The Town of Rochester Town Board held a public hearing on Amending Chapter 140, zoning for Short Term rentals on May 26, 2021 6:00pm via Livestream Broadcast on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg7ykop50cWmqPFUpgDjRSQ
Listening Dial in Number +1 929 205 6099 Meeting ID: 827 3544 2888 Password: 182836
Supervisor Baden called the meeting to order and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ROLL CALL:
PRESENT:
Councilwoman Erin Enouen Councilwoman Bea Haugen-Depuy
Councilman Chris Hewitt Councilman Adam Paddock
Supervisor Michael Baden Town Attorney Marylou Christiana
Deputy Town Clerk Christina Ferrara
ABSENT:
Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg
Supervisor Baden opened the public hearing on proposed Local Law 2-2021: Amendment of Chapter 140, Zoning:
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Kris Bolton – I do not have any comments, I’m just here to listen and learn.
Matthew Zander- Similar to Kris, I’m trying to take in the pros and cons of the proposal and get an understanding of how the town benefits from acting on such a proposal. Maybe if I could hold my comments until later if I could.
Michael Coleman – I am a full-time resident in town, I’m surrounded by STTR’s (Short Term Transient Rental) and also a person who has extra space and someday may consider renting out and I like the idea that could be an option. I love all my neighbors, I don’t necessary love all of their guests. I think it’s important for people who don’t live here full-time to recognize that while tourists bring revenue to local businesses; and turning over STTR provides additional jobs, there are also impacts to people who live here full-time and beyond the occasional nuisance guests. One of the major concerns that this law seeks to address, is the need to make sure we find an equitable way to ensure that people who live here and work here, can afford to buy a home. I also agree there are other steps that can be taken to address housing concerns, and I am confident this board is considering many of those things. In previous public comment sessions, I think people were concerned that this might impact property values. I don’t think that there is anyone on the board that wants to do something that negatively impacts property value. All of them live here in town. What they want to do is find a way to ensure that they address the interest of everyone in Rochester. And I promise you that the goal of this law is not to be punitive. All that said, I do feel this law is going in the wrong direction. During a previous public comment session there was a lot of discussion about how to adjust the Cap system to make it more equitable and there was a distinction that was made between non -owner occupied, and resident- owner occupied STTR’s. I think that was a useful distinction because it would allow people who dividing their time between Rochester and somewhere else. Or people like me that may want to occasionally rent out a room to not fall under the Cap system. Today’s weekender might become tomorrow’s 4 day a weeker or eventually join the town full time. So, I think it’s important to allow for more flexibility in terms of how we define those categories. I also think the addition of more flexibility with respect to alternative dwelling structures was a good change. I believe that was dropped out of the latest iteration of this and that is of course assuming a way that the code enforcement officer to ensure that they’re safe to occupy. All of this needs to be done in the contexts of the real housing concerns that are facing Ulster County. I think the trend in terms of town law should be to start from a point of greater flexibility and move to more stringent requirements as the situation changes. Finally, I want to say that we as a community need to figure out a way to address the disconnect between people who live here full- time and people that live here part time. Just speaking from some of the previous public comment sessions that I’ve listened in on. For full time residents I think that means it’s kind of extending the olive branch to new residents to help them feel like they are more part of the community. One of my favorite memories of coming to Rochester was when my wife and I were new to town, and we thought our neighbor was inviting us to a small family BBQ and it ended up; we walked into a rager of a block party where we met 50- 60 people in the 1st hour. For people who’ve not yet been converted to full-time residents, I think it’s important to find ways that you can reach out and become more part of this community there are a lot of people with great ideas and a lot of people that serve voluntarily on our committees to go after grant money or help with local projects and I hope you’ll all seek out the opportunities to start to get to know people in town ; who live here year round; we need help with building new code to deal with situations like this and I hope that you’ll find ways to help contribute to Rochester because we want to welcome everyone and we love having new neighbors here.
Darla Murray – I live with my husband Matthew who is also on here in Stone Ridge. I’m actually out of town for work right now so I’m joining separately and like Matthew said, we’re interested in learning more about this. We love the area and have recently relocated up there and still have some Air B n’ B options as well. So, I just want to listen and learn and get to know everyone else on here.
Shannon – via chat / no comment
Liza – I spend half my time in Kerhonkson and the other half I Air B n’ B my house to pay for it. I’m here to listen about the new rules and see what we’ve come up with.
Megan Brenn- White – Kerhonkson resident and realtor understands that the housing crisis with affordability and the STR are not disconnected. I do think the rule as its written will 100% impact property values. I also think that it seems to be the stated intent. If you want to have the prices not go up so that people can afford it, then it means they are staying down or they are getting lower. So, if that is one of the stated intents of the law; is to keep the prices same or lower, that will work. The thing that is most damaging to property values in some ways is, uncertainty. So, I think the uncertainty and it may be lack of clarity in the way the rule as it’s written right now, is it going to be 1% or 3%? Will you be able to keep your renewal? If you sell your house in February does the person that buys the house have to wait from February till September to apply, then in December if they will be able to rent out for part-time? We are hearing from buyers, and we are telling buyers to be worried about Rochester and that is just real. The other thing is, there are problematic long-term neighbors we’ve had those too. The good thing with Air Bn’ B is that they are gone after two days usually or after one week. I think in general; our neighbors do Air B n’ B, we have never even heard them. So, I think it’s a mixed bag I will say that just because our team works in eight counties this is the most complicated law that I’ve seen and one of the most restrictive. So that’s unusual for me in the Town of Rochester and there is no way there won’t be lawsuits, we are already going to start talking to attorneys about it. One attorney talked to us about it being unconstitutional. There is a case in Placid where it would be able to go to a federal court. If the board members are looking into the personal and cost implications that is what happens when really restrictive policies get put into place. Not saying that is a threat, that’s just a factual outcome of this. People who own them will have a class action lawsuit or individual lawsuits against the town. I love Air B n’ Bs in a lot of ways. I love the visitors here, people love being here. I don’t have a current Air B n’ B in the town. I think the benefits are obvious in a lot of ways.
Michael Rubin – No comment at this this time.
