HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 2021-12-13 MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
December 13, 2021 5:30 p.m.
This meeting will be held virtually and broadcast via.BOOM (ID 98910958241)and our Ya�aa'�I�UbC SJir k
for your convenience. If you are planning to address the Board,please join via ZOOM and consider
shifting to YouTubeLive for the remainder of the meeting.
AGENDA
1) Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance
2) Persons to be Heard and Board Comments
3) Public Hearings regarding local laws adding/amending Town of Ithaca Code for:
1. A Local Law Amending Chapter 250, Vehicles and Traffic, to Prohibit Parking along a
portion of Sand Bank Rd near the Intersections of King Rd W and Townline Rd
a. Consider adoption
2. A Local Law Amending Chapter 23, Conservation Board, to Permit Payment of a Stipend
to Regular Members
a. Consider adoption
3. Short Term Rental Related:
A. A Local Law to add requirements for Operating Permits for Short-Term Rental Uses to
the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, Titled"Building Construction and Fire
Prevention"
B. Local Law amending Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 207, "Rental Property," Revising and
adding references to rentals of less than 30 Days
C. A Local Law amending the definition of Bed-and-Breakfast in Chapter 270, Zoning,
of the Town of Ithaca Code
D. A Local Law adding Short-Term Rental Provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of the
Town of Ithaca Code
a. Consider SEQR b. Consider adoption
4) Consider adoption of the 2021 Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation Plan
5) Consider approval of the revised Town of Ithaca Water Storage Standard
a. Consider SEQR b. Consider adoption
6) Review Board Protocol and Procedures Manual & Mission and Vision Statements
7) Consider Consent Agenda
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes
b. Approval Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract
d. Appointment of Planning Board Member
8) Report of Town Committees
9) Review of Correspondence
10)Adjournment
TOWN F ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT S°T N AND PUBLICATION
I, Paulette Rosa, being duly sworn, say that I am the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York; that the following notice has been dolly pasted on the sign board of the Town
Clerk of the Town of Ithaca and the notice has been duly published in the official newspaper,
IthacaJournal:
TOWN OF ITHACA
Notice of Public Hearings
NOTICEF PUBLIC HEARING The Ithaca Town Board will
holed public hearings,at Its
re
gul,arlly scheduled Deceevm"V
ber 13, 2021°meeting held'
Consider Local LawsAmendments: virtually clue to Gov. Hotch-
UPS Eaeecutive.Order regard-I
Amend Ch 2 , Prohibit Parking I g public meetings under
Open Meetings Law.
Sand d The meeting begin, at,
t 5m�Ct
Amend CI 23, Permit Stipendto 8241 and wrillIbe broadcast
on the Towns "YouTubeLive
Conservation a I r Members meetings site with links to
both can the agenda and
g Add requirements or Operating the web calendar; all per
sons wishing to,address the
Permits for STR board on any of the chafe
local lawns shall be givers the
g Amend Ch s References to Comments
to speak.
Coarmments may also be sent
STR
ss via LISPS or email to towvnel
irk town.ithaca.ny.us.
Amend 270, Definition of Bed-And- Local laws amending the
"Town of Ithaca Code to be
Breakfast considered-
Add STR Provisions 1. Amendin Chapter 250,
Vehicles an Traffic, to pro-
hibit parkin 'along a por-
tion of San Bank Rd near
Location Sign Board I1S for the Intersections of King Rd
and Townline Rd
Posting: 2. Amending Ch ter 3,
Conservation Board, to Baer.,
Town n Clerk's {office mit payment of a stipend
to regular members
North T i+ a Strut -4. Short Term Rental Relat.
Ithaca, NY 14850 ad:
A LOCAL LAW TO ADD
REQUIREMENTS FOR OPER-
Td�Ba✓Ill 4J site at 4amiN .tQ �A'llaltl1a C a.11 .tIS TING PERMITS FOR
SHORT-TERM RENTAL USES
Date of Poi' r g December 2 2 TO THE TOWN OF ITH CA
CODE, CHAPTER 125, TI.,.
TLED "BUILDING CON,
Date r er° y 2 STPU ION AND FIRE PRE:,
VENTION"
0, LOCAL LAW AMENDING
TOWN OF ITHACA CODE
CHAPTER 207
,
Paulette Rosa "°RENTAL PROPERTY," RE IING AND ADDING REFER,
TEltvJll Clerk ENCES
TO RENTALS CIF LESS THAN
30 DAYS
C. A LOCAL LAW AMEND,,
STATE OF NEW I N THE DEFINITION OF
BED AND-BREAKFAST IN
COUNTV OF TOMPKINS) SS: CHAPTER
ZONING, OF
TOW
I " IT C,A) THE ET F ITH�C�
D. A LOCAL ADDING
SHORT-TERM RENTAL PRO-
Sworn to and subscribed before me this VISIONS
TO CHAPTER 270, ZONING,
3 d a of December 1. OF THE TOWN OF ITHACAe
y CODE
Draftsof the proposed lo-
cal laws are pposted to the
Towns wel site under
own
ANotairy nPubli Board Public Notic News and es and
JORDAN are available upon ret�uest
from the Town Clerk. IS yeau
NOTARY U LIC-STATS have any questions or need
assistance accessing the
Nod 1 J 6186361 meetin please call the
Town erk at EC17- °7 .191
Qualified In Tompkins CoUnly ext 110.
My Commisslon Expires April 28, Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
1 ASf2 1
TOWN OF ITHACA
Notice of Public Hearings
The Ithaca Town Board will hold public hearings at its regularly scheduled December 13, 2021
meeting held virtually due to Gov. Hotchul's Executive Order regarding public meetings under
Open Meetings Law.
The meeting begins at 5:30 p.m., Zoom ID 9891 095 8241 and will be broadcast on the Town's
YouTubeLive meetings site with links to both on the agenda and the web calendar; all persons
wishing to address the board on any of the draft local laws shall be given the opportunity to
speak. Comments may also be sent via USPS or email to t0 �cle�l��reuwwn,fthaa�;a ny Eqs.
Local laws amending the Town of Ithaca Code to be considered:
1. Amending Chapter 250, Vehicles and Traffic, to prohibit parking along a portion of Sand
Bank Rd near the intersections of King Rd W and Townline Rd
2. Amending Chapter 23, Conservation Board, to permit payment of a stipend to regular
members
3. Short Term Rental Related:
A. A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF BED-AND-
BREAKFAST IN CHAPTER 270, ZONING, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
CODE
B. LOCAL LAW AMENDING TOWN OF ITHACA CODE CHAPTER 207,
"RENTAL PROPERTY,"REVISING AND ADDING REFERENCES
TO RENTALS OF LESS THAN 30 DAYS
C. A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF BED-AND-
BREAKFAST IN CHAPTER 270, ZONING, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA
CODE
D. A LOCAL LAW ADDING SHORT-TERM RENTAL PROVISIONS
TO CHAPTER 270, ZONING, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA CODE
Drafts of the proposed local laws are posted to the Town's website under Quick News and Town
Board Public Notices and are available upon request from the Town Clerk. If you have any
questions or need assistance accessing the meeting, please call the Town Clerk at 607-273-1721
ext. 110.
Paulette Rosa
Town Clerk
MEETING OF THE ITHACA TOWN BOARD
December 13, 20215:30 p.m.
This meeting was held virtually and broadcast via ZOOM and YouTube Link due to Gov
Hotchul's extension of an Executive Order related to COVID and health and safety concerns.
Minutes
1) Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance—Mr. Howe called the meeting to order.
2) Persons to be Heard and Board Comments—There was no one wishing to address the
board other than the scheduled public hearings.
3) Public Hearings regarding local laws adding/amending Town of Ithaca Code for:
1. Amending Chapter 250,Vehicles and Traffic, to Prohibit Parking along a portion of
Sand Bank Rd near the Intersections of King Rd W & Townline Rd
Mr. Howe Opened the public hearing at 5:35 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the
Board on this topic and the hearing was closed.
Mr. DePaolo stated that he voiced concerns about this at the last meeting and asked if Mr. Slater
had had any further conversations with the owner of the Cider House, saying that if we are
convinced there is ample off-street parking for events, he is fine with this.
Mr. Slater responded that he had not heard anything further, but he had dropped a map of the
proposed signage off at the Cider House and did not hear anything from the owner. He added
that the Town of Danby did put in a culvert pipe, which appears to be a secondary driveway for
what he assumes is additional parking.
TB Resolution 2021 - 152: Adoption of A Local Law Amending Chapter 250 of the Town
.QIthaca Code. Titled "Vehicles and Traffic." to Prohibit Parking on the north side of
Sand Bank Road from approximately 700' feet southeast from the intersection of Sand
Bank Road and Townline Road for a distance of approximately 400' feet (full length of
the curve on Sandbank Rd) and approximately 700' feet west from the intersection of
Sand Bank Road and King Road W. on the north side of the road for a distance of
approximately 1000' feet
Whereas, at its meeting on October 19, 2021, the Public Works Committee discussed and
recommended placement of no parking signs along certain sections of Sand Bank Rd for
safety concerns expressed by staff and recommended the drafting of a local law to
authorize the installation of signage, and
TB 2021-12-13 Page 1 of35
Whereas, at its meeting on November 8, the Town Board considered the recommendation and
set a public hearing at its meeting to be held on December 11, 2021 beginning at 5:30 p.m. to
hear comments on the proposed local law, and
Whereas, the Town Board held the duly publicized public hearing on the proposed local
law to authorize the installation of no parking signs along certain areas of Sand Bank Rd,
and
Whereas, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act ("SEQRA")
and its implementing regulations at 6 NYCRR Part 617, it has been determined by the
Town Board that adoption of the proposed local law is a Type lI action because it
constitutes "routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including
new programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment," and thus
this action is not subject to review under SEQRA, now therefore be it
Resolved, that the Ithaca Town Board hereby adopts Local Law of 2021 entitled, "Amending
Chapter 250 of the Town of Ithaca Code, Titled "Vehicles and Traffic," to Prohibit Parking on
the north side of Sand Bank Road from approximately 700' feet southeast from the intersection
of Sand Bank Road and Townline Road for a distance of approximately 400' feet(full length of
the curve on Sandbank Rd) and approximately 700' feet west from the intersection of Sand Bank
Road and King Road W, on the north side of the road for a distance of approximately 1000'
feet."
Moved: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes - Howe, Hunter, Goodman, Bleiwas, Leary, Levine, DePaolo
2. Amending Chapter 23, Conservation Board, to Permit Payment of a Stipend to
Regular Members
Mr. Howe opened the public hearing at 5:39 p.m. There was no one wishing to address the
Board and the hearing was closed.
Mr. Howe noted that this had been discussed at two prior meetings and this local law allows the
stipend, which will be set by resolution at the January meeting.
TB Resolution 2021 - 153: Adoption of a Local Law Amending Chapter 23 "Conservation
Board" of the Town of Ithaca to permit payment of a stipend to Regular Members
Whereas the Town Board received a request from the Conservation Board in August 2021
requesting consideration of implementing a small stipend for members, citing the belief that a
stipend will help reduce barriers to participation including expenses associated with childcare,
transportation, modifying or missing work shifts as they actively recruit members, and
Whereas the Town Board discussed the request at its August 28th meeting, at which they
requested additional information and research, and
TB 2021-12-13 Page 2 of 35
Whereas the Town Board again discussed the request at its November 8th meeting with
additional information on how the process would need to be implemented, and set a public
hearing on a local law to effect the change, now therefore be it
Resolved that the Town Board adopts Local Law 15 of 2021 amending Town of Ithaca Code,
Chapter 23, "Conservation Board,"to permit payment of a stipend to Regular Members, and be it
Further resolved, that the Town Board shall discuss and set the amount and process of
administering the stipend at its January 2022 meeting.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes—Goodman, Levine, Leary, Hunter, Howe, DePaolo and Bleiwas
3. Short Term Rental Related local laws
Mr. Howe opened the public hearing at 5:40 p.m. and noted that each speaker would be given 3
minutes to speak and asked that those people who are not speaking, and those that finish
speaking, please go to the YouTubeLive broadcast for the remainder of the meeting to aid in
handling the participant windows on ZOOM.
Mr. Howe read the titles of the laws grouped under Short Term Rentals and stated that the Town
has been working on this for 3-4 years and he appreciated the work of the Committee and staff
that have taken on this task.
A Local Law to add requirements.for Operating Permits for Short-Term Rental Uses to the
Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, Titled "Building Construction and Fire Prevention";
Local Law amending Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 207, "Rental Property,"Revising and
adding references to rentals of less than 30 Days;A Local Law amending the definition of
Bed-and-Breakfast in Chapter 270, Zoning, of'the Town of'Ithaca Code;A Local Law adding
Short-Term Rental Provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of'the Town of Ithaca Code
All comments received after the publication of the public hearing notice and within two days
after this meeting are attached as Attachment I and were forwarded to the full Town Board as
they were received.
Craig Dunham read his submitted comments, focused on how the laws would affect his
property as a retiree and the primary objectives of noise and nuisances from STR's and
preventing the loss of housing stock from people purchasing houses strictly for STR's, can be
addressed in other ways that would not hurt retirees.
Mr. Dunham stated that two Board members told him that the sheriff's Department is not
enforcing the Noise Ordinance and therefore the laws were necessary, but he spoke to the
Sheriff, and they stated they do enforce the noise law and are willing to continue.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 3 of 35
Mr. Dunham was also concerned about the inspections being required and the reporting of each
rental and he thought there was no effective way to do this, and it would cost the town and
therefore the taxpayers more in staffing.
Mr. Dunham asked that the Board not pass this legislation hastily just because two board
members are retiring and to instead, step back and simplify the legislation to address the housing
supply by specifically targeting eliminating houses being purchased solely for STR.
Nick Frazier spoke, saying that he is a long-term town resident on Trumansburg Rd who has
rented STR for some periods of the year for the past two years and it has proven indispensable
during this COVID pandemic as he is in an industry that was severely impacted and while he
respects and appreciates the opportunities from STRs, not everyone can afford a house on the
lake and this legislation is written in a classist and exclusionary way that he found very
concerning and now he learned that this has been in the works for years without input from him
or his neighbors and that is disturbing.
Mr. Frazier stated that contrary to #10 in the legislation where it says this is to protect property
values, his will negatively affect home values and he could not be as active as he is in the music
and arts of the area without the subsidy of STRs.
Mr. Frazier closed saying that this is blatantly racist legislation at its core, against people who are
the short-term renters, and the hosts.
Anthony Hay spoke, saying that the legislation states intended outcomes, but he has yet to hear
any actual data to support the need or the projected outcomes and asked that any data be made
publicly available. He said that some board members seemed entrenched in their beliefs and he
would like to see the data to support their unsubstantiated assertions about what hosts are doing
and not doing.
Mr. Hay went on to say that the hosted STR's are limited to two—bedrooms and asked why,
when the unhosted rental can be the entire house, regardless of the number of bedrooms. He
thought that was arbitrary and limits the STR that has a host onsite that could immediately
address any issues. Same with the limit of one permit, that penalizes the hosted over the
unhosted.
He said he finished his basement with the specific goal of being able to rent it out and although
he didn't have specific intentions to do that via STRs, he did not believe that option should be
taken away and his opportunity to recoup his investment. He said as a host, he has never had a
complaint and there is plenty of off-street parking and while it is unfortunate that some town
residents have had negative experiences, there does not seem to be any effort to systematically
quantify those complaints compared to complaints regarding long-term renters.
Mr. Hay said that although the Committee has been working on this a very long time, the time
that residents have actually had the draft and even been aware of it has been very short and to
vote on this tonight, rather than take the time and come to a consensus amongst the seven full
board members seems rushed.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 4 of 35
Maralyn Edid addressed the Board, stating that she first wanted to address two of the previous
comments, saying that people have been involved in talking to the committee and emailing back
and forth, for a number of years now, and there has been plenty of opportunity for town residents
to voice their concerns and their preferences to members of the committee, and she found it
confusing as to why people are showing up now, at the end of the process and complaining about
what the proposed regulation would and secondly, she pointed out that the way the law is
currently written, it does not completely reflect what the STR committee recommended and her
remarks had to do with reverting to the original recommendations the committee madee, namely,
limiting the number of days for lakefront also.
Ms. Enid stated that the Committee worked hard on this issue for several years and listened to
residents and neighbors and sought legal counsel, and researched the regulations of many similar
communities as well as discussing a myriad of options for managing and enforcing regulations.
They weighed the costs and the benefits and came down squarely on the side of pragmatic and
realistic recommendations that recognize the variety of residential patterns and geographic
differences and traditions while balancing overarching issues such as housing availability,
neighbor concerns and property owner interests.
