:43 PM EST sally mennen 2021/01/07 7:04:34 PM EST Sheila and Al Snyder 2021/01/07 7:12:11 PM EST Kash Iraggi-Wiggins 2021/01/07 7:54:38 PM EST Ata Movassaghi 2021/01/08 8:38:55 AM EST Daniel Kraak 2021/01/08 9:33:47 AM EST Wendy Kenigsberg 2021/01/08 10:42:08 AM EST Richard mennen 2021/01/08 11:19:48 AM EST John &Carolyn Neuman 2021/01/08 11:29:52 AM EST Jennifer Engel 2021 /01 /08 12.21.36 PM EST ohn el JAb 829 Taughannock Blvd 0esseaver@gmail.com 889 Taughannock Blvd cbgreenwald@gmail.com 907 Taughannock Blvd ars@millermayer.com 845 Taughannock Blvd. emm5@cornell.edu 979 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca nccorey@gmail.com 1067 Taughannock Blvd natlouge@gmail.com 1067 Taughannock Blvd irdelara@gmail.com 935 Taughannock Blvd PAULIERAYBAN@GMAIL.COM 839 Taughannock Blvd cph5@cornell.edu 847 Taughannock Blvd benerikweiner@qmail.com 839 Taughannock Blvd. barb.bassette@gmaiI.com 1089 Taughannock Blvd patrick.burns@cornell.edu 1085 taugh. blvd. asicservices@gmail.com 841 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD henselec@union.edu 1085 taughannock blvd paulettechuck@yahoo.com 1083 Taughannock Blvd. antonvibaxter@gmail.com 997 Taughannock blvd mennens@gmail.com 855&857 Taughannock Blvd Sheilsnyder857@yahoo.com 967 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD kash.balance@gmaii.com 831 Taughannock Blvd atamovassaghi@gmail.com 891 Taughannock Blvd, Ithaca NY dpk3@cornell.edu 891 Taughannock Blvd, Ithaca NY 14850 wfkl@cornell.edu 997 Taughannock Blvd mennenster@gmail.com 1077 Taughannock Blvd. iohn neuman@mindspring.com 927 and 931 Taughannock Blvd Jmengel22@gmail.com 1001 Blvd Taughannock g fay@cornell.edu �i January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. February 8, 2021 To whom this may concern, I am writing in opposition to the proposed short term rental legislation being discussed at the upcoming STR committee meeting. It is important for any community to have variety of income levels. Yet more and more, lakefront property is controlled by the wealthiest individuals. Short term rentals allow those of middle and lower income brackets to live on Cayuga Lake. My fiance and I are examples of this as we are both music teachers. For over 7 years, the supplemental income generated through renting our primary residence has allowed us to afford the high cost of living, not just on Cayuga Lake, but also in Ithaca itself. In years past we have rented our small home for over 50 nights, often staying locally with family so that we can be available should a guest or neighbor require anything at all. With the uncertainty of the post pandemic economy, I expect we will depend on short term rentals of our home more than ever. A 29 day limit on un-hosted rentals would likely force us and many others in the low to middle income bracket to relocate. Additionally, the provision restricting the parking to driveway spaces on the rented parcel would ultimately terminate our ability to host short term rentals, again force us to move. While our home is set on the lake, we share parking with 2 other residences on a widened shoulder along East Shore Dr. Understanding the potential for parking congestion, we have long restricted guests to a one vehicle limit while also removing our own vehicles from the premises. This effectively reduces the total number of cars parked rather than add to it. If it's inevitable that the a parking provision be implemented, I request that exceptions be made for situations where parking is not affected by the short term rental. I recognize the need for regulation and fully support the implementation of safety standards, inspections and host registries. With rents and home prices rapidly rising, it's important to target individuals who abuse the system and purchase vacant properties for the primary purpose of short term renting them. However the blanket restrictions being proposed will negatively and disproportionately affect those of lower and middles incomes who depend most on short term rentals. Sincerely, William Tobin 928 E. Shore Dr Ithaca NY 14850 315-567-1671 January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. I1 re a, N ew Yo r Town Clerk Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Members of the Short -Term Rental Subcommittee: My name is John Butler. I own 1067 Taughannock Blvd with my wife, Nathalie Louge, and another couple, Joshua and Sabina deLara. We are two young families in the United States foreign service posted abroad. Nathalie and I are currently serving in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Joshua and Sabina are posted in Moscow. Joshua and Nathalie are lifelong Ithaca residents and have parents and siblings who live in the area. We're millennials from working class and immigrant backgrounds. We saved up and pooled our resources to purchase a house on the lake to share with friends and family when we are on leave from post to maintain our connection to Ithaca. While the amount of time that we are away from post and staying here in Ithaca varies from year to year — it's likely to be two or three months most years. (We expect to use the house more this year due to the COVID pandemic and the birth of our first child). When we are not using the home for personal use, we rent it out on Airbnb for one or two weeks at a time. The home is popular and guests enjoy their stays. Our guests include families visiting their children at one of the Universities, young professionals looking to telework from a new location, families on summer vacation, and tourists looking to go cycling, swimming, or wine -tasting. We also rent to our neighbors when they have extended family visiting. Our neighbors have rented from us for about a month this year. Short-term rentals are ideal for us for a number of reasons. First, our home, like many others on the West Shore is not easy to access in winter due to the steep slope from Taughannock Blvd down to the lake, which makes it difficult to access by car or on foot when there's snow or ice. Even if we could rent the home to a single resident, that would mean that we would lose use of the home for ourselves, families, and friends. And we love short-term renters. In our experience, they are almost considerate of our home and our neighbors. They have to be to maintain access to the Airbnb platform. When we bought the home it had been used mostly as short-term rental for the last decade, and we counted on continuing that. Short-term rentals on the lake aren't new. The classifieds in the Ithaca Journal have ads for them going back to the 1910s (as far back as we could search in the archives), and for years there was a dedicated section in the classifieds for lake rentals. There are for sale ads that talk about the income potential of lake -front homes as well - long before apps made it easier and safer for folks to rent their vacation homes. Short-term rentals on the lake have made it possible for generations of people from the town, the city, and farther afield to enjoy the lake with their families. That's my main point: the limits being proposed are a significant departure from how families have owned and managed homes on the lakefront as far back as there have been classified ads, and the proposed limits are likely to do what the committee is trying to avoid - dramatically change the character of the lakefront in unpredictable ways. In some cases, limiting access to only to the very wealthy who are content to leave their homes empty when they aren't using them, in other cases, families of more modest means having to postpone repairs and maintenance. Let me explain what I mean. Limiting the number of days for unhosted rentals in the Lake Front Zone to 90, 120, or 180 days will mean that our home sits empty for months each year. With many part -year residents on the lake, limits on short-term rental days is likely to mean that many other homes will sit empty for months each year. While very wealthy owners may be able to continue to maintain and invest in homes that are only used a few months a year, many other owners will make the choice to delay all but the most essential work on their homes. To emphasize that point - the income that we earn from short-term rental is essential for us to afford the mortgage payments and property taxes, and to invest in repairs and improvements for the home. We are currently planning to hire local contractors to paint the house, make repairs to the front deck, improve the staircase that leads down to the lake, encapsulate the crawl space (to improve energy efficiency and keep out critters), install smart thermostats for the electric baseboard heaters to make the house more energy efficient, address some drainage issues, connect to the municipal sewer, and repair a retaining wall. Without the income from short-term rentals, we will not be able to undertake most of these projects, which is a loss to local small businesses, to the appearance of the home, and to our enjoyment of the home. We also rely on a number of local small businesses to keep our house comfortable for our guests, including local cleaning, landscaping, and snow removal companies. With limits on rental days, we will have to reduce our reliance on these companies. The lakefront is one of the town's most valuable assets. While some guests who come to stay in our home might still come to Ithaca and stay in a hotel if they have a particular reason to visit, many others will choose to travel elsewhere on the lake or to a different destination entirely because it's the experience of renting a house on a lake that they are looking for. Even if some of our guests do shift to hotels, that just feels like a transfer of wealth from homeowners to big hotel companies, while depriving visitors of the type of accommodation they would have preferred. Let me say, we do support the requirement for operating permits as well as collection of sales, occupancy, and other taxes, and requirements that homes meet safety and reasonable occupancy standards, enforcement of parking and noise ordinances, etc. We also support reasonable enforcement provisions that won't require us to cancel on guests who've often been planning family vacations many months or a year in advance. But we strongly oppose limits on the number of days that owners may rent their homes unhosted on the lake front because it's: • a change from at least a century of practice • deprives access to the lake for people who want to enjoy it, but can't afford to buy a home on the lake • leads to more poorly maintained homes • leads to empty homes for much of the year on the lake We appreciate the opportunity to share our views and thank you for your effort to balance the concerns you've heard with the benefits that short-term rentals bring to home owners, small businesses, and the community. Sincerely, John G. Butler cc: Deputy Town Clerk, Becky Jordan Deputy Town Supervisor, Bill Goodman Board Member, Rich DePaolo Board Member, Tee -Ann Hunter Board Member, Pat Leary Town Board, Comments from the floor Aug 9th 2011 Kenny Simpson At the June 14, 2021 STR committee meeting, Rich DePaolo stated "Who on the Town Board operates STRs? The public has a right to know. This should be asked in public session." To put this in context : At the regional and national level, elected officials must reveal when they have vested interests in a decision making process and bill, and recuse themselves if needed. Professionals and employees in all walks of life are frequently compelled to disclose all sources of revenue outside of their employment and relationships with individuals and companies. These are reviewed for conflict of interest. Consultation with the Tompkins County Legislators confirmed this viewpoint and indicated that anyone or their immediate family who is involved in conducting STRs, or has a relationship with a business involved in STRs and could benefit now or in the future from the legislation that is being crafted to govern STRs, has a civic, moral, and ethical duty to disclose this conflict of interest and recuse themselves from being involved in constructing these laws or voting on them. Other local municipalities such as Cayuga Heights have also subscribed to this policy barring individuals with conflicts from the legislative process. On this basis, we are requesting that members of the Town Board and STR planning committee who are involved directly or through family in conducting STRs, or have a relationship with a business involved in STRs, and could benefit now or in the future from the legislation that is being crafted to govern STRs, ensure they disclose this conflict of interest and recuse themselves from participating further in crafting or approving this legislation. STR Committee, Comments from the floor Aug 9th 2011 Kenny Simpson For years STR meetings had been clearly limited to discussions about un-Hosted STRs, and we were told that Hosted rentals were to be considered later. Without discussion it was decided that the rules for un-hosted STR would also apply to hosted STR, with the exception of a limit on days: Unhosted-STR would be allowed to rent for an unlimited number of days. Bill's quote (from Tompkins Weekly, 12/3/19) "We assume if the Owner of the property is present on the property, they'll take care of problems as they arise" covers many issues that may arise within the rental property. However, hosted STR still cause many of the same negatives for the neighborhood as unhosted- STR. Linda Woodard's quote from Dec 14, 2020 STR meeting: "The comings and goings of people who neighbors don't know, even when the Host is home, negatively impacts the quality of life of those who live in the neighborhood". Not only quality of life but loss of community. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(7):e2118134. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.18134 "Themes emerged with respect to awareness and believed causation of despair -related illness, and participants identified 4 common associated factors:: including deteriorating sense of community. Intervention strategies focused around 2 themes: (1) building resilience to despair through better community and organizational coordination and peer support at the local evel and (2) " STRs in a residential neighborhood are businesses and should be regulated as such. This is confirmed by scholarly legal opinion. Making a Business of "Residential Use": The Short -Term -Rental Dilemma in Common -Interest Communities, 68 Emory L. J. 801 (2019). Available at https: //.vcholarlycommons. law. emory. edu/el %vol68/iss4/3 "When a property becomes a short -term -rental business, much like a hotel or bed and breakfast, it is no longer a residential use, but rather a commercial one. " "This interpretation prevents the most harmful short -term -rental activity from infiltrating residential communities." "Granting unrestricted license to engage in commercial activity that has the potential to be so disruptive allows enterprising owners to undermine the residential character of a neighborhood in a way that elevates the rights of the individual far above those of the community. " Days for hosted -STR should not be unlimited. STR is a business An individual short -term -rental transaction is indeed commercial activity for a number of reasons: (i) short- term rentals are a monetary transaction and fit within the definition of commercial activity;150 (ii) they often require a business permit or license;151 (iii) governments often classify them as commercial;152 (iv) they are often subject to the same transient occupancy taxes as hotels;153 and (v) the IRS requires real estate rental income to be separately reported either as "supplemental" or "business income."154 https: //.vcholarlycommons. law. emory. edu/el %vol68/iss4/3 Residence and residential. "In common parlance and according to some legal definitions, a person's "residence" refers to the location where a person actually lives for an extended period.12' A short-term rental, by contrast, is transient: It gives a paying occupant a temporary place to stay.124 Thus a person staying in a hotel or an Airbnb rental for a week, or even a month, could not reasonably declare that they were "residing" therein.125 Yet it would be inapposite to allow a hotel or bed and breakfast into a residential community, `8 and the same goes for a de facto hotel being operated via short-term rentals" "the intent behind a residential "a desire to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and to make the neighborhood more attractive for residential purposes."146 Violation occurs when business activity is so disruptive as to "alter the character of a neighborhood. ,14' hops: //.vcholarlycommons. law. emory. edu/el lvo168/iss4/3 Accessory dwellings: The situation in the Town of Ithaca is compounded by Accessory dwelling units being considered hosted- STRs. Given the independence of an accessory dwelling unit it is highly likely the owner will be present as a true hosted STR where the host is in the same physical location.. These accessory dwellings are often in closer proximity to neighbors than bedrooms within a principle residence. Many accessory dwelling are solely intended for STR- vs housing aging or visiting relatives — they are unambiguous commercial ventures. The impact of unlimited days for accessory dwellings could be massive e.g. Forrest home 4/7 units on the Byway. The number of days for hosted should be limited until it's impact is determined: start low and increase if impact on the neighborhood allows. 1. One of the points raised in favor of allowing Lakefront properties to have unlimited stays is that there has been, for many decades, a tradition of doing so and that allowing it to continue to do so will maintain its character. I am not trying to dispute that argument. Rather, I suggest that an analogy might be in order. Certain residential neighborhoods (Renwick Heights, for example) have been residential for many decades. Therefore, parity of argument would suggest that these neighborhoods (like Lakefront properties) ought to be allowed to maintain their character. Rich's argument is that those of us who live in Renwick Heights knew that, when we moved to Ithaca, we were joining a transient community and transient communities have a lot of rentals. I would suggest that this argument is specious for the following reason. To the extent that Ithaca is a transient community, it is largely students who make it so. Stu- dents are concentrated in College Town. Those of us who wanted to avoid living in a transient community chose to avoid living in College Town even though, for many of us, it would have been closer to Cornell. Specifically, we chose to live in residential areas. Thus, the fact that some portion of Ithaca residents are transient does not mean that all of Ithaca is a transient community. 2. 1 would like to echo the point about enforcement of violations. Marty Moseley (Director of Code Enforcement) wrote in an email: "We do not have the resources to enforce consequences related to individuals lying to us. Unfortunately, our department deals with this on a, sometimes, daily basis." This suggests two things. One is that STR rentals are more problematic than is often portrayed, in that there are more than a few "bad actors." The other is that, given how lucrative STRs are, it is only reasonable that the people who benefit from STRs financially should foot a chunk of the bill for increasing enforcement staffing. I am tired of having my plantings crushed and not being able to get out of my driveway because of "guests" cars and, in some cases trailers, blocking the road. Furthermore, an enforcement office is crucial; in our case, contacting the "host" did no good; she was unavailable and, when we did reach her, she said to deal directly with her guests. In addition, I truly don't understand the argument that bad actors will be bad actors no matter what the laws are. This would suggest that laws against, e.g., murder, theft, etc., are fairly use- less, because bad actors will act badly no matter what. The argument makes no sense. 3. Furthermore, I want to second the point that "hosts" should announce, in a way that can be visible without going inside, that they are renting STRs. Rich's argument that this would be ad- versarial makes no sense for four reasons. One is that, at some point, the presence of strangers and additional cars will make it obvious that certain people are hosting STRs. More importantly, perhaps, keeping that information hidden inside the house will appear devious and underhanded, and surely that will also be adversarial. The third is that it puts the onus on neighbors to monitor who is hosting STRs, rather than on the hosts who are benefitting from the STRs. The fourth, and arguably most important, reason why STIR operating permits should be clearly visible and placed on the outside of a host's house is related to enforcement. At the 7/22 STIR meeting, Marty Moseley said, "the operating permit should be posted in a window facing the street so anyone can tell they have a valid operating permit. It should be conspicuous to a public way." He also noted that this would be an advantage for Code Enforcement officers because they could then easily drive by and tell that the unit has a valid permit. If the Town is actually serious about enforcement, then it should facilitate making enforcement easy. 4. Finally, I want to underline Rich's point from an earlier meeting that even local governments ought to opt for transparency and people who have a conflict of interest ought to recuse them- selves from making decisions related to such conflicts. A lack of transparency would not only give the appearance of an adversarial situation, it would also create an adversarial situation, with lawmakers voting in their own interests, rather than in the interests of their constituents. Thank you for reading. Barbara Koslowski 18 Renwick Heights Rd. From: Carolyn Greenwald Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 1:13 PM To: Paulette Rosa; Becky Jordan; Bill Goodman _ Subject: Letter to STR Committee and Town of Ithaca Board Attachments: STR.Itr.12.10.20.pdf; email. 