Phone calls
Sophie Jocelyn Rower – Speaking as a representative of my family which has roots in Kerhonkson since the 60’s. Our current house has been in our family for 45 years and is enjoyed by three generations. We use the house ourselves and do the short-term rentals for over ten years to help cover the expenses. We are committed to Kerhonkson and keeping it safe and affordable place to live. We appreciate that The Town of Rochester wants to preserve affordable housing in the area and is looking at the pressure that short-term vacation rentals are putting on the housing market, particularly those that are operated by companies that are buying property with the sole purpose of creating short -term rentals. The current proposed rules may serve to benefit these larger entities who have the resources both financial and legal, to comply with the permitting process more easily. We all know that the Town of Rochester benefits from tourist dollars as several people have said already, but we must balance that with the need for affordable housing. We respectfully request that the board consider how to create “carve outs” for people like us who have been in the community for a long time and who retain their properties for personal use. It would be a shame if the regulations made it more difficult for mom-and-pop operations who have roots in the community, to operate in a responsible way leaving that business solely in the hands of entities with no connection to this community and no true desire to contribute to it. Thank You for your time.
Gala #0623 – Kerhonkson resident for 17 years, here to listen and learn.
Emily #9201 – Wants to learn about the regulations.
Dan Richfield / Justine Benith #2492 – Kerhonkson residents for 7 years, bought land and slowly developed primary home, with the intent to build two additional investment homes to rent out for income. Cleared that plan with Code Enforcement and Planning Board originally and explained our intents. Had invested a lot of money to start building the investment properties and with the new laws potentially in place they are still hoping this can be part of their livelihood.
Henry Hershkowitz – Accord / Kerhonkson resident for over 20 years. Lives here, however also owns a separate property used for Airbnb. Has anyone talked about or taken into consideration how much the businesses other than Airbnb businesses benefit from the tourists that all come in? We try to run this Airbnb very professionally, with screening i.e., no large parties etc. Also supply them with a list of local restaurants, businesses, which have recently popped up in Rosendale, Accord, Kingston etc. People who come, are hungry to spend their dollars at these businesses while we are still paying full school taxes on these properties and we aren’t using the benefits of those that’s benefitting all the people that live there full-time and all the students who use the schools, and that’s great and the businesses are doing well as a result also. Just wanted to add that point.
Written comments:
Lisa Sullivan:
I’m writing with comment about the proposed regulations for short-term rentals in the Town of Rochester and with grave concern about the implications of the regulations as they are presently proposed.
There are few places upstate that are like Accord; it is such a special and beautiful place, and the community is vibrant and lovely. For these reasons, and to ensure that families can access housing, I want to start off by saying that I understand the intention of regulating short-term rentals. In fact, I believe that sensible regulations are beneficial to ensure the health, safety and affordability for renters, to preserve the charm of the area, and to ensure that tourism is respectful of long term residents.
As the proposed regulations are presently written, however, I’m extremely worried about the barriers the regulations will present for residents and would-be residents looking to use short-term rentals to offset their bills, as well as the constitutionality of such regulations. The potential impact on property values and the economy won’t be selective — it will hurt anyone looking to sell their home in the area or to generate income from visitors.
On a personal note, I’m presently in the process of purchasing a home in Accord. As I approach my retirement, I have been hoping to settle in the town long term, to make connections within the community, and to do my part to ensure that it remains the beautiful and welcoming environment I noted above. As part of my retirement, I had planned on using short-term rentals to offset the cost of my mortgage.
Under the proposed regulations, I fear that I will be unable to access a permit due to the arduous requirements, that the permitting process will be prohibitively expensive and exclusive, and that the value of the property will fall because future homeowners won’t want to buy in an area where they must meet draconian requirements to rent their own properties. In fact, if I were not so far into the buying process, these proposed regulations likely would have deterred me from buying in the area.
Beyond these personal concerns, I worry about the larger legality of the proposed regulations. In a recent case in North Elba contending with short-term rental regulations in Lake Placid, a New York federal court denied the town’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit on behalf of homeowners who alleged that the regulations violated their constitutional rights, among other issues. This is outlined under the section “E. Takings Claim” of the case, in which the decision also called for discovery, potentially resulting in years’ long litigation at trial. The decision could signal the leanings of future federal court decisions on the issue of short-term rentals in the region.
I’m so excited about putting down roots in Accord, and I think it makes perfect sense to have sensible regulations for short-term rentals. I hope the Board will weigh the potential economic impact and reconsider making proposed regulations easier and more affordable to navigate, and consider recent legal decisions that might impact the future of such regulations.
Thomas Rosen:
My name is Thomas Rosen. I am currently in the process of building our primary residence on Boice Mill Road, to be completed within the year.
Though I never plan on renting out my home for short term rentals, I am writing in opposition to Local Law 2 of 2021.
The gig economy was created as a means for those with ownership of assets to generate supplemental income with those assets. This has allowed many to earn a livelihood during down times. Whether it be the loss of a job, or injury to the primary family earner, these new platforms have saved people from defaulting on their mortgages, car loans, or any other commitment that would impact their entire family.
The law, as written, provides limits on the number of permits, unclear timelines for when an inspection will occur, and unknown fees for both the permit and requirements within the application.
No one knows when they will fall on hard times, but having the option to make an income from your home is something that all town home owners should have in case of an emergency.
Additionally, because of the upfront cost to apply for a short-term rental, we risk limiting rentals only to those who can afford the application process and creating further income inequalities.
I am for regulation for short-term rentals to ensure the safety of homeowners and renters, but I urge the Town Board to reconsider the language of this law to be inclusive for the entire Town.
Lillie Green:
Hello. My name is Lillie Green and I own a 5 acre lot on Berme Road in Kerhonkson, on which I’m building a home for my family. I am writing in regards to Local Law 2-2021, Amending Chapter 140, Zoning to add a new subsection regarding Short-Term Transient Rentals, as I know there is a public hearing tomorrow.
I come from a small town in NH similar to Kerhonkson in size and spent most of my childhood outside – playing in the woods and skating on frozen ponds and running around the yard. The quality of life I had is extremely important to me and now that I have a child, I want it for him as well. My husband’s job keeps us in the the city, but I had a plan to buy a lot upstate and build a home for us to go as often as we can so that my son can have his own space in the woods and his own small town to be a part of.
