The Town of Rochester Town Board held a public hearing re: proposed Local Law # 2-2021 Short-term Rentals on March 11, 2021 at 6:30 via livestream Broadcast on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCg7ykop50cWmqPFUpgDjRSQ
Listening Dial in Number +1 929 205 6099 Meeting ID: 835 0340 1261 Password: 708339

PRESENT:
Councilwoman Erin Enouen Councilwoman Bea Haugen-Depuy
Councilman Chris Hewitt Councilman Adam Paddock ( 7:02pm)
Supervisor Michael Baden Town Clerk Kathleen Gundberg

Supervisor Baden opened the meeting and led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

Supervisor Baden outlined the changes made to the proposed local law re: Short-term Rentals

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Emily Tillery:
What is the timeline for requiring permits if/when the law is enacted? Many of the local airbnb’s are fully booked months in advance and will struggle to find availability for inspections and repairs. Hosts are penalized $50 or more if they cancel existing reservations. Please consider the demand for inspection appointments, repairs, and booking schedules for considering the date this would go into effect. If applications are renewed in December, does that mean our first application is due in November? What is the cost of the inspection and permit? If repairs or updates are required to receive an initial permit, would be there be a grace period for completing those required repairs? Is there any benefit to those existing AirBnB’s with an excellent track record? Specifically AirBnB Plus properties? Based on the current tax roll, how many permits would be issued? Would the board consider increasing the manager radius further than 30 miles? Currently, we live in Dutchess County 60 miles away, but have successfully managed our rental remotely for over 4 years without incident.
Elizabeth Zeldin: asked when the application will be available, where you would get them from and if this is a first come first serve with having a cap on the amount of Air B&Bs.

Grant Stinnett: Hello, My name is Grant Stinnett from 24 Burpo Ln in Rochester.

I do not support the proposed amendment to chapter 140 of the Zoning regulations in their current form. I believe the proposed amendments will negatively impact home owners and local professionals as well as the local economy in a dramatic and irreparable manner.

I believe that putting a limit on and requiring permits for short term rentals does not mitigate “potential health, safety, and quality of life detriments to the community.” Furthermore I argue that free market short term rentals in Rochester directly improve health, safety, and quality of life in the community.

For example, if we limit and regulate short term rentals in Rochester, this will negatively affect real estate values because it will make many potential buyers look elsewhere rather than deal with the regulations and the process of acquiring a permit prior to purchasing a home. This means that every neighbor on my street will lose equity in their homes because the market value of their homes will be lowered simply because there won’t be as much demand. My neighbor Jeremiah who has been living in the same house for 15 years, who’s house might sell for $350,000 today will not be able to sell for that much in a year if this amendment is passed. And many new homeowners who might have bought property in the last year with the desire to escape the city will find themselves upside down in their mortgages because the real estate value in Rochester will have gone down because we purposely sabotaged the market with this regulation.

As for the “Potential health, and safety” concerns, as a person who runs a full time Airbnb myself I know for a fact that any rental property that is unsafe, or unhealthy will go out of business and the rental listing will be removed. Airbnb has stringent rules about continually receiving excellent ratings from guests, or they simply remove your listing from the platform. In a free market, short term / vacation rentals are self-regulating because they are in competition with other short term rentals in the area and so they are motivated to provide a good experience and maintain their property. In fact, if anything, full time short term rentals should be encouraged over their part-time counterparts because the incentive to maintain the space and the neighborhood and to be a good neighbor is more important for full time operators. They have more invested. For example, we paid more than many others could on our private road to resurface the road because it was important to us that we have easy full time access to the house. This cost was within a month of us purchasing our house, when others had had the use of the road for decades. But it was still worth it for us to be supportive to everyone on Burpo Ln.