11. 14.19.png Kindly distribute the attached letter and accompanying attached email (labeled email.11.14.19) to the STIR committee and the Town Board. Best regards, Carolyn Greenwald To: Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board Members From: Carolyn Greenwald Date: December 10, 2020 Re: Lakeside District Continued Exclusion Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board, I write to zealously advocate for the continued exclusion of the lakefront district from the proposed STR regulations. My first argument in favor of the continued exclusion for lakefront properties is that the STR committee has been saying since at least 2018 that lakefront properties would be specifically excluded from the current and first imposed regulations. I have attended almost every STR committee meeting since May 2018 and I have heard the committee state that lakefront properties would be excluded no less than 30 times. I recall letters from lake property homeowners being set aside and excluded from consideration by the committee since the proposed regulations would not impact these homeowners. On November 14, 2019, 1 reviewed the proposed regulations after they had been edited by the Town's attorney. I immediately saw that the way she restructured the document inadvertently removed the lakefront exclusion. I reached out to Bill Goodman who assured me that the restructuring of the document was not intended to make substantive changes and, "shouldn't have any different implications than before." Attached please find a copy of this email from Bill. Despite the inadvertent substantive change and Bill's assurance to me, the changes made by the attorney remain. On February 10, 2020, the STR committee had a meeting with Susan Brock in attendance. The discussion at the meeting confirmed that Ms. Brock did not understand that the lakefront district was to be excluded when she restructured the document. She said something to the effect of, "just so I understand, let's go one by one through the restrictions and tell me which ones should apply to lakefront properties." Going through all the restrictions, Bill kept saying "no, it should not apply." At this point, Ms. Brock said something to the effect of "Ok, we need to talk about this in closed session." Since 2018, 1 have been relying on the repeated statements from the STR committee and its chair that lakefront properties would be excluded from restrictions. Many lakefront owners have not expressed their concerns and fears because of this position, and it is unfair to set aside or avoid their concerns and input only to add this small subset of properties late in the game. An inadvertent drafting error should not have substantive effect or cause constituents' to be ignored. My second argument in favor of the continued exclusion for lakefront properties is that there is a long history and tradition of short term rentals of lakefront properties in the Town of Ithaca that pre -dates Airbnb and the newfound popularity of STR in general. As some of you know, my husband and I purchase our house (which is now 889 Taughannock, then it was 887 Taughannock) in the summer of 2001. Even though we stretched our budget to the max, we bought a complete fixer -upper. We used credit cards to finance big jobs like siding the house (it was covered only in plywood) and would pay off the bills with help from short term renting. We listed our house with the Tompkins County Visitor Center and on craigslist. We didn't start using Airbnb until thirteen years later in 2014. Thus, we have a 20 year history of renting our home that pre -dates Airbnb by more than a decade. Year round short term rentals are in keeping with long established traditions of the lakefront properties. My third argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that tourist dollars are vital to the Town of Ithaca economy. At least 50% of the folks who stay at my property did not choose to come to Ithaca, they chose to rent my lakefront property. I can see this because the websites provide me with information as to which other houses a guest also considered. Many of these tourists will go elsewhere if there are no available lakefront houses for short term rent in the Town of Ithaca. Of the remaining percentage, some portion of them will elect to stay at the Marriott or another hotel owned by outside investors. It seems far better to me to keep that money in the local economy. I honestly and truly believe that the committee is seriously underestimating how much the local economy relies on tourism and how much tourism is now tied to short term rentals. I recommend local establishments to my guests all the time. I send them to The Commons, I recommend restaurants, I recommend local shops. This is not a time to cut off this supply of dollars spent locally. My fourth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that an entire industry has developed around successful management of lakefront properties and provides employment to low income workings, particularly working moms. Just this week I walked into my house and found the cleaner hard at work. She had her two year old son and four year old daughter with her. Her son was playing with a toy truck I keep at the house and the daughter was playing monopoly. I cannot think of another job Corinna could have done where she could bring her children along and they could safely play with toys while she worked. I use a house cleaning service run by Jess Aguilar. I met Jess about 10 years ago. She put herself through school by cleaning short term rental lake properties. She now helps other young women do the same. I know of at least four nurses who have worked for me through Jess and put themselves through school with the income. Ten years later, Jess, who now has a master's degree and works full time in a correctional facility, just bought her first rental property (it's not in Ithaca). In short, the economic impact of limitations on short term rentals is not limited to loosing tourist dollars, we will also be losing Town of Ithaca jobs. If short term rentals are only allowed during summer weeks, this employment opportunity disappears overnight, because these moms and young students need year-round employment. My fifth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that the committee's concern that STRs adversely impact neighborhoods is inapplicable to lakefront properties. As you are aware, due to the steep slope and the busy 55 mile per hour highway, the lakefront is not a neighborhood. There are no sidewalks or connections between the properties and as a result there is little interaction between neighbors. Short term summer vacations have been the norm for these properties for decades and are not out of character with the neighborhood. My sixth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that this exclusion will not impact the affordable housing stock of Ithaca. The lakefront properties are not 'affordable housing' nor numerous enough to impact the housing stock as a whole. We are talking only about a handful of vacation homes. The days of buying an inexpensive fixer -upper are long gone. Thus, there is no danger of short term rental owners buying otherwise affordable housing and converting it into an STIR. My seventh argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that it is a small number of the whole. Of the short term rentals in Ithaca, only a few dozen are lakefront properties. Excluding this small number of houses is of enormous benefit to Ithaca tourism with little adverse impact on Town of Ithaca policy goals. My eighth argument in favor of the continued exclusion of lakefront properties is that the exclusion will directly benefit Town of Ithaca residents. Often times, the people who rent our home are Ithacans, relatives of Ithacans, past Ithacans, and future Ithacans. I often have guests who live in Ithaca. They come for a staycation or they come to enjoy the lake. (Just last week, Michelle Berry stayed with us to work on her writing). I often have guests who are visiting relatives. I can think of half a dozen guests who stayed at our house and now live full time in the area. Short term lakefront rentals are enjoyed by Town of Ithaca residents all the time, all year round. I rent my house approximately 200 days per year and hope to continue to do so until we move back full time when the kids are grown. A shorter short term rental period would not allow us to keep the house because of general homeowner costs, mortgage costs, and real estate taxes. Our guests all sign an agreement that includes directions on where to park, quiet hours, and penalties for disturbing our neighbors. We limit the number of people allowed on the property to the signed guests only and do not allow any additional guests, except for the college student of a visiting family. We do not allow friends of that student on the property nor do we allow guests to invite a local family over for dinner. Our agreement says no parties not even small ones. We try very hard to be good neighbors. Thank you for your time and continued careful consideration of the concerns of lakefront homeowners. Carolyn Greenwald Attached: email dated 11.14.2019 Paulette Rosa From: Sheila Snyder <sheilasnyder857@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2020 8:02 PM To: Paulette Rosa Subject: Short Term Rentals on the Lake Hi Paulette, When I phoned tothe Town of Ithaca,to find out who I should send my letter to about the upcoming meeting with the STR on the agenda, the person told me to send my letter to you. Would you please forward this to the appropriate person and let me know that it was forwarded please? I would hate to think of all the time spent on writing this went to waste (as well as my stress of the situation). Thank you. We are writing about the proposed legislation to restrict Airbnb rentals to less than 30 days per year applying to lakeside rentals. We own a couple, adjacent single dwellings on. Cayuga Lake. Sheila retired in June of this year. We launched the Airbnb in our southern -most Cottage, just south of ours, at 855 Taughannock Blvd. We have had this property since 1983. We turned it into a yearly rental in 1990. Through the years, taxes, water bills, garbage fees, insurance and upkeep have grown faster than rental income. Last year it became about equal what we spent out and what we were able to take in. This is when we chose and planned to open an Airbnb. We have heavily invested in furnishings for the Airbnb ($15,000). When it was successful, Al retired in November, (last month). Our plan was to use the income for our health insurance. Our premiums are $2800 per month. How do you expect us to pay for that? Should we go without health insurance? If the town of Ithaca goes ahead with the proposal it takes some of our livelihood away. We want you to know that we have reached out to our neighbor, Marian Mumford who lives next door to the Airbnb and checked to make sure our Airbnb guests have not bothered them. She has our number to call should any issues arise. We were assured the guests have all been wonderful. In the past, we have had some students who have rented the house when it was a yearly rental. They were not always good neighbors. Should our lakeside dwelling become subjected to a 30 day STR limitation, we would be going back to a yearly rental. When a home is turned into an Airbnb, there is a level of expectation of quality. We took much care to make the house and the property look nice for curb appeal. Isn't that what the town wants? We calculated that $800 occupancy tax was paid to the town from our Airbnb, for the 6 months it has been open. This would be lost revenues for the town if the proposal passes. When Sheila went down to the welcome center when we were preparing for the Airbnb, they told her that was one of the biggest requests they have is for rentals on the lake. My Guests come and experience the lake. They can't do that from any area hotel. They take out the kayaks and canoes. They swim with the ducks. They watch the bald eagle, ospreys and other wildlife here. They have campfires; they roast s'mores with their kids. Closing down a lakeside Airbnb when it is considered a high demand item does not seem to be a good decision. At the end of each stay, we sort their garbage and recyclables. Almost all of the guests had been getting takeout food from area restaurants, visiting the local parks, visiting the commons, and buying products from our local wineries and breweries. We provide a list of local points of interests, restaurants and stores. One family took tennis lessons while they were here. Our guests came from down state, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and were here to experience the Fingerlakes as tourists. They were looking to be on one of the lakes. Had our lake property not been available to them, they would not have rented from an Ithaca hotel, but instead gone further up the lake or to another lake; spending their money elsewhere. The lakeside rentals are really the only option to experience Cayuga Lake (there are no hotels on Cayuga Lake like Seneca Lake has in Watkins Glen and Geneva). It seems if the town of Ithaca passes the STR to 30 days per year and include the lakeside rentals, it could have significant affects on local tourism (essentially they would shut down completely and convert over to long term rentals, except for maybe the people who rent out on the Graduation weekends). After some investigation, we discovered that this proposal is driven from issues/complaints from Airbnbs established in Cayuga Heights neighborhoods. Lakeside housing "neighborhoods" are nothing like the residential neighborhoods of Cayuga Heights. Regarding any issues/complaints, the town should address them as they happen, enforcing the ordinances and laws that already exist. We recommend that the town board allow lakeside home owners to continue to provide a much needed service to the community that is not met by any other means (unlike the housing provided in residential neighborhoods like Cayuga Heights). This will also allow lake home owners the ability to earn retirement and supplemental income as planned. Sheila and Al Snyder Lake Residents Since 1983 Paulette Rosa From: Paulette Rosa Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 5:50 PM To: Mike MacAnanny Subject: Re: Open Meetings Law I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear... the recordings of the regular sessions is what I was talking about.. Closed or executive sessions are never recorded and would not be given out. Paulette Rosa Town Clerk On Nov 24, 2020, at 4:38 PM, Mike MacAnanny <macananny@gmail.com> wrote: Paulette- Thank you for your very comprehensive response and offer to research whether any of the closed session recordings (and minutes) can be made public. If they can be made public we would very much like to examine them if you can help us to obtain them. We may have some other points to raise with Ms. O'Neill- thank you for providing her contact information. Please have a nice and safe holiday. Mike On Nov 24, 2020, at 4:16 PM, Paulette Rosa <PRosa@town.ithaca.ny.us> wrote: Good Afternoon Mike, I just got off the phone with Kristen O'Neill from the Committee on Open Government to double check my answers to your questions. Public Body under OML The Short Term Rental Committee (STR), is a sub-committee/ad hoc committee consisting of 3 Board members and staff (regardless of how many attend). The STR has no authority to make any binding decisions nor were they granted any legislative authority (like the Planning Board, for example) to do so. The STR serves as an advisory committee to the Town Board and therefore does not fall under the definition of a public body under Open Meetings Law (OML) That said, the Town does conduct many of their committee level meetings under the same basic intent of the OML whenever possible. The STR Chair and I have tried our best to keep your group and others informed on the progress of the task. Advance notice and materials We have tried to establish a set date to aid in letting the public, and especially your group, know when it is meeting; though not required. We have sent out the draft legislation and materials or made them available during the meeting whenever possible; though not required. In the beginning I took some simple notes but they are no longer taken. When they were, I made them available to you; though not required. Executive Session or Closed session Again, this committee does not fall under the OML, but, even if it did, the instances where they have closed the meeting to the public have actually been done as if they were. I can say that even when they have closed the meeting to the public, they have followed the intent of the rules of Executive Session / Closed session guidelines and not wavered into aspects of the topic that could have been discussed in open meeting if they so wished. The meetings, once they began via zoom, may or may not have been recorded. I did not routinely record them and actually have not attended quite a few. Recording is not needed nor required. That said, I could look into that for you if you would like and see if the committee wishes to release them. Again, at this level, those recordings would be considered Intra-Agency, and not necessarily a record that must be made public, but that may be made public. Speaking to the Committee The Chair has allowed/invited discussion at many committee meetings, though not required. Next Step When this draft legislation is moved out of Committee to the Town Board level and scheduled to be heard, there will be a public notice and the draft legislation posted and any and all requirements met under OML for that public body. I have included the link to the Committee on Open Government for your convenience. Ms. O'Neill is very responsive and there is an entire library of past opinions on every possible subject both for FOIL and OML. https://www.dos.ny.gov/coop/oml listing/oindex.html If you have any further concerns, please let me know and I will be happy to research and respond. Regards, Paulette Paulette Rosa Town Clerk Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Ph (607) 273-1721 ext 110 www.townJ [haca.nv.us From: Mike MacAnanny <macanannv@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 4:46 PM To: Paulette Rosa <PRosa@town.ithaca.ny.us> Cc: Rod Howe <RHowe@town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Re: Open Meetings Law Hello Paulette, Thank you for your response. In looking at the OML, it requires advance notice to the public of meetings, advance posting of laws to be discussed, and the resulting minutes to be published. I know you are busy and you have always been helpful to us at the meetings by kindly providing such materials, and we thank you. However I don't think advance notices have always been made to the public at large, laws posted in advance, or minutes made public. Perhaps these are all available to the public at the Town Office(?) and that that is considered to be in compliance with the OML. With regard to Executive sessions we are puzzled. The OML is fairly clear on what is permitted to be discussed in Executive -only, non-public sessions. Minutes of Executive sessions, if taken, are also to be made public if they do not contain discussions of those non-public subjects. I do not think discussions with counsel are automatically a reason for Executive session- unless, the subjects are among those listed in the applicable section of the Law. So I am not sure the Chairman can simply empty the room by declaring Executive session, when no one but the Chairman knows what topics are to be discussed (those topics permitted by the OML). Please comment on the above when you have a moment. Hope you are all well and looking forward to the holidays. Cheers, Mike MacAnanny On Nov 16, 2020, at 10:20 AM, Paulette Rosa <PRosa @town.ithaca.ny.us> wrote: Hello Mr. MacAnanny, Rod forwarded me your question regarding Open Meetings Law adherence. As the Town Clerk and Records Management Officer for the Town, I am usually the one that deals with these types of questions. The Town does follow OML in all instances and levels of meetings with no exceptions or interpretations unique to the Town. Is there a specific aspect or concern you would like an answer to? Sincerely, Paulette Rosa Paulette Rosa Town Clerk Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Ph (607) 273-1721 ext 110 www.town.ithaca.nv.us Paulette Rosa From: Paulette Rosa Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:16 AM To: Paulette Rosa (Poosa@town.ithaca.ny.us) Subject: STR Chat copy 2020_11_09 From Warren Real Estate to Everyone: 04:14 PM Will this meeting be recorded and made available? Thank you. Is this available on the Town of Dryden website? From William Goodman to Everyone: 04:14 PM Yes, their public hearing is next Thurs Nov 19 From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 04:24 PM To Dryden Manager- how did you come to the number of allowed days, and any differentiation between hosted and unhosted? From Warren Real Estate to Everyone: 04:30 PM Can the system distinguish between bookings and date blocks? Thank you. From Ray Burger to Everyone: 04:31 PM Law can be viewed at: http://drVden.nV.