This plan is now unfolding and the house is under construction, but part of my plan in order to afford this house was to rent it out once a month to help cover the cost of the mortgage. Now I’m reading this new law and I am terrified that I am building a house which I won’t be able to afford. This law is extremely prohibitive and I have no idea whether I will be able to obtain one of these licenses and how long it will take – all of this puts my home and my financial stability in jeopardy. Please consider how this law will impact families like my own. The restrictions and red tape will outweigh whatever benefits (none of which are clear to me) that this could bring. I feel that my rights as a property owner are being violated, that local government is trying to control something unnecessarily, and my home is at risk.
Peter Levy:
Dear Town of Rochester Board,
I have owned my property in the Town of Rochester since 2001, when I
was first charmed by the quiet rural lifestyle the area offers. I was
a weekender for a number of years until my circumstances changed. In
2001 my wife Robin and I were able to move up here full time. For
many years Robin taught at Rondout Valley middle school and then at
the high school. I did educational technology consulting work from
home and worked on renovating the house that was in need of a lot of
TLC.
After 10 years here, we got an opportunity to move to California. We rented our house and for the last 7 year we rented to a low-income
family supported by Section 8.
Our lives took another turn with the pandemic. After losing my job, I
decided to come back to our Kerhonkson house to renovate it again in
hopes of making it a more meaningful source of income for our family.
Our plan is to be here ourselves for a month or two a year and rent it
as an Airbnb the rest of the year. Despite only spending a limited
amount of time here, through our longtime relationships with friends
and neighbors, paying taxes and involvement with the schools, we are
connected to the community. I was therefore troubled to hear about the
proposal to restrict the number of Airbnb houses that can be owned by
non-permanent residents.
Airbnb and other alternative temporary accommodations such as Tentrr
are great ways to bring in more visitors. These visitors spend money
in our community and the tax dollars flow down to support the schools,
businesses and other infrastructure. Having more money spent in our
community also means more jobs for local people and raises the
standard of living for many longtime community residents. Increasing
the number of visitors with disposable income further brings more
support for culture in the form of theater, music, restaurants and
other cultural events.
I appreciate the concerns that some have had about the impact on
quality of life issues. Visitors who stay for a few days or a week
will continue to be subject to the same rules around quality of life
and environmental impact as the rest of us. The town already has
ordinances that regulate these issues. Some are concerned that having
a town with absentee owners could make it more difficult for local
people to rent or buy in their own community. As the entire Hudson
Valley continues to be discovered for all it has to offer and with
white-collar workers more able to work remotely, rising real-estate
prices are inevitable. By restricting the number of visitors who come
to the Town of Rochester, we are diverting money to our neighboring
communities instead of allowing it to flow into ours.
We have paid taxes to the Town of Rochester for more than 20 years. I
do not believe that because our current situation only allows us to
spend a month or two a year here, the town should restrict our ability
to benefit from our longtime commitment to the community. Why not
attract more people to come and learn how special our area is? Let
them spend money here and let the town grow and improve its
infrastructure and services in the process.
Steven L. Fornal:
The most recent, tweaked STR code is a very thorough document. The Town Board has considered public comment and incorporated the essence of those comments into the code.
However, I must say that I agree with both the Ulster County Planning Department’s recommendation re Alternative Structures as well as the Town of Rochester Planning Board’s issues with Alternative structures (travel trailers, camper trailers, motor homes, or recreational vehicles). I believe there is just too much likelihood that the town becomes a haven for “alternative structures” (much like TOR was with trailers two decades ago; being the second most densely trailer-populated town in UC).
If we are to capitalize on tourism trade, then it is essential that the town maintain a good appearance and preserve the natural beauty and quietude that afford out-of-towners reason to come here.
Allowing mini-RV camps all over town takes away from that ambience that is now so enticing to STR folk.
If the alternative structures are to be allowed then the proposed code should include more definitive language re:
• Parking: must have vehicles park in a single designated area. 140-26A O 3c is fuzzy.
• Access: no access roads/driveways should be allowed to run through a property to every unit
• Placement: there should be direction as to whether or not units must be placed in close proximity or anywhere on property (which is likely to bring them closer to surrounding neighbors)
• Alternative Structures’ septic having to be self-contained doesn’t address how that septic is to be properly disposed of.
• Seeing as STRs are a commercialization of “residency” does the SUP review include chapter 140-20?
• Taxes: how will these alternative types of units/structures be appraised by Assessor seeing as they are commercial ventures (in residential zones).
The reason for further clarification in the proposed code is to assure the Planning Board, during its Special Use Permit reviews, will be able use code language to underpin its conditions for approval, or disapproval to withstand any legal challenge. Otherwise, there is a chance that such conditions could be considered arbitrary and/or capricious. [Fully understood is the point that PBs have authority to set conditions; much easier to do when there is code language the PB can rely on to substantiate its decisions]
140-26A S5 “No person or persons shall be housed separately and/or apart from the approved dwelling unit in any tent, trailer, camper, lean-to, recreation vehicle, ‘tiny-house’, boat, or non- dwelling unit, except upon securing a Special Use Permit as described herein.” This section actually allows for tents, trailers, campers, lean-tos, RVs, tiny houses, boats…Yes, by SUP. But how is the PB supposed to make determinations that will likely differ application to application without running afoul of equal application of law? Tent, trailers, campers, lean-to, ‘tiny-house’, boat, or non- dwelling units, should be prohibited. [If included, however then they should be listed in the Alternative Dwelling definition.]
While the code allows for STRs (and STR alternate dwellings) all through the town, the reality is that most likely they will be concentrated in the R-2 residential zones as that is the most widespread, high density zone (discounting the very limited Hamlet and R-1 zones) so as to multiply the revenue stream for least initial cost. The R-2 districts had, for decades, been the dumping ground for mines, trailer parks, saw mills and, of course, the infamous Accord Speedway. The new code adopted in 2009 attempted to somewhat repair the damage done by making it clear that R-2 zones were residential and should thereafter remain residential. Allowing for STRs, or the commercialization of residential use, in R-2 zones seems to backtrack from that originating purpose.