In the proposed amendment there are references to existing zoning codes and density, and it’s stated that short term rental owners should follow those rules. I believe that whether a homeowner rents their private property or not should have no effect on how much they follow the rules. Everyone should follow those rules for the safety and respect of the others in the community. That is after all what laws are supposed to be for. Helping define what is right to do with regards to respecting each other’s lives and property. I believe the attempt to regulate airbnb’s and other short term rentals goes well beyond simply making sure no one is encroaching on another property, rights, or pursuit of happiness, but ventures into micromanagement and intentional sabotage of private enterprise.

If every privately owned short term rental property should be inspected every year, and have government mandated house rules, then why shouldn’t that apply to every private home? In my opinion, implementing this kind of invasive policy not only intrudes into the private domain, but also puts us on a slippery slope that we may not like seeing the bottom of.

I believe that the increase in short term rentals is a good thing for working men and women, and so do most of the people I speak with in the blue collar industries. We spend tens of thousands of dollars per year hiring local professionals to help with our Airbnb. If this proposed amendment passes, many of those professionals will go out of business. Johnny our cleaner will have to travel further from home to work and won’t be able to maintain the number of clients he currently has. He won’t be able to continue to employ his daughters in his family business. Michael, our handy-man won’t have enough hours of work to pay for his rent in his new apartment that we just helped him move into. Scott our plow guy, Augustin our plumber, Chuck our contractor, Roberto our landscaper. All of these people need our business and businesses like ours as well as a thriving and growing local economy. If you kill or limit the small businesses like ours that some people have been working to build for a lifetime, the fallout will be massive. And if you stop the future growth of this industry then all the people entering into these respectable blue collar fields will not be able to thrive because there will be no new job opportunities.

To summarize briefly, I believe that the proposed amendment to chapter 140 regarding zoning regulations for short term rentals will be detrimental to the community and the local economy. Not only that, but I would be sad to no longer be able to work with Johnny, Michael, Augustin, Roberto, Chuck, and Scott because of these regulations. I would be sad to not be able to dream of doing even more work together in the future with another property. And I would be sad to see the town or Rochester turn it’s back on so many homeowners and short term rental operators who have come to love this area.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Valeria: Has been a resident since 2008 and relies on the income from the Air BnB. Regarding the septic system I have a cesspool would this be an acceptable dwelling unit. Supervisor Baden did state that if she has received Health Department approval than the cesspool is acceptable. They must follow the NYS septic code.

Megan BW: works in real estate and also a homeowner in the Town of Rochester and feels the 125 Air BnB cap is low and /or misrepresented. I feel like this law would impact the real estate in our area. Short term rentals do have a positive impact they are supporting local businesses and local services provided. People are excited to come to this area and we always have positive feedback from people we work with. Suggested the Board consider a cap on owner occupied – duel residents of limit the amount of days.

Liza Jernow: I reside at my home half of the year. The other half I rent my house out. I send people to local businesses, renters are not only supporting local people they support me in making upgrades to the property. Excluding non-residents feels like alienating. Having an Air BnB I pay tax to Ulster County and feels like the Government should have an accurate count. The Town needs to have the facts before moving forward with a law.

Erica Sampaio: I feel much better after talking with Supervisor Baden today. I feel that it is important to have clarifications to understand the 2% cap. The 75 number sounds extremely low.

Dan Richfield: I’ve been a resident since 2014 with the intentions to develop my property and make an income. Previous speakers brought some good points to the Board and I agree with what they have said.

Michael Coleman: Great points are being made. We need to find and strike a balance, we want the Town to remain accessible for those that move here and want to stay here. There are voices on both sides. Full-timers have concerns with the rise in home prices and quality of life concerns. Maybe the law can be more flexible with the nights per year and any of the regulations in place can be changed once the cap is established, it’s all part of the process. Also we want to ensure opportunities to those new to the County. Maybe the Board can suggest a pool held when filing the permit for a first come first serve.

Diana Lowe: I have a part-time rental. I am concerned with the number 75 for non-residents. This can hurt those already invested in the Town. We support businesses which support our Town. The cap is frustrating. I hope the Board considers 2nd home properties as resident homes.