Ms. Enid stated that the proposed regulations as originally submitted by the Committee are not
perfect, with no one stakeholder in this completely satisfied, but the town need to support
meaningful restrictions on short term Rentals in the town and limiting STRs in the town as
originally recommended.
Ms. Enid added that the subsequent changes to the recommendations were made without public
discussion and clearly do not reflect the hard-won consensus reached by the committee, which
was disappointing, to say the least.
She said she did not want to rehash the arguments about the need for limitations, except to say
that the livability of the town its neighborhoods matters and regulations on STRs will help ensure
the town remain a place where people can raise their families in peace and quiet.
Sergeant Slocum spoke, saying he was here to represent the Sheriff's office. He stated that he
was here to speak to comments regarding not enforcing the Town's noise law, not to speak to the
legislation itself.
Sgt. Slocum stated that it was brought to our attention that two board members indicated that the
Sheriffs office is not enforcing the town of Ithaca noise ordinance and not only is that a false
statement,but that is completely inaccurate. He said that as recently as yesterday they issued a
noise ordinance ticket, so the law is being enforced when a call is made. He added that what
happens after the citation is up to the court system and the elected judge for the town.
Sgt. Slocum stated that he was happy to answer any questions and he can also be reached at the
Sheriff's office non-emergency number, Monday through Friday as well as the dispatch number.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 5 of 35
Mr. Howe responded that he appreciated him coming and he did have a conversation with Sheriff
Osborne and heard the same.
Rod Howe: Jeff.
Jeff Brumeister spoke, saying that he and his family own and live in a home on Simsbury Dr.,
and they will be impacted by this legislation as his wife travels periodically for research and they
like to do that as a family and rely on the short-term rental of their home to do that. He agreed
with the points already made against the legislation, saying that the legislation seems overly
draconian and overly broad and the stated goal of addressing noise permits and housing stock
and there is already a noise law and limiting the days to 29 will force an undue hardship on
homeowners who he thought on the whole, rent their homes responsibly and not as a revolving
door,but as a way to earn extra income to keep their homes and to fit their lifestyle when they
are away for periods of time.
Mr. Brumeister stated that this is addressing what appears to be a few issues with a blunt
instrument that would hurt many homeowners in the community.
Elaina McCartney spoke, saying that she is a retiree who has lived on the lake for over 25 years
in a home that started out as a fixer-upper, and is now a nice home that she is able to keep
because of STR's.
Ms. McCartney stated that she is grateful that as a lake resident, there is some flexibility in the
regulations recognizing that one size does not fit all situation, because we do have a unique
neighborhood and it serves a purpose in the tourism industry for the area that hotels cannot fill.
She said that her guests just this morning said that this STR is her happy place, and she is just so
delighted when she comes to visit and stays with me.
Ms. McCartney said she applied for and got a rental permit that was supposed to be good for 5
years, and now it seems she will have to get another one, and it will be yearly. She thought that
was a lot of onerous staff time and scheduling and availability time on the part of the
homeowner. She went on to say that she was grateful she was in the zone that would not be
limited to 29 days, because that would put her out of her home,but that said, having to report
every rental is not practical, and she thought the County was looking into some sort of oversight
or watchdog agency and the Town could probably join in on that. She thought it was redundant
when the Air B&B and other platforms already do that.
Ms. McCartney ended by saying she appreciated al the work that was put into this.
Brent Katzmann spoke, saying that after more than four years of diligent committee work, the
decision made tonight will not be an inconsequential one. He stated that he is speaking as a host
and after being an active member of the Conservation Board for the Town of Ithaca he became a
licensed real estate agent with an interest in understanding the local market, and a member of the
Board of Realtors and lead several community conversations with local officials regarding small
scale development with developers and lenders trying to address the barriers confronting
increasing the missing middle priced housing stock and in 2019 he served on the Advisory
TB 2021-12-13 Page 6 of 35
Board for the Green Building Code Supplement legislation which recently passed in both the
City and the Town. He said that his history shows he is interested in helping to responsibly
increase the availability of housing that people can afford, and it is from that place that he
supports many of the objectives of this legislation such as the permitting requirement to ensure
safety and timely responses to disturbances and he thought the limits to STRs being the principal
residence or adjacent property is sound and will be effective in eliminating investor purchases for
exclusive STR use, but that is where the legislation should stop.
Mr. Katzman said all of the other provisions penalize responsible property owners and create an
unnecessary and unreasonable burden on the Town's code enforcement staff with no measurable
contribution to the goals of the legislation and he therefore respectfully asks that the Town Board
return the legislation to the committee to address the following concerns:
1. Limiting property owners to either a hosted or unhosted permit; a property owner should
not have to decide between these two types of permits. He said he currently provides
hosted rentals in his accessory dwelling unit, but if he were to spend several weeks away
for work or vacation, while still having a local property manager available, he would not
be permitted to use his part of his house as a short-term rental. He didn't think there was
any reasonable justification for this as written. As written, he would have the right to do
both,but does not have the right to both types of permits. Eliminating that distinction
between hosted and unhosted would relieve the town of that administrative task.
2. The 29-day limit. The average host rents their space for 91 nights per year, generating
important income to cover property maintenance costs and property taxes, this provision
takes away two thirds the revenue at a time when property value expenses are increasing
at historical rates and even at 91 days, the economics are not there for investor purchasing
for strictly STR.
Mr. Katzmann stated that as a realtor, every day he sees how difficult it is for buyers, even with
above average means, to successfully purchase a home in town, and this is very concerning,but
the answer doesn't lie in making it even more difficult to limit income for many buyers.
Kasi spoke, saying she submitted comments earlier today but she agrees with Craig and Brent in
that what they said is very relatable to her situation in that she is a single woman who was
looking for a house downtown last year and she put 15 offers in on houses and they were all sold
for higher, in many cases, higher than listing price and she had to work very hard to make sure
she could afford the house she got, and even with a duplex, it is hard to make it.
Kasi said that in a community that relies on higher education and is notorious for underpaying
their staff, and frankly, it is absolutely necessary to be able to look at the hustle and that is what
this is. She said she recently helped a faculty member swimming in debt work through his debt
and finances; not from an outlandish lifestyle but because he makes $50k a year, and you cannot
own a house on $50k a year and make ends meet.
Kasi said she chose to own a home so she could make it better and improve it and do STR so she
could do all that and being a responsible homeowner means you talk to your neighbors and
TB 2021-12-13 Page 7 of 35
create a community where you can solve issues and that is what happens in her neighborhood. A
lot of people rent and do STRs and we all watch out for each other. That is how you create a
community, not by adding regulations, but by supporting each other and addressing issues as a
neighborhood.
Alexa Schmitz spoke, saying that she owns the Hayt's Chapel and School House, which is a
historic property from the early 1800's and part of the underground railroad. She said she is
currently doing STR's at the Chapel and Schoolhouse and lives downtown, which has allowed
her to keep the property and maintain it.
She said she is concerned about a few things and has followed the Committee meetings over the
years and spoken at them and appreciates the work that has gone into this and she absolutely
supports the purpose of the legislation and the implementation of permitting,but she is
concerned about the requirement that the rental be your primary residence. She said there is no
allowance for her situation, and she understands the need to stop investors from buying up
multiple houses, but there needs to be a mechanism for unique circumstances such as hers.
Renting the units out is allowing her to save to do some major renovations in addition to
providing enough income to keep the property itself. She suggested limiting the number of
permits per owner to two or three rather than by principal residency or limit the number of
permits as a whole as first come first serve.
Ms. Schmitz was also concerned that there was not a clear transition period stated in the
legislation and people need to know how much time they have to figure out what to do with no
longer having the ability to do something that was providing an income and was an important
consideration in whether buying or keeping a home. She didn't understand if she would have to
cancel reservations already in place and there needs to be a significant grace period to allow
people to figure things out and she would suggest a year.
She was also concerned about the variance considerations which seemed pretty restrictive.
Mia Slotnick spoke, saying that STR hosts and realtors repeatedly state that there's no need to
cap the number of days allowed,because as long as the hosts are responsible, whether hosted or
unhosted, there is no problem, but that ignores the numerous negative impacts to the
neighborhood, which include the obvious like noise and nuisance, but one of the biggest
negatives experienced in her neighborhood is a complete loss of community.
Ms. Slotnick said most people buy a house in a residential neighborhood because they want to
live next to a neighbor, not a business,but a neighbor. A house that is inhabited by different
people every weekend is not a neighbor, regardless of whether the host and the renters are
responsible or not. Short term renters are not neighbors, and they have no vested interest in the
neighborhood and their presence creates a loss of community and the only way to somewhat
mitigate this loss of community is to limit the number of Rentals.
Ms. Slotnick went on to say that Cayuga Heights passed legislation with a maximum of 28 rental
days per year. They put the legislation in place to maintain the residential character of the
community and in line with their Comprehensive Plan and the Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive
TB 2021-12-13 Page 8 of 35
Plan also states its purpose is to maintain and enhance the established character and senso of
community of existing neighborhoods. She said the Village has not received any requests by
hosts to rent for more than the 28 days in the over 3.5 years since its passage.
Ms. Slotnick stated that is seems sensible to start with a similar plan for the rest of the town since
it has been successful in the Village and proven to be a balance between those in favor of STR s
and those that host them. She said that allowing an unlimited number of hosted days is not fair
to those opposed to STRs and that allowance is justified by the completely incorrect assumption
that any problems will be dealt with by the host when they occur,but that presence and possible
mitigation of nuisance does not address the loss of community caused by the presence of STRs.
Ms. Slotnick then turned to the number of permits being allowed per residence, saying that after
lengthy deliberations at the committee level, all three committee members agreed on one permit
per residence for the primary residence of the accessory dwelling unit or adjacent property but
last month, the other four Town Board members quietly doubled this with no explanation or
public discussion, and this will obviously have a huge negative consequence for neighborhoods.
Ms. Slotnick said that Airbnb term this the "sharing economy"but that is wrong and misleading;
Airbnb is completely motivated by financial gain, as are the realtors and the hosts. It is greed
and a business transaction, there is no "sharing."
Ms. Slotnick closed by saying those of us who wish to limit STRs are trying to preserve some
sense of community and quality of life in our neighborhoods, which is the whole reason we
chose to purchase a home and a residential zone, and she urged the Board to reconsider limiting
the number of days as original recommended.
Carolyn Greenwald spoke, saying that she would be speaking tonight about the procedural
process and ask the Board not to take a vote on this legislation tonight because there are quite a
few new terms in this final draft that just happened, and residents need time to review those
changes and formulate comments although she knows the committee has been working very hard
on this for four years and although she appreciates that hard work and knows that January is just
around the corner and Ms. Leary and Ms. Hunter are retiring, it is best to wait and let the public
review this and have another opportunity to speak because we just got this final language four
days ago. She felt the changes were very big and the public needs time to review and think about
them and formulate comments.
Ms. Greenwald suggested keeping the public hearing open until at least the next meeting to hear
additional comments, adding that it would seem rushed if after hearing these impassioned
statements from residents, the Board were to vote on the legislation tonight.
Ms. Greenwald closed by saying that one new piece that especially needs to be tweaked is the
limit of two bedrooms with two people in each for hosted rentals. She thought this was
absolutely not necessary, especially as an unhosted rental had no such limitation as well as any
other rental rules in the Town Code, where occupancy is based on the size of the bedroom. This
new piece would mean a family of five cannot rent from a hosted STR regardless of the size of
the rental.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 9 of 35
Kenneth Simpson spoke, saying that he lives on Remington Rd and he has followed the
committee level where there was consensus at that level that the lakefront would have 5 month or
150 days and one permit per residence and suddenly tonight, they get 245 days. He didn't
understand why four town board members would overrule the recommendation of those on the
Committee that has immersed itself in this issue for over four years.
Mr. Simpson stated that it makes sense to limit the number of days for both hosted and unhosted
STRs and limit the number of permits until the impact is determined and it is better to start low
and increase if the impact warrants it rather than starting at a super high level that in his opinion
was doubled in an arbitrary and capricious way and he didn't understand why the Board would
not simply start with the Committee's recommendations.
He said he looked at the revenue generated by STRs and the website shows a current average
nightly rate of$211 up to $2,600 a night for lakefront properties and there are 222 "super hosts"
in the Ithaca area and one of the houses in his community is one of them. The cost for four nights
for a house on Renwick Heights Rd is $6,000. There is a doctor who gave up practicing
medicine because they could make more money renting their lake house; 115 nights at $500 is
$75,000 and 245 nights is $122,000.
Mr. Simpson said the house in Renwick Heights as hosted with a 29-night limit at $1,500 a night
is $43,000 but they are not really a hosted rental but pretend they are and so they would have
unlimited and could earn over$500,000 a year. This snapshot of earnings potential is a long way
from the stereotypical disadvantaged homeowner trying to make ends meet and paying these
arbitrary nasty property and school taxes. He said this begs the question of if a STR is not a
business, why not limit the number of days to offset the local property taxes which is the
argument of hosts, telling us they are doing this just to offset their taxes. He suggested an option
to offset costs to the Town oversight by making the permit fee proportional to the revenue
generated by the rental, say, 10%.
Wylie Schwartz spoke, saying that he has addressed the Board and the Committee at various
stages of this process, and he has been a host since 2012 and has never received anything
remotely like a noise complaint from his Ithaca property or the one in Trumansburg.
Mr. Schwartz said he thinks it is ludicrous to say that hosts cannot be a part of a community; he
is a part of his community where he lives in one cottage and rents the other and he is very
invested in his neighborhood and community.
Mr. Schwartz stated that he is a member of the Strategic Tourism Planning Board which is
introducing people t the community and as a third-generation citizen of the area, it enhances his
ability to have a hands-on introduction for visitors that come to this area, which is how people
are traveling now.
He said he doesn't see how student houses all over town are any less disruptive but, nonetheless,
we welcome students to our community as they are a vital aspect of the economic and social
fabric of our community at large, as is tourism, and the hosts talking about this not being solely
TB 2021-12-13 Page 10 of 35
to cover their taxes are fine. He asked why he is not allowed to want to be a capitalist in a
capitalist economic system we all belong to and why shouldn't he use his extra cottage to
generate income to make improvements or whatever he wanted.
Mr. Schwartz said the point is that Ithaca, as one of the most enlightened cities in the United
States, should be embracing the model that this offers, which is the model that people prefer; a
hands-on introduction to a community by a host with inside knowledge, not to mention the
income that is generated by the room taxes collected.
Randall Corey spoke, saying he wanted to talk about the ability to earn a living in these trying
times of a pandemic, that is ongoing and will be for some time.
He said the money he earns from his STR on the lake doesn't go into his pocket and doesn't
make him rich, what it does do is help him to pay his taxes as well as support people who help
him maintain, repair, and clean the house and that is that persons' income. If you restrict that
ability to earn income, you are also restricting the people I hire to help with that rental, most of
which have less ability to earn a living elsewhere and their ability to earn a living is dependent
on my ability to rent my cottage, along with the other hosts they may be employed by. Hosts help
people who are looking at schools here, who come and visit and stay a week on the lake and see
what the area has to offer.
Mr. Corey ended by saying he believes that at this time in our country especially, we should take
a step back before starting to restrict people's ability to earn a living and help others earn a living
and take some time before making that kind of a decision.
Jenna Kane spoke, saying that she is a mother of three young children, and local New Yorker
and she and her husband, who is a schoolteacher, chose four years ago to move to Ithaca for a
better life for our kids. She said her husband took a $5,000 pay cut to move here and they first
moved to Oswego, where their house was $70,000 and their house here was four times that much
with a lower salary.
She said she was here tonight to speak on behalf of the hosts, as she has been one for four years,
as well as working in property management and mentoring and coaching other hosts to manage
their properties.
Ms. Kane said she agreed with the previous comments about hosts employing other people as
they hire for themselves or other properties a lot of people and juggle teams of handy men, lawn
maintenance crews and cleaners for STRs and they depend on that income.
She said they are a one-income family and they have been able to turn their basement into a 2-
bedroom suite to be able to afford their house and allow her to stay home with her children
which has been a huge gift to her family.
Ms. Kane said she is a responsible host, and she helps other hosts by giving them lots of rules
and regulations for their rental guests to follow as well as using security cameras to see what is
going on outside at all times if needed.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 11 of 35
She said she also agrees with the statements about STRs providing revenue for the County and
other businesses such as the wineries and restaurants as well as retail shops in the area. People
rent Airbnb's so they can have a local experience and they are not out to make a bad experience
for the neighbors, and she has not had a bad experience yet.
Ms. Kane then responded to the comments about "Why haven't hosts spoken up before." saying
this was the first time she had heard about this proposed legislation and so here she was to speak
in support of hosts.