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/201014-Draft-Local-Law-Regulating-Short- Term-Rentals LANGUAGE-FOR-PUBLIC-HEARING.pdf From Nick Helmholdt to Everyone: 04:32 PM Thanks Ray - I need to run. Please feel free to send questions to nhelmholdt@tompkins-co.org - have a good day :) From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 04:59 PM there is a huge difference between college town and a quiet residential neighborhood that you choose and pay more to live in (i.e property taxes). It is quality of life . From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 05:01 PM Folks bought in residential neighborhoods for the comfort of quiet streets, cut de sacs, safety, neighborliness. It's not squeamish to object to more traffic and strangers to account date someone's making money. From inezvermaas to Everyone: 05:02 PM When someone rents out for more than 30 days on a short term basis the long term rental laws do not apply. From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 05:02 PM anything over 30days ebven in single days should be regulated as a long term rental based on impact and current zoning as BUSINESS- Air BnB is a business- profit is the motive- NOT QUALITY OF LIFE for those who chose to live there AND PAY to live THERE From inezvermaas to Everyone: 05:07 PM I think it is a great idea that people wanting to rent out short term for more than 30 days should become professional registers businesses. What is your definition of a B&B? If they do not provide a fresh breakfast they are not a B&B! Level of inspection: Same as B&B's!!! Level the playing field..... From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 05:08 PM "accomodate" From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 05:11 PM What are the consequences for those who lie when they disclose information to the Town? It appears from recent conversations that there are insufficient resources to "FACT CHECK" those who rent LONG term- let a one short term..... Given the impact and profit of rentals on a neighborhood the Permit fee should be enough to pay for a compliance organization to remove any impact of costs being paid by residents. Given the profit margins for STA it wold seem a base permit level would be around $500-750/year- that would cover compliance and regulation without pitting neighbors vs neighbors- it should be independent Paulette Rosa From: Mia Slotnick <mjslotnick123@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 8:43 PM To: Rod Howe; Bill Goodman; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Paulette Rosa; Marty Moseley; Susan Ritter; Rich DePaolo; macananny; luisa macananny; Barbara Koslowski; Richard Newell Boyd; maralyn edid; Larry Blume; Inez Vermaas; kws5 @cornell.edu Subject: Fwd: Short Term Rentals Dear Rich, Thank you for your September 14 email response to a few points in our email of the same date. We look forward to hearing responses to the rest of our September 14 email as well as our September 8 email from the entire STR committee. Most of your September 14 comments were addressed by the response sent from our group on October 20, 2020. Below are a few additional comments (your words in blue): "To your main metric of the "success" of the Cayuga Heights ordinance... our proposals would also foreclose on the practice of people "buying up residences and using them exclusively as STRs." This is NOT our main metric of success of the Cayuga Heights ordinance, though it is definitely a part of it. "Success" is that both residents and hosts reach a working compromise on the number of days allowed, which in Cayuga Heights is 14 days for unhosted rentals OR 28 days for hosted rentals (a maximum of 28 days per year). As we have stated previously, it seems logical and sensible for the Town to implement this two year proven day limit for residential areas in the Town. The situation could then be reassessed after an initial period. As previously stated, there are multiple factors that justify a scaled approach to different areas in the Town of Ithaca based on the characteristics of the neighborhood. The STR committee has been discussing allowing more days for properties in less densely packed areas of the Town. Conversely, for areas with density and topographic constraints it seems that the 14/28 day limit would be a good starting point. Also important is as Linda Woodard said "When there have been complaints from residents, we have a law we can enforce beyond just a noise complaint and have used it a number of times." "Success" is laws that can be readily applied and enforced and that do not rely on neighbors' complaints to monitor compliance. Also essential are serious consequences that are consistently and uniformly imposed for those who do not follow the laws. "it would seem, simply based on the relatively low number of complaints, that the practice is not considered objectionable in the vast majority of occurrences" Equating the number of complaints with whether STRs are objectionable is not a valid comparison. Many people are extremely hesitant to complain due to the risk of angering neighbors. Others are not aware of what a STR is or that they are operating in their neighborhood. Many residents probably have no idea that they could complain about them, or who they would even complain to. A much more accurate method of assessing how people feel about the presence (or future presence) of STRs in their neighborhood would be through a survey. Also, as stated previously, the majority of Town residents are not aware that STR legislation is being discussed or the implications of allowing them in their neighborhoods, so are not as vocal as those who are actively benefiting from operating them. We also wanted to address the comment directed at our neighborhood from Carolyn Greenwald (her words below in red) at the end of the last STR meeting on September 14th: "Focusing on the number of days is not focusing on the problems in the neighborhood. Enforcing parking and noise would solve 90% of problems that they are having." The problems we have experienced are not limited to parking and noise. As we described in the past, increased traffic, damage to neighbors' property, and a complete change in the character of the neighborhood resulting in a decrease in our quality of life are some of the other negatives. For most of these issues, the only way to lessen their negative impact is by limiting the number of days allowed. Thank you for considering these thoughts, suggestions, and concerns. Mia On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 13:52, Rich DePaolo <RDePaolo @town.ithaca.ny.us> wrote: Mia- Whether you agree with it or not, residential rentals of any shape or form are considered a residential use and, as such, are in full compliance with our CURRENT zoning. That IS the opinion of the Town Attorney. We are now endeavoring to regulate a use that is currently ALLOWED. We have limited enforcement tools available in the current construct, including occupancy (related to our definition of "family") and prohibitions against certain "nuisances" like noise. Under our current zoning, the fact that people operate rentals as a "business" is immaterial. We are attempting to address that. I find it curious that you would be pushing back on a proposed 29-day limit on unhosted rentals, considering that there is no limit at all imposed by current zoning. To your main metric of the "success" of the Cayuga Heights ordinance... our proposals would also foreclose on the practice of people "buying up residences and using them exclusively as STRs." We have a principal -residence requirement in most zones, including yours, with an adjacent property exception under consideration. Reportedly, there are over 350 hosts in the Town of Ithaca. While there are certainly issues related to STRs, it would seem, simply based on the relatively low number of complaints, that the practice is not considered objectionable in the vast majority of occurrences. That said, a balancing test must be applied to try to address the needs and concerns of al stakeholders. Thank you for your continued engagement. Rich On Sep 14, 2020, at 7:47 AM, Mia Slotnick <mislotnick123@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Rich. Thank you for your email. Although our letter was a collective effort written by the 8 people who signed it and was based on notes that were taken during several Short Term Rental meetings, since you directed your clarifications to me, I will respond for the group. Point 4. Contrary to your opinion with respect to Cayuga Heights that "it has NOT worked", and in line with our understanding that it is working well, Linda Woodard, the Mayor of Cayuga Heights informed us that the laws they have in place have been successful. When asked last week how she felt the STR legislation in Cayuga Heights was working she responded: "1 think we have been successful. We have kept people from buying up residences and using them exclusively as strs. When there have been complaints from residents, we have a law we can enforce beyond just a noise complaint and have used it a number of times. Our residents view their houses as their homes, not businesses. The biggest issue is making sure all abide by our laws. Airbnb continues to make that a challenge. We don't have the administrative resources or sophisticated software to monitor compliance. That is why 1 am so encouraged by the county willing to pay for the basic service and hope the Town of Ithaca will pass their laws soon, so we can partner with them to know who is renting out their homes and for how long. With that information we can be proactive about compliance. Cayuga Heights is a small village; word gets around. My best suggestion for you is to keep things simple. Much easier for residents to understand and less problems with enforcement." Cayuga Heights has had a successfully working model for STR regulation in operation for over 2 years. it would seem logical and sensible for the Town to implement this proven plan for residential areas in the Town. The situation could then be reassessed after an initial period. Point 1. The following are your words from the August 10 STR meeting (please check your own meeting minutes for confirmation): "My recollection is that we paid some attention to information from Tom Knipe... Supplemental income versus a business ... Tom said 80-90 days." As stated in our previous letter, Tom clarified that this number only pertains to the specific situation of a 2 bedroom unit. It does not pertain to all size properties or properties in different neighborhoods. Therefore, it should not be used as a "point at which a potential STR business becomes more lucrative than a long-term rental of the same unit" since it only applies to the specific situation that Tom had estimated it for. Point 2. We all know the definition of a STR as being a rental of less than 30 days. However, the number of days allowed within this 29 days maximum is what is being questioned. Cayuga Heights settled on 14 days of unhosted rentals because that number included all the major Cornell, Ithaca College, and area events that necessitate increased housing. The number of days allowed should reflect the wishes of those who want to engage in STRs and those residents who do not. 14-15 days seems a fair starting point between the maximum (30) and minimum (0) days. Your opinion of considering one method of allowing more days for certain areas more "arbitrary" than another is simply that --your own opinion. As previously stated, there are multiple factors that justify a scaled approach to different areas in the Town of Ithaca based on the characteristics of the neighborhood. An overlay zone in both Renwick Heights and Forest Home would be easy to delineate and implement. Your labelling of residents who are concerned about STRs as "half a dozen folks from Renwick Heights, yourself included" is inaccurate. We presented the Board with a petition opposing STRs signed by 17 Renwick Heights residents in September of 2016. Our concerns are shared by at least 11 Forest Home residents (see their 11/27/18 letter to the STR committee) as well as members of the Ithaca Bed and Breakfast Association. We have attended nearly every relevant meeting and been seriously engaged with the STR committee for 4 years, bringing forth many examples of our grievances as well as many suggestions for the legislation. It is also well worth noting that the majority of Town residents are not aware that STR legislation is being discussed or the implications of allowing them, so are not as vocal as those who are actively benefiting from operating them. 3 Point 5. The reason we brought this to your attention has nothing to do with STRs or LTRs. It was meant to illustrate how difficult it will be to use neighbor complaints as part of the regulation process, especially in regards to proof of occupancy. As stated previously, complaint driven enforcement will not work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel to adequately monitor and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. Additionally, the Town is aware that the Owner of #20 Renwick Heights Road lied to the Town about her intentions for the property. The Owner reported that she was no longer renting it out and that she was living there herself. She requested to have her long term rental permit rescinded. She then moved back out of the state and continued to rent the house out to both long and short term tenants, which is what she has been doing for over two years without the home ever undergoing an inspection. Surely there should be consequences for this Owner's blatant dishonesty and deception. Refer to Town Codes 207-2 and 207-4, Operating Permit Required and Penalties, respectively. Point 6. Figures for the income potential of STR properties have been mentioned multiple times in the past by STR committee members when discussing proposed costs of permitting fees. Point 7. From our experience in our own neighborhood, being a hosted rental versus an unhosted rental has no effect on increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' properties, degradation of the character of a neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. A final comment is in order. It is clear from the existing Town Code, Article IX, 270-65, 'Purpose', that the MDR is intended 'almost exclusively' for residential purposes and minimal intrusion by commercial activities. Further there exists in the Code clear wording to discourage traditional B&Bs in MDRs. Yes we are aware of the very thin distinction between B&B's and STR's- but they are both unsupervised mini -hotels for transients in neighborhoods not zoned for them. Yet you are in effect through this proposed legislation adding a new and never intended purpose in our zone- all to suit a subset of your constituents engaged in a commercial activity. This is rezoning by any other name and we raise the question as to whether this is the correct process. We would be interested to see a written opinion from the Town's Attorney. Sincerely, Mia Slotnick, Kenneth Simpson, Mike MacAnanny, Luisa MacAnanny, Barbara Koslowski, Richard Boyd, Maralyn Enid, and Larry Blume rom: Rich DePaolo <RDePaolo(o-).town.ithaca.ny.us> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 10:11 Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals To: Mia Slotnick <mislotnick123aamail.com> Cc: Rod Howe <RHowe a0own.ithaca.ny.us>, Bill Goodman <bgoodman(o-).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Pam Bleiwas <PBleiwas(a�_town.ithaca.ny.us>, TeeAnn Hunter<THunter(a)__town.ithaca.ny.us>, Eric Levine <eLevi ne(o).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Pat Leary <Pleary(o).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Paulette Rosa <PRosa(a)_town.ithaca.ny.us>, Marty Moseley <MMoseley(a)-town.ithaca.ny.us>, Susan Ritter <sritter(o).town.ithaca.ny.us> Mia- Thank you for sharing your opinions. Many of your conclusions are erroneous. Please allow me to clarify, where I can. Regards, Rich On Sep 8, 2020, at 8:07 AM, Mia Slotnick <mjslotnick123(agmail.com> wrote: Dear Supervisor Howe, Deputy Supervisor Goodman, Town Board members, and others involved in Short Term Rental legislation, Below are several points about topics discussed at the August 10th Short Term Rental committee meeting. 1. 80-90 days was mentioned as a number that was taken from Tom Knipe's calculations, and was described at the August 10th meeting as being the difference between "supplemental income versus a business". In recent communication with Tom Knipe, he clarified that this number was an estimate of the average daily rate on Airbnb for a 2 BR unit compared to what a landlord could raise in 12 months of rent for an average 2 BR unit. He went on to state that the data also shows that some units (being rented as short term rentals) are pulling in many times what they could achieve on a long term lease. This 80-90 day estimated figure only applies to this specific situation in relation to long term rentals, and should not be used as a blanket "acceptable day limit". It may not apply to larger or smaller properties, or properties in all areas of Ithaca. It should not be used as an acceptable figure for all concerns since it was generated to address only the specific concern about housing being taken out of the long term rental stock. Allowing 80-90 nights of STRs in our neighborhood would dramatically and negatively change the character of our neighborhood. The committee is and has been aware that the 80-90 days cited by Tom Knipe was what he determined to be the the point at which a potential STR business becomes more lucrative than a long-term rental of the same unit. The committee never used that figure to delineate between what would be considered "supplemental income versus a business." We are more concerned that STR allowances don't incentivize removing long-term housing stock from the market. 2. A limit of 29 days for unhosted rentals has been proposed, though there has never been an explanation for how this figure was chosen. Bill Goodman mentioned that Brent Katzman, a local realtor and Airbnb host had discussed with him that he lives on a large lot, and would like to be allowed to rent for more than 29 days. Bill said that after this discussion, he felt in certain circumstances that the day limit could be greater --maybe 90-120 days since being on a larger lot will not impact the neighbors so much. Why is it that despite numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern about allowing up to 29 days, there has been no discussion or flexibility in decreasing that number, yet the number of days allowed may potentially be increased after a request from one individual? We have been told that special exceptions cannot be made for specific neighborhoods, yet exceptions to increase the number of days are being considered on an individual property basis. This seems both arbitrary and capricious. The 29-day figure has been explained many times. It is derived from the 2010 amendment to New York Multiple Dwellings Law, section (8)(a) which essentially defines anything less than a rental of "thirty consecutive days" as short-term. To answer your second question, the balancing test to determine the number of allowable rental days is largely being determined by our desire to not erode long-term housing stock, and incidents of nuisance, which are largely complaint driven. In the example you cite, it is assumed that rentals on a large parcel with faraway neighbors would not pose as great a nuisance risk. The geometric parameters needed to apply for more days would apply zone -wide, and, as such, would certainly not be considered "arbitrary," whereas the "neighborhood - specific" solution you allude to would require that different areas under the same Town zoning classification be treated differently, a much more arbitrary solution, requiring overlay zones and multiple justifying criteria. And, to be perfectly frank, "numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern," has basically been half a dozen folks from Renwick Heights, yourself included. This is a balancing test between people who perceive a threat from a particular use, and residents who don't and/or who derive a benefit from it. 3. The proposal of having a "threshold" of less than 14 days where no permit or regulations are imposed is unnecessary and will likely cause major problems including parking issues, large parties, noise, and increased traffic, which all lead to degradation of the character of neighborhoods where those 7 weekends of unregulated rentals occur. All units would require permits. The issue was whether or not to require inspections of properties only being rented less than a certain number of days. 4. The Cayuga Heights STR regulations have been in place and working for almost 3 years. As Linda Woodard described it, keeping it simple and consistent is the key. It makes sense to start with a limited number of days as they have done (14 unhosted or 28 hosted), and require that all properties obtain an operating permit and follow the same rules. This has so far proved a successful compromise for both hosts and residents. Linda Woodard has also described that Cayuga Heights has not been successful at regulating its rentals, regardless of the number of allowable days in their law. In short, it has NOT worked, which is why she is seeking to collaborate with other municipalities and the County on enforcement. 