Board Member time:

Councilwoman Enouen: Stated she wanted to clarify that in the previous meeting there was an overwhelming side of people voicing concerns of quality of life of short-term rentals in our Town. The idea of the cap came from Ulster County Planning Board to preserve housing stock. We came up with the idea of 2% cap thinking it was more than generous. It sounds like we need to do some research and check the numbers to see how prevalent and accurate this representation from the County is. There needs to be a balance between needs and that is why we are working on this law.

Councilman Paddock: This is the purpose of having public comment and the public hearing. There has been a lot of positive feedback and this is a huge industry in our area. I do have some concerns with comments of fee schedule, concerns of homes not passing inspection or bringing them up to specs because that is part of the law making sure that owners are accountable for having safety, wellness, health & fire regulations in place. This area has become more desirable which brings concerns of a decrease in long term low rental properties.

Councilman Hewitt: This process we started working on over a year ago. We’ve considered and adjusted many aspects of the proposed law to create a law that will work for everybody. Thank you all this gives us a lot to work with.

Supervisor Baden: The County perspective and many municipalities are seeing a significant crisis for affordable prices. We understand the investments side. We have achieved tourist community but not helping the working community who live here. The County gave us a number of 39 AirBnBs in the Town of Rochester that are registered. If Air BnB sites are refusing location or refuse to give their source of where they are getting numbers from its not helpful in discussion.

Elaine La Flamme/ Robert Anderberg:
We write to express our concern with the cap on Non-Owner-Occupied Short-Term Rentals (“NOOSTR”). Our Clove Valley Road house is available for short-term rentals through Airbnb. The property is managed by our daughter-in-law and son, Jennifer and Ryan Shea (and they do an outstanding job I might add). We have owned the Clove Valley Road house for 35+ years and hope that someday one of our granddaughters will live there as happily as we did for many years.
Our concern with the cap, which was included for the first time in this draft of the law, is that it sets the number of permits available for NOOSTRs very low. Indeed, by our calculations, there will only be 50 or so permits available for NOOSTRs. Given the prevalence of weekend home owners in the area, we wouldn’t be surprised if there were more than 50 NOOSTRs in operation now.
We understand from the minutes of the December 9, 2020 public hearing on short-term rentals that Ulster County Planning Board (UCPB) recommended a cap on NOOSTRs. UCPB also raised grandfathering already existing NOOSTRs. The goal behind the cap is to prevent further reduction in the available housing stock for owner or renter-occupied use. A grandfathering clause is not inconsistent with this goal.
In light of the importance of tourism to this area and the expanding opportunity for outdoor recreation presented by our rail trails and the like, we suggest that a grandfathering clause be added to the bill so that the current inventory of short-term-rentals remains allowing for limited expansion under the proposed cap.

Written Comments submitted:

Martha Erskine:

We attended the Dec. 9, 2020 meeting by zoom and now have read the current proposal for short term transient rentals in anticipation of the meeting on March 11, 2021.

Our particular concern, as expressed at the December meeting, is the proliferation of camping sites that are short term rentals, advertised through AirBnB, Tentrr, etc.

At this time, the regulations for such camping/glamping sites is not clearly outlined in the document. We are hopeful that the regulations being proposed will include such camping facilities so that these areas will be addressed:

1. Fee. Property owners renting out such sites must recognize the increased vehicular and noise traffic they bring to the area, and contribute to the town through the annual permit fee.
2. Occupancy. We hope the regulations will restrict the number of guests allowed on the site. Further that the owner offering such sites for rent will not be able to add other guests by adding tents or open air camping to the existing camping structures. (It is currently clear in the proposed guidelines that people renting out houses or dwelling may not add outdoor camping, it would appropriate to include this regulation for private camping rentals.)
3. Parking. We expect that guests of such private campsites will be required to park in only designated, off-street parking areas and not granted access to driving through other parts of the property, including up to the particular camp site, as these sites are often in wooded or other natural areas, where cars should not be.
4. Landscaping and Privacy concerns. Campsites set up on private property in proximity to other residences create concerns about privacy and quality of life for the permanent residents. Are there aesthetic regulations on the kinds of “privacy fencing” that AirBnB/Tentrr etc. campsite owners can erect especially when in natural areas?