Megan Shay spoke, saying that she lives in the northeast area of the town whose principal
residence is in Florida and they maintain their property here to spend the summers in and in
anticipation of supporting her parents when they enter Kendall in the next few years as well as a
way of introducing the next generation, which will be the fourth generation, to the Ithaca
community.
She said they want to maintain their long-term commitment to Ithaca and their property, and this
legislation as written jeopardizes that because long-term rentals would prevent them from
returning for birthdays, holidays and the anticipated family support system that will be necessary
soon.
Ms. Shay said they typically rent their Ithaca property 80-100 days at an average of$200 a night,
as the house is a modest home and combined with the long-term rental of the accessory dwelling
unit on the property it is essentially a break-even situation. She said this legislation would
prevent them from participating since they use their home about 120 days a year, not 185 for
principal residency.
She said that 29 days generates about$5,00049,000 a year which doesn't cover the average
taxes so it is important to note that an investor couldn't see a reasonable profit for less than 200
days and while she empathized with most of the goals in the legislation and supported the
registration, inspection and permitting process, the legislation as written is over complicated and
overreaching as well as unfair in the carve outs allowed for lakefront properties.
Ms. Shay said her suggestions would be to simplify it and make it more equitable and change
Section 1 to say Short Term Rental hosted is an owner or owner's representative to allow a
property manager to stand in for an owner. In Section 8(d), define principal residence
requirement as 90 days or more, to allow retirees and other seasonal occupants who own
property in Ithaca to participate in STRs. Remove Goal 8 since other ordinances cover noise and
parking issues and additional trash and traffic is really a swap out for those of the property owner
when they are there, as the same amount of trash and traffic is generated.
Ms. Shay closed by saying that her rental is for families and middle-class people; families
attending summer sports camps or student weekends or parents visiting their students for a
weekend, and limiting these rentals are not in the best interest of the town and advocacy for the
area. Hotel stays are cost prohibitive and not conducive to some of these uses and she urged the
Board to amend the legislation to allow homeowners to make a meaningful contribution to their
TB 2021-12-13 Page 12 of 35
housing costs by increasing the maximum days of rentals to 130 and allow seasonal property
owners to be considered primary residence with 90 days.
Mildred Sanders spoke, saying that her son is better with computers, and he was going to speak
for the family and if there was time at the end, she would say a few words.
Mr. Sanders said he supports the increased regulation of STRs and shared his family's situation,
saying that in early 2020 the Zoning Board of Appeals granted variances to their neighbors on
The Byway to convert their barns and garages into accessory dwelling units (ADU.) One of
these units is directly across the narrow one-lane road from their home so that where once there
were eight single-family homes on this narrow street, the Zoning Board increased that by 25% in
the space of two months. There was no provision for additional parking on what may be the
most congested area and street in Tompkins County.
He said the ADU currently under construction 20' feet from his family's home is in violation of
the Zoning law and was not required to be built in the back yard and there is no setback
whatsoever between the ADU and the street and his family has now endured construction for
over nine months and access to our carport is consistently blocked by contractors daily and the
noise and hammering and shouting of workers is there five to seven days a week and has
impacted our ability to work productively from our home or enjoy our yard.
Mr. Sanders went on to say that his family has lost access to fire protection services because
even though there is a fire hydrant on their property, the Fire Department could never get to it
with so many contractors cars parked on the active property and in front of our house and our
neighbors' houses, so it might as well not exist and this was confirmed by the Fire Department.
He said they now learn that as the construction ends, we will have the prospect of STRs at the
ADU, 20' feet from our house, where the newly installed window peer directly into our
bedrooms and bathrooms and we will further lose the privacy of our own home.
Mr. Sanders said the Town Board misunderstands the interaction between the Zoning Board of
Appeals, consisting of unelected, unaccountable, and completely unchecked government body
who granted variances that have huge impacts on them.
He said the issue with STRs is a street with ten houses, each with a garage, are now potentially
20 STRs within one minute's walk from his house; three have already been granted variances by
the Zoning Board for ADUs in the front yard contrary to the zoning established by the elected
representatives and the notification system used by the Zoning Board is broken.
Mr. Sanders stated that the rise of STRs is an option for prospective landlords and compounds
the failure of local government and allows property owners who might not find it worthwhile to
convert their garage into an ADU to be rented to a long-term tenant for $2,000 per month might
well be motivated to do so by the prospect of renting it for $500 or more per night.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 13 of 35
He said there are some very good ideas in this proposal, such as the restriction on parking but if
that is not included,his family will most likely permanently lost fire protection and access to
emergency medical services due to the parking on the street.
Mr. Sanders asked the Board to do the right thing tonight and make this proposal law and he
hoped the Board would revisit this issue soon and do even more. He said he really could not
overstate the impact this has had on his family and will continue to have once his neighbors
implement STR adjacent to his home
Mildred Sanders then spoke, saying she wanted to emphasize some broader questions as she is
a political scientist, and she invoked the political philosopher John Rawls and one of the 10
Commandments; do unto others as you would have done to you. If you are not a STR landlord,
ask yourself if you would like to live 10 feet away from one and the constant noise of
construction and wild parties and having your carport blocked every day by contractors and then
tenants parking on this little historical road where fire trucks and ambulances can no longer come
down.
She said she realizes some people certainly do need rental income and she and her family are
very sympathetic to them if they have if they're renting a room in their home or something like
that,but all the STR would-be hosts on her street are upper income professionals and college
professors, some of whom have two homes, and they just want to make more money. She said it
comes down to greed versus community and there used to be a very strong sense of community
here which has been totally destroyed and the topic has polarized the neighborhood and it is
getting really nasty.
Ms. Sanders said the town needs to become more democratic where people who make decisions
need to be elected, not appointed, and they should not have a vested interest as landlords
themselves or members or family members of the Board of Realtors, or beneficiaries of Airbnb
money. She added that she hoped people read up on this issue as it is a problem across the
country and all over the world. It raises the price of rentals for low-income people, pricing them
out, and destroys the sense of community. She said Europe has much stronger regulations and
democratic input and we need to look to that way of doing things.
Jess Seaver spoke, saying that she is no stranger to these meetings and has been following them
for four years and the group of lakefront owners have been very involved and communicating
with the Board and the Committee and are well versed in the drafts that have come and gone, but
what is happening tonight is people speaking who have just heard about this and although there
is no requirement to mail a notice to each and every resident, it is obvious many people are just
hearing about this.
Ms. Seaver said she felt like a group that hasn't been heard from are the hosts at large in the
Town and she didn't think there were a lot of strictly investor owners and the majority are small,
little landlords and small families, and people with single incomes just trying to be creative with
making things work.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 14 of 35
She went on to say that the numbers speak for themselves; a single-family home in the Town
averages $335K and that is a lot of money and is not commensurate with medium income
salaries and you would have to make at least$95K a year and that is not realistic. So, in order to
support families, we have to give people a way to do that, and there will be more people
negatively affected by this legislation than those that would be inconvenienced by having an
STR next door.
Ms. Seaver said she did appreciate that the 245 days is inching closer to something she though
people could make work and she personally appreciated the allowance for more than one permit
on each property in her circumstances.
Jason Evans spoke, saying that he recently purchased a home in the Town, and he didn't want to
repeat the previous comments, but he supports the concerns and suggestions made by the
previous speakers in support of responsible hosts and reasonable inspections for safety.
Mr. Evans added that the ability to live in Ithaca given the onerous taxes is difficult and only
getting more difficult and he recommended that the Board look into solutions to make it easier to
live in Ithaca, including reducing the taxes and including other ways to reduce the costs and
bureaucratic hurdles to building. He thought addressing those issues will do far more to increase
the supply and affordability of homes and help build the community instead of limiting property
owners' rights.
Rob Rosen spoke, saying that he was taking this opportunity to speak as a member of the public.
He stated that he has been on the Zoning Board of Appeals for nine years and we hear appeals
from people who do not want to go along with the Zoning rules and the Town Board correctly
passed legislation allowing accessory dwelling units as of right and the prospect of them being
turned into STRs was not thought of and with people coming and going all the time is certainly
frightening to neighbors and he understands that.
Mr. Rosen said he supports the purpose and intent of the STR legislation, and he thought it is
needed for people who have been experiencing nuisances and that is sensible, although not
perfect,but it is a start.
He said he had a guy in his neighborhood that ran a rooming house with five people at a time
with different ones at different times and lengths of times and they were constantly coming and
going and switching cars around and it was unpleasant and not something I wanted to live next
door to.
He said that regulations on STRs are commonplace in different communities and the idea is to
stop outside investors which is a worthwhile goal. Airbnb is not a sharing economy, it is a way
to make money and you can make more than is needed to support the ownership of the home and
there are unlimited nights allowed in this legislation and whether it needs to be tweaked or not,
he thought the regulations are needed and this is a good start, and it boils down to a question of
quality-of-life vs renting as a business.
Barbara Koslowski spoke, saying that she wanted to make two points:
TB 2021-12-13 Page 15 of 35
1. She is struck by the fact that many of the hosts talk about how responsible their guests
have been and how responsible them plan on making them e in the future, and
however commendable that is, that is a theory. She said those of us who live on
Renwick Heights Rd have had a vastly different experience with STR renters with
landscaping damage and not attempt to reimburse the neighbors for the damage;
many issues with parking and a host, and maybe more than one, that tell the Town
they are there but they are not and so their guests are totally unregulated and so
although it is nice to have good guests, many are not, and there needs to be
regulations in place to address that.
2. She questioned more than commented - what were the reasons the Town Board
changed the recommendations from the Committee.
Adam Schaye spoke, saying he was skipping his prepared remarks as they echo many already
stated but he wanted to add his voice to those opposing these regulations or at the very least, the
most onerous parts.
He said he hoped the Board is listening and take the time to reflect on the things people are
saying before voting because from what he was hearing, the problems with the provisions are
that they are not targeting the problems the Town is targeting in many instances. He thought this
was a blunderbuss approach and by making it so onerous on so many people, it is
disincentivizing them from being an STR host at all and therefore effectively banning it and so
the Board is addressing the problems by making it so people won't do this at all anymore and it
can be done in other ways with more narrowly tailored ways to solve the actual problems people
are talking about.
Mr. Schaye said that there is a difference between the lakefront and non-lakefront and the Board
recognizes that,but some of those parts need to be focused on even more to address those
significant differences.
He said the housing stock issue seems vague and it sounded to him that people are guessing on
the impact of STRs to their own property values going down being near one or the resale value
of a house with the ability to do STRs and the numbers for rental days allowed seemed
completely arbitrary and rely on a theory of"let's see how it goes" as opposed to targeting
legislation at accomplishing specific goals.
Mr. Schaye said he didn't want to address the issue of housing stock as the Board has been at this
for a while and knows more than him,but as for the process, the legislation should target a goal
and from what he was hearing, it is not doing that and it seemed to him there were a lot of people
that would be harmed and he did not want to see that happen.
Ata Mova spoke, saying that they have been an Ithacan most of their life and recently on the
West Shore and he focused on what Ms. Bleiwas said recently, that this started out it was
supposed to address unhosted, non-lakefront residence and it morphed into town-wide without
consideration for density and there has not been one complaint from lakefront owners or
neighbors, which was reinforced by the survey sent out to lakefront owners, but there were
TB 2021-12-13 Page 16 of 35
complaints from the Renwick Heights neighborhood and that was extrapolated without basis to
include the lakefront and what this process and legislation has done is to unify lakefront owners
opposed to this.
Ms. Mova said you hear more noise as the speed limit increases from the speed limit going up at
the mark past the theater and continue down Taughannock Blvd and the speed changes than you
do from the lakefront residences so addressing that would preserve the community more than
these regulations.
She said when she purchased her house last year, she was told there were no restrictions on STRs
and so it sold for a premium and now there is no grace period or accommodation for people like
her to recoup that payment and she did not think that was fair to her and especially for the
lakefront, there has never been any justification for imposing regulations of this type on that zone
other than Renwick Heights residents bullying the Board into it.
Mr. Isaac spoke, saying his wife spoke earlier,but he wanted to applaud the last town speakers.
He said this just came on their radar a little earlier and the reality is that this is a livelihood issue
for people and something they rely on and enacting this legislation will drastically reduce that.
He said in his case, he is a teacher who doesn't earn much and his wife stays home to
homeschool the children, one of which has special need and can't handle school right now, and
STR allows them to maintain an income where they can keep the house and live in the
community in which he teaches.
Mr. Isaac said he has heard a lot of people talk about disenfranchising of the community or
simply to increase long-term rental stock,but the reality is that this is a niche market where many
of the STR guests are students and visiting professors who can't afford to stay in a hotel or who
don't need a long-term rental because they are here for a few weeks or a month or two for
specific research and they have had guest become a part of our community and our family from
all over the world and STRs are a vital part of both the financial fabric of the Ithaca community
as well as a way the world gets to engage with us in this little unique place in upstate New York
and the connection is very deep and rewarding.
He closed by saying that this will really affect a lot of people's livelihoods and it does not
address the issues actually posed in the goals.
Tim Dean, spoke, saying that he appreciates the spirit of legislation, and he is sympathetic to the
concerns that have been voiced by neighbors who've had bad experiences with others who are
operating STRs.
That said, he stated that he is a host and not in favor of the legislation and statements regarding
the need for time to really reflect on these comments and excellent points is necessary and he
thought it would be wise to take that time to really think about everything said tonight.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 17 of 35
Mr. Dean said he agrees that it is wise to establish permitting and safety inspections and address
parking and noise concerns, but his main concern is the discrepancy between lakefront properties
and the other areas of the town.
He said that his rental happens to be in the lakefront zone,but he still thought it completely
unfair that as a matter of course, he would be allowed almost eight times as many days as
someone maybe only a few blocks away would not and that did not feel democratic or fair to him
or ethical and it does feel classist as one person stated earlier.
Mr. Dean said he is also concerned that this legislation generally is far too blunt and should
instead offer a kind of a graduated penalty that's complaint driven rather than applying a blanket
prohibition or limit where it may not be necessary.
He said it seemed to him that based on a very small group of concerned neighbors, again, for
whom he was sympathetic to and who deserve some kind of process and recourse to address
those issues, this is not the way.
Mr. Dean said his third concern regarded the enforcement which seemed to center around host
submitting a logbook of renters and that would just pit neighbor against neighbor and cause more
duress and further alienate the sense of community.
He said he hoped the Board would consider the pandemic and the reality in which people are
living now and visiting Ithaca for whatever reason, who might not want to stay in a cramped
space. He said he has hosted medical workers coming to the area to help the community who
don't want to stay in a hotel for the 30, 60 or 90 days their contract is for.
Mr. Dean added that he thought the big winners of this legislation will be the corporations who
will get some of that business as the only option, and he shares his home out of joy and
compassion, and a love of this place, not greed.
Sally Mennen spoke, saying that she is a lakefront owner host and she has a large house where
families from all over the world come and one of her recent families was a woman who was
giving her siblings in England a video tour of the house, and she really resonated with Mr.
Dean's use of the word"joy"because that is what it is, a joy to give guests a comfortable place
to be with family.
She said they do not rent near the 200-day marks in the legislation so it will not affect her much,
but she had no problem with STRs and they are very involved with their guests and very careful
in vetting them and have had no complaints from their neighbors.
Ms. Mennen said it is horrible to hear the experiences from the Renwick Heights neighborhood
and she didn't understand how the Town doesn't have a way to deal with that situation.
She said she does not agree that this legislation is a blunt tool, but she does think that it is not
targeting surgically the things that need to be targeted and if she were in the Renwick Heights
area she would also be up in arms,but there must be a way to deal with that or STRs in dense
TB 2021-12-13 Page 18 of 35
areas where there are problems instead of legislation for everybody and those that are not
causing problems.
Ms. Mennen said this legislation sounds like a solution in search of a problem, and she hoped the
Board did not vote on the legislation tonight.
Ellie Fulmer spoke, saying She wanted to speak in favor of many of the comments that have
already been shared and to add to that her sentiment is that part of the tourism industry here on
our beautiful lake supports having visitors who cannot afford their own lake home visit the area
and that she supports a complaint-oriented penalty system that penalizes those that do not
oversee their rentals well and does not penalize those of us who have no complaints lodged either
formally or informally.
Max Buckholtz spoke, saying that he lives near Ithaca College and just learned of this
legislation, and he supported the comments regarding not taking action on the legislation tonight
because he would like the opportunity to really read it through and make comments.
He said the pandemic has severely impacted his financial situation and he has relied on Airbnb as
opposed to long term rentals over the past summer.
Mr. Buckholtz stated that he renovated an apartment and spend a lot of income to make it very
nice and found that being able to be present on the property and greet people and connect with
people and connect them with the local community and places to see and go,has been great.
He said that doing STR as opposed to long-term has him on the property more often and the
ability to notice and address maintenance faster both inside and outside the property. He said he
has a separate driveway for the rental, and he has had no complaints and would have addressed
them and called them in if there were,because he knows people want to sleep peacefully.