A hypothetical example: An applicant for STR use owns a property in an R-2 zone. It consists of 14 acres (one less than the minimum required for RV Park). Seeing as the proposed code states that there has to be a principle use on the property in order to have accessory uses [a point which I believe is contradicted in code section 140-8 “…Accessory uses are permitted to accompany or, with site plan review by the Planning Board to precede (except for home occupations), principal permitted and special uses. Permits for these accessory uses shall be issued directly by the Building Inspector.” *1] that means the applicant could have up to six alternative dwelling units on that parcel in addition to their residence. Are we to allow driveways through the fields for each and every dwelling? Are the dwellings to be scattered about or concentrated? The reality is that most people will want as much “nature” surrounding them as possible which means spreading the units around, situating them away from the principal structure; this brings them closer to surrounding neighbors’ properties which heightens potential impacts.
The inclusion of such an array of alternative dwellings is bewildering in that it encourages wholly untraditional residential character which will absolutely impact all surrounding properties, and if widespread enough, the entire town.
To allow such alternative structures to serve as residential uses seems to be leaning much too far in the direction of creating code that serves the financial interests of a small portion of property owners. That is not the job of government to serve personal financial goals.
Such inclusion of these types of alternative dwellings don’t have the sound diminishment features of typical residential structures throughout the township.
Such inclusion of these types of alternative dwellings encourages higher density which can lead to an increase of neighbor-to-neighbor disputes.
Such inclusion of these types of alternative dwellings potentially encourages an unsightly presence throughout the township [Putting it dramatically: Like a refugee camp or perpetual Renaissance Faire. YE GODS!]
Such inclusion of these types of alternative dwellings encourages transience with no allegiance to the neighborhood (as long-term residents have).
Such inclusion of these types of alternative dwellings encourages use of town services (roads, emergency and fire service, constabulary, etc) without paying any more in taxes to help defray such costs.
Such inclusion of these types of alternative dwellings increases the likelihood of bringing people into the area that are infected; not just with the Covid-19 but the increasing probability that more such pandemics are likely to appear in the future. There has been zero talk about this aspect of bringing in people often from areas that are experiencing high rates of infection. I doubt that CDC guidelines for quarantining for 10 to 14 days is happening with STRs.
The limit on non-owner occupied STRs being discussed [140-26A I (2): 2 percent of the “Number of residential dwelling units on the Final Tax Roll”] seems prudent in that 75 allowable units (the figure given by Supervisor Baden) doesn’t seem too much to bear. Of course, that number is above and beyond the owner-occupied STRs and, as stated above, many if not most are likely to find their way into R-2 areas. Perhaps consider owners of non-owner occupied STRs, that reside in the Town of Rochester, having first access to the 2-percent permits allowed; maybe a week or two in advance of opening the permits thereafter to first come first served.
In general, though, non-owner occupied STRs should not be allowed. In particular, they should absolutely not be allowed if using alternative dwellings. However, if allowed, they should most definitely be limited in number [as proposed via 140-26A I(2)]. Maybe also consider limiting the number of units any single property can have regardless of underlying district density. As for tents, trailers, campers, lean-tos, recreation vehicles, ‘tiny-houses’, boats, or any other non-dwelling units, they should NOT be allowed.
Finally, it’s time that the Town of Rochester evolve beyond appealing to the lowest common denominator by setting a minimal standard of residential requirements that serve to enhance properties throughout the town even as it allows this new residential use to provide benefits to the community and providers alike.
Emily Tillery:
*1 — 140-60 J (4) might also conflict with proposed STR code
My husband and I have been part-time residents of Kerhonkson since 2017 and absolutely adore the area. We opened up our home to Airbnb in December of 2017 and have enjoyed welcoming guests ever since. We have worked diligently with our neighbors to make sure that the guest are respectful and we touch base with neighbors regularly to make sure there are no concerns or complaints. We have not had any issues managing the rental remotely during our entire operation.
During the pandemic, many of our other sources of revenue were reduced or completely eliminated and we made the decision that we would discontinue our personal use of the property, for the time being, for both financial and health reasons and instead use it exclusively as a rental. It would severely put our livelihood in jeopardy during a hard economic time if restrictions were imposed on rentals that were not owner-occupied as ours would likely not currently apply for this classification.
We do understand the challenge with the short-term rentals possibly reducing the affordable houses available in the area. I also understand that this move towards suburban areas is a Nationwide trend and should not be blamed on the STR industry.
We purchased this property years ago and our home is a very small 350 square foot lofted studio that would not be suitable as a long-term residence or rental. This property is not part of the affordability problem. Not only would restrictions affect our rental income but it would affect the property value if we tried to resell the house once the restrictions are in place. Please consider “grandfathering” in existing rentals that have been operating according to the existing rules and paying occupancy taxes for multiple years.
The timeline of the permitting process is also extremely concerning. It is my understanding that the current version of the law only gives a 90 day period for inspections and permitting. Even if there were only 125 properties in the town, expecting all the properties to be able to schedule inspections around existing bookings is highly ambitious and unlikely for our small team of fire and safety inspectors.
Hosts also have no idea of the timeline of the legislation passing so we have a hard time projecting how to “block” potential inspection dates on our calendars. Many hosts are booked 6 months to a year in advance and we are penalized for canceling reservations. It will be VERY difficult to coordinate multiple inspections with different agencies and possible repairs all within a 90 day period. I would suggest a 6 month (minimum) timeline to allow more leniency for both the inspection department and hosts to schedule and submit the necessary inspections, repairs, and documentation for permitting.
Also in reference to inspections, the septic clause in the law must be addressed and further elaborated. What type of septic systems or cesspools are allowed? Please add specifics so hosts are not excluded. Furthermore, owners are not clear on how to obtain inspections and at what additional cost this would incur. The timeline issues are a real concern as well since the last time our septic was serviced the local company was booking two months out. It is doubtful that these companies could handle the influx of 125+ properties requiring inspections.