Jeremy A. Weisberg

I am a resident of Accord and I am enthusiastically writing to you to submit comments for your kind consideration during this evening’s public hearing regarding the proposed subsection on short term transient rentals.

I very much appreciate you taking the time to think through the impacts of short term rentals in our town during the ever-changing world we are living in. I am supportive of taking measures to better oversee short term rental activity and ensure proper safety, quality, and availability while creating valuable additional revenue for the town and its residents.

The proposed subsection has a lot of good recommendations included in it of which I am supportive, however the 2% cap on non-owner occupied short-term rentals is quite limiting and narrow in scope and should be withdrawn in favor of other more economically beneficial and sound business measures discussed below.

In my view, and hopefully in the view of my fellow residents, our Town of Rochester is the most naturally beautiful and plentiful area of Ulster County (and dare I say of the Mid-Hudson region too?!). The amount of attention our town has received from written articles, online blogs, and the many visitors over the past 3 years in particular is proof of that. By imposing a punitive 2% cap will eliminate available options for visitors to stay directly in our town and wipe out valuable town revenue. It will instead push rentals to our surrounding fellow areas of Olivebridge, High Falls, Stone Ridge, Ellenville and the like who will see continued economic growth as a result. This will be a missed and wasted opportunity for our town. There are also likely operational consequences and administrative burden from a 2% cap that I believe the town will want to avoid.

I kindly suggest the following considerations and changes to the amendment to the subsection on short term transient rentals:

1. Remove the sweeping 2% cap on non-owner occupied short-term rentals, and instead, implement an annual nightly usage cap for non-owner occupied short-term rentals of [120-180] nights per year.
– This means that for >50% of the year, the owner will otherwise occupy the home. This creates a closer relationship between the owner and the town while still providing residents in all financial situations the flexibility to generate income to help offset the costs and rising taxes of home ownership.
– Removing the 2% cap will also eliminate potential favoritism, unpredictability, and administrative burden as part of the application process inside the set application window. Residents listing their homes for short-term rental usage need the flexibility and visibility to do so, and should not be playing a guessing game or competing every year when it is time to apply. Guests place bookings in advance and hosts need the continuity of their listing year over year. Stopping and starting every year hoping that your home will be one of the prized 2% will be stressful, inflexible and competitive. It will also likely overwhelm the town office in determining which homes fall in the 2% each year. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to generate income from their home, and eliminating the 2% cap in favor of an annual nightly usage cap that limits the number of nights rented achieves that in a more operationally friendly and efficient way.

2. In relation to the above #1, allow residents wishing to pursue short-term rentals for the first time to apply and be approved throughout the year, instead of just during a set window. Residents need the flexibility to start considering generating income at any point throughout the year depending on their financial and living situation. The set application window can however stay in place for renewals for ease of processing and monitoring.

3. Charge an additional annual fee of [$240] from residents for listing their non-owner occupied short-term rental. The town should want to generate this valuable revenue as a result of the great community the town has built. The 2% cap limits those prospects. It will also make potential hosts think more about the costs of short-term rentals and can help organically reduce the number of potential listings.

4. In relation to the above #3, the town should consider imposing a new annual tax break for permanent residents who do not list their homes as a short-term rental property. The tax break can be based on the revenue generated from the town’s short term rental activity. Primary residents not interested in renting their homes should directly benefit from their neighbors who choose to do so, and this would create a synergistic and collaborative relationship amongst the community.

5. Focus more punitive restrictions on the use of investment properties and multi-family units as short-term rentals. Second homes are still homes that residents live in but can still fall under the definition of non-owner occupied. The additional properties and multi-family units solely purchased as investments for short-term rental income that are never occupied by the owner should be the focus of stricter regulations.