5. It has been proposed that enforcement will be partly "complaint driven". A recent example of how this will be problematic is the home at 20 Renwick Heights Road. The owner told the Town her home was owner occupied and no longer being rented. Several neighbors noticed that the owner had moved out of the property on July 6, and that a family of 4 moved into the property on July 7. For over 6 weeks the owner had not been seen, and the family of 4 had been seen living in the house, yet the Town Code Enforcement officer did not feel that there was enough "proof' to conclude that the owner was no longer living there and that a family of 4 was living there. We appreciate that he did come back for a second site visit, and then concluded that the neighbors' observations were correct. Drawing from this experience, it seems unlikely that a neighbor's complaint about a host not living in the property for a 1 or 2 day hosted STIR stay could be adequately proven. Complaint driven enforcement will not work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel to adequately monitor and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. The example you cite above, where a family of 4 moves in for 6 weeks, is not considered a short-term rental and would be totally legal under any proposed regulatory scenario. 6. The cost of the operating permit should cover all costs, including the increased number of personnel which adequate monitoring and enforcement will necessitate. As Linda Woodard mentioned, people can make $3000-$4000 in one weekend, so the cost of the permit should also take the income potential into consideration. Towns can not take into consideration the profit -making potential of a use when determining fees to cover the administration of laws associated with it. Any enforcement and personnel costs associated with STIR would be recouped by permit fees. The level of enforcement will be driven by compliance issues, not by the economics of the rental economy. 7. Hosted rentals were mentioned as not being a problem because "if the host is there on the property, they can tell their guests to be quiet if they are having a party". However, as brought up previously, noise from a party is only one neighborhood concern from renters. Other concerns are increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' property, and degradation in the character of a residential neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. These negative impacts do not disappear if the rental is hosted, so the number of days allowed for both unhosted and hosted rentals should be limited. Another issue with hosted rentals is that we have observed in our neighborhood that the host has learned to leave their car in plain site on the premises to give the impression that the home is currently hosted, whereas the owner has actually left in another vehicle and the unit is really unhosted. This practice may be curtailed by advising hosts that random and regular visits to the home by Town code enforcement personnel are part of the STIR regulating process. Again, this would necessitate further funds, which could be generated from permitting fees. The perceived advantages of having a host on the property have never been limited to "parties" or "noise." The committee has considered the benefit to be more comprehensive, and has assumed that oversight by the owner would also be more effective at curtailing the other nuisances you cite. Mia Slotnick <m1slotnick123@gmail.com to Rod, Bilk, Pair), TcwzeAnn, Eiriic, Riicll°r, Pat, P ualette, Maim , Susan, bcc: erne 0.: Dear Supervisor Howe, Deputy Supervisor Goodman, Town Board members, and others involved in Short legislation, Below are several points about topics discussed at the August 10th Short Term Rental committee meeting 1. 80-90 days was mentioned as a number that was taken from Tom Knipe's calculations, and was describ meeting as being the difference between "supplemental income versus a business". In recent communice he clarified that this number was an estimate of the average daily rate on Airbnb for a 2 BR unit compared could raise in 12 months of rent for an average 2 BR unit. He went on to state that the data also shows tha rented as short term rentals) are pulling in many times what they could achieve on a long term lease. This 80-90 day estimated figure only applies to this specific situation in relation to long term rentals, and sr blanket "acceptable day limit". It may not apply to larger or smaller properties, or properties in all areas of I used as an acceptable figure for all concerns since it was generated to address only the specific concern a taken out of the long term rental stock. Allowing 80-90 nights of STRs in our neighborhood would dramatic change the character of our neighborhood. 2. A limit of 29 days for unhosted rentals has been proposed, though there has never been an explanation chosen. Bill Goodman mentioned that Brent Katzman, a local realtor and Airbnb host had discussed with h large lot, and would like to be allowed to rent for more than 29 days. Bill said that after this discussion, he circumstances that the day limit could be greater --maybe 90-120 days since being on a larger lot will not in much. Why is it that despite numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern about allowing up to 29 days, the discussion or flexibility in decreasing that number, yet the number of days allowed may potentially be incr( from one individual? We have been told that special exceptions cannot be made for specific neighborhood; increase the number of days are being considered on an individual property basis. This seems both arbitr< 3. The proposal of having a "threshold" of less than 14 days where no permit or regulations are imposed i will likely cause major problems including parking issues, large parties, noise, and increased traffic, which of the character of neighborhoods where those 7 weekends of unregulated rentals occur. 4. The Cayuga Heights STR regulations have been in place and working for almost 3 years. As Linda Wo( keeping it simple and consistent is the key. It makes sense to start with a limited number of days as they h; unhosted or 28 hosted), and require that all properties obtain an operating permit and follow the same rule proved a successful compromise for both hosts and residents. 5. It has been proposed that enforcement will be partly "complaint driven". A recent example of how this w the home at 20 Renwick Heights Road. The owner told the Town her home was owner occupied and no loi Several neighbors noticed that the owner had moved out of the property on July 6, and that a family of 4 m on July 7. For over 6 weeks the owner had not been seen, and the family of 4 had been seen living in the f Code Enforcement officer did not feel that there was enough "proof' to conclude that the owner was no Ion that a family of 4 was living there. We appreciate that he did come back for a second site visit, and then cc neighbors' observations were correct. Drawing from this experience, it seems unlikely that a neighbor's cor not living in the property for a 1 or 2 day hosted STR stay could be adequately proven. Complaint driven ei work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel tc and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. 6. The cost of the operating permit should cover all costs, including the increased number of personnel whl monitoring and enforcement will necessitate. As Linda Woodard mentioned, people can make $3000-$400 the cost of the permit should also take the income potential into consideration. 7. Hosted rentals were mentioned as not being a problem because "if the host is there on the property, the to be quiet if they are having a party". However, as brought up previously, noise from a party is only one nE from renters. Other concerns are increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' property, and de( character of a residential neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. These negative impacts do r rental is hosted, so the number of days allowed for both unhosted and hosted rentals should be limited. Another issue with hosted rentals is that we have observed in our neighborhood that the host has learned 1 plain site on the premises to give the impression that the home is currently hosted, whereas the owner has vehicle and the unit is really unhosted. This practice may be curtailed by advising hosts that random and rE home by Town code enforcement personnel are part of the STR regulating process. Again, this would nec( which could be generated from permitting fees. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, The Renwick Neighbors Group Mia Slotnick, Kenneth Simpson, Mike Macananny, Luisa Macananny, Maralyn Edid, Larry Blume, Barbara Richard Boyd Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:34 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Becky Jordan; Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Ithaca Lakefront - Short Term Rentals FYI - another one coming also Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Ata Movassaghi <atamovassaghi@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:21 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us>; Becky Jordan <BJordan@town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Ithaca Lakefront - Short Term Rentals Hi Bill and Becky, I hope this message finds you and your family well. Ahead of the Town STR meeting, I wanted to reach out in light of the recent STR discussions around lakefront properties and share my perspective as a recent owner and Ithaca native. As someone who grew up in Ithaca and frequently visited throughout my life, it has been the most rewarding personal accomplishment this year for me to now own a lakefront property. It's something I'd talk about with my parents early on but due to the high cost and scarce availability, it was difficult to imagine. Many of my friends owned lake houses that we would enjoy to the fullest, especially in the summer months while the students were away. Now as an owner myself, I look forward to the opportunity to both share in these experiences with family and friends in addition to local and outside visitors who seek out short term rentals on Cayuga Lake. Tourism is one of the biggest drivers of economic stimulus in Ithaca. In a pandemic year unlike any other that we've experienced, it's difficult to imagine our economy without it. Even in a normal year, people seek out lakefront rentals with specific intentions year round and even my large community of Ithacans now living elsewhere find it's the desired method to come back to. If this was restricted, the Town will actually find that both tourism altogether and Ithacans won't visit to the same degree. Not to mention all the property managers, cleaning services, contractors, etc. that rely on this business to uphold their own employment and livelihood. Secondly, the lakefront is not Cayuga Heights or traditional neighborhoods that consist of family -owned homes while kids are in school going through K-12. The reality is that they're predominantly second homes by nature of location, school proximity, and higher cost of the properties. Thus, the same policy/standards for a residential area like Cayuga Heights shouldn't apply. Lakefront property is far more rare and giving the opportunity to people who could otherwise never experience it is the highest demonstration of "neighborhood." STR guests both staycationing within Ithaca and visiting from the outside are investing locally by not staying in major hotel conglomerates and taking local recommendations to experience everything small businesses have to offer - that's what our town is built on. If lake houses were included in these STR regulations, it would severely impact our economy with these people choosing to allocate their time elsewhere. Look forward to joining today's call and sincerely appreciate your time and continued investment in the considerations of all members of our community. Best, Ata Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 12:38 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Proposed STR regulations - Lakefront Hi folks, another STR comment re Lakefront Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Jyl Dowd <jyldowd@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 5:02 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Proposed STR regulations Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board, I am writing in favor of the exclusion of the lakefront district from the proposed STR regulations. I have lived in Ithaca since 1965. Raised by a single mom, 3 of us lived in a one bedroom apartment in the "flats". We had no money and no car, therefore nowhere we could go to swim. On hot days the best we could do was to sit in the creek to cool off. I don't believe I had ever swam in Cayuga Lake until I moved back to Ithaca after college. By renting out 2 bedrooms in my home (initially to locals, and now through Airbnb) I have been able to pay my mortgage, put my daughter through college, and treat myself to a 2 week rental on Cayuga Lake every summer when my daughter comes home to visit. It's the perfect "stay -cation" because she can see her old friends, people can bring their boats by, it's relaxing & beautiful, and we don't have to travel. And I know other locals do the same. Given the difficulty of accessing the lake otherwise (packing up supplies, coordinating meet -up times, driving time, parking fees, crowds, etc) I strongly believe that the availability of lake front rentals should not be restricted. EVERYONE deserves some time on the lake! Jyl Dowd Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 12:38 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Proposed STR regulations - Lakefront Hi folks, another STR comment re Lakefront Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Jyl Dowd <jyldowd@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 5:02 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Proposed STR regulations Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board, I am writing in favor of the exclusion of the lakefront district from the proposed STR regulations. I have lived in Ithaca since 1965. Raised by a single mom, 3 of us lived in a one bedroom apartment in the "flats". We had no money and no car, therefore nowhere we could go to swim. On hot days the best we could do was to sit in the creek to cool off. I don't believe I had ever swam in Cayuga Lake until I moved back to Ithaca after college. By renting out 2 bedrooms in my home (initially to locals, and now through Airbnb) I have been able to pay my mortgage, put my daughter through college, and treat myself to a 2 week rental on Cayuga Lake every summer when my daughter comes home to visit. It's the perfect "stay -cation" because she can see her old friends, people can bring their boats by, it's relaxing & beautiful, and we don't have to travel. And I know other locals do the same. Given the difficulty of accessing the lake otherwise (packing up supplies, coordinating meet -up times, driving time, parking fees, crowds, etc) I strongly believe that the availability of lake front rentals should not be restricted. EVERYONE deserves some time on the lake! Jyl Dowd 1067'raughannock Blvd Ithaca, " k Town Clerk Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 January 4, 2021 Subject: Proposed Short -Term Rental Restrictions Dear Members of the Short -Term Rental Committee: We are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed short-term rental restrictions for homes in the lakefront zone. We are two young families in the foreign service who recently bought 1067 Taughannock Blvd from a long-time Ithaca resident who, for the last ten years, has used it as a second home and short-term rental property. We both grew up in Ithaca and throughout our adult lives have returned several times a year with our spouses to stay with family and friends and to enjoy the natural beauty of the Finger Lakes. As we move around the world, Ithaca is still very much the place we call home. We stretched ourselves financially to purchase this dream home to have a place to bring our family and friends together and to deepen our lifelong connection to Ithaca. We plan to use the home as our primary residence for ourselves at least two months each year, and as a vacation home for our family and friends for another month. However, that leaves nine months where the home would be unoccupied, but for short- or medium -term rentals. While we acknowledge that we are very fortunate to have been able to pool our resources to afford a beautiful home on the lake, few owners, including us, can afford to leave our homes empty for nine months of the year. Short-term rentals are essential for us to be able to afford to maintain and improve the home. For example, our home needs to be repainted and a shared driveway repaved. These are costs we hoped would be offset through income from short-term rentals, but these investments would likely need to be delayed or the workmanship compromised if our home will sit empty for most of the year. Without short-term rentals, seasonal occupants incentives will be to keep expenses low, rather than to invest in maintaining and improving our homes. Keeping the homes occupied and owners investing in them is the best way to maintain the character of the lakefront neighborhood, which has always included short-term rental use. Long-term leases are not an alternative for us because it would prevent us from furnishing and enjoying our home ourselves. Moreover, the steep driveway and three -season construction limit the use of the house in winter for long-term renters. Finally, the purchase price we paid for our home and the assessed values of homes along the lake reflect their values as short-term rentals, not just their value as seasonal or vacation homes. Restrictions on short-term rentals will have a negative impact on the values of these homes and on real-estate and school tax revenue. For these reasons, we oppose restrictions on short-term rentals for the lakefront zone. Sincerely, Joshua Delara Nat alie Louge cc: Deputy Town Clerk, Becky Jordan Deputy Town Supervisor, Bill Goodman Board Member, Rich DePaolo Board Member, Tee -Ann Hunter Board Member, Pat Leary Elaina McCartney 845 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca NY 14850 1/5/2021 To: STR Committee I have owned and lived in my lakefront duplex home at 845 Taughannock Blvd. for 25 years. I bought the place as a severely run-down fixer -upper in 1996, as a full- time working single parent, and have invested significantly in improving the property over the years, which in turn has raised its value on the tax rolls. Now I am retired. I live upstairs and have always rented the downstairs apartment. Since 2015, the downstairs has been operated as an Airbnb short-term rental, is certified, and meets all inspection requirements. A 3% room tax is paid directly to Tompkins County through Airbnb. Like other properties along Cayuga Lake, we provide beautiful lakefront accommodations and water access to tourists, families visiting local residents, parents visiting or dropping off Cornell and Ithaca College attendees, tourists sampling the Wine Trail, Art Trail, Farmers Market, exploring parks, and sampling well-known restaurants, local Ithacans who want the lakeside experience for a staycation, or writers wanting peace and quiet. Sometimes we're the home base for reunion or conference attendees, families dropping off their college -bound children, kayakers, paddleboarders, boaters (mooring provided), swimming enthusiasts, birdwatchers, triathletes, bikers, hikers on the Black Diamond and Waterfront Trails, and so on. For me, as a retiree on a fixed income, short term rentals provide a stable way for me to pay the high lakefront property and school taxes, continue to maintain driveway, stairs, dock, and general upkeep, and continue to live here. This is a quiet neighborhood. All guests are vetted through Airbnb, and the number of guests is strictly limited. Parties and events are not permitted, and dock use after 10pm is prohibited. We have had zero complaints from neighbors regarding our Airbnb short-term rentals, including zero complaints about parking or noise. Recycling and trash are managed as any responsible homeowner does, and the premises are kept clean and well -maintained inside and out. There are professional cleaners who work regularly in the neighborhood between guests, who depend on this income. I live on the property so I can respond immediately should guests or neighbors have any concerns. I don't believe the