Mr. Buckholtz said he finds this legislation a little arbitrary in the way it differentiates between
short term and long-term rentals when a long-term rental under Section 8 that is dangerous and a
car rolling down the driveway with no one in it almost killed his daughter and yet that long term
rental is not restricted or monitored.
He said he sympathizes with the people who have had issues, but they should be dressed
specifically and not broadly with legislation that is going to hurt a lot of people.
Mr. Buckholtz stated again that he can't speak to specifics because he just became aware of this,
but he would like the time to go over it and address the comments made referencing the
Comprehensive Plan and how this is going to impact hosts like him and the others that have
spoken.
Dan Kraak spoke, saying that he had taken a lot of notes and was going to reiterate some of the
comments but his most important one is to agree with the sentiment that this should be postponed
to give the board time to fully digest the comments heard tonight.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 19 of 35
He said one particular point is that there were claims of no enforcement of noise complaints
which has been refuted, and if that is true, that they are enforced, why was that falsely brought
up.
Mr. Kraak said that lastly, he though this seems to me to be an inappropriate use of eminent
domain in that the government can take your property, but it can't take your livelihood and for
many of us, this is taking our livelihood without giving anybody an any option of recouping that
livelihood in another way.
He suggested that Ithaca is has a very high degree of people with bachelor's degrees and higher
and he would suggest tapping that and trying to work smarter rather than harder by attempting to
enforce or draft legislation. If people have a problem with lack of parking,regulations to address
that specific issue should be drafted, so they can be ticketed and towed, noise violations should
be addressed by the Sheriff as stated, not counteracting the appropriate use of people's property
already on the books.
Mr. Kraak echoed the sentiment that this should not be voted on tonight to allow for people to
fully digest the draft and the comments heard.
Mia Slotnick read a statement from Ken MacAnnany who was stuck in traffic and couldn't join
the meeting.
"The Board should consider starting with a lower number of hosted days, then, if warranted
bump it up later by resolution. Ghost hosting is common in this house sharing business and we
can attest to that with a list of short-term rental properties in our neighborhood.
The town will never be able to keep track and enforce the laws,you have an obligation to pass
laws that can reasonably be enforced by you. I urge you to start at the lower number of days,
because you can better enforce it.
Once you establish a high number of days,you will never be able to reduce it as people will base
their house and short-term rental purchases on the upper end and sue if you cut them back."
Cayuga LakeFront Inn spoke saying she has been an Ithaca resident for 34 to 40 years and
started her Bed& Breakfast 20 years ago before Airbnb was a thing and back then, STR was a
B&B with a bed and breakfast and a host was present to invite a guest in to experience
something different than what a hotel had to offer, which became a valued part of the word we
live in.
She said her compassion goes out to people who spoke about problems with STRs,but that
happens in a system where creativeness is implemented, and the idea is that they are then taken
care of as a one-on-one issue and the idea that of restrictions as far as lakefront on non-lakefront
is absolutely discrimination and she couldn't believe that the concept was even written down in
writing.
She said this in not what this Community is about and the suggestion regarding a graduated
TB 2021-12-13 Page 20 of 35
penalty for those properties with problems is a good format to start with.
She said she felt much more time is needed on the discussion of this and in these times, hotels
are just too expensive and do not generally include a kitchen which adds more expense where a
STR does; it can be a whole house and the ability to eat in while still supporting the tourism and
seeing the area.
She closed saying she hoped the Board did not vote tonight as she just learned of this legislation
and wants to read it thoroughly.
Mr. Howe asked if there was anyone else wishing to speak and asked Ms. Rosa who stated for
the record that she had not received any emails or calls from people wishing to be heard and she
could not see anyone in the chats or on Zoom indicating they wished to speak.
Mr. DePaolo asked a point of order question, asking if the public hearing should be kept open
and if so, what would happen if the Board decided to make changes to the draft.
Ms. Brock responded that if substantial changes were made to the draft, another public hearing
would have to be scheduled, published and held so there is no need to hold this public hearing
open further.
Mr. Howe closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. and asked viewers to switch to the
YouTubeLive platform so he could see Board members and staff more easily on the Zoom
platform.
Mr. Howe turned to the discussion to the Board, noting that the first part of the process is to
consider the SEQR form, but there were many comments and some misleading information
expressed and although he did not think the Board was going to address every comment, he
asked if Committee members especially wanted to comment as a starting point.
Mr. Goodman started, saying that he has been very involved in this process and anyone with
questions can contact him directly and his contact information is on the Town website.
Mr. Goodman stated that he was trying to take some notes to highlight where some people did
not quite understand the draft, and he wanted to clarify some of those points.
He said comments were made regarding the two-bedroom delineation and he noted that part of
the actions considered was to change the town's definition for a bed and breakfast which many
would now think of as a"traditional"bed and breakfast. STR law will apply to people doing
hosted STR of two bedrooms or less and three bedrooms or more would then be classifies as a
bed and breakfast and you would do that type of STR under regulations associated with bed and
breakfast operations and you could apply for a special permit for a bed and breakfast which is
allowed in many zones in the Town. That is the reasoning behind the STR legislation being
discussed is base upon two bedrooms for hosted rentals.
Mr. Goodman said he had other notes he needed to look at and asked that other Committee
TB 2021-12-13 Page 21 of 35
members clarify anything they had noted.
Mr. DePaolo said there were a few things he flagged during the hearing.
He said there seemed to be some concern that the cost of administration and enforcement would
raise taxes and would require staffing increases. He said that it was his understanding that the
intent is for the fee structure to administer this regulation will covers the cost of so doing so and
the costs would be paid by the permit holders.
He said someone made the point that there is no bedroom limit on unhosted rentals, but there is
on hosted rentals and his understanding is that the proposal is that the same two-bedroom limit
would apply to both hosted and hosted.
Mr. DePaolo said that someone indicated the average host rents for 91 nights a year and while he
didn't know if that was true or not, he thought the averages of the number of days being
proposed where lakefront is potentially allowed 245 days per year, the average would probably
be close to that, if not exceeding that.
He said someone said we should limit the permits to town residents, and that was actually
discuss as a possibility, and our legal counsel was brought in and it was decided that that is not a
viable option.
Mr. DePaolo continued to look at his notes and Mr. Goodman added that unhosted rentals are not
limited to two bedrooms in this draft, the two-bedroom limit is in the definition of the hosted
STR and in the definition of a bed and breakfast.
Mr. DePaolo said that is correct and said there were various comments about how the number of
days was arrived at and the Committee was operating not only on historical rental practices, but
also considered what they determined peak tourist season and demand around graduations,
reunions and festivals and similar events so there was some thought put into how that number
was decided.
Ms. Bleiwas said that she wanted to clear up two misconceptions that stood out to her as she read
the comments over the past few weeks that the Board has received from the Community, as well
as comments from people attending these meetings.
She said there is no limitation on the number of days for people that you can have in your own
home as a STR and that extends to units on your property and the property next door to you so if
you have converted your barn into an accessory dwelling unit or apartment and you are there on
your property or it is on the property next door, there is not limit on the number of days allowed,
but there are other limits such as the bedroom limit and if you are doing three or more bedrooms,
then perhaps that should be a bed and breakfast.
She said she understood the concept and when she heard about the letter from the Board of
Realtors and heard the comments tonight and other times about how people need to rent out
rooms to afford their houses, she thought, no one is stopping you from doing that, but what is
TB 2021-12-13 Page 22 of 35
being stopped is allowing you to rent out another house across town or not adjacent to your
property or buying up three or four properties on your block and renting them all out. If you need
to use STR as a business to help you stay in your house nothing about this legislation stops that.
She asked that people read this carefully before jumping to conclusions.
Ms. Bleiwas said the other point she wanted to address was the person commenting that they just
bought a duplex downtown, and this legislation only applies to the town of Ithaca not the city of
Ithaca and so if you own property in the city of Ithaca, this doesn't apply, and this has been a
common problem she is always having to address with people contacting her instead of the City
of Ithaca's Common Council, even by close friends; the Town is a different municipality from
the City and she can't speak to what the City of Ithaca may or may not be contemplating on this
topic.
Mr. Goodman restated that if someone has fixed up their basement unit and is using that as an
accessory dwelling unit and renting STR but they live upstairs and they are present during the
rental, that is considered hosted and as long as it is two bedrooms or less, there is no limit on the
number of days.
Mr. Howe added that the person who commented that they had just received a rental permit was
probably referring to the Operating Permit for rental enacted a few years ago.
Ms. Leary spoke, saying that there had been talk about the Sheriff's department enforcing the
noise ordinance, but she hadn't meant to imply that they weren't enforcing it, but the Sheriff's
Department has to cover the entire County, outside of the City, and after the Town passed the
noise ordinance based on complaints about student parties and the like, there didn't seem to be
strong enforcement,but they were busy with other calls. That was the point she had been trying
to make; we do not have dedicated police force and so there will be instances where complaints
cannot be addressed, but this legislation is targeted at preventing some of those problems by
limiting the number of people in a rental and the number of times that can happen by limiting the
number of days.
She said this process started in response to real problems in a neighborhood where residents
came to us about noise and rowdiness so we are responding to those concerns, and she felt that
after four years the Board should just move on with it and adopt something. She added that over
those four years they have heard from a cross section of stakeholders and the legislation should
not be held up until we have heard from every single person or homeowner in the town.
Ms. Leary said that two of the Board members are retiring and both were on the Committee and
it may not be perfect or make everybody happy, but there are many different points of view and
she would like to see this resolved and it can be amended at a later point if necessary,but the
Committee and the Board have heard from many, many people.
She said she did want to address the comment by a white man who characterized this law as
classist, elitist and racist and she said she didn't know in what universe, that this this law is that.
She said first of all, there's no particular racial group that makes up either the homeowners, the
TB 2021-12-13 Page 23 of 35
hosts or the renters so there is no racial disparity in the impact of this law and this law is about
people like her; people that have rented all their lives and we need to preserve the rental housing
for longer term renters, long-term renters, and not incentivize businesses of absentee landlords
from out of town to buy up the housing stock and make a business out of profitable STR and that
was the purpose of this law, as well as the peace and quiet of the neighborhood mentioned by her
earlier.
Mr. Howe said he wanted to touch back on the Sheriffs enforcement of the noise law and he was
confused how that related to the STR law.
Ms. Bleiwas said she spoke to the same gentleman as Ms. Leary and as a defense attorney in this
community, she knows how busy the Sheriff s officers are and she knows we have had issues
with enforcement in the past due to coverage, but she had meant no disrespect to the Sheriff or
his officers, and she thought it was better to try and address the issue through this legislation than
through the Sheriffs Office. The Sheriff responding to a party or noise complaint is not as
important as saving a life or preventing a serious crime and that is where she wants to see their
resources focused.
Mr. Goodman stated that he wanted to assure all present that the Board and the Committee
received all communications throughout this process, and he read them, and they were discussed
and taken into consideration throughout the process.
Mr. Howe asked for further comments and which way each member was leaning on voting on
the legislation.
Ms. Hunter stated that she was not comfortable with this legislation, and she felt it had some real
equity issues and she has had that concern for quite a while, and it has been reinforced tonight.
Chiefly the discrepancy between lakefront homeowners and the people not fortunate enough to
have lakefront property and this legislation enables one segment of the population to make a
good sum of money and severely restricts the other portion and she cannot reconcile the two and
thinks it warrants discussion.
Mr. Levine stated that he was very impressed with the number of people that came to speak, and
it was probably close to a record and the number of comments we have received about this as
well and he didn't want any of those people to feel that their positions were not heard.
He said that although we have heard a lot of those arguments before and considered them in
drafting the law, he did feel that many people are very concerned about it and he thought it
would be respectful and wise to postpone the vote and Ms. Leary and Ms. Hunter could be asked
to stay on the committee as advisors without a vote to discuss the concerns.
He Said one of the things he would consider looking into is the number of days being increased
for unhosted but other than that, he agreed with Ms. Bleiwas that this is really not affecting
people who are renting their primary residence and are considered hosted rentals and so this
really does address the issue of people buying up houses for STRs.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 24 of 35
Ms. Leary said that one purpose of this law is to protect housing for low-income people in the
town that cannot afford to buy their own home and she could not think of anything in the current
draft that she would wish to see changed and she felt that much of the criticism are coming from
people misunderstanding the law and what will and won't be limited in hosted rentals.
She went on to say that the only thing that gave her pause was the 2-room limit, but that was
addressed by the ability to apply for a bed and breakfast special permit and that made sense to
her since if you are renting more than two rooms
hat to room limit. But you know became clear I think bill explains about how you just apply to
run a. bed and breakfast and I think that actually makes sense if you're renting out three rooms in
your home you're because then you really are running a bed and breakfast and there are some
safety issues and limitations and neighborhood concerns associated with those so if a person is
doing that, they should have to comply with those regulations.
Ms. Leary said it was very interesting that people from the lakefront are not happy with it when
they have basically been given carte blanche and many others are not happy with it, and she
wondered if there was any legislation that everyone could be happy with.
She said the people on the Board and Committee have worked hard on this and examined and
considered the issues talked about here and at some point, it just needs to be enacted and see
what works and doesn't work and amend it where necessary at that time. She did not support
postponing the vote further than the end of year meeting.
Ms. Bleiwas stated that taking time to digest what they have heard and although she would vote
on it tonight because a lot of her concerns have been addressed, she also agreed with Mr. Levine
that the 29 days of unhosted could be discussed again,but she didn't think that was the issue
being voiced tonight.
She said she thought the only people being sort of left out in the cold are the people that have
moved but kept their home here and although they have her sympathy, the community has to
look out for the residents that live here in the community.
Ms. Leary said that she wasn't happy about the number of days on the lakefront either, but
compromises were made, and it was not worth voting against the entire legislation on that point.
She went on to say that the arguments have been made that the lakefront and historical rental
practices for decades were discussed, and the Board should just vote on the legislation.
She added that she did not see any use for her and Ms. Hunter to remain active on the Committee
and she was not in favor of that.
Ms. Hunter stated that although she felt her vote did not really count, in her soul, she just
couldn't vote in favor of this legislation because the inequity is not a conversation she felt had
been had.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 25 of 35
She added that the Committee invited many people over the years to speak and express concerns
and ideas, but that one issue is what will not allow her to vote in favor of it.
Mr. DePaolo said that there was one concept that was brought up that he thought warranted a
little bit of discussion now, which is one Ms. Bleiwas referenced; people who had had their
primary residence here and then moved to Florida. He said that in their situation, and he had
spoken to this person, their home has an accessory dwelling unit that is rented long-term and has
had the same tenant for many years who acts as a property manager for the main house used as
an STR. They floated the idea of having a property manager onsite be a stand-in for the owner in
order to qualify as hosted rental or somehow otherwise give them unhosted levels of use, or a
greater number of days and he said he didn't have a particular reaction to that suggestion, except
to say that it does potentially open a loophole for any number of out of town buyers to come in
and establish a resident to act as property manager in that way and he wondered if anyone else
had caught that and had any response.
Mr. Howe responded that he was in favor of moving forward with what we have before us,
knowing full well that we might have changes to make in a year, based on our experiences with
it and further thought.
He said he agreed with Mr. DePaolo in that the suggestion would open up some loopholes, for
example, college students could say they were the property manager for a few years so and then
move on.
Mr. Howe said there were a few things the town will probably look at and carefully revisit in a
year to make some adjustments.
Ms. Leary responded that she agrees with Mr. DePaolo and Mr. Howe regarding the on-site
property manager and thought it would open up homes to full time absentee landlords, but the
other suggestion the couple made regarding the number of days of residency to qualify the home
as your primary residence could be discussed. She said she understands there are people who
retire and move away but yet still spend a substantial amount of time in Ithaca and may change
their legal permanent residency for tax reasons among others, but she didn't want to undertake
that discussion now.
Mr. DePaolo responded that he thought the residency was based on tax filings, and he didn't
know how the town could validate the number of days someone is in town in that scenario,
regardless of the number of days set.
Mr. Goodman said that when he first read the letter from the couple, he also thought about the
onsite manager suggestion,but the more he thought about it, more issues came to mind about
how it could be manipulated, such as absentee owners buying up homes with ADUs to install
onsite management, which would be a long-term rental, but has other implications and he wasn't
sure he wanted to go down that route.
He added that a STR is 30 days or less, so there are ways for people to make the income they
need expressed here tonight by doing rentals of longer than 30 days, such as were mentioned for
TB 2021-12-13 Page 26 of 35
health care workers and professors who are here less than a year or school year, but longer than
30 days.
Mr. Goodman said he was in favor of moving forward as is, and as situations come in, the Board
can look at those.