6. If for whatever reason a % cap is still deemed to be in favor by the board, impose the cap only on properties that are assessed by the town at values below [$500,000]. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that affordable housing stock is available for local primary residents. Capping all non-owner occupied short term rentals is too broad and will significantly limit valuable economic growth for local businesses that is being generated from visitors who are staying in homes that are otherwise not the focus and motivation of the 2% cap.

I sincerely hope my recommendations and suggestions are welcomed and taken into serious consideration. I would be happy to discuss the matter live with you all directly any time, and if helpful can even consider volunteering my time to help the board track the town’s short-term rental program, which should be viewed as a valuable asset for our community’s growth and bright future!

Doug Jaeger:

In terms of Local Law 2, I appreciate all of the work being done to make Short Term Rental activities safer and more enjoyable for the community and for guests, and support the regulations and requirements overall.

I had a question/comment about Section T (1)(h)
“Short Term Transient Rentals shall not be permitted to be used for any commercial use or commercial event space.”

– Does this mean a property could not be used for film or photo shoots because it is also used as a short term rental at other times?
– If so, could we consider additional special permitting to allow for this?
– Or set a limit to the number of days per month a property could be used in this way to limit any potential aggravation for neighbors?
– Especially with Ulster County economic development putting a spotlight on filmmaking in the area and the fact that these types of properties are often well suited for this use, I think it’s an important thing to consider.

And also Section I (2)
“The cap shall be established with the following formula, rounded to the nearest whole number. Number of residential dwelling units on the Final Tax Roll x 2%”

– Is 2% more or less than the current number of non-owner-occupied STRs?
– If less, could there be some clarification on what this means for current Non-Owner-Occupied STRs?
– Is there an opportunity for a distinction between owners who still live in town (just not on the property) vs. owners who live elsewhere?

Peishan Stinnett:

Hi! This is Peishan Stinnett from 24 Burpo Ln. As a part time resident of the town of Rochester, I’d like to write and comment on the public hearing on Local Law 2-2021, Amending Chapter 140, Zoning to add a new subsection regarding Short-Term Transient Rentals.

I do not support this amendment. I believe the proposed amendment will negatively impact homeowners and local professionals as well as the economy. I believe that over regulating the short term rental market will cause significant financial damage to our community. The existing home owners real estate value will drop and the many working professionals, such as local cleaning crews, handy men, plow services, contractors, road maintenance services, landscaping services, etc., who are employed by this industry will loose business if short term rentals are made no longer a viable business option locally.

Thank you very much for your consideration!

Andrea Tang:

I’m a resident of Accord, and ahead of the Town Board public hearing tomorrow, we’d like to comment on the proposed subsection on short term transient rentals.

While we agree with the principle of putting in place regulations that ensure the safety of our community (and any tourists) and ensuring affordable housing for residents, we feel that the very limiting cap proposed for non-owner occupied short term rentals will adversely impact the growing Town of Rochester’s economy.

Especially this year, we’ve seen local businesses thrive during the off season, with more people renting and visiting year-round, and new business emerge with the goal of revitalizing our town centers. From the proposed Accord Market to the restaurant Mill and Main in Kerhonkson, none of these new businesses would survive or bring a true revitalization without the balance of both visitors and locals.

This area is a thriving visitor (and wedding) destination so the cap would limit the economic benefits of being situated in our beautiful town and those benefits would flow to surrounding towns and counties instead, like Livingston Manor in Sullivan County.

We are living in an unusual time right now, and in normalized circumstances, you should want the revenue from short term rentals in the town to showcase local purveyors like Damn Good Honey and support local builders, contractors, property managers and other tradespeople.