general concerns that some Ithaca residents have raised about short-term rentals apply to the lakeside neighborhood. Examples of concerns raised elsewhere are parking, noise, and the presence of strangers. We have a small parking lot along the road where guests are allocated a parking spot. In addition, there is plenty of parking all along the west side of Route 89. The Town of Ithaca already has a Noise Ordinance should there ever be an issue with any short-term rentals along the lake. An anonymous call may be made to Ithaca Police Dispatch and an officer will deal with it promptly. We have made this information available to our neighbors but no one has had to use it. As far as concern about "strangers", that's what tourists are! We welcome them to quietly enjoy the lake and other features Ithaca has to offer, and of course only the number of guests appropriate to the space. I believe short term rentals along the shore of Cayuga Lake contribute to the local economy in a very positive way, and allow visitors to experience what makes Ithaca so special. I don't think an arbitrary restriction of number of nights deals directly with the concerns that are raised. It is impractical to switch back and forth between short- and long -terms rentals. If one does short term rentals, for example only in the summer, then the rest of the year is limited to the student market. But more than that, such restrictions to not directly deal with the concerns raised (parking, noise, strangers), but make a cause -and -effect assumption that may not be valid. Thank you for considering these thoughts. January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. Lakefront Rental Restriction Opposition Signature Page 1/8/2021 Timestamp Name Lake Property Address email address 2021/01/04 2:09:18 PM EST Jes Seaver 829 Taughannock BLvd Ithaca NY 0esseaver@gmail.com 2021/01/04 2:14:55 PM EST Kenneth Broadwell 2021/01/04 6:52:57 PM EST Carolyn Greenwald 2021/01/04 6:53:21 PM EST Adam Schaye 2021/01/05 10:51:30 AM EST Elaina McCartney 2021/01/05 10:56:28 AM EST Randall Corey 2021/01/05 11:09:56 AM EST Nathalie Louge 2021/01/05 11:32:23 AM EST Joshua deLara 2021/01/05 12:11:38 PM EST PAUL FAIRBANKS 2021/01/05 2:22:46 PM EST Chuck Henderson 2021/01/05 34 3 4 PM EST T 5 Ben Weiner 2021/01/05 8:16:51 PM EST Barb Bassette 2021/01/06 7:09:26 AM EST Patrick Burns 2021/01/06 8:25:26 AM EST Chuck Baxter 2021/01/06 10:26:59 AM EST Christine Henseler 2021/01/07 9:17:53 AM EST Paulette Baxter 2021/01/07 4:47:28 PM EST Tony Baxter 2021/01/07 6:16:43 PM EST sally mennen 2021/01/07 7:04:34 PM EST Sheila and Al Snyder 2021/01/07 7:12:11 PM EST Kash Iraggi-Wiggins 2021/01/07 7:54:38 PM EST Ata Movassaghi 2021/01/08 8:38:55 AM EST Daniel Kraak 2021/01/08 9:33:47 AM EST Wendy Kenigsberg 2021/01/08 10:42:08 AM EST Richard mennen 2021/01/08 11:19:48 AM EST John &Carolyn Neuman 2021/01/08 11:29:52 AM EST Jennifer Engel 2021 /01 /08 12.21.36 PM EST ohn el JAb 829 Taughannock Blvd 0esseaver@gmail.com 889 Taughannock Blvd cbgreenwald@gmail.com 907 Taughannock Blvd ars@millermayer.com 845 Taughannock Blvd. emm5@cornell.edu 979 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca nccorey@gmail.com 1067 Taughannock Blvd natlouge@gmail.com 1067 Taughannock Blvd irdelara@gmail.com 935 Taughannock Blvd PAULIERAYBAN@GMAIL.COM 839 Taughannock Blvd cph5@cornell.edu 847 Taughannock Blvd benerikweiner@qmail.com 839 Taughannock Blvd. barb.bassette@gmaiI.com 1089 Taughannock Blvd patrick.burns@cornell.edu 1085 taugh. blvd. asicservices@gmail.com 841 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD henselec@union.edu 1085 taughannock blvd paulettechuck@yahoo.com 1083 Taughannock Blvd. antonvibaxter@gmail.com 997 Taughannock blvd mennens@gmail.com 855&857 Taughannock Blvd Sheilsnyder857@yahoo.com 967 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD kash.balance@gmaii.com 831 Taughannock Blvd atamovassaghi@gmail.com 891 Taughannock Blvd, Ithaca NY dpk3@cornell.edu 891 Taughannock Blvd, Ithaca NY 14850 wfkl@cornell.edu 997 Taughannock Blvd mennenster@gmail.com 1077 Taughannock Blvd. iohn neuman@mindspring.com 927 and 931 Taughannock Blvd Jmengel22@gmail.com 1001 Blvd Taughannock g fay@cornell.edu �i January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. February 8, 2021 To whom this may concern, I am writing in opposition to the proposed short term rental legislation being discussed at the upcoming STR committee meeting. It is important for any community to have variety of income levels. Yet more and more, lakefront property is controlled by the wealthiest individuals. Short term rentals allow those of middle and lower income brackets to live on Cayuga Lake. My fiance and I are examples of this as we are both music teachers. For over 7 years, the supplemental income generated through renting our primary residence has allowed us to afford the high cost of living, not just on Cayuga Lake, but also in Ithaca itself. In years past we have rented our small home for over 50 nights, often staying locally with family so that we can be available should a guest or neighbor require anything at all. With the uncertainty of the post pandemic economy, I expect we will depend on short term rentals of our home more than ever. A 29 day limit on un-hosted rentals would likely force us and many others in the low to middle income bracket to relocate. Additionally, the provision restricting the parking to driveway spaces on the rented parcel would ultimately terminate our ability to host short term rentals, again force us to move. While our home is set on the lake, we share parking with 2 other residences on a widened shoulder along East Shore Dr. Understanding the potential for parking congestion, we have long restricted guests to a one vehicle limit while also removing our own vehicles from the premises. This effectively reduces the total number of cars parked rather than add to it. If it's inevitable that the a parking provision be implemented, I request that exceptions be made for situations where parking is not affected by the short term rental. I recognize the need for regulation and fully support the implementation of safety standards, inspections and host registries. With rents and home prices rapidly rising, it's important to target individuals who abuse the system and purchase vacant properties for the primary purpose of short term renting them. However the blanket restrictions being proposed will negatively and disproportionately affect those of lower and middles incomes who depend most on short term rentals. Sincerely, William Tobin 928 E. Shore Dr Ithaca NY 14850 315-567-1671 January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. March 8, 2021 Bill Goodman, Deputy Town Supervisor Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 RE: Town of Ithaca Short Term Rental Committee - Tompkins County Tourism Economy Dear Bill, We are writing today to urge the Short-term Rental Committee to share the importance of lake rentals to the economic vitality of Tompkins County. Visit Ithaca, the destination management organization for Tompkins County, actively promotes all vacation rentals who are registered with Tompkins County. We value the lake rentals immensely, as this is the only option for visitors who wish to have a lake experience in Tompkins County. A visitor who wishes to stay on the lake wants to stay on the lake. The visitor wants the experience that comes with a lake rental, which is very different from a stay in town. In 2020, there were not enough lake homes to fill the demand. Visitors were looking for a safer way to escape with their family pods and lake rentals were the first places they booked. We feel strongly that short term rentals in the lakefront zone should be treated differently from short term rentals in the other zones. We firmly believe that hosted rentals should have no limit in any zone. We also believe that the demonstrated value to the tourism economy indicates that there should be no limits to any rentals in the lakefront zone, hosted or non -hosted. A 90-day limit or even 180-day limit still limits the economic return, not just to the host/property owner, but to the entire community through visitor spending at area restaurants, at grocery stores, at gas stations, wineries, breweries, etc. We also feel strongly that all health and safety insurances should be included in the permitting process by the Town of Ithaca. We urge that all short-term rentals should be registered with Tompkins County, and should collect and submit all applicable sales and occupancy taxes. Thank you for your consideration of the impact on the tourism economy. Sincerely, Jennifer Tavares, CEcD President & CEO Co - Peggy Coleman VP Tourism/CVB Director 904 East Shore Drive I Ithaca, NY 14850 607-273-7080 1 jtavares@tompkinschamber.org www.tompkinschamber.org www.visitithaca.com I1 re a, N ew Yo r Town Clerk Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Members of the Short -Term Rental Subcommittee: My name is John Butler. I own 1067 Taughannock Blvd with my wife, Nathalie Louge, and another couple, Joshua and Sabina deLara. We are two young families in the United States foreign service posted abroad. Nathalie and I are currently serving in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Joshua and Sabina are posted in Moscow. Joshua and Nathalie are lifelong Ithaca residents and have parents and siblings who live in the area. We're millennials from working class and immigrant backgrounds. We saved up and pooled our resources to purchase a house on the lake to share with friends and family when we are on leave from post to maintain our connection to Ithaca. While the amount of time that we are away from post and staying here in Ithaca varies from year to year — it's likely to be two or three months most years. (We expect to use the house more this year due to the COVID pandemic and the birth of our first child). When we are not using the home for personal use, we rent it out on Airbnb for one or two weeks at a time. The home is popular and guests enjoy their stays. Our guests include families visiting their children at one of the Universities, young professionals looking to telework from a new location, families on summer vacation, and tourists looking to go cycling, swimming, or wine -tasting. We also rent to our neighbors when they have extended family visiting. Our neighbors have rented from us for about a month this year. Short-term rentals are ideal for us for a number of reasons. First, our home, like many others on the West Shore is not easy to access in winter due to the steep slope from Taughannock Blvd down to the lake, which makes it difficult to access by car or on foot when there's snow or ice. Even if we could rent the home to a single resident, that would mean that we would lose use of the home for ourselves, families, and friends. And we love short-term renters. In our experience, they are almost considerate of our home and our neighbors. They have to be to maintain access to the Airbnb platform. When we bought the home it had been used mostly as short-term rental for the last decade, and we counted on continuing that. Short-term rentals on the lake aren't new. The classifieds in the Ithaca Journal have ads for them going back to the 1910s (as far back as we could search in the archives), and for years there was a dedicated section in the classifieds for lake rentals. There are for sale ads that talk about the income potential of lake -front homes as well - long before apps made it easier and safer for folks to rent their vacation homes. Short-term rentals on the lake have made it possible for generations of people from the town, the city, and farther afield to enjoy the lake with their families. That's my main point: the limits being proposed are a significant departure from how families have owned and managed homes on the lakefront as far back as there have been classified ads, and the proposed limits are likely to do what the committee is trying to avoid - dramatically change the character of the lakefront in unpredictable ways. In some cases, limiting access to only to the very wealthy who are content to leave their homes empty when they aren't using them, in other cases, families of more modest means having to postpone repairs and maintenance. Let me explain what I mean. Limiting the number of days for unhosted rentals in the Lake Front Zone to 90, 120, or 180 days will mean that our home sits empty for months each year. With many part -year residents on the lake, limits on short-term rental days is likely to mean that many other homes will sit empty for months each year. While very wealthy owners may be able to continue to maintain and invest in homes that are only used a few months a year, many other owners will make the choice to delay all but the most essential work on their homes. To emphasize that point - the income that we earn from short-term rental is essential for us to afford the mortgage payments and property taxes, and to invest in repairs and improvements for the home. We are currently planning to hire local contractors to paint the house, make repairs to the front deck, improve the staircase that leads down to the lake, encapsulate the crawl space (to improve energy efficiency and keep out critters), install smart thermostats for the electric baseboard heaters to make the house more energy efficient, address some drainage issues, connect to the municipal sewer, and repair a retaining wall. Without the income from short-term rentals, we will not be able to undertake most of these projects, which is a loss to local small businesses, to the appearance of the home, and to our enjoyment of the home. We also rely on a number of local small businesses to keep our house comfortable for our guests, including local cleaning, landscaping, and snow removal companies. With limits on rental days, we will have to reduce our reliance on these companies. The lakefront is one of the town's most valuable assets. While some guests who come to stay in our home might still come to Ithaca and stay in a hotel if they have a particular reason to visit, many others will choose to travel elsewhere on the lake or to a different destination entirely because it's the experience of renting a house on a lake that they are looking for. Even if some of our guests do shift to hotels, that just feels like a transfer of wealth from homeowners to big hotel companies, while depriving visitors of the type of accommodation they would have preferred. Let me say, we do support the requirement for operating permits as well as collection of sales, occupancy, and other taxes, and requirements that homes meet safety and reasonable occupancy standards, enforcement of parking and noise ordinances, etc. We also support reasonable enforcement provisions that won't require us to cancel on guests who've often been planning family vacations many months or a year in advance. But we strongly oppose limits on the number of days that owners may rent their homes unhosted on the lake front because it's: • a change from at least a century of practice • deprives access to the lake for people who want to enjoy it, but can't afford to buy a home on the lake • leads to more poorly maintained homes • leads to empty homes for much of the year on the lake We appreciate the opportunity to share our views and thank you for your effort to balance the concerns you've heard with the benefits that short-term rentals bring to home owners, small businesses, and the community. Sincerely, John G. Butler cc: Deputy Town Clerk, Becky Jordan Deputy Town Supervisor, Bill Goodman Board Member, Rich DePaolo Board Member, Tee -Ann Hunter Board Member, Pat Leary Town Board, Comments from the floor Aug 9th 2011 Kenny Simpson At the June 14, 2021 STR committee meeting, Rich DePaolo stated "Who on the Town Board operates STRs? The public has a right to know. This should be asked in public session." To put this in context : At the regional and national level, elected officials must reveal when they have vested interests in a decision making process and bill, and recuse themselves if needed. Professionals and employees in all walks of life are frequently compelled to disclose all sources of revenue outside of their employment and relationships with individuals and companies. These are reviewed for conflict of interest. Consultation with the Tompkins County Legislators confirmed this viewpoint and indicated that anyone or their immediate family who is involved in conducting STRs, or has a relationship with a business involved in STRs and could benefit now or in the future from the legislation that is being crafted to govern STRs, has a civic, moral, and ethical duty to disclose this conflict of interest and recuse themselves from being involved in constructing these laws or voting on them. Other local municipalities such as Cayuga Heights have also subscribed to this policy barring individuals with conflicts from the legislative process. On this basis, we are requesting that members of the Town Board and STR planning committee who are involved directly or through family in conducting STRs, or have a relationship with a business involved in STRs, and could benefit now or in the future from the legislation that is being crafted to govern STRs, ensure they disclose this conflict of interest and recuse themselves from participating further in crafting or approving this legislation. STR Committee, Comments from the floor Aug 9th 2011 Kenny Simpson For years STR meetings had been clearly limited to discussions about un-Hosted STRs, and we were told that Hosted rentals were to be considered later. Without discussion it was decided that the rules for un-hosted STR would also apply to hosted STR, with the exception of a limit on days: Unhosted-STR would be allowed to rent for an unlimited number of days. Bill's quote (from Tompkins Weekly, 12/3/19) "We assume if the Owner of the property is present on the property, they'll take care of problems as they arise" covers many issues that may arise within the rental property. However, hosted STR still cause many of the same negatives for the neighborhood as unhosted- STR. Linda Woodard's quote from Dec 14, 2020 STR meeting: "The comings and goings of people who neighbors don't know, even when the Host is home, negatively impacts the quality of life of those who live in the neighborhood". Not only quality of life but loss of community. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(7):e2118134. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.18134 "Themes emerged with respect to awareness and believed causation of despair -related illness, and participants identified 4 common associated factors:: including deteriorating sense of community. Intervention strategies focused around 2 themes: (1) building resilience to despair through better community and organizational coordination and peer support at the local evel and (2) " STRs in a residential neighborhood are businesses and should be regulated as such. This is confirmed by scholarly legal opinion. Making a Business of "Residential Use": The Short -Term -Rental Dilemma in Common -Interest Communities, 68 Emory L. J. 801 (2019). Available at https: //.vcholarlycommons. law. emory. edu/el %vol68/iss4/3 "When a property becomes a short -term -rental business, much like a hotel or bed and breakfast, it is no longer a residential use, but rather a commercial one. " "This interpretation prevents the most harmful short -term -rental activity from infiltrating residential communities." "Granting unrestricted license to engage in commercial activity that has the potential to be so disruptive allows enterprising owners to undermine the residential character of a neighborhood in a way that elevates the rights of the individual far above those of the community. " Days for hosted -STR should not be unlimited. STR is a business An individual short -term -rental transaction is indeed commercial activity for a number of reasons: (i) short- term rentals are a monetary transaction and fit within the definition of commercial activity;150 (ii) they often require a business permit or license;151 (iii) governments often classify them as commercial;152 (iv) they are often subject to the same transient occupancy taxes as hotels;153 and (v) the IRS requires real estate rental income to be separately reported either as "supplemental" or "business income."154 https: //.vcholarlycommons. law. emory. edu/el %vol68/iss4/3 Residence and residential. "In common parlance and according to some legal definitions, a person's "residence" refers to the location where a person actually lives for an extended period.12' A short-term rental, by contrast, is transient: It gives a paying occupant a temporary place to stay.124 Thus a person staying in a hotel or an Airbnb rental for a week, or even a month, could not reasonably declare that they were "residing" therein.125 Yet it would be inapposite to allow a hotel or bed and breakfast into a residential community, `8 and the same goes for a de facto hotel being operated via short-term rentals" "the intent behind a residential "a desire to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood and to make the neighborhood more attractive for residential purposes."146 Violation occurs when business activity is so disruptive as to "alter the character of a neighborhood. ,14' hops: //.vcholarlycommons. law. emory. edu/el lvo168/iss4/3 Accessory dwellings: The situation in the Town of Ithaca is compounded by Accessory dwelling units being considered hosted- STRs. Given the independence of an accessory dwelling unit it is highly likely the owner will be present as a true hosted STR where the host is in the same physical location.. These accessory dwellings are often in closer proximity to neighbors than bedrooms within a principle residence. Many accessory dwelling are solely intended for STR- vs housing aging or visiting relatives — they are unambiguous commercial ventures. The impact of unlimited days for accessory dwellings could be massive e.g. Forrest home 4/7 units on the Byway. The number of days for hosted should be limited until it's impact is determined: start low and increase if impact on the neighborhood allows. 