We have developed connections with many of the guests and know they enjoy exploring the area and visiting many local farms, breweries, and restaurants. I strongly feel that most guests add to our community and the amenities that our local residents have access to as a result of the tourist economy. Please consider the impact that reducing any amount of tourist flow will have on all the local businesses not to mention the many service professionals we employ to maintain the property.
To reiterate, the following portions of the law should be addressed and revised:
The Cap on the Number of Rentals
The town should do an investigative audit to confirm the number of rentals in the area before implementing a cap on the number of rentals.
Existing rentals operating by the books should be grandfathered in and included in any capactity limitations.
Reducing the number of rentals available to tourists will reduce the number of tourists and have a financial impact on many of the local businesses including but not limited to cleaning professionals, contractors, farms, restaurants, and breweries.
The Timeline of Implementation
Hosts need adequate time to coordinate appointment time slots with existing reservations.
The permitting timeline should be no less than 6 months to allow time for inspections and property repairs.
The Septic Clause
Please clarify the types of systems that will be approved.
Please confirm with local septic companies or the health department that they offer inspections, that the inspections are of a reasonable price for hosts to obtain who only rent occasionally, and confirm how many inspection appointments they can make available per week and consider this in the permitting timeline. Manager Location
There is no need for a manager to live within a certain radius of the property. The way our society functions at this point, all necessary business can be done remotely and arrivals, noise concerns, etc can all be addressed via surveillance applications.
Teddy Vuong and Christina Ferwerda:
I was given your email as someone I can reach out to about potential zoning updates being considered around STRs. I didn’t know about hearings, and only found about them through a Bluestone Press article, though I am subscribed to the town mailing list now.
I’m writing as I’m very concerned about certain aspects of what I read concerning some proposed rule changes. My wife and I have owned our home in High Falls for four years now. We live part time here and part time in the city, renting the entire house when we can (less than a fifth of the year). We are properly permitted to run an Airbnb, and pay taxes on it (and also would be happy to pay for safety inspections).
It is unclear to us what a STR is – while it is a second home for us as we rent in the city as well, we do live here a big portion of the year. We purchased the house when there was no legislation for Airbnb, and so we were confident in doing so knowing that revenue we earned from it would help subsidize our mortgage – we are first time home buyers who would never be able to afford a home without renting out to Airbnb from time to time – and we baked that into the calculus for buying. We are very concerned about not being able to rent our house on Airbnb and keeping up with the mortage. We completely understand why the board would want to limit Airbnbs, but we feel that perhaps how they want to do it is misguided. It seems to us that there instead should be a crackdown on homes that purely function as Airbnb investment properties year round, that no one lives in, instead of hurting people who are helping to build the community and businesses, as well trying to achieve the basic American dream of homeownership and trying to build a middle class life.
Additionally, if there was a cap, would we have to apply for it every year? How are those Airbnbs chosen, and would we be grandfathered in?
I look forward to some clarifications about what exactly an STR is, and if it includes people who live in it partially but not full-time.
Town of Rochester Resident:
Before buying a house in Kerhonkson a spent about ten years houseless in surrounding areas. My poverty began with a personal and ethical choice, spiralling from there. I lacked sufficient healthcare, nutrition, and shelter. Towards the end of the ten years I lived in a tent while saving up for my home that I currently have in Kerhonkson.
I am saddened that I may have to once again sacrifice a form of income. This time not due to my own ethical beliefs, but because others believe that it is what is best. On its face it might seem that short term rentals are an issue that coincide with gentrification, but I fear that those who will suffer will be families and individuals in the community who are in danger of economic despair. By having a cap on the amount of rentals a family or individual that is in danger of foreclosure three years from now may not have a way to save their home (they could rent it for two weeks and catch up on some payments).
When I arrived in Kerhonkson I continued to live in poverty and running a short term rental (though I don’t run one now) did help pay for essential bills. This form of income can be crucial for folks that are trying to make ends meet.
I urge the board to reconsider their approach to the short term rental law. Perhaps a cap on days that the rentals can be rented rather than a cap of properties would help protect families and individuals who face economical crisis in the future. What I have been through and what others may be currently going through- or could go through in the future isn’t pretty, but I think it is important that the board and town hear this side of the story as well.
Thank you for your consideration,
Liza Jernow:
I am writing in about the upcoming Airbnb regulation. I have some questions. In the meeting there was a discussion of a septic inspection. I contacted the septic company I have worked with and they never heard of this. Specifically what type of inspection does the Town need? I am confused as to whether the law would apply to properties that rent for less than 30 consecutive days at a time? As well, wondering what the proposed fees will go to? Surely if we gather the money there would be enough in the budget to pay someone to comb the Airbnb site to determine an exact amount of rentals that are occurring in our Town. In the meetings there seemed to be some confusion over how many rentals currently exist in our town and how we may go about determining that fact. It’s a fairly simple spreadsheet to construct and verify with the Airbnb site, I mentioned this because the number of rentals in the Town determines the number of permits available, and we all want it to be fair to the people of the Town who earn their living and pay other local residents to help upkeep the properties.
I personally occupy my house when it is not rented. Does that qualify me as “ owner occupied”? My community is here and I want to take care of it.
Diane Eynon:
As a ToR resident I’m writing in strong support of the proposed law regulating STTR’s in the town. Given the housing crisis we are
experiencing in the town and county, particularly in the affordable
rental market, the proposed laws are needed and make a lot of sense.
As it is now, homeowners, businesses, and residents do not have
anything to guide them in terms of what is or isn’t feasible. The
proposed law ensures everyone understands the parameters of what is or
isn’t allowed. It helps current residents who may wish to go the STTR
route, those who don’t but are at a loss as to what to do if they
encounter issues or problems with STTR occupants, as well as those who
are seeking rental housing in the town. Lastly, the proposed law does
not change any current land use plans.
The proposed laws have been a long time coming, my thanks to the town
board for drafting the law and moving it forward to the public for
comment.
Andrew Pekarik:
Here are my comments to the Board on this proposed law.