We humbly offer some suggestions for a more thoughtful approach to this including:
• Understanding the number of Airbnbs currently on the market in the town and then increasing the cap to a more reasonable % of permits. 2% is punitive for an area that is rich with visitors.
• Restricting how many days a year home owners are able to rent out property to deter potential buyers who plan on renting out properties full time (e.g. max 40% of the year). Some homeowners would like to reside there the majority of the year and have the option to rent rather than having the property sit vacant (also less money going back into the town during vacant periods).
• Instead of putting a cap, increasing the fees for rental permits to deter too many renters, while bringing in additional revenue for the town.
• Putting restrictions or limitations on investment properties (not second homes where residents still live in them often).
• Waiting until the market is more normalized post-pandemic to understand the true impact of home values and affordability.
We hope you’ll consider these comments as we are all invested in the future of our town.

Steven L. Fornal :

Having reviewed the proposed code, I have to say it is a very well thought out comprehensive effort. It deals with problematic issues that have been exposed throughout the region even as it maintains a very fair approach to assuring such problems do not occur in the Town of Rochester; or, if they do, they can be addressed quickly and efficiently.
I think it needs to be clearly stated at the beginning of every public hearing session that STRs are not currently allowed in the Town of Rochester. They are not a legal use as they are not listed on the town’s Schedule of District Regulations. What the Town Board is attempting to do is to ALLOW them in town. But to do so safely and in orderly manner.
As far as requiring annual fees for renewals, perhaps consider that owners might just annually certify that nothing has changed from initial permit information which then puts the onus on the STR owner to tell truth vis-à-vis liability. If it is subsequently found that the STR owner falsely claimed no change to initial permit information when, in fact, there was a change (e.g. additional sleeping room, more parking spaces, etc) the permit can be immediately revoked upon a hearing by the Town Board as to the evidence.
The septic provision re “Proof that the septic system has been pumped within the previous three (3) years shall be provided” must be included. I have yet to meet a single person in this town that knows pumping a septic system is required to assure proper functioning. That means, many septic systems (especially those that haven’t been inspected for decades) could very well cause problems for surrounding properties, in general, and surrounding water supplies, in particular. Under no circumstances should this provision be softened or jettisoned altogether. (This especially applies to RVs, Airstream type facilities re septic issue).
Section L 5 should remain in its entirety as those living space options mentioned do not meet NYS Building Code and therefore create a liability issue. The claim (made by one commenter at the initial public hearing) re AirBnB’s liability coverage does not, in any way, protect the town from liability issues extending from fatal fire or structural collapse. However, if such units are to be allowed, they should be considered residential uses via Special Use Permit and therefore must meet the zoning district density for each and every living space. (e.g. In a 3 acre zone, a boat, a cabin, an RV and two Airstreams would require 15 additional acres– beyond the 3 acres for principle residential use; total 18 acres –to accommodate the increase in residential uses). By going through a SUP procedure with PB oversight, an important layer of enforceable conditions will be on record. The PB can deal with each applicant as far as septic disposal and potable water issues are concerned.
Section N 4 should change the “may” to “shall”: “If the landowner does not comply with corrective action by the date given by the Code Enforcement Officer, the Town of Rochester may shall initiate procedures to revoke the permit,”
I agree with the Planning Board’s recommendation that a definition for “Dwelling Unit” either be included or a note be added that stipulates said definition contained in 140-4 Definitions is the operative definition.
Per the public hearing suggestion re the posting of permit information so it can be visible from the road, I agree that doing so could serve as a notification that such houses are not continually occupied which could serve as an invitation to any wishing to break in.
No tenting allowed as STRs is the way to go. As Supervisor Baden has put forth, if people want a tenting operation, they can go through the campgrounds section of the code.

Terri Ritter:

I appreciate that the Town of Rochester Board is accepting comments on proposed local law
140 -26A of the Code of the Town of Rochester: Short-Term Transient Rentals. After reading
through the proposed law and listening to the December 9th hearing, I offer the following
comments:

I have personal experience as an Airbnb host as well as contact with other residents I know who are doing short-term rentals. All of us are longtime Town of Rochester residents who have between 1 and 3 rental units, either on the property we live on or one that is within a 10-minute drive of our property. We love and appreciate the area. We send our guests to local restaurants, family-owned farm stands, stores, and other small businesses in the area. We have good relationships with our neighbors and work to maintain those relationships. We have house rules for our guests that address safety, noise, and respect for neighbors’ property. We pay Ulster County occupancy taxes.