1. One of the points raised in favor of allowing Lakefront properties to have unlimited stays is that there has been, for many decades, a tradition of doing so and that allowing it to continue to do so will maintain its character. I am not trying to dispute that argument. Rather, I suggest that an analogy might be in order. Certain residential neighborhoods (Renwick Heights, for example) have been residential for many decades. Therefore, parity of argument would suggest that these neighborhoods (like Lakefront properties) ought to be allowed to maintain their character. Rich's argument is that those of us who live in Renwick Heights knew that, when we moved to Ithaca, we were joining a transient community and transient communities have a lot of rentals. I would suggest that this argument is specious for the following reason. To the extent that Ithaca is a transient community, it is largely students who make it so. Stu- dents are concentrated in College Town. Those of us who wanted to avoid living in a transient community chose to avoid living in College Town even though, for many of us, it would have been closer to Cornell. Specifically, we chose to live in residential areas. Thus, the fact that some portion of Ithaca residents are transient does not mean that all of Ithaca is a transient community. 2. 1 would like to echo the point about enforcement of violations. Marty Moseley (Director of Code Enforcement) wrote in an email: "We do not have the resources to enforce consequences related to individuals lying to us. Unfortunately, our department deals with this on a, sometimes, daily basis." This suggests two things. One is that STR rentals are more problematic than is often portrayed, in that there are more than a few "bad actors." The other is that, given how lucrative STRs are, it is only reasonable that the people who benefit from STRs financially should foot a chunk of the bill for increasing enforcement staffing. I am tired of having my plantings crushed and not being able to get out of my driveway because of "guests" cars and, in some cases trailers, blocking the road. Furthermore, an enforcement office is crucial; in our case, contacting the "host" did no good; she was unavailable and, when we did reach her, she said to deal directly with her guests. In addition, I truly don't understand the argument that bad actors will be bad actors no matter what the laws are. This would suggest that laws against, e.g., murder, theft, etc., are fairly use- less, because bad actors will act badly no matter what. The argument makes no sense. 3. Furthermore, I want to second the point that "hosts" should announce, in a way that can be visible without going inside, that they are renting STRs. Rich's argument that this would be ad- versarial makes no sense for four reasons. One is that, at some point, the presence of strangers and additional cars will make it obvious that certain people are hosting STRs. More importantly, perhaps, keeping that information hidden inside the house will appear devious and underhanded, and surely that will also be adversarial. The third is that it puts the onus on neighbors to monitor who is hosting STRs, rather than on the hosts who are benefitting from the STRs. The fourth, and arguably most important, reason why STIR operating permits should be clearly visible and placed on the outside of a host's house is related to enforcement. At the 7/22 STIR meeting, Marty Moseley said, "the operating permit should be posted in a window facing the street so anyone can tell they have a valid operating permit. It should be conspicuous to a public way." He also noted that this would be an advantage for Code Enforcement officers because they could then easily drive by and tell that the unit has a valid permit. If the Town is actually serious about enforcement, then it should facilitate making enforcement easy. 4. Finally, I want to underline Rich's point from an earlier meeting that even local governments ought to opt for transparency and people who have a conflict of interest ought to recuse them- selves from making decisions related to such conflicts. A lack of transparency would not only give the appearance of an adversarial situation, it would also create an adversarial situation, with lawmakers voting in their own interests, rather than in the interests of their constituents. Thank you for reading. Barbara Koslowski 18 Renwick Heights Rd. Paulette Rosa From: Paulette Rosa Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 9:16 AM To: Paulette Rosa (Poosa@town.ithaca.ny.us) Subject: STR Chat copy 2020_11_09 From Warren Real Estate to Everyone: 04:14 PM Will this meeting be recorded and made available? Thank you. Is this available on the Town of Dryden website? From William Goodman to Everyone: 04:14 PM Yes, their public hearing is next Thurs Nov 19 From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 04:24 PM To Dryden Manager- how did you come to the number of allowed days, and any differentiation between hosted and unhosted? From Warren Real Estate to Everyone: 04:30 PM Can the system distinguish between bookings and date blocks? Thank you. From Ray Burger to Everyone: 04:31 PM Law can be viewed at: http://drVden.nV.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/201014-Draft-Local-Law-Regulating-Short- Term-Rentals LANGUAGE-FOR-PUBLIC-HEARING.pdf From Nick Helmholdt to Everyone: 04:32 PM Thanks Ray - I need to run. Please feel free to send questions to nhelmholdt@tompkins-co.org - have a good day :) From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 04:59 PM there is a huge difference between college town and a quiet residential neighborhood that you choose and pay more to live in (i.e property taxes). It is quality of life . From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 05:01 PM Folks bought in residential neighborhoods for the comfort of quiet streets, cut de sacs, safety, neighborliness. It's not squeamish to object to more traffic and strangers to account date someone's making money. From inezvermaas to Everyone: 05:02 PM When someone rents out for more than 30 days on a short term basis the long term rental laws do not apply. From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 05:02 PM anything over 30days ebven in single days should be regulated as a long term rental based on impact and current zoning as BUSINESS- Air BnB is a business- profit is the motive- NOT QUALITY OF LIFE for those who chose to live there AND PAY to live THERE From inezvermaas to Everyone: 05:07 PM I think it is a great idea that people wanting to rent out short term for more than 30 days should become professional registers businesses. What is your definition of a B&B? If they do not provide a fresh breakfast they are not a B&B! Level of inspection: Same as B&B's!!! Level the playing field..... From Mike MacAnanny to Everyone: 05:08 PM "accomodate" From Kenneth Simpson to Everyone: 05:11 PM What are the consequences for those who lie when they disclose information to the Town? It appears from recent conversations that there are insufficient resources to "FACT CHECK" those who rent LONG term- let a one short term..... Given the impact and profit of rentals on a neighborhood the Permit fee should be enough to pay for a compliance organization to remove any impact of costs being paid by residents. Given the profit margins for STA it wold seem a base permit level would be around $500-750/year- that would cover compliance and regulation without pitting neighbors vs neighbors- it should be independent Paulette Rosa From: Mia Slotnick <mjslotnick123@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 8:43 PM To: Rod Howe; Bill Goodman; Pam Bleiwas; TeeAnn Hunter; Eric Levine; Pat Leary; Paulette Rosa; Marty Moseley; Susan Ritter; Rich DePaolo; macananny; luisa macananny; Barbara Koslowski; Richard Newell Boyd; maralyn edid; Larry Blume; Inez Vermaas; kws5 @cornell.edu Subject: Fwd: Short Term Rentals Dear Rich, Thank you for your September 14 email response to a few points in our email of the same date. We look forward to hearing responses to the rest of our September 14 email as well as our September 8 email from the entire STR committee. Most of your September 14 comments were addressed by the response sent from our group on October 20, 2020. Below are a few additional comments (your words in blue): "To your main metric of the "success" of the Cayuga Heights ordinance... our proposals would also foreclose on the practice of people "buying up residences and using them exclusively as STRs." This is NOT our main metric of success of the Cayuga Heights ordinance, though it is definitely a part of it. "Success" is that both residents and hosts reach a working compromise on the number of days allowed, which in Cayuga Heights is 14 days for unhosted rentals OR 28 days for hosted rentals (a maximum of 28 days per year). As we have stated previously, it seems logical and sensible for the Town to implement this two year proven day limit for residential areas in the Town. The situation could then be reassessed after an initial period. As previously stated, there are multiple factors that justify a scaled approach to different areas in the Town of Ithaca based on the characteristics of the neighborhood. The STR committee has been discussing allowing more days for properties in less densely packed areas of the Town. Conversely, for areas with density and topographic constraints it seems that the 14/28 day limit would be a good starting point. Also important is as Linda Woodard said "When there have been complaints from residents, we have a law we can enforce beyond just a noise complaint and have used it a number of times." "Success" is laws that can be readily applied and enforced and that do not rely on neighbors' complaints to monitor compliance. Also essential are serious consequences that are consistently and uniformly imposed for those who do not follow the laws. "it would seem, simply based on the relatively low number of complaints, that the practice is not considered objectionable in the vast majority of occurrences" Equating the number of complaints with whether STRs are objectionable is not a valid comparison. Many people are extremely hesitant to complain due to the risk of angering neighbors. Others are not aware of what a STR is or that they are operating in their neighborhood. Many residents probably have no idea that they could complain about them, or who they would even complain to. A much more accurate method of assessing how people feel about the presence (or future presence) of STRs in their neighborhood would be through a survey. Also, as stated previously, the majority of Town residents are not aware that STR legislation is being discussed or the implications of allowing them in their neighborhoods, so are not as vocal as those who are actively benefiting from operating them. We also wanted to address the comment directed at our neighborhood from Carolyn Greenwald (her words below in red) at the end of the last STR meeting on September 14th: "Focusing on the number of days is not focusing on the problems in the neighborhood. Enforcing parking and noise would solve 90% of problems that they are having." The problems we have experienced are not limited to parking and noise. As we described in the past, increased traffic, damage to neighbors' property, and a complete change in the character of the neighborhood resulting in a decrease in our quality of life are some of the other negatives. For most of these issues, the only way to lessen their negative impact is by limiting the number of days allowed. Thank you for considering these thoughts, suggestions, and concerns. Mia On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 at 13:52, Rich DePaolo <RDePaolo @town.ithaca.ny.us> wrote: Mia- Whether you agree with it or not, residential rentals of any shape or form are considered a residential use and, as such, are in full compliance with our CURRENT zoning. That IS the opinion of the Town Attorney. We are now endeavoring to regulate a use that is currently ALLOWED. We have limited enforcement tools available in the current construct, including occupancy (related to our definition of "family") and prohibitions against certain "nuisances" like noise. Under our current zoning, the fact that people operate rentals as a "business" is immaterial. We are attempting to address that. I find it curious that you would be pushing back on a proposed 29-day limit on unhosted rentals, considering that there is no limit at all imposed by current zoning. To your main metric of the "success" of the Cayuga Heights ordinance... our proposals would also foreclose on the practice of people "buying up residences and using them exclusively as STRs." We have a principal -residence requirement in most zones, including yours, with an adjacent property exception under consideration. Reportedly, there are over 350 hosts in the Town of Ithaca. While there are certainly issues related to STRs, it would seem, simply based on the relatively low number of complaints, that the practice is not considered objectionable in the vast majority of occurrences. That said, a balancing test must be applied to try to address the needs and concerns of al stakeholders. Thank you for your continued engagement. Rich On Sep 14, 2020, at 7:47 AM, Mia Slotnick <mislotnick123@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Rich. Thank you for your email. Although our letter was a collective effort written by the 8 people who signed it and was based on notes that were taken during several Short Term Rental meetings, since you directed your clarifications to me, I will respond for the group. Point 4. Contrary to your opinion with respect to Cayuga Heights that "it has NOT worked", and in line with our understanding that it is working well, Linda Woodard, the Mayor of Cayuga Heights informed us that the laws they have in place have been successful. When asked last week how she felt the STR legislation in Cayuga Heights was working she responded: "1 think we have been successful. We have kept people from buying up residences and using them exclusively as strs. When there have been complaints from residents, we have a law we can enforce beyond just a noise complaint and have used it a number of times. Our residents view their houses as their homes, not businesses. The biggest issue is making sure all abide by our laws. Airbnb continues to make that a challenge. We don't have the administrative resources or sophisticated software to monitor compliance. That is why 1 am so encouraged by the county willing to pay for the basic service and hope the Town of Ithaca will pass their laws soon, so we can partner with them to know who is renting out their homes and for how long. With that information we can be proactive about compliance. Cayuga Heights is a small village; word gets around. My best suggestion for you is to keep things simple. Much easier for residents to understand and less problems with enforcement." Cayuga Heights has had a successfully working model for STR regulation in operation for over 2 years. it would seem logical and sensible for the Town to implement this proven plan for residential areas in the Town. The situation could then be reassessed after an initial period. Point 1. The following are your words from the August 10 STR meeting (please check your own meeting minutes for confirmation): "My recollection is that we paid some attention to information from Tom Knipe... Supplemental income versus a business ... Tom said 80-90 days." As stated in our previous letter, Tom clarified that this number only pertains to the specific situation of a 2 bedroom unit. It does not pertain to all size properties or properties in different neighborhoods. Therefore, it should not be used as a "point at which a potential STR business becomes more lucrative than a long-term rental of the same unit" since it only applies to the specific situation that Tom had estimated it for. Point 2. We all know the definition of a STR as being a rental of less than 30 days. However, the number of days allowed within this 29 days maximum is what is being questioned. Cayuga Heights settled on 14 days of unhosted rentals because that number included all the major Cornell, Ithaca College, and area events that necessitate increased housing. The number of days allowed should reflect the wishes of those who want to engage in STRs and those residents who do not. 14-15 days seems a fair starting point between the maximum (30) and minimum (0) days. Your opinion of considering one method of allowing more days for certain areas more "arbitrary" than another is simply that --your own opinion. As previously stated, there are multiple factors that justify a scaled approach to different areas in the Town of Ithaca based on the characteristics of the neighborhood. An overlay zone in both Renwick Heights and Forest Home would be easy to delineate and implement. Your labelling of residents who are concerned about STRs as "half a dozen folks from Renwick Heights, yourself included" is inaccurate. We presented the Board with a petition opposing STRs signed by 17 Renwick Heights residents in September of 2016. Our concerns are shared by at least 11 Forest Home residents (see their 11/27/18 letter to the STR committee) as well as members of the Ithaca Bed and Breakfast Association. We have attended nearly every relevant meeting and been seriously engaged with the STR committee for 4 years, bringing forth many examples of our grievances as well as many suggestions for the legislation. It is also well worth noting that the majority of Town residents are not aware that STR legislation is being discussed or the implications of allowing them, so are not as vocal as those who are actively benefiting from operating them. 3 Point 5. The reason we brought this to your attention has nothing to do with STRs or LTRs. It was meant to illustrate how difficult it will be to use neighbor complaints as part of the regulation process, especially in regards to proof of occupancy. As stated previously, complaint driven enforcement will not work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel to adequately monitor and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. Additionally, the Town is aware that the Owner of #20 Renwick Heights Road lied to the Town about her intentions for the property. The Owner reported that she was no longer renting it out and that she was living there herself. She requested to have her long term rental permit rescinded. She then moved back out of the state and continued to rent the house out to both long and short term tenants, which is what she has been doing for over two years without the home ever undergoing an inspection. Surely there should be consequences for this Owner's blatant dishonesty and deception. Refer to Town Codes 207-2 and 207-4, Operating Permit Required and Penalties, respectively. Point 6. Figures for the income potential of STR properties have been mentioned multiple times in the past by STR committee members when discussing proposed costs of permitting fees. Point 7. From our experience in our own neighborhood, being a hosted rental versus an unhosted rental has no effect on increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' properties, degradation of the character of a neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. A final comment is in order. It is clear from the existing Town Code, Article IX, 270-65, 'Purpose', that the MDR is intended 'almost exclusively' for residential purposes and minimal intrusion by commercial activities. Further there exists in the Code clear wording to discourage traditional B&Bs in MDRs. Yes we are aware of the very thin distinction between B&B's and STR's- but they are both unsupervised mini -hotels for transients in neighborhoods not zoned for them. Yet you are in effect through this proposed legislation adding a new and never intended purpose in our zone- all to suit a subset of your constituents engaged in a commercial activity. This is rezoning by any other name and we raise the question as to whether this is the correct process. We would be interested to see a written opinion from the Town's Attorney. Sincerely, Mia Slotnick, Kenneth Simpson, Mike MacAnanny, Luisa MacAnanny, Barbara Koslowski, Richard Boyd, Maralyn Enid, and Larry Blume rom: Rich DePaolo <RDePaolo(o-).town.ithaca.ny.us> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 10:11 Subject: Re: Short Term Rentals To: Mia Slotnick <mislotnick123aamail.com> Cc: Rod Howe <RHowe a0own.ithaca.ny.us>, Bill Goodman <bgoodman(o-).