He said his one question is for Ms. Brock, and that is about bookings already made such as in the
case of the couple from Florida and the woman who rents Hayts Chapel, but it is not her primary
residence. He asked how that impacts how the amortization provisions apply and right now, the
law takes effect January 1, 2022 and a host has to apply by April 1, 2022 and in those two
instances, they would not qualify for a permit because it is not their primary residence and they
would or could apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals,but until that hearing is held, what is the
process for honoring contracts they have already set for rentals.
Ms. Brock responded that they could apply as soon as the law is adopted and get their
determination so they would know what they can and cannot do.
Mr. DePaolo added that they would still have the 29 days as an unhosted rental to use while they
are applying for a variance or the amortization process.
Ms. Brock added that the law states that any rental contracts held prior to April 1, 2022, are not
counted against the limitations if the rental concludes by June 30, 2022.
Mr. Goodman said it doesn't address the issue because the grace period is to apply by April 1,
but they would be denied so they couldn't take advantage of the grace period.
Ms. Brock responded that they should be applying early then.
Mr. DePaolo suggested the Board could look at the timing a bit more now that we are only 3-
weeks from January 1, 2022. He asked Mr. Mosely if he thought the timing was too tight.
Mr. Moseley said if the amortization period was a little longer, it would align with the recent
long-term rental legislation and give Codes a bit more time to handle the process.
Mr. DePaolo said he was in favor of that avenue rather than trying to carve out more exceptions
and to just give people more time to comply with the law.
Mr. Goodman said he thought pushing out the date to apply for the amortization piece and
pushing out the effective date would cover the two circumstances being discussed.
Ms. Hunter stated that moving the dates might help a few people and she was in favor of it.
Mr. DePaolo said the effective date could be close to the application date to avoid someone not
being immediately noncompliant so an effective date of March 1 with a application deadline of
April 1 would work.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 27 of 35
Some discussion followed on whether to adopt the law now and amend it at the December 29,
2021, meeting or adopt it then with the changes as proposed after holding another public hearing.
Ms. Bleiwas asked the members of the Committee wheat their thought had been on an effective
date, saying that she thought it would have been at least 6 months or even a year to allow people
to make the adjustment ad decisions involved in.
Mr. DePaolo said he didn't have any clear recollection but thought it would have been along the
lines of the long-term rental legislation and he thought this was too tight of a timeframe as
written and he thought it would be 6 months to a year.
Discussion followed on filing with the Secretary of State and effective dates and Ms. Rosa noted
that there are costs associated with passing a law and then amending it in the codification process
and this particular legislation affects 4 different sections and involves passing 4 different laws.
Mr. DePaolo suggested that even if a change doesn't happen, delaying it until the year end
meeting would allow all the information and discussion tonight to sink in and he was in favor of
assuming a second public hearing and thinking about any changes and making them if decided
they are best and have those changes as required prior to the public hearing.
Discussion followed on whether the motion should be moved and seconded to get it on the floor
to suggest changes. SEQR is required first.
SEQR Determination
TB Resolution 2021-154: SEQR Regarding (1) "A Local Law Adding Short-Term Rental
Provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of The Town of Ithaca Code," (2) "A Local Law
Amending Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 207, "Rental Property," Revising And Adding
References to Rentals of Less Than 30 Days," (3) "A Local Law Amending The Definition
of Bed-And-Breakfast In Chapter 270, Zoning, of The Town of Ithaca Code, and (4)A
Local Law To Add Requirements For Operating Permits For Short-Term Rental Uses To
The Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, Titled `Building Construction And Fire
Prevention."
Whereas, this action is the proposed enactment o£
1. "A Local Law Adding Short-Term Rental Provisions to Chapter 270, Zoning, of the Town
of Ithaca Code", and
2. "A Local Law Amending Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 207, "Rental Property,"Revising
and Adding References to Rentals of Less Than 30 Days", and
3. "A Local Law Amending the Definitions of Bed-And-Breakfast in Chapter 270, Zoning, of
the Town of Ithaca Code", and
TB 2021-12-13 Page 28 of 35
4. "A Local Law to Add Requirements for Operating Permits for Short-Term Rental Uses to
the Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 125, Titled"Building Construction and Fire Prevention";
and
Whereas, this is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Town Board is acting as Lead
Agency in an environmental review with respect to the enactment of these local laws; and
Whereas, the Town Board, at its regular meeting held on December 13, 2021, has reviewed, and
accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Parts 1, 2 and 3, for this
action, prepared by the Town Planning staff, now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Town of Ithaca Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law,
6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review, and Chapter 148
Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above-referenced action as
proposed,based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts
2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
Moved: Bill Goodman Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: ayes—Goodman, DePaolo, Hunter, Howe, Leary and Levine Absent: Bleiwas
The short-term rental related laws were moved and seconded for discussion.
Mr. DePaolo asked about GML, and comments from the County and Mr. Howe noted there were
no concerns, so a super majority is not necessary.
Mr. DePaolo said he talked to Mr. Moseley about the transferability of an operating permit for
STR and that is covered under 125-8 and he suggested that reference be embedded where needed
in the legislation to make it clear that if a property sells, the new owner needs to apply for their
own operating permit. He said it is in the section under Operating Permits,but in the way that it
applies to all operating permits, and he thought it might be best to also put it in the specific STR
legislation so people are not having to bounce back and forth between chapters to find the answer
they need.
He said his other question regarded the length of the permit, which stands at yearly,but the long-
term rental is for 5 years and other operating permits such as restaurants are for 3 years and given
the administrative costs involved, he wondered if that was too stringent and since changes are
going to be made, that the Board might want to discuss that aspect now.
Mr. Goodman said he thought it might have been short to enable better enforcement of it and to
address any issues quicker and under the provision where the permit can be suspended or
revoked, and barred from reapplying for one year, so having the length at one year might be
easiest right now.
He added that another concern was collecting the funds to pay for the permitting process and
administration as well as the outside services the Board was considering joining the County in
for tracking STRs.
TB 2021-12-13 Page 29 of 35
Mr. DePaolo responded that that makes sense, and it can always be extended to a 3-year permit
later.
Mr. Howe asked about specific dates to change in the laws.
Mr. Goodman shared his screen to show where the changes of extending the stated date out by 3
months would happen.
Looking at effective date of April 1, 2022; apply by July 1, 2022, and any contracts in place must
happen prior to September 1, 2022, which will get through the summer season and would not
count against totals.
Mr. Goodman said he had another change to suggest, regarding the amortization provision and
the termination of certain legal non-conforming uses after amortization and he asked Ms. Brock
to craft terminology to make it clear that because there is no grandfathering right in this
legislation, we are instead providing this amortization process, to address that lack of
grandfathering of use.
Ms. Brock went through the changes for clarity and will work with members on the amortization
language.
Mr. Goodman as the original mover, moved to table the resolution until the December 29, 2021,
meeting, seconded by Mr. Howe as original seconder.
4) Consider adoption of the 2021 Tompkins County Hazard Mitigation Plan
TB Resolution 2021 -155: Authorize the Acceptance and Adoption of the 2021 Multi-
Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update in conjunction with Tompkins County
Whereas the Tompkins County Planning Department, with the assistance from Tetra Tech, Inc.,
has gathered information and prepared the Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan
Update for Tompkins County, New York; and
Whereas the Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Tompkins County, New
York has been prepared in accordance with the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and Title 44
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 201; and
Whereas Title 44 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 201.6(c)(5)requires each local government participating
in the preparation of a Multi-Jurisdictional Mitigation Plan or Plan Update to accept and adopt
such plan; and
Whereas the Town of Ithaca,has reviewed the 2021 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update, has found
the document to be acceptable, and as a local unit of government, in conjunction with Tompkins
TB 2021-12-13 Page 30 of 35
County, has afforded its citizens an opportunity to comment and provide input regarding the Plan
Update and the actions included in the Plan;
Whereas the Town of Ithaca will consider the Tompkins County HMP Update during the
implementation and updating of local planning mechanisms, and will incorporate the hazard
assessment data, hazard vulnerabilities, and mitigation actions in these mechanisms, where
applicable; now therefore, be it
Resolved that the Town Board, as a participating jurisdiction, adopts the 2021 Multi-
Jurisdictional All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update for Tompkins County,New York.
Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Pamela Bleiwas
Vote: ayes—Hunter, Bleiwas, Leary, Levine, Goodman, Howe and DePaolo
5) Consider approval of the revised Town of Ithaca Water Storage Standard
Mr. Howe noted that this has been discussed at a few Town Board meetings as well as the Public
Works Committee a number of times and has been recommended by the Committee for Board
approval.
Mr. Thaete gave a brief summary on the history of issue and how the change will benefit the
Town financially and for future development identified in the Comprehensive Plan and New
Neighborhood Code.
He said the current standard was established in 2004 and based on staffing levels and the ability
to move around town and fill water tanks if the power was out and since that time, redundancies
are in place and protections on power outages and additional pump stations and back up
generators.
This will also help improve water quality by having less idle water sitting in tanks, and
surrounding municipalities have this standard, and it will save costs for the town and improve
forward planning for infrastructure improvements.
Mr. DePaolo stated that this is a good plan which will save costs and allow for future planning
and he was in favor of it.
TB Resolution 2021 -156: SEQR—2021 New Town of Ithaca Water Storage Standards
Whereas, this Action is the approval of a revised standard for the storage of potable water in the
Town of Ithaca, from the current three-day water storage requirement to a proposed one-day
storage requirement, and including the incorporation of Ten State Standards demand for all
potable water tanks within the town's system;and
TB 2021-12-13 Page 31 of 35
Whereas, this is an Unlisted Action for which the Town Board is the lead agency in the
environmental review with respect to the project; and
Whereas,the Town Board,at a public hearing held on December 13,2021,reviewed and accepted
as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Part 1, prepared by the Town
Engineer, and Parts 2 and 3, prepared by the Town Planning Department, along with other
application materials; now, therefore be it:
Resolved, that the Town Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental
significance, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the
above-referenced Action as proposed, based on the information in the SEAF Part 1, and for the
reasons set forth in Parts 2 and 3.
Moved: Rich DePaolo Seconded: Tee-Ann Hunter
Vote: ayes—DePaolo, Hunter, Goodman, Howe, Leary, Bleiwas and Levine
TB Resolution 2021 -157: Approval of revised Town of Ithaca Water Storage
Standards
Whereas, this Action is the approval of the revised Town of Ithaca Water Storage Standard for
the storage of potable water in Town of Ithaca water tanks, and
Whereas, the existing three-day storage requirement was based on former staffing levels and
equipment constraints. The town has since increased staffing levels and equipment to better
respond to water supply issues that may arise. Therefore, the need for three-day water storage
capacities within the town's tank network is no longer warranted; and
Whereas, the revised standard will consist of a one-day storage requirement (equivalent to the
average daily water demand), along with two hours of fire flow at 1500 gallons per minute
(gpm), and two hours of customer demand (equal to one hour of peak and one hour of the max
daily flow). The two-hour fire flow at 1500gpm, combined with the two-hour customer demands,
will satisfy the minimum Ten State Standards recommendations: and
Whereas, on December 13, 2021, the Town Board determined that the approval of the revised
standard for the storage of potable water, which is an Unlisted Action pursuant to the regulations
of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, will not result in any significant adverse environmental
effects; now, therefore be it:
Resolved, that the Town Board hereby approves the revised Town of Ithaca Water Storage
Standard for the storage of potable water in town water tanks, consisting of one-day storage and
Ten State Standards for all customers within their respective tank zone(s), effective immediately.
Moved: Tee-Ann Hunter Seconded: Rich DePaolo
Vote: ayes—Hunter, DePaolo, Bleiwas, Leary, Levine, Howe and Goodman
TB 2021-12-13 Page 32 of 35
6) Review Board Protocol and Procedures Manual & Mission and Vision Statements
Mr. Howe noted that this is a discussion item only, and the Manual will be approved at the
Annual meeting in January, but this was going to be a time to bring up any concerns the Board
may have and to look again at the Mission and Vision statements,but, given the time,he
suggested moving it to the next meeting, but added that members who had comments could send
them to Ms. Drake and him.
7) Consider Consent Agenda
TB Resolution 2021 - 158: Consent Agenda
Resolved, that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby approves and/or adopts the
following Consent Agenda items:
a. Approval of Town Board Minutes
b. Approval of Town of Ithaca Abstract
c. Approval of Bolton Point Abstract
d. Appointment—Planning Board
Motion: Pamela Bleiwas Seconded: Eric Levine
Vote: ayes—Bleiwas, Levine, Leary, Howe, Goodman, Hunter, and DePaolo
TB Resolution 2021 - 158a: Approval of Town Board Minutes
Resolved that the draft minutes of November 23rd are approved as submitted with any non-
substantive changes made by the Town Board
TB Resolution 2021 - 158b: Town of Ithaca Abstract No. 23 for FY-2021
Resolved that the Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the audited vouchers in total for
the amounts indicated.
VOUCHER NOS. 1339 - 1438
General Fund Town Wide 102,212.04
General Fund Part-Town 16,005.03
Highway Fund Town Wide DA 5,442.69
Highway Fund Part Town DB 16,998.63
Water Fund 836,112.63
Sewer Fund 177,307.24
Gateway Trail—H8 169,243.05
Risk Retention Fund 74.99
Forest Home Lighting District 281.80
Glenside Lighting District 94.84
Renwick Heights Lighting District 122.64
TB 2021-12-13 Page 33 of 35
Eastwood Commons Lighting District 237.10
Clover Lane Lighting District 28.28
Winner's Circle Lighting District 82.89
Burleigh Drive Lighting District 96.95
West Haven Road Lighting District 312.30
Coddington Road Lighting District 186.29
TOTAL 1324,839.39 J
TB Resolution 2021-158c: Bolton Point Abstract
Resolved,that the governing Town Board hereby authorizes the payment of the Southern Cayuga
Lake Intermunicipal Water Commission audited numbered vouchers as submitted.
Voucher Numbers: 514-582
Check Numbers: 19952-20020
Capital Impr(Repl Project $ 30,683.41
Operating Fund $ 120,592.23
TOTAL $ 151,275.64
Less Prepaid $ ( 7,328.09)
TOTAL $ 143,947.55
TB Resolution 2021-158d: Appointment of Planning Board Member
Whereas the interview committee interviewed a candidate for the open position and recommends
appointing Elizabeth Bageant,655 Five Mile Drive,as a regular member completing a term
ending December 31,2027;now,therefore,be it
Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca does hereby Elizabeth Bageant,as a regular
member completing a term ending December 31,2027.
8) Report of Town Officials
Mr. Howe noted that Ms. Drake has been with the Town now 27 years,and he thanked her for
her service.
9) Review of Correspondence—None
10)Adjournment
Motion made by Mr. Howe,seconded by Ms. Bleiwas,to adjourn at 8:55 p.m.
Sub
Paulette Rosa,Town Clerk
TB 2021-12-13 Page 34 of 35
December 5, 2021
1024 Hanshaw Road Ithaca, NY 14850
607-280-6100 email:ctdunham5@gmail.com
Dear Town of Ithaca Board,
We are writing you regarding the proposed Short Term Rental legislation in advance of your December
13,2021 Board meeting vote. We are strongly opposed to the Short Term Rental (STR) legislation as
proposed for the following reasons. We urge you to vote down the proposed Short Term Rental
legislation which we view as overreaching and unfair to retirees and homeowners not privileged to be
located on the lake.
1. Discrimination against Retirees—as written, unless the owner currently utilizes the property as
their principal residence,one's property is not eligible for STR under section D3. We are both
long term Ithaca residents who retired in 2014-since then we travel and spend winters in
Florida (now Florida residents). Our 1024 Hanshaw Road house has been rented on Airbnb
when we are not in Ithaca for nearly seven years. Short term Airbnb rentals work best for us
because it enables us to return to our Ithaca home during the fall,winter and spring for holidays
and other family events. We have never had a complaint from neighbors. We do not believe
that it was your Board's intention to cut off an income stream for retirees from Ithaca but that is
one of the consequences from the proposed Short Term Rental legislation.
2. Capped Day Discrepancy Between Lake and Non-Lake Houses—We made a decision to buy the
home in the Northeast when we sold our home in Belle Sherman which we had owned since
1995 in order to be close to Megan's parents(Mike and Jan Shay, 80 and 79 respectively)when
they move to Kendal,even though we intended to become Florida residents. We typically rent
for 80—100 days per year at all seasons. Even a limit of 29 days would represent a hardship
impact on our finances and prohibiting any rentals is a huge impact! We bought the house with
the plan that our part time presence on site would be financially viable through short term
rentals,just as many Lake property owners do. We are providing advance notice to the Town
of Ithaca Board that the proposed regulation is fundamentally unfair and constitutes
deprivation of equal protection to give lake owners 245 unhosted days while non-lake owners
get 29 days-as well as prohibiting rentals by retirees for whom the home is no longer their
principal residence. In addition, it is unfair that Lake owners are not subject to the proposed
short term rental provisions that: prohibit parking on the street, require that short term rentals
be a principal residence,and limit rentals to a maximum of two bedrooms. Given the political
party affiliations of the Board,we are shocked that the Board would propose legislation that so
clearly favors owners privileged to own property on the lake and would deprive income from
retirees like us as well as other people with lower value homes within the Town of Ithaca.
