The Zoning Revisions Workshop Meeting was held with the September 28, 2017 Audit Workshop meeting at 6pm at the Town of Rochester Town Hall.
PRESENT:
Supervisor Chipman Councilwoman Chachkin Councilwoman Fornino
Councilman Drabkin Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy Town Clerk Gundberg
Attorney Christiana
PLEDGE:
Supervisor Chipman opened the meeting and Carol Fischer led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF BILLS:
A Motion was made by Councilwoman Fornino to approve the following;
General Fund Abstract 9 of 2017 $ 64, 113.97
Highway Fund Abstract 9 of 2017 $ 122,317.33
Street Lighting $ 17.14
___________________
$ 186,448.44
Seconded by: Councilwoman Chachkin 5-0 aye, motion carried
Supervisor Chipman asked Attorney Christiana that currently if something is not a listed use in our Town is it an allowable use?
Attorney Christiana stated generally no but this is a topic that should just be discussed with the Attorney and the Board.
Supervisor Chipman wanted clarified that the Board is working on allowing something to happen so it can happen in a safe manner. If the Town Board passes a law then there is no questions asked as to what’s allowed.
The Board agreed to review the concerns in the Ulster County Planning Board referral first.
UCPB recommendation regarding Fence Height;
The Town is proposing to allow for 6’ and 8’ fence heights in front yards and rear/side-yards respectively,
rather than the 4’ and 6’ typically found in zoning statutes. The UCPB notes that 4’ and 6’ standards are not
arbitrary, but reflect public safety concerns that relate to the ability of first responders to access the property
both visually, to identify potential threats, as well as physically, to more readily enable fire and other
emergency responders to cross these barriers. The existing statute already provides for waivers for both
residential and commercial properties as part of site plan review (see Section 140-13(H)).
Required Modification
Generally speaking, fence heights should remain at 4’ and 6’ respectively. If the Town opts to move
forward with this amendment we recommend that the higher fence heights be subject to a waiver
similar to 140-13(H) noted above at the building inspector level with criteria as to why such fence
height is necessary and its impact on public safety.
Supervisor Chipman stated he doesn’t agree with the UCPB recommendation.
Councilwoman Chachkin asked if the Board sticks with the 6 & 8 ft. fencing is it going to be a safety problem for emergency responders?
Councilman Drabkin stated there is a large difference from a 4 & 6 ft. fence height to a 6 & 8 ft. fence height. Are we going to override a safety issue for a privacy issue? First responders can’t see in that’s why there have been variances issued for so many years to those wishing to go higher than 4 & 6 Ft.
Councilwoman Chachkin stated in 140-13H the Planning Board recommends that a wavier can be received by the Building Inspector.
Councilman Drabkin stated the Board should keep it the way it is and if someone wants to go for a variance they can. It is much better to have a Board make that decision rather than 1 person.
Attorney Christiana stated that the Board can come up with criteria that CEO would need to follow.
Councilman Drabkin stated that would be hard to do because each situation is unique.
Councilwoman Chachkin stated she feels that the Board should go back to the 4 & 6 ft. fence height and have the ZBA handle variance requests.
Attorney Christiana stated from a legal point keep it to the ZBA.
The Board agreed not to change the zoning revisions regarding fences from the current code.
Digital signs;
The County Planning Board is supportive of the proposed amendments with respect to digital signage. We
have included some suggested standards that could help to further refine the proposal based on our
experience with reviews of this type of signage regulation elsewhere in the County.
Advisory Comments
Suggested additional standards are as follows:
•Where digital signs are present temporary signs should be prohibited.
•Maximum of one digital sign per sign structure.
•The speed in which graphics may change should be restricted.
•Digital off-premise signs should be prohibited including billboards
•Finally, digital sign standards call for a stricter enforcement of size limitations and the
willingness of local zoning board’s to grant variances. One way to prevent oversize
digital signs is to include in the statute language that only allows digital signs if they are
in conformance with the size restrictions in the code.
The Board agreed under 140-21 E. digital sign standards to add;
9. Prohibiting temporary signs
10. 1 digital sign per sign structure
11. UCPB recommendation of digital off-premise signs should be prohibited including billboards.
Short Term Transient Rentals;
UCPB recommendation regarding Short Term Transient Rentals;
The proposed amendment to the zoning statute to regulate short term transient rentals focuses on the public
safety aspects including building and fire code/safety issues. In addition, the amendments contain nuisance
prevention language and administrative provisions. The materials provided appear to allow short term
transient rentals town-wide.
The UCPB is pleased to see the community begin the process to regulate short term rentals. That said, the use
of non-owner/non-host occupied housing for short term rentals is seen by many communities as a problem
that goes well beyond public safety and nuisance issues reaching into housing affordability and affecting the
overall character of the community. Stories about tenants being evicted from their apartment, only later
finding out they were making way for permanent short-term vacation rentals, are starting to pop up in places
all over the United States. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence suggest that this is already happening in Ulster
County with leases not being renewed as property owner’s focus instead upon the short-term rental market,
reducing an already low County wide vacancy rate. In addition, the failure to connect short term rental to
some form of owner occupancy is seen as driving up the cost of housing as ownership becomes entangled in
the investment economics of short term rentals where a weekend income can equal monthly rents.