1. How many permits?
As section I of the proposed law indicates there is a clear need “to maintain the permanent housing stock availability for all income levels of residents.” As STRs have become increasingly popular and lucrative they have steadily removed long-term housing from the market and have consequently raised the cost of the remaining rentals. This is worsening an already severe shortage of affordable fulltime rental housing in the Town of Rochester and neighboring towns. Although the proposed law recognizes the need to control the number of STRs, it distinguishes between Owner-Occupied and Non-Owner-Occupied Short-Term Rentals and sets a cap only on the Non-Owner-Occupied STRs. That cap is 2% of the residential dwelling units on the Tax Roll. The number of Owner-Occupied STRs is unlimited. But the law does not define the difference between “owner-occupied” and “non-owner-occupied,” and it does not suggest a rationale for making this distinction in the first place. A meaningful, reliable, verifiable definition of the difference would be extremely difficult. How much time does an owner need to spend in a dwelling in order for it to be considered “owner-occupied”? This unclear distinction between owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied would create a massive loophole in the cap that would render the idea of a limit meaningless.
I suggest instead that the law include an explicit cap on the number of permits, say 100, as a starting point. Since STRs are currently unregulated, there is no way to know whether such a number is too high or too low, but the number of permits could be reviewed periodically and adjusted if necessary. A fixed limit on the number of STR permits would allow the relationship between short-term rentals and long-term rentals to stabilize. As in all of its deliberations, the Town Board needs to do its best to balance the needs of different segments of the Town’s population. The economic advantages of tourism must be weighed against the need for housing for fulltime residents. A set limit to the number of STR permits would support that.
2. Who can apply?
Some additional rules should be added in order to establish clear lines of responsibility and to prevent abuse of the permitting system. For example, the law should require that property owners must be
individuals, not corporate entities or LLCs, and that no person can have more than one permit in any year.
David Delanoy:
My name is David from the outdoor and camping company Tentrr. I am reaching out to you today in regards to Mr. Peter Levy and “Microcamping in the Town of Rochester.”
Our company had met with the Town in September of 2017 to discuss our sites and zoning regulations concerning STR’s at the time and to gain approval to move forward on a few non-permanent sites nearby. We were
notified of approval on October 3rd following the initial meeting.
It was brought to my attention that those regulations have or are slated to change in the not too distant future and would effectively put a halt on any private camp sites on private lands. I know the intended nature of the new STR legislation was not to stop landowners from using their property but rather to ensure the quality of life for local townspeople and to ensure provisions, rules and regulations are upheld.
May I suggest that rather than including Tentrr under the provisions governing short term property rentals such as AirBnB, the town could add a new category of a “micro-campground”. A micro-campground could be defined as “No more than X camping locations per Y acres with adequate parking on private property, provisions for garbage and human waste removal, and subject to all of the noise and quality of life ordinances of the town.”
Below Sending over 2 attachments, the first is a letter from my Senior Director and the second is a document that outlines a Tentrr Signature campsite and what we are looking to do on Mr. Levy’s property. These Non-permanent sites would not be in view of any structure or road way, would have adequate parking on private land and would be managed by a local resident to ensure cleanliness and sanitary conditions are met
along with the rules of Tentrr and the town being enforced. I would love to connect over the phone or in a virtual meeting to discuss everything in greater detail. Thank you for your time.
As Tentrr’s Senior Director for Supply & Demand, I write both to introduce myself and to begin what I am confident can be a mutually positive dialogue between your town and our company. This seems especially important as I am aware there is some concern among Members of the Zoning Board about local landowners who have been partnering with Tentrr to help share Rochester’s natural beauty through the experience of short-term camping. My sincere hope is that when you learn more about our company, its people, and culture, you will discover we share compatible visions that not only reflect the stated goals in your town ordinances but have the potential to enhance their intended impact. In relevant part, Rochester Town Ordinance § 140-2,et al, addressing the purposes of your town’s zoning regulations states: “It is the legislative intent of this chapter to provide standards and procedures to guide land use and new development . . . [by] offering incentives to encourage better site design and use of energy efficient principles in new development projects; . . . protect important natural resources; create guidelines for new development and its landscaping that maintain a high-quality built environment while preserving and using natural beauty wherever possible.”[Emphasis added, Minor punctuations changes for grammatical consistency.]The objectives set forth in Section 140-2, and throughout Rochester’s more detailed and carefully considered rules, are100% compatible with Tentrr’s mission to connect qualified property owners with responsible campers in a safe, environmentally conscious, and non-obtrusive manner .For Tentrr, no commitment is more important than respecting the specific regulations and guiding principles of the towns, counties, and designated state areas in which we operate. Carefully familiarizing ourselves with the distinct nuances and priorities of each unique Tentrr location is woven into the fabric of our company. Most certainly, this has been true regarding Rochester. For example, we have noticed that Zoning Regulation § 140-4 (setting forth the official definitions of the terms “Campground Lot” and “Campground or Recreational Vehicle (RV) Park (as well their corresponding subsections) appear to be overwhelmingly focused on three areas of understandable concern: (1) The creation of “resorts” or other large scale developments; (2) The intrusion of RVs into otherwise pristine natural settings; and(3) the use of tents as “temporary residences.” When interpreted based on legislative intent and in accordance with the towns more specific definitions, we are pleased to inform none of these valid issues should logically be applicable to Tentrr or its registered landowners. Admittedly, however, we can see why confusion might arise. For example, the section regarding “camping” refers to “temporary residences,” while the definition of “residential use” addresses “permanent dwellings.” There are many definitions that include the word “commercial” that ,due to being overly, they become inconsistent with each other, with the standard dictionary definition of the term, and with the overall legislative intent described earlier. Because Tentrr’s facilitates the ability of local landowners to: (a) Provide short-term camping experiences for guests who have agreed to abide by strict rules of conduct; and(b) Do so in a manner that requires adherence to your town’s laws and regulations, Tentrr’s activities and Rochester’s zoning principles are complementary – not contradictory. See Tentrr Terms& Services Agreement atTentrr.com/pages/terms. Per below, sometimes pictures are an even more effective way to grasp this reality.