3. Owner on site for Hosted Rentals—We have an Accessory Dwelling Unit on our property with a
long-term rental tenant who watches our property when we are not there. We believe that
OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE ON SITE is an appropriate safeguard to qualify as
hosted.
4. Capped Occupancy-As long as a house meets code to support its occupancy,we consider it
over-reaching for legislation to specify how many occupants may be in the house. It should be
the owner's prerogative to determine the number of guests on site. If this is based on an
assumption that more that four guests will be noisy,that is highly discriminatory.The majority
of our guests are parents of Cornell students who want to give their child a weekend of home-
like time with family,adult couples meeting to tour the Finger Lakes or young families attending
Cornell summer camps.They seek out our house,which comfortably hosts 8 people in beds
because of its capacity.
5. Cost and burden of Enforcement—given that there are two ordinances already in place to
address the primary nuisance complaints against STRs, NOISE and PARKING,that are not
routinely enforced,we believe that passing this legislation is irresponsible and redundant. It is
very clear that the already over-burdened staff of the Town who struggle to get other permits,
board minutes and responses to questions about water bills addressed in a timely manner,will
not be able to police the requirements created by this legislation. It is also clear that the
additional administrative burden would be significant-probably requiring the hiring of several
additional compliance inspectors to complete the required inspections,additional
administrative people to keep track of every individual rental since that is mandated for
reporting, legal defense costs for challenges to an unfair regulation and financial analyst costs to
analyze the past investment clause(which allows an exception period for owners who can
document lack of return on investment done for short term rentals). At the December 13 public
hearing,we ask you to be prepared to share your plan to staff and administer this proposed
regulation and specifically how much this legislation will increase taxes for Town of Ithaca
properties.
Our understanding is that there are three key issues that the Board is trying to address with this effort:
1)Safety,2) Noise and Nuisance and 3) Housing stock availability. However,we believe that the current
legislation is not an effective solution and that it will cause unnecessary hardships. We fully support a
requirement for domiciles used for STRs to undergo an inspection at some reasonable interval (every 5-
10 years)with a corresponding permitting process to ensure safety. Noise and nuisance ordinances
already exist so why not enforce them rather than adding more burdensome regulations which will be
more costly to enforce than existing laws? In our case,the proposed legislation would require us to
leave our Ithaca home unrented when we are gone-which reduces Ithaca housing availability rather
than helping it. If the key issue is stopping the purchase of housing for the sole purpose of Short Term
Rentals,then we suggest a much simpler, narrower and less costly to administer regulation to address
that.
We are confident that it was not intention of the Town of Ithaca Board to penalize retirees and lower
property value owners with this legislation. However,we believe that is the net result of this
complicated,costly and unfair proposed regulation. We urge you to vote it down.
Thank you,
Craig Dunham (Cornell'78 and long-term area resident)
f,
Megan Shay(Ithaca native,Wells'83)
Paulette Rosa
From: whitlowcarol@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 3:19 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Short term rental restrictions
Absolutely absurd and only to benefit Marriott and Hilton etc. who take all of their profits out of town. Of
course those restrictions should apply to them too. Absolutely
Sent from my Whone
t
STIR Parking rules affect so many of us.On our narrow, historic road, large contractor trucks make it very
hard to get in and out of our carport,and impossible for fire trucks and perhaps ambulances also,to get
down the road.A fire chief told me Friday that it is impossible for firetrucks to get down the Road when
people park on the street.
(We've had one case where a resident had a fire in her house and a fire truck couldn't get near it.If the
new tenants or their landlords park on our very narrow road,along with visitors that they receive,they
will often block the road and drive into our carport to turn around [as the contractors are already doing].
Limits on parking would improve safety, and the amount of noise,smoke, property damage,etc.Our
road has huge potholes now, made by the increased traffic and big construction trucks.
Some STIR landlords need the money so rent a spare room in the home they live in.That's fine. But most
STIR landlords are upper-income professionals.They are looking to increase already substantial incomes.
The landlords often own or have access to multiple homes.So,they can go on vacation or sabbatical
when renting their houses, leaving conditions unmonitored.
Nearly all STRs cost over$3500 a month,often many times that,so the landlords make a lot of money
from them.Often they own more than one house.This is a lucrative new business in which upper-
income landlords are able to dramatically raise rents and price-out working class tenants.
It is a zero-sum game. Landlords make large amounts of money and the rest of us lose community,
tranquility and safety,and it becomes much harder to work in our homes due to noise and traffic.
STRs reduce income or put out of business the much more regulated hotels and Bed and Breakfasts in
an area,so there is no overall gain in local jobs or tourism.And the huge and unethical Airbnb
corporation gets a big chunk of the rental money, part of which they use to win local government allies.
As many studies have shown,the STIR business thus increases inequality,corrupts local government,and
raises housing and rental costs.There are many studies on this.And in European democracies where
they realize the costs and benefits,STRs are subject to far stricter laws than American cities.
The Board of Zoning Appeals(appointed by the Town Board,rather than elected,and often involves people with
vested interests. The Zoning Appeals Board almost never turns down a request to build rental housing regardless of
the impact on non-landlords in the neighborhood.
So anyone who has a neighbor with a barn or garage should worry about nearby STRs.
We have three close neighbors who received variances to convert barns or garages to rental housing.
Once they become STIR areas, neighborhoods are never the same again. Ours has been completely
transformed. No longer a charming, historic old mill village where people were friendly and cooperative
environmentalists. Now it's all about landlord money, leading to high polarization.
This is a very stressful time; it has been since the pandemic started and there is no end in sight.Stress
and anxiety are very high.Suicide rates have been rising every year since 2007 and now constitute the
second highest cause of death among people of age 10-34.
Increasing stress by diminishing tranquility, unity and friendship in neighborhoods is a terrible mistake.
1
There are many studies on this profoundly undemocratic process of enriching the wealthy while raising costs for
those who aren't landlords.
(See also, `Short-term rentals are harming neighborhoods":https://mountainx.com/opinion/letter-short-term-
rentals-are-harming-neighborhoods/and httos://www.wired.com/story/inside-airbnbs-guerrilla-war-against-local-
governments/
In sum, I would like to invoke political philosophers John Rawls or Immanuel Kant or one of the authors
of the Ten Commandments.
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." If you are not an STR landlord,would you like
to live ten feet away from one, hearing the constant noise of construction,and then parties, having your
carport blocked most days by contractors,and then tenants, knowing that no fire truck could get down
your road to put out a fire in your house,and ambulances probably couldn't either? Knowing how hard
it would be to work at home with all this noise?
Our Town needs to become democratic. People who make decisions like this should be elected, not
appointed,and should not have vested interests as landlords themselves,or members of the Board of
Realtors,or benefactors of Airbnb money.
And we need rules that don't allow vehicles to park in ways that block fire trucks and ambulances.
STIR problems are a curse across this country and in other democracies. Most European countries are
aware that STRs cause rental prices to escalate,fostering more inequality,and putting more regulated
hotels and Bed and Breakfasts out of business.And they destroy community and create great stress for
non-landlords in an already very stressful era.So European cities have much stricter STIR rules than ours.
Airbnb is notorious for using their vast economic resources to persuade local officials not to regulate
them. [See the article"Inside Airbnb's'Guerrilla War'Against Local Governments" in Wired, 3-20-18].
We need local democracy,with officials acting in the interests of all,and not causing harm to non-
landlords and communities.
ES remarks, Dec. 13,2021,for Town Board
2
Paulette Rosa
From: IBR. <ibr@ithacarealtors.com>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 8:13 AM
To: Paulette Rosa; Becky Jordan
Cc: Rod Howe; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;TeeAnn Hunter; Pat Leary; Eric
Levine; 'Katzmann, Brent'; laurelprops@gmail.com; IBR.
Subject: Letter to Town Board Asking for More Consideration on Short Term Rental Legislation
Attachments: December 13 Letter to Town Board.pdf
Dear Town Board Members,Town of Ithaca:
The attached letter regarding the proposed Short Term Rental legislation has been signed by 68 residents from Ithaca,
and 136 individuals overall.As such, it demonstrates that there is a great deal of uncertainty and concern about the
legislation as currently drafted. It is our strong recommendation that the Town of Ithaca Town Board not vote to adopt
this legislation during tonight's meeting, but rather return this legislation to the Short Term Rental Committee to
continue its work in further refining and improving the legislation to address the concerns raised in this letter.
Please confirm receipt of this transmission.We have copied all of the town board members,with the expectation that
the letter will be addressed at tonight's meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
Karen Johnson, President
Ithaca Board of REALTORS'
Link to online letter with signatures:httgs://chnf.it/dbinGCrGgYs
1
ALIC)r
Your Voice for Real Estate in Ithaca
December 13, 2021
Dear Members of the Ithaca Town Board:
We, the undersigned, are writing today to voice our concern over the proposed short-
term rental legislation for the Town of Ithaca. While we appreciate the work that has
gone into the proposed legislation, the way it is written is wrong for the Town of Ithaca
taxpayers and residents. We respectfully request that you create legislation that
supports responsible taxpayers/homeowners.
The current proposal includes restrictions that prevent taxpayers from temporarily
renting their homes to offset the cost of increased property taxes; and will likely increase
the Town of Ithaca operating cost to manage oversight.
1. Taxpayer/Homeowner Rights & Affordability— Short-Term Rentals Help Pay
Bills!
Town laws already give homeowners the right to rent their properties. This change in
legislation will be devastating to local hosts who, according to data contracted for and
provided to the county by Harmari, typically rent their homes or rooms for 91 days per
year. These rentals generate income that enables them to continue to live in and
maintain their homes in a market that has seen a 19% increase in assessed value in the
past five years, the highest increase in the county. Short-term rental hosts are
homeowners, not business owners looking at their profit margins.
2. Current Market Conditions Already Dis-Incentivize Investors to STR vs Long-
Term Rental.
According to data from the Ithaca Board of REALTORS® multiple listing service, the
average sales price of a single-family home in the Town of Ithaca has increased from
$310,633 to $369,217 in the past twelve months. Given the strength of the current
owner-occupied and long-term rental housing market, 91 days of short-term rental
income is not adequate to warrant purchasing or owning a rental unit for the express
purpose of short-term rental.
3. Legislative Overreach —The Cure Worse Than the Illness.
We support the requirement to register and inspect rental properties in the town to
ensure the safety of guests and tenants. According to the Harmari research, there are a
total of 157 hosts of"entire units" in the Town of Ithaca. The Town of Ithaca's lakefront
owner survey shows that 63% of lakefront owners provide short-term rental housing, or
roughly 100 hOnl8S. Given this, the strictest pnUviSiOOS of the proposed legislation will
potentially impact fewer than 60 non-lakefront Town Of |th@C@ property owners, if they all
offer uD'hVSi8d rentals. Are the added restrictions and burdens Of29 nights, guest logs,
code enforcement oversight, and the town contracting for online rental surveillance
necessary to address what has yet been d8rDODSt[8igd to be @ SigDiOC8Oi CODC8[n in the
town?
4' Our Community Benefits from Short-Term Rentals.
Tourism iS8vital component Of |th8C@'Seconomy. The VisitorsBUr8@U estimates that
STRgener8Led $3.5 nni||iOn in business to local venues, and the County received
$280.000 in FOOOl tax revenue from Ai[bDb 8|ODe in 2018. Restricting nightly stays tO20
nights will not only dramatically impact those property owners' ability to afford their own
homes, the county room tax revenue will significantly drop (by an estimated 68% or
more for non-lakefront 8TR\. It will also serve to increase the COSt per night due to
restricted availability for anyone wishing to visit, thus further discouraging tourism and
its economic benefits.
5' Lack of Adequate Opportunity for Public Comment.
The final version of this proposed legislation hasn't been made public yet and, even if
released soon, will give town taxpayers and residents inadequate time to consider the
final document and voice their concerns—especially considering that this legislation has
been in the works for over four years and only now has seen significant changes. We
respectfully ask that any vote OO this legislation be delayed until 8t least the January
2022 meeting Of the Ithaca Town Board.
Please consider revisiting this |egiS|@UOn in its current draft, and focus any final
regulation on supporting responsible hosts rather than limiting nanto| nights. The
provisions in the proposed legislation already requiring properties to be registered and
occupied by, or adjacent to, on owner's principal dvve||ing, and hosts, or their
representatives, be @v@i|8b|S during short-term rentals are sufficient to address the
concerns of our fellow residents. The focus should be on requiring responsible oversight
by hOS[S. not on capping the number Ofrental nigh[S. GS it will do nothing to improve
housing availability, or affordability, in our community.
Thank you for your consideration Of our concerns.
Respectfully,
LaureneGi|bert Ithaca NY
Sonja Sandstrom Ithaca NY
Kristina Harrison Ithaca NY
Carole Fisher Ithaca NY
Alexa Schmitz Ithaca NY
Kayla Lane Ithaca NY
Grace McMenamin Ithaca NY
Oscar Gile Willseyville NY
rebecca driscoll Ithaca NY
Michele Smith Ithaca NY
Melissa Shames Ithaca NY
Edith Spaulding Ithaca NY
Anja Sipka Ithaca NY
Alicia Burdick Oak Creek WI
Luke Sommer Chesterfield
Trinity Mithchell Philadelphia
Bella Buker Augusta
Luis Carrillo Wilmington
Dylan Taube Saint Clair
Kurt Lindelow Exton
Bryce Schwartz Buffalo
Rayven Anderson Greeley
debi kaufmann denver
RyLee Fugate Fugate Dallas TX
Marissa Garcia Albuquerque
Skylar Orth Delano NE
Ashley Freeman Frisco
Meghan Parker Salt Lake City
Tyler Frick Oxford
Sam Harmon Cadiz
Egan Dao Middleton
Laurie Dykoschak-Hill Ithaca NY
Carol DiSanto Moravia NY
Pansy Foster Spencer NY
Linda Santos Interlaken NY
Vicky Wu Honolulu HI
Nicholas Rutkowski Groton NY
Matt Muraca Trumansburg NY
Fay Cokeley Ithaca NY
AMANDA RYEN-YOWHAN Ithaca NY
ash thorne Tulsa
Peyton McDevitt Lake Orion
Reetesh Ghosh Princeton Junction
Cam Swi Joliet
Jonathan Montero Kansas City
Nancy Toffolo Ithaca NY
Muna Tab it Falls Church VA
Brent Katzmann Ithaca NY
Evan Leth Minneapolis
Helen Belachew Silver Spring
Karen Eldredge Ithaca NY
jonah Freedman Ithaca NY
Tam Warren Ithaca NY
Rosemary Rukavena Ithaca NY
Gini Vidal Ithaca NY
Carmen Lucatelli Ithaca NY
Ike Nestopoulos Ithaca NY
Jordan Jacobsen Ithaca NY
Caitlin Hart Ithaca NY
vincent cherian ronkonkoma
daniyah clarke Owings Mills
Kristine Robertson Ithaca NY
James Lane Ithaca NY
Vicku Williamson Ithaca NY
Czes Golkowski ITHACA NY
Giles Hooker Ithaca NY
Penelope Gerhart Ithaca NY
Marie Vandemark Ithaca NY
Chelsea Fields New York NY
Tasia S Ithaca NY
Alex Marchel Philadelphia PA
Roger Henderson Newark NJ
Ahnya Hawkins Herkimer NY
Davide Sayada Ithaca NY
Keith Livison Los Angeles
nsmaja nensne Blackwood
Mark Tipaldo Manahawkin
Riley Walker Dayville
Juwon Quadri New York
Lindsay Hart Trumansburg NY
Greg Miller Ithaca NY
Norma Jayne Spencer NY
Paul Kriegstein
KATHLEEN SPOONER Ithaca NY
Cheryl Miller Willseyville NY
Karen Johnson Spencer NY
Amir Siassi Los Angeles CA
Taneikwa Shaw Bronx
Abed Almuwallad Melbourne
Carolyn Greenwald Ithaca NY
Kristin Ahlness Trumansburg NY
Max Buckholtz Brooklyn NY
Mike Bolin Springfield
Jes Seaver Ithaca NY
John Burruss Interlaken NY
Jenna Kain Ithaca NY
Grace Petrisin Ithaca NY
Isaac Kain Ithaca NY
Ryan Mitchell Ithaca NY
Dominique Pastorello Ithaca NY
Jennifer Jones Ithaca NY
Linda Hirvonen Ithaca NY
Soyong Lee Ithaca NY
Mark Stuart Ithaca NY
Sara Schrader Alpine NY
Kurt Wright Syracuse NY
Rio Lange Spencer NY
Vivian " Vicki" D Schamel Elmira NY
Maria Trencansky Ithaca NY
Carina de Klerk Ithaca NY
Stephanie Richard Queens NY
Dominic Tarallo Ithaca NY
Cameron McCutcheon Bordentown NJ
Sarah Bodine Austin TX
Danielle Mix Ithaca NY
Monica Sherman Dryden NY
Darya Musatova Ithaca NY
Marian Mumford Ithaca NY
CJ DelVecchio Ithaca NY
Cars Steger Ithaca NY
Colleen Cowan Ithaca NY
Sydney Trumble Ithaca NY
Amy Wood Gonzalez Ithaca NY
Audra Bartlett Ithaca NY
Shannan Hall Ithaca NY
Christopher Hall Ithaca NY
kyle gebhart Ithaca NY
Andrea Koschmann Ithaca NY
Joy Veronneau Ithaca NY
Mandi Meidlinger Ithaca NY
Julia Dietrich Ithaca NY
Kathleen Seaman New York NY
Danielle Prince Ithaca NY
Jana Hay Ithaca NY
Karen Hollands Ithaca NY
Paulette Rosa
From: robert kane <rkane7777@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 12:58 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Airbnb?