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Pam Bleiwas <PBleiwas(a�_town.ithaca.ny.us>, TeeAnn Hunter<THunter(a)__town.ithaca.ny.us>, Eric Levine <eLevi ne(o).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Pat Leary <Pleary(o).town.ithaca.ny.us>, Paulette Rosa <PRosa(a)_town.ithaca.ny.us>, Marty Moseley <MMoseley(a)-town.ithaca.ny.us>, Susan Ritter <sritter(o).town.ithaca.ny.us> Mia- Thank you for sharing your opinions. Many of your conclusions are erroneous. Please allow me to clarify, where I can. Regards, Rich On Sep 8, 2020, at 8:07 AM, Mia Slotnick <mjslotnick123(agmail.com> wrote: Dear Supervisor Howe, Deputy Supervisor Goodman, Town Board members, and others involved in Short Term Rental legislation, Below are several points about topics discussed at the August 10th Short Term Rental committee meeting. 1. 80-90 days was mentioned as a number that was taken from Tom Knipe's calculations, and was described at the August 10th meeting as being the difference between "supplemental income versus a business". In recent communication with Tom Knipe, he clarified that this number was an estimate of the average daily rate on Airbnb for a 2 BR unit compared to what a landlord could raise in 12 months of rent for an average 2 BR unit. He went on to state that the data also shows that some units (being rented as short term rentals) are pulling in many times what they could achieve on a long term lease. This 80-90 day estimated figure only applies to this specific situation in relation to long term rentals, and should not be used as a blanket "acceptable day limit". It may not apply to larger or smaller properties, or properties in all areas of Ithaca. It should not be used as an acceptable figure for all concerns since it was generated to address only the specific concern about housing being taken out of the long term rental stock. Allowing 80-90 nights of STRs in our neighborhood would dramatically and negatively change the character of our neighborhood. The committee is and has been aware that the 80-90 days cited by Tom Knipe was what he determined to be the the point at which a potential STR business becomes more lucrative than a long-term rental of the same unit. The committee never used that figure to delineate between what would be considered "supplemental income versus a business." We are more concerned that STR allowances don't incentivize removing long-term housing stock from the market. 2. A limit of 29 days for unhosted rentals has been proposed, though there has never been an explanation for how this figure was chosen. Bill Goodman mentioned that Brent Katzman, a local realtor and Airbnb host had discussed with him that he lives on a large lot, and would like to be allowed to rent for more than 29 days. Bill said that after this discussion, he felt in certain circumstances that the day limit could be greater --maybe 90-120 days since being on a larger lot will not impact the neighbors so much. Why is it that despite numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern about allowing up to 29 days, there has been no discussion or flexibility in decreasing that number, yet the number of days allowed may potentially be increased after a request from one individual? We have been told that special exceptions cannot be made for specific neighborhoods, yet exceptions to increase the number of days are being considered on an individual property basis. This seems both arbitrary and capricious. The 29-day figure has been explained many times. It is derived from the 2010 amendment to New York Multiple Dwellings Law, section (8)(a) which essentially defines anything less than a rental of "thirty consecutive days" as short-term. To answer your second question, the balancing test to determine the number of allowable rental days is largely being determined by our desire to not erode long-term housing stock, and incidents of nuisance, which are largely complaint driven. In the example you cite, it is assumed that rentals on a large parcel with faraway neighbors would not pose as great a nuisance risk. The geometric parameters needed to apply for more days would apply zone -wide, and, as such, would certainly not be considered "arbitrary," whereas the "neighborhood - specific" solution you allude to would require that different areas under the same Town zoning classification be treated differently, a much more arbitrary solution, requiring overlay zones and multiple justifying criteria. And, to be perfectly frank, "numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern," has basically been half a dozen folks from Renwick Heights, yourself included. This is a balancing test between people who perceive a threat from a particular use, and residents who don't and/or who derive a benefit from it. 3. The proposal of having a "threshold" of less than 14 days where no permit or regulations are imposed is unnecessary and will likely cause major problems including parking issues, large parties, noise, and increased traffic, which all lead to degradation of the character of neighborhoods where those 7 weekends of unregulated rentals occur. All units would require permits. The issue was whether or not to require inspections of properties only being rented less than a certain number of days. 4. The Cayuga Heights STR regulations have been in place and working for almost 3 years. As Linda Woodard described it, keeping it simple and consistent is the key. It makes sense to start with a limited number of days as they have done (14 unhosted or 28 hosted), and require that all properties obtain an operating permit and follow the same rules. This has so far proved a successful compromise for both hosts and residents. Linda Woodard has also described that Cayuga Heights has not been successful at regulating its rentals, regardless of the number of allowable days in their law. In short, it has NOT worked, which is why she is seeking to collaborate with other municipalities and the County on enforcement. 5. It has been proposed that enforcement will be partly "complaint driven". A recent example of how this will be problematic is the home at 20 Renwick Heights Road. The owner told the Town her home was owner occupied and no longer being rented. Several neighbors noticed that the owner had moved out of the property on July 6, and that a family of 4 moved into the property on July 7. For over 6 weeks the owner had not been seen, and the family of 4 had been seen living in the house, yet the Town Code Enforcement officer did not feel that there was enough "proof' to conclude that the owner was no longer living there and that a family of 4 was living there. We appreciate that he did come back for a second site visit, and then concluded that the neighbors' observations were correct. Drawing from this experience, it seems unlikely that a neighbor's complaint about a host not living in the property for a 1 or 2 day hosted STIR stay could be adequately proven. Complaint driven enforcement will not work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel to adequately monitor and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. The example you cite above, where a family of 4 moves in for 6 weeks, is not considered a short-term rental and would be totally legal under any proposed regulatory scenario. 6. The cost of the operating permit should cover all costs, including the increased number of personnel which adequate monitoring and enforcement will necessitate. As Linda Woodard mentioned, people can make $3000-$4000 in one weekend, so the cost of the permit should also take the income potential into consideration. Towns can not take into consideration the profit -making potential of a use when determining fees to cover the administration of laws associated with it. Any enforcement and personnel costs associated with STIR would be recouped by permit fees. The level of enforcement will be driven by compliance issues, not by the economics of the rental economy. 7. Hosted rentals were mentioned as not being a problem because "if the host is there on the property, they can tell their guests to be quiet if they are having a party". However, as brought up previously, noise from a party is only one neighborhood concern from renters. Other concerns are increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' property, and degradation in the character of a residential neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. These negative impacts do not disappear if the rental is hosted, so the number of days allowed for both unhosted and hosted rentals should be limited. Another issue with hosted rentals is that we have observed in our neighborhood that the host has learned to leave their car in plain site on the premises to give the impression that the home is currently hosted, whereas the owner has actually left in another vehicle and the unit is really unhosted. This practice may be curtailed by advising hosts that random and regular visits to the home by Town code enforcement personnel are part of the STIR regulating process. Again, this would necessitate further funds, which could be generated from permitting fees. The perceived advantages of having a host on the property have never been limited to "parties" or "noise." The committee has considered the benefit to be more comprehensive, and has assumed that oversight by the owner would also be more effective at curtailing the other nuisances you cite. Mia Slotnick <m1slotnick123@gmail.com to Rod, Bilk, Pair), TcwzeAnn, Eiriic, Riicll°r, Pat, P ualette, Maim , Susan, bcc: erne 0.: Dear Supervisor Howe, Deputy Supervisor Goodman, Town Board members, and others involved in Short legislation, Below are several points about topics discussed at the August 10th Short Term Rental committee meeting 1. 80-90 days was mentioned as a number that was taken from Tom Knipe's calculations, and was describ meeting as being the difference between "supplemental income versus a business". In recent communice he clarified that this number was an estimate of the average daily rate on Airbnb for a 2 BR unit compared could raise in 12 months of rent for an average 2 BR unit. He went on to state that the data also shows tha rented as short term rentals) are pulling in many times what they could achieve on a long term lease. This 80-90 day estimated figure only applies to this specific situation in relation to long term rentals, and sr blanket "acceptable day limit". It may not apply to larger or smaller properties, or properties in all areas of I used as an acceptable figure for all concerns since it was generated to address only the specific concern a taken out of the long term rental stock. Allowing 80-90 nights of STRs in our neighborhood would dramatic change the character of our neighborhood. 2. A limit of 29 days for unhosted rentals has been proposed, though there has never been an explanation chosen. Bill Goodman mentioned that Brent Katzman, a local realtor and Airbnb host had discussed with h large lot, and would like to be allowed to rent for more than 29 days. Bill said that after this discussion, he circumstances that the day limit could be greater --maybe 90-120 days since being on a larger lot will not in much. Why is it that despite numerous residents repeatedly expressing concern about allowing up to 29 days, the discussion or flexibility in decreasing that number, yet the number of days allowed may potentially be incr( from one individual? We have been told that special exceptions cannot be made for specific neighborhood; increase the number of days are being considered on an individual property basis. This seems both arbitr< 3. The proposal of having a "threshold" of less than 14 days where no permit or regulations are imposed i will likely cause major problems including parking issues, large parties, noise, and increased traffic, which of the character of neighborhoods where those 7 weekends of unregulated rentals occur. 4. The Cayuga Heights STR regulations have been in place and working for almost 3 years. As Linda Wo( keeping it simple and consistent is the key. It makes sense to start with a limited number of days as they h; unhosted or 28 hosted), and require that all properties obtain an operating permit and follow the same rule proved a successful compromise for both hosts and residents. 5. It has been proposed that enforcement will be partly "complaint driven". A recent example of how this w the home at 20 Renwick Heights Road. The owner told the Town her home was owner occupied and no loi Several neighbors noticed that the owner had moved out of the property on July 6, and that a family of 4 m on July 7. For over 6 weeks the owner had not been seen, and the family of 4 had been seen living in the f Code Enforcement officer did not feel that there was enough "proof' to conclude that the owner was no Ion that a family of 4 was living there. We appreciate that he did come back for a second site visit, and then cc neighbors' observations were correct. Drawing from this experience, it seems unlikely that a neighbor's cor not living in the property for a 1 or 2 day hosted STR stay could be adequately proven. Complaint driven ei work and will create major conflict between neighbors. Increasing the number of enforcement personnel tc and enforce regulations is more likely to be successful. 6. The cost of the operating permit should cover all costs, including the increased number of personnel whl monitoring and enforcement will necessitate. As Linda Woodard mentioned, people can make $3000-$400 the cost of the permit should also take the income potential into consideration. 7. Hosted rentals were mentioned as not being a problem because "if the host is there on the property, the to be quiet if they are having a party". However, as brought up previously, noise from a party is only one nE from renters. Other concerns are increased traffic, parking issues, damage to neighbors' property, and de( character of a residential neighborhood and relationships between neighbors. These negative impacts do r rental is hosted, so the number of days allowed for both unhosted and hosted rentals should be limited. Another issue with hosted rentals is that we have observed in our neighborhood that the host has learned 1 plain site on the premises to give the impression that the home is currently hosted, whereas the owner has vehicle and the unit is really unhosted. This practice may be curtailed by advising hosts that random and rE home by Town code enforcement personnel are part of the STR regulating process. Again, this would nec( which could be generated from permitting fees. Thank you for considering these points. Sincerely, The Renwick Neighbors Group Mia Slotnick, Kenneth Simpson, Mike Macananny, Luisa Macananny, Maralyn Edid, Larry Blume, Barbara Richard Boyd Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:34 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Becky Jordan; Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Ithaca Lakefront - Short Term Rentals FYI - another one coming also Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Ata Movassaghi <atamovassaghi@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2020 2:21 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us>; Becky Jordan <BJordan@town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Ithaca Lakefront - Short Term Rentals Hi Bill and Becky, I hope this message finds you and your family well. Ahead of the Town STR meeting, I wanted to reach out in light of the recent STR discussions around lakefront properties and share my perspective as a recent owner and Ithaca native. As someone who grew up in Ithaca and frequently visited throughout my life, it has been the most rewarding personal accomplishment this year for me to now own a lakefront property. It's something I'd talk about with my parents early on but due to the high cost and scarce availability, it was difficult to imagine. Many of my friends owned lake houses that we would enjoy to the fullest, especially in the summer months while the students were away. Now as an owner myself, I look forward to the opportunity to both share in these experiences with family and friends in addition to local and outside visitors who seek out short term rentals on Cayuga Lake. Tourism is one of the biggest drivers of economic stimulus in Ithaca. In a pandemic year unlike any other that we've experienced, it's difficult to imagine our economy without it. Even in a normal year, people seek out lakefront rentals with specific intentions year round and even my large community of Ithacans now living elsewhere find it's the desired method to come back to. If this was restricted, the Town will actually find that both tourism altogether and Ithacans won't visit to the same degree. Not to mention all the property managers, cleaning services, contractors, etc. that rely on this business to uphold their own employment and livelihood. Secondly, the lakefront is not Cayuga Heights or traditional neighborhoods that consist of family -owned homes while kids are in school going through K-12. The reality is that they're predominantly second homes by nature of location, school proximity, and higher cost of the properties. Thus, the same policy/standards for a residential area like Cayuga Heights shouldn't apply. Lakefront property is far more rare and giving the opportunity to people who could otherwise never experience it is the highest demonstration of "neighborhood." STR guests both staycationing within Ithaca and visiting from the outside are investing locally by not staying in major hotel conglomerates and taking local recommendations to experience everything small businesses have to offer - that's what our town is built on. If lake houses were included in these STR regulations, it would severely impact our economy with these people choosing to allocate their time elsewhere. Look forward to joining today's call and sincerely appreciate your time and continued investment in the considerations of all members of our community. Best, Ata Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 12:38 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Proposed STR regulations - Lakefront Hi folks, another STR comment re Lakefront Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Jyl Dowd <jyldowd@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 5:02 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Proposed STR regulations Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board, I am writing in favor of the exclusion of the lakefront district from the proposed STR regulations. I have lived in Ithaca since 1965. Raised by a single mom, 3 of us lived in a one bedroom apartment in the "flats". We had no money and no car, therefore nowhere we could go to swim. On hot days the best we could do was to sit in the creek to cool off. I don't believe I had ever swam in Cayuga Lake until I moved back to Ithaca after college. By renting out 2 bedrooms in my home (initially to locals, and now through Airbnb) I have been able to pay my mortgage, put my daughter through college, and treat myself to a 2 week rental on Cayuga Lake every summer when my daughter comes home to visit. It's the perfect "stay -cation" because she can see her old friends, people can bring their boats by, it's relaxing & beautiful, and we don't have to travel. And I know other locals do the same. Given the difficulty of accessing the lake otherwise (packing up supplies, coordinating meet -up times, driving time, parking fees, crowds, etc) I strongly believe that the availability of lake front rentals should not be restricted. EVERYONE deserves some time on the lake! Jyl Dowd Paulette Rosa From: Bill Goodman Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 12:38 PM To: Pat Leary; TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo Cc: Paulette Rosa; Susan Ritter; Marty Moseley Subject: FW: Proposed STR regulations - Lakefront Hi folks, another STR comment re Lakefront Bill Goodman Deputy Supervisor, Town of Ithaca 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 607-592-6745, cell From: Jyl Dowd <jyldowd@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2020 5:02 PM To: Bill Goodman <BGoodman @town.ithaca.ny.us> Subject: Proposed STR regulations Dear Short Term Rental Committee and Town of Ithaca Board, I am writing in favor of the exclusion of the lakefront district from the proposed STR regulations. I have lived in Ithaca since 1965. Raised by a single mom, 3 of us lived in a one bedroom apartment in the "flats". We had no money and no car, therefore nowhere we could go to swim. On hot days the best we could do was to sit in the creek to cool off. I don't believe I had ever swam in Cayuga Lake until I moved back to Ithaca after college. By renting out 2 bedrooms in my home (initially to locals, and now through Airbnb) I have been able to pay my mortgage, put my daughter through college, and treat myself to a 2 week rental on Cayuga Lake every summer when my daughter comes home to visit. It's the perfect "stay -cation" because she can see her old friends, people can bring their boats by, it's relaxing & beautiful, and we don't have to travel. And I know other locals do the same. Given the difficulty of accessing the lake otherwise (packing up supplies, coordinating meet -up times, driving time, parking fees, crowds, etc) I strongly believe that the