Located in the Town of Rochester on 34 acres of private property we wish to install 2 Tentrr camp site(s). The campsite holds an average of three guests at a time, with the maximum occupancy being six guests at a time. The Tentrr site is booked an average of 4 nights per week. Tentrr promotes ecotourism/agrotourism and bring slow impact economic development to rural areas by providing new and alternative revenue streams and supplemental income to the property owner(s). In the State of New York we currently have and operate 244 fully equipped Tentrr Sites and are currently in direct contract with New York Parks and Recreation for installation and operation of sites within 5 NY State parks to go live this spring. The Tentrr campsite will be managed by property owner Peter Levy and a local Camp keeper to be determined, to ensure proper maintenance, waste disposal, and safety. Tentrr provides the physical camping infrastructure as well as the booking platform. With the permission of The Town of Rochester’s Zoning Board and/or relevant offices, we are hoping to gain approval for the future campsite(s).The campsite is Non-permanent setup and can be removed with zero impact on the environment. The Tentrr setup consists of a 16’X10’wood platform made of pressure-treated lumber, a canvas wall tent, bed, picnic table, Adirondack chairs, benches, and a camp toilet. The camp toilet uses Clean Waste bags which are supplied for campers at their site. After campers use the toilet they tie up the bag that gets disposed of in the landfill, similar to baby diapers. There is no permanent infrastructure installed or developed. All components are moveable or removable. After each trip, Tentrr Camp Keepers ensure all trash is completely removed from the site and disposed of properly ensuring no human waste can enter the watershed. Additionally, because there is no running water, sewage or electricity, no greywater is produced. Please do not hesitate to ask any other questions about Tentrr or its physical camping infrastructure.
FAQ’s How will the water from the 5-gallon bucket be used?
There is no 5 gallon bucket however there is a 5 gallon water container that is filled with potable water for the campers to use as drinking water, dishes water, cooking water or even not use it a tall. How will the wastewater be collected during water use?
There’s not a lot of wastewater created at Tentrr campsites, occasionally a camper will bring reusable dishes that will rinse them at the end of use. In the event of waste or grey water, a collection basin can/will be implemented .How or where will the wastewater be disposed of? The campers who rinse their dishes use a water bin to collect the water and be taken to the proper disposal location .Are the Tentrr campsites found in the same site/location? The campsite is located at the same address located on the 14 acre property. What is the estimated peak daily flow of water per guest (using a 5 gallon water)?The average amount of water flowing is roughly 2.5gallons per day and this includes the water the campers take from the water container to drink during the day. The campsites are on average booked 4 days per week. How many times (maximum and on average) does a single guest fill the 5 gallon water? It is extremely uncommon for campers to refill the5 gallon water container during a Tentrr trip
Supervisor Baden reviewed the proposed local law to clarify any misunderstandings that may have been interpretated. The purpose is to manage the short-term transient rental, Many Towns have incorporated a law, and this is not dissimilar to those laws.
Michael Rubin: we owned our property here for almost 25 years and with the pandemic we’ve transitioned to be here more, but one of the ways we’ve been able to float this boat is being able to rent out through Air BnB. The cap in particular concerns me given the size of the Town. I don’t know where Ulster County is getting that estimate. A lot of people like us can only rely on the economic situation by doing this sort of thing. It’s one thing to place certain things in the code like fire extingushers, septic systems work. A lot of what you read seems like solving problems that I don’t think exist yet or local property manager which makes me think you are anticipating problems that may already exist for a senior citizen that may be disorientated or a million other people in a different context. It seems like to me that it is coming down on a particular part of the community. Before a cap of 75 in all of Town of Rochester sounds restrictive. Seems like a low number of people. And what happens to the good citizens and neighbors that are looking to comply but they are the 76th person to apply. That’s my biggest objection and see being problematic.
Supervisor Baden asked the Board what they would like to do from here. He stated that this is the 3rd public hearing, any major changes we will have to send back to the County for review minor changes we can do without putting it before the planning Boards again. Once in place it will take approximately a month to file and receive confirmation from the state. I suggest we put a date that it goes in effect something like September 1, 2021.
Justine Benith: we may be in a different position from everyone else. We are in the process of building an investment property and started it about 7 years ago with the ability to rent it as well. We have a lot of skin in the game and if we are not able to do this we are in financial trouble. Sow e are caught in the middle of this decision being made. We are residents here we have invested here, and it sounds like closing the hearing now we would be subject to the lottery of permitting. I feel like we are trapped in this now and how can we move forward through that.
Supervisor Baden stated that it is not a lottery process and that number will be determined later. The 2% is a working number spoken to by the Board. Based on some of these comments the Board may consider a different cap. The reason we did this is we want to be able to address moment to moment year to year situation.
CLOSURE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Resolution # 185 -2021:
A Motion was made by Councilman Paddock to close the public hearing on proposed local law # 2-2021: Amending Chapter 140 zoning regarding short term rentals.
Second: Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy
Discussion: Councilman Hewitt stated the last couple years the board has worked hard to incorporate many suggestions, things that came up tonight are important you have come into the process and couple years into this. Closing tonight is more of a product of years of effort and we want to continue to hear from you like Mike said the limit can change and we are required by the County to set a limit according to the housing plan so we have affordable homes. As a former homeowner of a Air BnB I took my cabin off to help represent the 7500 residents of the Town of Rochester well and will continue to have it off of there I understand all of your concerns, questions and problems. I recommend that the Town Board keep the written comment portion of the hearing open.
Councilman Paddock I agree with what Chris had to say, the reason I was suggesting closing is because I haven’t heard anything new I appreciate the public’s very well stated comments. If the Board feels they would like to hold it open I’m ok with that I’m concerned we are not going to hear anything new.
AMEND RESOLUTION # 185-2021:
A Motion was made by Councilman Paddock to amend resolution to read as follows;
The Public hearing on proposed Local law # 2-2021: Amending Chapter 140 zoning regarding short term rentals shall remain open to written comments only. Written comments are due June 3, 2021 at 4:00pm to the Town Clerk’s office.