Are you restricting airbnb rentals?
Is there no end to the government control these days?
1
Paulette Rosa
From: Brent Katzmann <brentkatzmann@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 12:44 PM
To: Paulette Rosa; Becky Jordan
Cc: Rod Howe; Bill Goodman; Rich DePaolo; Pam Bleiwas;TeeAnn Hunter; Pat Leary; Eric
Levine
Subject: STR Moment of Opportunity
Dear Town of Ithaca Town Board-
First of all, let me say thank you for agreeing to not vote the legislation into law during Monday's robust
meeting of the Town Board. I think you will agree that,for many of our Town citizens,there is a lot in this
legislation to digest and to interpret the impact on their individual circumstances.
I,for one,found it profoundly important to hear the stories our residents shared about why and how they use
short term rental as an important part of their lives, from supplementing their dual career modest incomes,to
ensuring the care and upkeep of their home and principal investment,to serving as ambassadors for our
community to visitors who value the kind of care and lodging they receive with short term rental properties. I
think passing this legislation will be felt on a real, personal level for those who can least afford to lose the
opportunities this practice offers them.
As you move forward with your"significant change"to the legislation to change the effective date (which I
imagine Alexa and our retiree residents are grateful for), I ask that you take this opportunity to make two
other changes that, from what you heard clearly on Monday evening,would make a significant difference for
these hosts while not diminishing the results you seek to obtain.Those changes are:
1. Allow any host who otherwise complies with the qualifying criteria (principal residence, obtains permit, etc)
to get both a hosted permit and an unhosted permit for STR. We heard many stories of people who host
guests periodically throughout the year and then spend periods of time away from home. With either permit,
these are allowed practices. It's unclear why, if they otherwise have this right,they should have to choose
between the two. Suggesting that a host could sign a 30 day lease to allow a guest to stay for a few days while
the host is away introduces a whole litany of tenancy rights issues that would be untenable.
2. Raise the unhosted stay cap to 90 days. It's been clear from the beginning that this threshold would enable
most local homeowners who utilize STR to meet both the demand of the market and their financial needs. By
requiring that a local representative be available 24/7 addresses the unlikely event that disturbances occur, as
do the penalties proposed. It also would reflect positively on the Board as addressing the concerns of
disparity of rights being raised between Lakefront owners and non-Lakefront owners.
I respectfully disagree with the position that the Town "can always make changes to loosen the regulations if
they seem to be working." By starting out with them as written, it will not be possible to know which of the
many regulations are reducing the nuisances or preventing investor purchasing. It seems vastly preferable to
start with a baseline set of regulations and then impose greater restrictions specifically targeted at where they
seem to fall short in effectiveness.
i
Again,thank you all for your efforts over the years to strike a balance with this legislation. I believe these
changes will more effectively, and equitably, accomplish that.And,for the record,the regulations as written
don't impact my personal use of STR. My appeal is purely out of a genuine interest in doing the right thing by
our fellow Town residents and the guests they seek to serve.
Kind regards,
Brent
2
Ithaca Public Hearing nDSTRlegislation, 12Y18/21
State0ent-yWi@S|OtDiCk. 28 Renwick Heights Road
STR hosts and the real estate community repeatedly state that there is no need to cap the number of
days allowed because as long as the hosts are"responsible", there is no problem with STRs.
STRs,whether they are hosted or unhosted by a"responsible"host bring numerous negatives to the
neighborhood and neighbors who live there which include the obvious like noise, parties, parking issues,
garbage, and traffic. But personally,one of the biggest negatives I have experienced in our neighborhood
iea complete loss ofcommunity.
Most people buy o house ino residentially zoned neighborhood because they want to live next toa
neighbor—not a business, a neighbor.A house that is inhabited by different people every weekend or
week is not a neighbor. Regardless of whether the host and the renters are"responsible", short term
renters are not neighbors and they have no vested interest in the neighborhood, and their presence
creates a loss of community.The only way to somewhat mitigate this loss of community|otolimit the
number mfrentals.
The Town is relying partly on neighbor complaints to regulate and monitor STRs.This situation
encourages neighbors to police neighbors and report potential violations which ultimately leads to further
destruction of community.
Cayuga Heights has had STR laws in place which allow a maximum of 28 days of rentals per year.
According to the Cayuga Heights Clerk, the limits were put in place to maintain the residential character
of the community per the Comprehensive Plan for the Village.The Town of Ithaca's Comprehensive Plan
also states as Goal LU-3"Maintain and enhance the established character and sense of community of
existing neighborhoods".
The Cayuga Heights Clerk reports that there have been zero requests by hosts to rent for more than 28
days in the 3 1/2 years that this law has been in place. It seems therefore sensible to start with a similar
plan for the rest of the Town since it has been proven to be a successful balance between those in favor
ofSTRe and those opposed.
Allowing an unlimited number of hosted days is not fair to to those opposed to STRs and is justified by the
completely incorrect assumption that any problems will be dealt with by the host as they occur.As already
stated, a host being present does nothing to lessen the loss of community caused by the presence of
STRe.
Another issue io the number of permits allowed per resident.
After lengthy deliberation, all 3 members of the STR committee unanimously agreed on one permit per
resident for the primary residence OR the accessory dwelling unit OR the adjacent property. Only a month
before the vote onthe new|mw'the other 4 Board members quietly doubled this(o2 permits per resident
with no explanation or public discussion.This will obviously have huge consequences on neighborhoods
and neighbors.
Airbnb's term"the sharing economy"is erroneous and misleading.Airbnb is completely motivated by
financial gain, om are the neoltom and the hosts. It's a business transaction.There imno`sharing^ And
often k isn't out ofnaed—it'sGREED!
Those of us who wish to limit STRs are trying to preserve some sense of community and quality of life in
our neighborhoods,which is the whole reason we chose to purchase a home in a residentially zoned
neighborhood.
| urge you to reconsider limiting the number days allows for hosted rentals.
|also urge you 10 follow the unanimous recommendation bytheBTRoommitteemembem1maUmwon|y
one permit per parcel.
Paulette Rosa
From: Mia Slotnick <mjslotnick123@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 12:40 AM
To: Rod Howe; Bill Goodman; Paulette Rosa; Patricia Leary;TeeAnn Hunter; Rich DePaolo;
Pam Bleiwas; Eric Levine; Marty Moseley; Susan Ritter; Brock@clarityconnect.com
Subject: Re: Ithaca Board of Realtors
Dear Ithaca Town Board members and all those involved in STR legislation,
I just want to make sure that you are aware that the Ithaca Board of Realtors is actively recruiting people to oppose the
proposed STR legislation.
The Board of Realtors has once again run a full page ad (see below) in the December 8 edition of the Ithaca Journal real
estate supplement.
a �
ll0VlFA )WNFJIt
S(c)[1) t 1(2, ItI1c)u::i ...T..c)wn hoard
frol n in 1posirlg r.J r.f fa i r_ rest:l i c: R i o ri s
ori I,.iow yot..,l i_Jse y(:)lJr horne.
Don't let legislators limit the number of days
you can rent your home for short-terra
rentals. The Town Board votes December 1
to adopt or reject this legislation!Act today
and consider speaking out on December 13.
the Ithocci
Town Board ty nmm�g the code below.
For more information,contact the office of the Ithaca hoard of
REAL"T`ORSryp,+at N C.:�.�d�@2n��.#d.r"t;a�A�'lkFFv,m�'�i]Ck or(607)257-1001..
i Ito
lA I� Yo.,Voice to.ROAI e.tat.I,,ath.c
It is clearly aimed at recruiting all those profiting financially from STRs to protest against limits on STRs.Those profiting
include realtors who are upselling housing stock based on their STIR income potential,and STIR hosts.The QR code leads
to a petition containing misleading and biased information urging the Board to delay the vote on the STIR legislation
and "focus any final regulation on supporting responsible hosts rather than limiting rental nights".
https://www.change.org/p/members-of-the-ithaca-town-board-opposition-to-short-term-rental-legislation-in-the-town-
of-ithaca
1
Limiting the number of rental nights is the only way to somewhat decrease the negative effects these STR businesses
have on residential neighborhoods.
The Board of Realtors may manage to recruit people to sign their petition and show up at the December 13 hearing, but
they are all motivated solely by financial gain,whereas those who wish to limit STRs are trying to preserve some sense of
community and quality of life in their residential neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Mia Slotnick
On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 08:10, Mia Slotnick<mislotnick123@gmail.com>wrote:
Dear all,
I just wanted to make sure you are all aware that the Ithaca Board of Realtors has been running full page ads in the
Ithaca Journal instructing Town residents to "Tell their Town of Ithaca Board members NO!"to limiting the number of
days allowed for short term rentals.
1rMMxffiNMEW
iio� 1 ,r l
y
%�, ii dddddddd01l00ulllllllilluuuuuuuuuuuuuu �
VVVVV
��
f
Their demand is justified with erroneous information.The QR code leads to a document with more erroneous
information. (see attached PDF below).
It includes the statement:
Short-term Rentals Support Home Purchases!
2
This statement is the reason that the Ithaca Board of Realtors are pushing so hard to have no limit on the number of
days allowed for STRs.They can claim any home is a potential income property,which leads to more houses selling for
more money. Here is a recent ad from the Ithaca Board of Realtors real estate section of the Ithaca Journal describing a
property as both an amazing family home or"a highly profitable vacation rental".
Up��r�
ra
/im / / ta ✓ ,vrr m"' Yr/^h8 1 w'�nYIP f ykli4"
oir/R -r i , '� �R,✓6a d I'�����,y,P,�}Y m+u"�� �y iq �
yaw irk /r 'I�m; �✓ y y7�� � d t a/! fi /ro i t
/
�Hi'✓'fJi /���'�'/ ��jw,F �rl�,l��r p/dh /� �� as �Oy� �'6l t / '"'JN, 1 '.av'p
a
000,
m.a highs y pmofifab° e vacation nerital yrrnmr rliohoe ArnaJ)g Oew s of Cayuga 4e basin loci
winter hake 4w,Tflo afte Afaoir to rhe'2 1 is U�'Vi atchrert hmi the hearh of wine country& arl'j to
the farrwous Naok gaarriomrmh TraiL A 6 year hiisrory of returns as a vaoafuomr rental,Bookings
for thmis year are on a record page, r urrenVy thmugh Labor Days, This oo d be a turnkey
a opportunity for the savoy 6estor. Not an Sestor?As a homeowner you MU feel Re a
pampered guest living here,come&discover the goon vibraborms that abound.kt570604
Linda Woodard,the Cayuga Heights mayor, made it clear to the Ithaca Board of Realtors that the Village would not
tolerate homes in Cayuga Heights being sold on the basis of them being used as STIR income businesses. Maintaining
the residential character of the Village is the top priority.
Please consider following Cayuga Heights' lead in reining in the Ithaca Board of Realtors' push to upsell properties
based on their income potential from STRs. Maintaining the residential character of all Town neighborhoods should be
the priority.
Thank you,
Mia Slotnick
3
Paulette Rosa
From: Susan Ritter
Sent: Monday, December 1]. 2O21 358PK4
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: FVV:STIR ordinance
Paulette,
I'm not sure if these comments were only sent tomenrnot. |f you have not seen these, can you please forward them
onto the Town Board.
Thanks,
Sue
From:CyndyPiha<cyndypiha@8mai|.com>
Sent: Monday, December 13,2O21]:43PK4
To:Susan Ritter<SRitter@ptown.ithaca.ny.us>
Subject:STRordinance
December 8'ZO3,
To the Town of Ithaca planning board,
Our story.We live in Athens,GA.A town very similar to Ithaca.My husband and I are retired elementary school teachers.Our oldest
,on and his wife and our one year old grandson live in Vvi||,eyvi||e and both work in Ithaca. Two years ago,our youngest,on was
accepted to[ome||'s creative writing graduate program.But,there was a housing problem. He has a very large dog and could not
find a place tvrent. I began looking for rentals and came across a small cottage,that I fell in love with.We decided to go out on a
limb,buy the cottage and let our son rent it out for the cost of the mortgage.Together,we built a nice fenced in dog yard and all
was well.Then he saw a house for sale a block behind the cottage and decided to buy it.That was okay,he's a veteran and had the
means.But, now we have an unexpected mortgage to pay.
Fast forward August 2021. My 94 year-old mother has been in an assisted living facility for 4 years.She is running out of money.Can
you even imagine the horrors nf that?Have you been toa nursing home lately? vvc realized we have a source of income right at
our fingertips.vve can turn our cottage into unm,bnb.
Vve interviewed couple ofmanagement companies but were not impressed.We had very specific ideas about having an Airbnb.Our
daughter-in-law reached out to a mom's of Ithaca Facebook group and two moms were interested in managing our property.We
made our choice and have been so happy with them.
The decision to have an Aibnb was not made lightly.We put a lot of care into our Ithaca home and also consideration of our
neighbors.We have a lawn service a snow plow service and the property is well cared for. u also gives v`the opportunity to have a
place to stay when we visit our kids.While we have only been at this for a couple of months,the stress of finances to keep my mom
in her facility has been relieved.
UNTIL NOW!This proposal will impact our lives immensely.This is not a party house,it is 800 square feet of charm,parking is not an
issue,noise is not an issue,garbage is not an issue and there is no health or safety hazard to the town of Ithaca.
We have a great management family,who are available 24/7.We have a son who is 3 minutes away in case of extreme
emergency. There is nothing about our Airbnb that is taking away from the quality of life of the residents of the Town of Ithaca.
What we and others will lose if this ordinance is passed is the freedom of income that we have a fundamental right to earn.We urge
you to vote this ordinance down.
Sincerely,cyndy and Leonard piha
Paulette Rosa
From: Patricia Leary <pll7@cornell.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 4:55 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Fwd:Short term rentals
In case you didn't get this--she didn't say she was sending this to the others. Probably did, but just in case...you need to
have it anyway.
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
Resent-From:<PLearv@town.ithaca.ny.us>
From:Sonja Sandstrom<soniasandstrom@yahoo.com>
Date:December 13,2021 at 10:01:59 AM EST
To: PLearv@town.ithaca.nv.us
Subject:Short term rentals
Hello
I understand that the town of Ithaca is meeting to consider a new law to limit short term rentals.
I do not currently live in the town of Ithaca, but my family and I stay in many of these when we visit.We
have several children and this is how we can afford to stay and travel. It would not be be possible for us
to afford to stay at a hotel and we dislike supporting big business.We like supporting families and small
mom/pop places.
The families that host us have always been amazing.They are attentive and ensure the place is nice and
safe.We have never been a source of complaint. I'm fact the airbnb by our house(not Ithaca) is the
nicest on our block.They always have kind people and are respectful.The neighbors with older teens
actually are the worst and their parents own the place.Truth be told I have never had an issue with any
Airbnb that could not be resolved by already existing laws but with my continuous neighbors I have to
resort to police.All you need is contact info for the host.We don't need to be babysat by someone
'watching'.The proposal sounds like stalking your neighbors and that is terrible for community feelings.
From experience, I know that the neighbors who have issues with any str have mostly been well off
entitled white men who want to control others.Sometimes it is because they have fears as they age or
just don't deal well with change. I'm sure you know the type.As a woman married to a bipoc woman,
we run into them from time to time. I would hate for them to stop people like the good families who we
stay at(they live about a mile away)and the other places we stay from providing such a needed and
wonderful place. I would hate to have to start staying in the city and send our money their. I like
supporting the people of the town of Ithaca.