Some of us rent out structures that are classified as “dwelling units” as per Art II Chapter 140-4, but most would be shut down under the proposed local law 140-26A L.5 :“no person or persons shall be housed separately and/ or apart from the dwelling unit in any tent, trailer, camper, lean to, recreational vehicle, tiny house, boat, or non-dwelling unit.” Our rental units are studios, tiny houses, campers and other non-dwelling units that have been converted to sleeping areas with amenities. We use short-term rentals of these unique structures as a means to afford to live in this area and would like to continue doing so.

I understand and share many of the concerns expressed by other Town residents regarding the proliferation of the short-term rental business. The overarching concerns that I’ve heard can be distilled to three primary issues:
1. Privacy: in some cases, neighbors face a loss of privacy as certain hosts are providing short-term rental facilities with no concern for screening views or for the proximity of facilities to their neighbor’s home and property. Neighbors are rightly concerned that this intrudes on their enjoyment of their property.
2. Noise: I have heard the concern that some rental facilities are used to host noisy parties beyond reasonable hours which are disturbing to neighbors.
3. Health and safety: Some short-term rental providers are failing to address sanitary, fire, waste disposal and other health and safety issues. This failure creates an unsafe space for guests, and impacts neighbors and the Town with potential fire, sanitation and appearance problems.

The proposed law adequately addresses health and safety issues. Other Town Codes address campgrounds, screening, noise and parking. The regulations of local law 140-26A should be specific to these issues, regardless of the structures’ classification as a dwelling unit or non-dwelling unit. The unintended consequence of demanding that a short-term rental be classified as a dwelling unit does little to address the important issues. What will happen is that many conscientious providers will be forced out of business. The result will be to impact their ability to remain in the area as costs and taxes go up. Very little will be done to rein in the offenders if the regulations do not address the issues that offend neighbors.

William and Susan Philliber:

While we are hopeful that we will be able to call in to the scheduled meeting on Thursday re: this law, we wanted to put our comments in writing.
First, thank you for the time and care it took to get this drafted. It seems fine overall but of course, we have just a few suggestions.
It seems to us that the Code Enforcement Officer will have some difficulty doing annual inspections of all these properties in a short time frame. If we apply for permits in December, in any year, getting all those inspections done before old permits expire sounds difficult—perhaps impossible. But we don’t know the number of dwellings to be inspected so please advise.
For this reason and to make this process less burdensome, could we not extend the period for which an approval is granted to at least two years instead of having to do this every year? We could still pay a fee annually but need these inspections only every two years. In any case, we think the bill should contain a time frame allowable for the Code Enforcement Officer to complete all inspections from the time of application.
We also do not see in this bill any way for property owners to appeal a decision by the Code Enforcement Officer. Perhaps the town board could hear such appeals but we believe there should be a written portion of this law specifying an appeal mechanism for any denial of an approval or of any corrections the Officer requires before a permit is granted.
We thank you for your work on this new law.

Supervisor Baden asked the Board what they would like to do? Hold the public hearing open? Hold open for written comments only?

The Board all agreed to hold the public hearing open. The Board will discuss at the audit/workshop meeting and decide when they would schedule another hearing.

CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Resolution # 127-2021:

A Motion was made by Supervisor Baden to hold the public hearing open and the Board will set the public hearing for another time.
Second: Councilwoman Enouen

ROLL CALL:

Councilwoman Enouen aye
Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy aye
Councilman Hewitt aye
Councilman Paddock aye
Supervisor Baden aye 5-0 aye, motion carried

ADJOURNMENT:

A Motion was made by Councilwoman Enouen to adjourn the meeting at 8:39pm.
Second: Councilman Hewitt 5-0 aye, motion carried

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

KATHLEEN A. GUNDBERG
TOWN CLERK