Second: Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy
ROLL CALL:
Councilwoman Enouen aye
Counciwoman Haugen-Depuy aye
Councilman Hewitt aye
Councilman Paddock aye
Supervisor Baden aye
5-0 aye, motion carried
WALNUT BROOK LLC REVIEW:
We have an application for an EEO for Walnut Brook LLC. We have with us tonight;
Kenan Gunduz- Share holder Walnut Brook LLC
Kerry Danenberg- Share holder Walnut Brook LLC
James Bacon Share holder Walnut Brook LLC
Liz Axelson- CPL
Greg Bolner-CPL
SEQRA LEAD AGENCY DESIGNATION:
Resolution # 186 -2021:
A Motion was made by Supervisor Baden
WHEREAS, the Town of Rochester Town Board has received a Zoning Permit request to grant a zoning district overlay designation of Economic Enterprise Overlay (EEO) from Walnut Brook LLC for the parcel located at 5688 Route 209, Accord NY (SBL 76.2-2-10; and
WHEREAS, Walnut Brook LLC proposes adaptive reuse of the former Maybrook Lodge facility to construct a multifamily housing community with a mix of one family, two family and multifamily buildings totaling 24 units and 40 bedrooms; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Rochester Town Board, in consideration of this request, has determined this action, in accordance with the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617, will be classified as a Type I action, pursuant to §617.4 (b) (3), §617.4 (b) (5) (iii), and §617.4 (8); and
WHEREAS, the Town of Rochester Town Board intends to serve as Lead Agency for the SEQRA review of this Type 1 Action, and, in this capacity, will determine if the proposed action will have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Lead Agency will undertake a coordinated review of this action with these Involved Agencies;
Town of Rochester Town Board – EEO Zoning District designation
Town of Rochester Planning Board – Site Plan
Ulster County Department of Health – septic, public water supply
NYS Dept of Transportation – Access Permit
NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation – SPDES, SWPPP, named stream
WHEREAS, the Town of Rochester Town Board circulated notice of Intent to Seek Lead Agency to the Involved Agencies on April 6, 2021 and received reply back indicating acceptance of such from the Town of Rochester Planning Board and the NYS Department of Transportation. No other Involved Agencies responded and the thirty days of response to the request has passed.
Now therefore, be it
RESOLVED, the Town of Rochester Town Board hereby designates itself to serve to serve as Lead Agency for the SEQRA Coordinated Review of this Type 1 Action, and, in this capacity, will determine if the proposed action will have a significant effect on the environment.
Second: Councilman Paddock
ROLL CALL:
Councilwoman Enouen aye
Counciwoman Haugen-Depuy aye
Councilman Hewitt aye
Councilman Paddock aye
Supervisor Baden aye
5-0 aye, motion carried
Liz Axelson and Greg Bolner, Town Planner gave an overview of the Review of comments received and discussion with Town consulting engineer. A proposed structure of the property, septic, water, parking and flood zones were discussed.
Councilman Paddock left the meeting at 7:36pm.
DISCUSSION:
COVID, Reopening Status, In-person Meetings:
Attorney Christiana suggested that the Board remain meeting via zoom. Open Meetings can happen but people must remain 6’ft distance, masked and we can’t turn away people so if we have a meeting where a lot of people may show up it will be difficult to follow protocols. Currently the Governor has extended the order until June 16th.
Supervisor Baden stated that he still continues to do the executive order for outdoor dining establishments and will continue until we are opened up completely.
Supervisor Update:
Memorial Day Parade and Veterans Park Ceremony:
The traveling parade will begin at 12:00pm at the fire house and end approximately at 2:00pm at the Veterans park where a service will take place.
Monthly vouchers:
Tim knocked it out of the park this month with doing vouchers on his own for the first time. Supervisor Baden asked that the Board make arrangements to sign bills by Friday so we can get the checks out in the mail before the Holiday weekend.
Request for Zoning Designation Change – Beehive Rd.:
A letter of request to rezone property on Beehive Rd. Information provided is the owner is looking to subdivide. The Planning board will handle subdivision. It’s 5 acre zoning. It would not be a spot zoning it would be continuous.
American Tower lease extension:
Supervisor Baden asked the Board to take a look at it and decide yes or no.
Code Enforcement Request for Additional Staff :
The Board needs to discuss and resolve this before the short-term rental takes affect because that will considerably increase their work load.
Councilwoman Enouen would like in the future to see if a county rep would be willing to talk to the Board and the public on the County housing plan so people can ask questions plus with the air bnb discussions coming up has brought a lot of issues and it would be great to have a broader housing discussion. I think it will be a welcomed discussion.
Supervisor Baden stated that we can have a housing forum.
Councilman Hewitt stated he would like to have a discussion about our 20 Town owned properties. Can we start a conversation about what we own, what are their uses, can we have parks with shared information.
AUTHORIZATION OF APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING/ ZBA SECRETARY:
The Planning chair and Zoning Chair submitted a few extra applications. Supervisor Baden asked how the Board wants to handle the interview.
Resolution # 187-2021:
A Motion was made by Councilwoman Enouen authorizing Supervisor Baden, Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy and the Planning Chair and Zoning Board Chair to conduct interviews for the Planning/ ZBA secretary position.
Second: Councilman Hewitt
ROLL CALL:
Councilwoman Enouen aye
Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy aye
Councilman Hewiit aye
Councilman Paddock absent
Supervisor Baden aye 4-0aye, motion carried
Paddock absent
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
A Motion was made by Supervisor Baden the Town of Rochester motions to enter into executive session at 8:46pm for the purposes of discussion of the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real properties.
Second: Councilman Hewitt
ROLL CALL:
Councilwoman Enouen aye
Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy aye
Councilman Hewiit aye
Councilman Paddock absent
Supervisor Baden aye 4-0aye, motion carried
Paddock absent
A Motion was made by Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy to reconvene the meeting at 9:12 pm with no action taken nor monies expended.
Second: Councilwoman Enouen
ROLL CALL:
Councilwoman Enouen aye
Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy aye
Councilman Hewiit aye
Councilman Paddock absent
Supervisor Baden aye 4-0aye, motion carried
Paddock absent
ADJOURNMENT:
A Motion was made by Councilman Hewitt to adjourn the meeting at 9:13pm.
Second: Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy motion carried
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
CHRISTINA FERRARA
DEPUTY TOWN CLERK