Please do not pass these restrictions.
The home owners deserve to use their property.Sure have safety code inspections, but don't make it
more restrictive than a long term rentals.That is just a way to have the rich control the ability for those
of us struggling. Because that is what this proposal is,a way to control who gets to live in your town. It
says if you can't afford to pay for it while you raise families,work and struggle,you can't do this to help.
Only those with better jobs.
1
I also know that some fear speaking up.There is a lot of targeting by various people.The person we stay
with asked that we not use her name.That should also tel you something.Some of your community are
targeting others. Maybe 'just'with words, but that does not encourage community. I'd like my kids to
grow in a world where we own our mistakes and look out for each other.Yes that means equal
treatment for all rentals-in code and in contact. Limiting Airbnb rentals does not do that.
Thank you.
Sonja Sandstrom
2
I am supportive of the proposed law to increase the regulation of short-term
rentals. However, I believe that further restrictions are needed. I would like to
provide some background.
On February 1.1, 2020, the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals granted a
variance allowing a neighbor on our street, The Byway, to convert his existing barn
into an accessory dwelling unit. Two months later, on April 15, the same five
board members cited their earlier decision as "precedent" and granted a new
variance, allowing some other neighbors to convert their garage located directly
across the narrow one-lane Byway from our home, only twenty feet from our
bedrooms, into an accessory dwelling unit.
The Zoning Board of Appeals nullified zoning law regarding the required location
and setbacks for accessory dwelling units, then used their own decision as
justification to do it again. It's the strangest use of the word, "precedent" that I've
ever seen. What the board members have effectively done is eliminate zoning on
The Byway.
Prior to these actions by the Zoning Board of Appeals, The Byway had eight single
family homes. In the space of two months, the Zoning Board of Appeals increased
the number of residences on our street by 25%. No provision was made for
additional parking on what is perhaps the most congested street in Tompkins
county.
In the case of the accessory dwelling unit now under construction twenty feet from
my family's home, the violation of zoning law is spectacular. The law requires that
a new accessory dwelling unit be constructed in the back yard; this one is being
built in the front yard. In fact, it is being built directly on the property line, with no
setback whatsoever between the residence and the street.
The Zoning Board of Appeals found that, "there will not be any undesirable change
in the neighborhood character or be detrimental to nearby properties." This was
perhaps intended as comedy. It is impossible to take such a conclusion seriously.
My family has now endured over nine months of construction twenty feet from our
home. Access to our car port is blocked by contractors' vehicles on a daily
basis. The noise of sawing and hammering, clanging of ladders, and shouting of
workers is present five to seven days each week. Only heavy rain provides any
relief from the noise of construction. Our ability to work productively from home
or enjoy nature in our yard has been all but lost.
We have experienced large clouds of concrete dust blowing into our yard, and onto
clothes drying on our deck, from sawing of concrete panels done in our neighbors'
front yard. Lead paint chips from the demolition work -- the neighbors' garage was
previously a barn, built in the 1800's and covered in lead paint -- have been
repeatedly left in The Byway, to wash into our yard when it rains. This narrow
road, which lacks gutters or storm drains, serves also as a sidewalk. Our own cats,
and other neighbors' pets walk across it, then groom themselves, ingesting lead
paint.
For a period of several months in the Summer and Fall, our neighbors' contractors
daily left nails in the road directly in front of our car port. One of them punctured
a tire, which blew out on an interstate at high speed and could have caused a
serious accident. The replacement cost alone was $200. Even after being notified
of this ongoing hazard, our neighbors and their contractors did not change their
behavior, and we found dozens more nails in the road for months afterward.
My family has lost access to fire protection services. There is a fire hydrant
located on our property,but it might as well not exist. Conversations with local
fire department personnel have confirmed that no fire truck could ever reach this
hydrant on any work day, given the contractors' trucks parked in the road, as well
as our neighbors' own vehicles (since their garage has now become a construction
site, they park in our one-lane street themselves).
The profound unsuitability of our neighbors' front yard as a location for a new
accessory dwelling unit was obvious when the Zoning Board of Appeals heard our
neighbors' request for a variance. They granted it anyway, with no expression of
concern for my family or other residents of The Byway to be found anywhere in
the minutes of that meeting.
Now, as we presumably enter the last few months of construction across the street,
we face the prospect of a short-term rental entering service twenty feet from our
home. Its tenants, when parking in their garage, will undoubtedly make use of our
driveway and car port to turn around. Our neighbors insist that this is their
right. Our cats will be at risk of being run over. Newly installed windows will
peer directly into our bedrooms and bathrooms. We will lose the privacy of our
own home.
We can only imagine the noise and disruption to our lives that will ensue once our
neighbors' new accessory dwelling unit becomes a short-term rental. What the
Town Board must understand is the interaction between the Zoning Board of
Appeals, an unelected, unaccountable, and completely unchecked government
body, and the problem of short-term rentals generally.
Imagine a quiet, residential street such as ours was only a year ago. Residents
would feel no reason to be concerned that they might suddenly find themselves
living next to what are in effect small hotels. At worst, they might expect a
neighbor's home to be rented to a long-term tenant.
No one expects their neighbor's garage, which has not served as a residence once in
the nearly two hundred years of its life and cannot under zoning law become a
residence due to its location at the very front of the neighbor's yard, to overnight be
rezoned as an accessory dwelling unit. But this is what the Zoning Board of
Appeals does routinely, with no check on its power.
If when looking up and down your own street, you see ten houses, each with a
garage, what you're looking at is not ten potential short-term rentals, but
twenty. Within a one-minute walk from my home, I know of three former garages
that the Zoning Board of Appeals has granted variances to be converted into
accessory dwelling units. Two of these are in front yards. There may be more,
even in that very small area. I know of no case in which such a request has been
denied.
Yesterday, I reviewed all the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes available online,
going back to January 2020. Only one appeal for a variance was denied. Elected
representatives write zoning law; the Zoning Board of Appeals nullifies it. The
system is broken.
The rise of short-term rentals as an option for prospective landlords greatly
compounds this abject failure of local government. A property owner who might
not find it worthwhile to convert their garage into an accessory dwelling unit to be
rented to a long-term tenant for $2,000 per month, might be well be motivated to
do so by the prospect of renting it for $500 or more per night.
Where there is money to be made, ethics tend not to be of much concern. Short
term rental owners cannot be relied upon to regulate themselves. The proposed
law is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. In particular, I do not see
how enforcement of the 30-day maximum for unhosted rentals will be
achieved. Will neighbors be expected to keep track of how long particular vehicles
have been parked in front of specific short-term rentals? This does not seem
practical.
My strong suggestion is to completely ban unhosted short term rentals. One
landlord's monetary gain means the loss of peace and quiet for an entire street of
neighbors. This is even worse than zero sum; it's the privatization of gains and
socialization of losses, in the worst possible way.
There are some very good ideas in this proposal, such as the restriction of short-
term rental parking to off-street parking spots. If that specific provision does not
become law, it is likely that my family will lose access to fire protection and
emergency medical services, indefinitely. Anyone who believes that I'm
exaggerating in this regard need only visit The Byway on a work day (on foot,
please; our road cannot accommodate any more vehicles) and witness the
congestion firsthand. Right now, contractors' trucks are parked up and down our
narrow, one-lane road. In a few months, if this proposal does not become law, it
may be short-term renters who are blocking emergency vehicle access instead.
I conclude by reminding the Board that Ithaca has long prided itself on doing the
right thing, even if that was not the most profitable alternative in a strictly
monetary sense. There would be great irony in our town embracing on paper the
principle of equity, but in practice allowing the pursuit of private enrichment to
debase our community.
Please do the right thing today, and make this proposal law. I hope the Town
Board will revisit this issue in the near future, and do even more. Thank you.
Paulette Rosa
From: Kenneth William Simpson <kws5@cornell.edu>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 8:42 PM
To: Paulette Rosa
Subject: Town Board meeting Dec 13th 2021 Transcript
Hi Paulette,
Please can you forrward this transcript to the board.
Town Board,Comments from the floor December 13th 2011
Kenny Simpson:
Re Lakefront days and numbers of permits
After many years of effort the STR committee unanimously recommended that:
• The number of lakefront days would be 5 months, 150 days
• In the Town, a host will be allowed one permit for either their primary residence,OR their accessory
dwelling unit,OR the adjacent unit. Reasons for limiting it to one permit were to protect housing
stock and cost, as well as to de-incentivize annexing neighboring properties from getting 2 permits.
• Some of the STIR committee's further recommendations in the draft law were based on their
agreement on allowing only one permit per resident.
• However, Bill Godman openly challenged the 150 days : stating "The other 4 of us are thinking 7
months or more.The Committee can put 5 months in there, but it will get changed by the Board
later."
• At the November Board meeting,the other 4 Board members quietly doubled permits from 1 to 2
permits per resident.
Why did Bill Goodman, Eric Levine, Rod Howe and Pam Bleiwas overrule the recommendations of a committee
that has immersed itself in these issues for 4 years?
This will obviously have huge consequences on neighborhoods and neighbors.
It would seem best practice that the number of days for un-hosted and hosted STRs and permits should be
limited until their impact is determined: start low and increase if impact on the neighborhood allows.
Revenue, Revenue based STIR days and permitting fees:
• Current average nightly rates for AirBnb in Ithaca today are$211, ranging to $2600/night for some lake
properties on Airbnb and VRBO. Over 222 super hosts are listed on the AirbNb website.
• The "Charming Arts and Craft Style House operated by Superhost Renwick"Neighbor" costs$6,000 for
4 nights.
• We know a doctor gave up medicine as they make more money renting their lake house.
• It is simple math :
e.g. Lakefront 150 nights x$500=$75,000, 245nights x$500=$122,500
Renwick Neighbor $1489/night X 29 unhosted nights=$43,181, However, "Neighbor" is a "pseudo-
host"and her unlimited days=$543,485
This snapshot clearly illustrates that STIR are a long way from the stereotypical disadvantaged homeowner
trying to make ends meet. This begs the question: If STIR is NOT a business.....Why not limit STIR days to the
t
number of days required to offset their local taxes?
Permitting fees should be proportional to the revenue generated by an STR:
With proposed regulations a 10%permitting fee would seem equitable to fully cover costs of monitoring and
enforcement beyond the complaints of frustrated neighbor's whose quality of life and sense of community has
been destroyed by avarice and greed, not need.
2
Attachment 1
My name is Maralyn Edid. I live at 22 Renwick Heights Road.
I am speaking today to urge the Town Board to accept regulations initially proposed by the STR
committee that would limit short-term rentals in our community.The STR committee has worked hard
on this issue for several years now, having heard from residents and neighbors,solicited legal counsel,
and researched the rules in other communities as well as options for managing and enforcing new
restrictions.They have weighed the costs and benefits and come down squarely on the side of
pragmatic and realistic recommendations that recognize the variety of residential patterns,geographic
differences,and hyper-local traditions while balancing over-arching issues such as housing availability,
neighbor concerns,and property-owner interests.The proposed regulations as originally submitted by
the committee are not perfect—I venture to say that no one with any stake in this matter is totally
satisfied—but they are a start.
It is imperative that the Board now affirm its support for imposing meaningful restrictions on short-term
rentals in our town; more specifically, by approving the limitations the STR committee recommended,
including the number of allowable unhosted short-term rental permits per property owner. I will note
here that subsequent changes to the committee's proposal were made without public discussion and
clearly do not reflect the hard-won consensus reached by the STIR committee.This is disappointing,to
say the least.
I won't rehash all the arguments about the need for limitations except to say that the livability of our
town,our neighborhoods, matters. Regulations on short-term rentals will help ensure that the Town of
Ithaca remain a place where we can raise our families in peace and quiet,enjoy the companionship of
neighbors,and welcome the occasional visitor who pays for home-based lodging. In doing so we would
join a growing list of cities and towns, large and small,from San Francisco and Honolulu to Salina and
Cayuga Heights,that have taken steps to clamp down on the disruptive impact of short-term rentals;
many of these local laws are far more restrictive than those being considered here.Ownership does not
give anyone the right to do what they please with their property;zoning codes exist for good reason.
Please do the right thing and vote yes on the local law,as first proposed by the STR committee,that
would regulate short-term rentals in the Town of Ithaca.
Thank you
Paulette Rosa
From: Bill Goodman
Sent Monday December 1I2O21 513 PM
To: Susan Terwilliger; Rich DePacJo
Cc: Paulette Rosa
Subject: RE:Questions/Comments re:Short Term Rentals
Hi Sue, I'm sending this on to the Town Clerk,so she can share it with the Town Board also. Since you won't beatthe
meeting tonight, I'll try to touch base with you tomorrow.
Bill Goodman
Deputy Supervisor,Town ofIthaca
215 North Tio#aStreet
Ithaca, NY 14850
607-592-6745' ceU
From:Susan Terwilliger<suzegitar@me.com>
Sent: Monday, December 1],2OZ14:18PM
To: Bill Goodman<BGoodman@townjthacaoyus>; Rich DoPao|oxrdepao|o@tovvnjthaoaoyus>
Subject:Questions/Comments re:Short Term Rentals
Dear Board Members on the Short Term Rentals Committee,aka Bill and Rich:
I'm pleased to see the Town regulating Air BnB use with the intent of the good of the community. I do have a few
questions/concerns,as my husband and I are preparing to become Air BnB hosts sometime in 2022. I'm sending these
via email as|will beota Board Meeting for the Ithaca Waldorf School on Monday from S-7pm(I'mo music teacher
there and Faculty Rep to the 8oard).
My husband and I currently live in a 3 bedroom house on West Hill. (Bill already knows much of our story).We bought
an adjacent parcel of land,and are planning to build on that parcel and keep the house we currently live in for short
term rentals. Once we finish our renovations of the current house,we will be able to live on the lower level of the house
and rent the main floor as a 2 bedroom "plus"as there is an office that could be used as a small 3rd bedroom or for a
child or 2 children to sleep in.According to the provisions proposed,which restricts us to 2 bedrooms and no more than
2 persons per bedroom,we would be restricted to renting to 4 people(2 adults and 2 children).This prevents us from
renting to anyone with more than 2 children,even though we have adequate sleeping areas,with ventilation and
windows, both in the office area and in the living room. I understand not wanting to see houses packed with a dozen
people sleeping on porches etc, but 2 bedrooms/4 people seems unnecessarily restrictive,and not very family friendly.
Rather than restricting to 2 bedrooms, 2 persons per bedroom,what about a 2 bedroom,6 person occupancy limit(a
child or two,or even an adult,could sleep on a bed in a small bedroom or a pull out sofa bed)or a 3 bedroom/7 person
occupancy limit for the same reason?
Or if you're not comfortable with those numbers as a blanket rule, is there a way for perople to get a qualified waiver?
We own the not-a-town road we live on so parking is not an issue,we will be living next door and we are not going to
allow parties.This is going to be a substantial part of our retirement income so we would really appreciate having
flexibility,and would handle it responsibly.
Also once we move into the new house,we want to turn part of the lower level of our current house into either a long
term rental or an additional (1 bedroom)Air BnB unit.As I understand it,even though we will be living right next door,
we would be prohibited from the latter option by the 2 bedroom limit.Or would having both units rented then be
regarded as an Unhosted rental,in which case we would be restricted to 29 days a year?
Additionally, if my interpretation of this is correct,the Lakefront Residential Zone gets a pass on having almost unlimited
Unhosted days of rental per year? I do understand that people might live in their lake house for a month or so in the
summer but choose to rent it otherwise, but I'm wondering if the Town is putting similar occupancy restrictions(2
bedrooms/4 people)on Lakehouse rentals?
Thank you for listening to my concerns;
Sincerely,
Sue Terwilliger
Michael Olszewski
620 Elm Street Ext
Section 4-adding the subsection M
"M. Short-term rental uses, subject to the limitations on short-term rental uses set forth in § 270-219.7.For
purposes of this subsection M only, a short-term rental use in the Lakefront Residential Zone is considered an
accessory use even if the dwelling unit is used for an unhosted short-term rental use during a majority of days in
a calendar year."
Section 1
HOSTED SHORT-TERM RENTAL USE --A short-term rental use where the owner lives and sleeps in the
rented unit, or in another dwelling unit on the same or an adjacent tax parcel, throughout the short-term renter's
stay, and no more than two bedrooms are rented at any one time.
UNHOSTED SHORT-TERM RENTAL USE --A short-term rental use where the owner does not live and
sleep in the rented unit,or in another dwelling unit on the same or an adjacent tax parcel,throughout the short-
term renter's stay.
2