availability of lake front rentals should not be restricted. EVERYONE deserves some time on the lake! Jyl Dowd 1067'raughannock Blvd Ithaca, " k Town Clerk Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 January 4, 2021 Subject: Proposed Short -Term Rental Restrictions Dear Members of the Short -Term Rental Committee: We are writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed short-term rental restrictions for homes in the lakefront zone. We are two young families in the foreign service who recently bought 1067 Taughannock Blvd from a long-time Ithaca resident who, for the last ten years, has used it as a second home and short-term rental property. We both grew up in Ithaca and throughout our adult lives have returned several times a year with our spouses to stay with family and friends and to enjoy the natural beauty of the Finger Lakes. As we move around the world, Ithaca is still very much the place we call home. We stretched ourselves financially to purchase this dream home to have a place to bring our family and friends together and to deepen our lifelong connection to Ithaca. We plan to use the home as our primary residence for ourselves at least two months each year, and as a vacation home for our family and friends for another month. However, that leaves nine months where the home would be unoccupied, but for short- or medium -term rentals. While we acknowledge that we are very fortunate to have been able to pool our resources to afford a beautiful home on the lake, few owners, including us, can afford to leave our homes empty for nine months of the year. Short-term rentals are essential for us to be able to afford to maintain and improve the home. For example, our home needs to be repainted and a shared driveway repaved. These are costs we hoped would be offset through income from short-term rentals, but these investments would likely need to be delayed or the workmanship compromised if our home will sit empty for most of the year. Without short-term rentals, seasonal occupants incentives will be to keep expenses low, rather than to invest in maintaining and improving our homes. Keeping the homes occupied and owners investing in them is the best way to maintain the character of the lakefront neighborhood, which has always included short-term rental use. Long-term leases are not an alternative for us because it would prevent us from furnishing and enjoying our home ourselves. Moreover, the steep driveway and three -season construction limit the use of the house in winter for long-term renters. Finally, the purchase price we paid for our home and the assessed values of homes along the lake reflect their values as short-term rentals, not just their value as seasonal or vacation homes. Restrictions on short-term rentals will have a negative impact on the values of these homes and on real-estate and school tax revenue. For these reasons, we oppose restrictions on short-term rentals for the lakefront zone. Sincerely, Joshua Delara Nat alie Louge cc: Deputy Town Clerk, Becky Jordan Deputy Town Supervisor, Bill Goodman Board Member, Rich DePaolo Board Member, Tee -Ann Hunter Board Member, Pat Leary Elaina McCartney 845 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca NY 14850 1/5/2021 To: STR Committee I have owned and lived in my lakefront duplex home at 845 Taughannock Blvd. for 25 years. I bought the place as a severely run-down fixer -upper in 1996, as a full- time working single parent, and have invested significantly in improving the property over the years, which in turn has raised its value on the tax rolls. Now I am retired. I live upstairs and have always rented the downstairs apartment. Since 2015, the downstairs has been operated as an Airbnb short-term rental, is certified, and meets all inspection requirements. A 3% room tax is paid directly to Tompkins County through Airbnb. Like other properties along Cayuga Lake, we provide beautiful lakefront accommodations and water access to tourists, families visiting local residents, parents visiting or dropping off Cornell and Ithaca College attendees, tourists sampling the Wine Trail, Art Trail, Farmers Market, exploring parks, and sampling well-known restaurants, local Ithacans who want the lakeside experience for a staycation, or writers wanting peace and quiet. Sometimes we're the home base for reunion or conference attendees, families dropping off their college -bound children, kayakers, paddleboarders, boaters (mooring provided), swimming enthusiasts, birdwatchers, triathletes, bikers, hikers on the Black Diamond and Waterfront Trails, and so on. For me, as a retiree on a fixed income, short term rentals provide a stable way for me to pay the high lakefront property and school taxes, continue to maintain driveway, stairs, dock, and general upkeep, and continue to live here. This is a quiet neighborhood. All guests are vetted through Airbnb, and the number of guests is strictly limited. Parties and events are not permitted, and dock use after 10pm is prohibited. We have had zero complaints from neighbors regarding our Airbnb short-term rentals, including zero complaints about parking or noise. Recycling and trash are managed as any responsible homeowner does, and the premises are kept clean and well -maintained inside and out. There are professional cleaners who work regularly in the neighborhood between guests, who depend on this income. I live on the property so I can respond immediately should guests or neighbors have any concerns. I don't believe the general concerns that some Ithaca residents have raised about short-term rentals apply to the lakeside neighborhood. Examples of concerns raised elsewhere are parking, noise, and the presence of strangers. We have a small parking lot along the road where guests are allocated a parking spot. In addition, there is plenty of parking all along the west side of Route 89. The Town of Ithaca already has a Noise Ordinance should there ever be an issue with any short-term rentals along the lake. An anonymous call may be made to Ithaca Police Dispatch and an officer will deal with it promptly. We have made this information available to our neighbors but no one has had to use it. As far as concern about "strangers", that's what tourists are! We welcome them to quietly enjoy the lake and other features Ithaca has to offer, and of course only the number of guests appropriate to the space. I believe short term rentals along the shore of Cayuga Lake contribute to the local economy in a very positive way, and allow visitors to experience what makes Ithaca so special. I don't think an arbitrary restriction of number of nights deals directly with the concerns that are raised. It is impractical to switch back and forth between short- and long -terms rentals. If one does short term rentals, for example only in the summer, then the rest of the year is limited to the student market. But more than that, such restrictions to not directly deal with the concerns raised (parking, noise, strangers), but make a cause -and -effect assumption that may not be valid. Thank you for considering these thoughts. January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. Lakefront Rental Restriction Opposition Signature Page 1/8/2021 Timestamp Name Lake Property Address email address 2021/01/04 2:09:18 PM EST Jes Seaver 829 Taughannock BLvd Ithaca NY 0esseaver@gmail.com 2021/01/04 2:14:55 PM EST Kenneth Broadwell 2021/01/04 6:52:57 PM EST Carolyn Greenwald 2021/01/04 6:53:21 PM EST Adam Schaye 2021/01/05 10:51:30 AM EST Elaina McCartney 2021/01/05 10:56:28 AM EST Randall Corey 2021/01/05 11:09:56 AM EST Nathalie Louge 2021/01/05 11:32:23 AM EST Joshua deLara 2021/01/05 12:11:38 PM EST PAUL FAIRBANKS 2021/01/05 2:22:46 PM EST Chuck Henderson 2021/01/05 34 3 4 PM EST T 5 Ben Weiner 2021/01/05 8:16:51 PM EST Barb Bassette 2021/01/06 7:09:26 AM EST Patrick Burns 2021/01/06 8:25:26 AM EST Chuck Baxter 2021/01/06 10:26:59 AM EST Christine Henseler 2021/01/07 9:17:53 AM EST Paulette Baxter 2021/01/07 4:47:28 PM EST Tony Baxter 2021/01/07 6:16:43 PM EST sally mennen 2021/01/07 7:04:34 PM EST Sheila and Al Snyder 2021/01/07 7:12:11 PM EST Kash Iraggi-Wiggins 2021/01/07 7:54:38 PM EST Ata Movassaghi 2021/01/08 8:38:55 AM EST Daniel Kraak 2021/01/08 9:33:47 AM EST Wendy Kenigsberg 2021/01/08 10:42:08 AM EST Richard mennen 2021/01/08 11:19:48 AM EST John &Carolyn Neuman 2021/01/08 11:29:52 AM EST Jennifer Engel 2021 /01 /08 12.21.36 PM EST ohn el JAb 829 Taughannock Blvd 0esseaver@gmail.com 889 Taughannock Blvd cbgreenwald@gmail.com 907 Taughannock Blvd ars@millermayer.com 845 Taughannock Blvd. emm5@cornell.edu 979 Taughannock Blvd. Ithaca nccorey@gmail.com 1067 Taughannock Blvd natlouge@gmail.com 1067 Taughannock Blvd irdelara@gmail.com 935 Taughannock Blvd PAULIERAYBAN@GMAIL.COM 839 Taughannock Blvd cph5@cornell.edu 847 Taughannock Blvd benerikweiner@qmail.com 839 Taughannock Blvd. barb.bassette@gmaiI.com 1089 Taughannock Blvd patrick.burns@cornell.edu 1085 taugh. blvd. asicservices@gmail.com 841 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD henselec@union.edu 1085 taughannock blvd paulettechuck@yahoo.com 1083 Taughannock Blvd. antonvibaxter@gmail.com 997 Taughannock blvd mennens@gmail.com 855&857 Taughannock Blvd Sheilsnyder857@yahoo.com 967 TAUGHANNOCK BLVD kash.balance@gmaii.com 831 Taughannock Blvd atamovassaghi@gmail.com 891 Taughannock Blvd, Ithaca NY dpk3@cornell.edu 891 Taughannock Blvd, Ithaca NY 14850 wfkl@cornell.edu 997 Taughannock Blvd mennenster@gmail.com 1077 Taughannock Blvd. iohn neuman@mindspring.com 927 and 931 Taughannock Blvd Jmengel22@gmail.com 1001 Blvd Taughannock g fay@cornell.edu �i January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. February 8, 2021 To whom this may concern, I am writing in opposition to the proposed short term rental legislation being discussed at the upcoming STR committee meeting. It is important for any community to have variety of income levels. Yet more and more, lakefront property is controlled by the wealthiest individuals. Short term rentals allow those of middle and lower income brackets to live on Cayuga Lake. My fiance and I are examples of this as we are both music teachers. For over 7 years, the supplemental income generated through renting our primary residence has allowed us to afford the high cost of living, not just on Cayuga Lake, but also in Ithaca itself. In years past we have rented our small home for over 50 nights, often staying locally with family so that we can be available should a guest or neighbor require anything at all. With the uncertainty of the post pandemic economy, I expect we will depend on short term rentals of our home more than ever. A 29 day limit on un-hosted rentals would likely force us and many others in the low to middle income bracket to relocate. Additionally, the provision restricting the parking to driveway spaces on the rented parcel would ultimately terminate our ability to host short term rentals, again force us to move. While our home is set on the lake, we share parking with 2 other residences on a widened shoulder along East Shore Dr. Understanding the potential for parking congestion, we have long restricted guests to a one vehicle limit while also removing our own vehicles from the premises. This effectively reduces the total number of cars parked rather than add to it. If it's inevitable that the a parking provision be implemented, I request that exceptions be made for situations where parking is not affected by the short term rental. I recognize the need for regulation and fully support the implementation of safety standards, inspections and host registries. With rents and home prices rapidly rising, it's important to target individuals who abuse the system and purchase vacant properties for the primary purpose of short term renting them. However the blanket restrictions being proposed will negatively and disproportionately affect those of lower and middles incomes who depend most on short term rentals. Sincerely, William Tobin 928 E. Shore Dr Ithaca NY 14850 315-567-1671 January 3, 2021 To: Town of Ithaca Clerk - Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee As lake property owners we oppose rental restrictions on properties in the lake front zone. We are a mixed group of owners who live on the lake full time, part time and some who rent long term, short term and or part of the year, hosted and unhosted. • Rental limits jeopardize the ability for local owners to continue to own their properties. Many local owners rely on rental income to support the property or foresee needing to do so in the future. • Lake property is much more expensive to maintain than an average home, the cost of upkeep of docks, driveways, stairways and other infrastructure is extreme. • Limiting rental ability will decrease local ownership leading to more out of town ownership. Leaving the homes to be sold only to the very wealthy and to owners that "summer' here and then leave the lake access vacant and inaccessible for the rest of the year. This is not the type of community we want to promote at the lake. • Rentals are traditional on the lake, many owners have purchased properties with this as part of the ownership strategy or have inherited family cottages and can only keep them based on the rental income. • Rentals occur throughout the year, not just in the summer months — limiting rentals decreases the flexibility of owners, who all have unique circumstances, to make ownership viable for them. • Many local people rent on the lake short term — limiting rental nights will again limit local access. Local families often rent the same cottage traditionally every year, or come for a staycation, or house relatives for a special occasion — this option creates a local "time share" for people that do not want the burden of full time ownership. • There are 67 properties in the Town of Ithaca on the lake — of these more than 60% are rentals, primarily short term with owners who also use the property. Preserving the neighborhood means continuing to allow rentals, short and long term to occur. As a mixed group of owners, we all have unique needs and circumstances regarding our properties. Limiting rentals not only harms our ability to use, enjoy and maintain our properties but decreases access to the lake for all. As there has been little if any complaints on the lake we request that no changes be made to lake rental access. We enjoy our lake community and want to make sure we maintain it for ourselves and others for years to come. I1 re a, N ew Yo r Town Clerk Paulette Rosa Attn: Short -Term Rental Committee 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Members of the Short -Term Rental Subcommittee: My name is John Butler. I own 1067 Taughannock Blvd with my wife, Nathalie Louge, and another couple, Joshua and Sabina deLara. We are two young families in the United States foreign service posted abroad. Nathalie and I are currently serving in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Joshua and Sabina are posted in Moscow. Joshua and Nathalie are lifelong Ithaca residents and have parents and siblings who live in the area. We're millennials from working class and immigrant backgrounds. We saved up and pooled our resources to purchase a house on the lake to share with friends and family when we are on leave from post to maintain our connection to Ithaca. While the amount of time that we are away from post and staying here in Ithaca varies from year to year — it's likely to be two or three months most years. (We expect to use the house more this year due to the COVID pandemic and the birth of our first child). When we are not using the home for personal use, we rent it out on Airbnb for one or two weeks at a time. The home is popular and guests enjoy their stays. Our guests include families visiting their children at one of the Universities, young professionals looking to telework from a new location, families on summer vacation, and tourists looking to go cycling, swimming, or wine -tasting. We also rent to our neighbors when they have extended family visiting. Our neighbors have rented from us for about a month this year. Short-term rentals are ideal for us for a number of reasons. First, our home, like many others on the West Shore is not easy to access in winter due to the steep slope from Taughannock Blvd down to the lake, which makes it difficult to access by car or on foot when there's snow or ice. Even if we could rent the home to a single resident, that would mean that we would lose use of the home for ourselves, families, and friends. And we love short-term renters. In our experience, they are almost considerate of our home and our neighbors. They have to be to maintain access to the Airbnb platform. When we bought the home it had been used mostly as short-term rental for the last decade, and we counted on continuing that. Short-term rentals on the lake aren't new. The classifieds in the Ithaca Journal have ads for them going back to the 1910s (as far back as we could search in the archives), and for years there was a dedicated section in the classifieds for lake rentals. There are for sale ads that talk about the income potential of lake -front homes as well - long before apps made it easier and safer for folks to rent their vacation homes. Short-term rentals on the lake have made it possible for generations of people from the town, the city, and farther afield to enjoy the lake with their families. That's my main point: the limits being proposed are a significant departure from how families have owned and managed homes on the lakefront as far back as there have been classified ads, and the proposed limits are likely to do what the committee is trying to avoid - dramatically change the character of the lakefront in unpredictable ways. In some cases, limiting access to only to the very wealthy who are content to leave their homes empty when they aren't using them, in other cases, families of more modest means having to postpone repairs and maintenance. Let me explain what I mean. Limiting the number of days for unhosted rentals in the Lake Front Zone to 90, 120, or 180 days will mean that our home sits empty for months each year. With many part -year residents on the lake, limits on short-term rental days is likely to mean that many other homes will sit empty for months each year. While very wealthy owners may be able to continue to maintain and invest in homes that are only used a few months a year, many other owners will make the choice to delay all but the most essential work on their homes. To emphasize that point - the income that we earn from short-term rental is essential for us to afford the mortgage payments and property taxes, and to invest in repairs and improvements for the home. We are currently planning to hire local contractors to paint the house, make repairs to the front deck, improve the staircase that leads down to the lake, encapsulate the crawl space (to improve energy efficiency and keep out critters), install smart thermostats for the electric baseboard heaters to make the house more energy efficient, address some drainage issues, connect to the municipal sewer, and repair a retaining wall. Without the income from short-term rentals, we will not be able to undertake most of these projects, which is a loss to local small businesses, to the appearance of the home, and to our enjoyment of the home. We also rely on a number of local small businesses to keep our house comfortable for our guests, including local cleaning, landscaping, and snow removal companies. With limits on rental days, we will have to reduce our reliance on these companies. The lakefront is one of the town's most valuable assets. While some guests who come to stay in our home might still come to Ithaca and stay in a hotel if they have a particular reason to visit, many others will choose to travel elsewhere on the lake or to a different destination entirely because it's the experience of renting a house on a lake that they are looking for. Even if some of our guests do shift to hotels, that just feels like a transfer of wealth from homeowners to big hotel companies, while depriving visitors of the type of accommodation they would have preferred. Let me say, we do support the requirement for operating permits as well as collection of sales, occupancy, and other taxes, and requirements that homes meet safety and reasonable occupancy standards, enforcement of parking and noise ordinances, etc. We also support reasonable enforcement provisions that won't require us to cancel on guests who've often been planning family vacations many months or a year in advance. But we strongly oppose limits on the number of days that owners may rent their homes unhosted on the lake front because it's: • a change from at least a century of practice • deprives access to the lake for people who want to enjoy it, but can't afford to buy a home on the lake • leads to more poorly maintained homes • leads to empty homes for much of the year on the lake We appreciate the opportunity to share our views and thank you for your effort to balance the concerns you've heard with the benefits that short-term rentals bring to home owners, small businesses, and the community. Sincerely, John G. Butler cc: Deputy Town Clerk, Becky Jordan Deputy Town Supervisor, Bill Goodman Board Member, Rich DePaolo Board Member, Tee -Ann Hunter Board Member, Pat Leary