To combat the pervasiveness of short term rentals (“STR’s”) in some markets, communities have enacted
restrictions that include prohibition of the use of multifamily housing as short term rental units, limit income
derived from STR’s to a percentage of the annual fair market rent or require owner occupancy for a certain
number of days per year.
To be sure, STR’s offer considerable economic activity to the businesses in a community, as well as helping
home owners to be able to stay in their homes or make much needed improvements. The UCBP also notes
the long history of the second home market within the County, as well as bed and breakfast establishments
and small inns, all of which have positive impacts within communities. Yet, STR’s are significantly different
from all of the above both in terms of scale and the ability to enter the market. Therefore, the UCPB
recommendations are driven by the objective to find a balance between the positive economic impacts and
those impacts associated with affordability, and community ties associated with STR’s
Required Modifications
The following are recommended additions to the proposed statute:
•Majority owner occupancy – Include a requirement for “majority owner occupancy” as
necessary to using a residence as a short term rental. Person(s) who have majority ownership of a property (51% or more) should be required to be in residence at the time of
use as an STR or for a majority of the calendar year. Such a standard would serve to reduce
the impacts associated with housing purchases for uses as an STR only.
•Restrict Multi-Family rental structures (3 or more units) from being utilized for short-term
transient rental purposes. This ensures that these apartments remain available for rent and
avoids building new structures of this type solely for use as a STR
Included in this response are additional materials that further document the issues associated with
STR’s both pro and con and provide many different approaches to their regulation. We urge the
community as part of its regulatory framework to consider these so as to take advantage of the
economic benefit of STR’s while protecting its existing residents and the affordability of housing
within the community.
Supervisor Chipman stated that he doesn’t agree with the UCPB recommendation of owner occupied residence.
Councilwoman Chachkin stated 140-25 not in current law regarding district density of a planned resort should be discussed at the next meeting. UCPB doesn’t like that there is no density planned resort.
Councilwoman Chachkin mentioned the housing stock.
Councilman Drabkin stated that it’s common for people to purchase second homes and rent them out, there may be consequences but that’s not the Towns responsibility.
Supervisor Chipman stated that it is not the Towns responsibility to decide long term.
Councilwoman Chachkin stated that the 2009 zoning law regarding affordable housing doesn’t do much. Are there concerns of Air BnB’s reducing further the availability of affordable housing.
Supervisor Chipman stated that allowing Air BnB’s to happen may boost jobs & economy & people may want to stay here permanently.
Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy asked Councilwoman for clarity regarding affordable housing… People buying small homes for Air BnB will make things less affordable?
Councilwoman Chachkin stated that housing stock is being diminished some being affordable.
Supervisor Chipman stated that Rhinebeck, New York has restricted their laws to owner occupied and he doesn’t want to see that happen in this law.
Supervisor Chipman read aloud 140-26A
a. Purpose- there were no issues from the Board or comments.
b. Authorization- ( concerns were discussed regarding relief of a decision of application)
Attorney Christiana stated that any decision made can go before the ZBA
Councilwoman Chachkin asked if the Board should put on the form that the applicant can seek relief?
Supervisor Chipman stated those already operating will have to file an application and wait for an inspection. They can continue to operate prior to inspection because this can take several months.
c. Definitions
Local Manager- The Board agreed with having a manager /acting agent/ representative/ local emergency contact.
Renewal applications- Attorney Christiana stated this is for updating information.
The word ordinance shall be replaced with code.
e.fee.- Councilwoman Chachkin wanted to clarify that this is not the intent to make the application fee a money maker but geared to the work involved of the CEO.
g. Application Process-
Parking – parking on the front lawn and parking space per bedroom will be removed.
Attorney Christiana stated that the wording should state that adequate parking space must be available.
e.Water & Septic- majority of the Board agreed that this is a Department of Health issue and remove this section from the code.
Councilwoman Chachkin stated that there is no harm in keeping it in the code.
Section e removed from proposed law.
f. Description- well and septic system will be removed. Language change; drawing/ sketch instead of plat.
g. Garbage removal- removed from proposed law
h. House rules- removed from proposed law
i. Maintenance- removed from proposed law
H. Inspections-
Councilwoman Chachkin stated that the Board should put in the suggested language to state
“ Compliance with the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code”
Attorney Christiana stated that inspections should be listed earlier in the zoning code.
I. General Permit Regulation –
(1.) Copies of permit must be displayed in the dwelling unit in a place easily visible to the occupants and in a window where it is easily visible from the street.
Supervisor Chipman asked, “why this would be in the law? Seems like we are asking for trouble.”
It was agreed to replace the wording with “ permit displayed within the dwelling.”
( 4.) language changes- Outside to inside
J. Complaints-
section 1 removed in proposed law.
K. Violations- section 3-7 removed from proposed law.
Councilwoman Haugen-Depuy stated that first part provisions got set aside because of Air BnB and hopes that the next public hearing changes other than Air BnB will be discussed.
Councilwoman Chachkin stated that written comments were accepted for the entire law.
ADJOURNMENT:
A Motion was made by Councilman Drabkin to adjourn the meeting at 8:05pm.
Seconded by: Councilwoman Fornino 5-0aye, motion carried
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
KATHLEEN A. GUNDBERG
TOWN CLERK