Planning Board Minutes – 2021

Added: April 04, 2021

Agenda Item 1: Call to Order and Roll Call

Meeting called to order at 7:30 p.m.

Present: Greg Kroyer, Chair; Donna Bernard, Paul LaPierre, Barbara Schobel, and Simon Williams
Absent: Jim Franz

Agenda Item 2: Approval of the Minutes of February 4, 2021

Mr. Williams made the motion to approve the minutes as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. LaPierre and unanimously approved.

Agenda Item 3: Review of the Proposed Zoning Amendments Packet

Chair Kroyer provided a packet consisting of the Proposed Amendments and Noise Chapter (including the Planning Board’s suggested revisions), proposed methods to address problems with Short Term Rental (STR) properties, §165-42 duty of the Planning Board to recommend law proposals to the Town Board, and proof that the proposed changes are consistent with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. He read the Proposed Amendments and Noise chapter aloud for Board review.

Mr. Williams noted a grammatical error in the heading “SECTION 2. AMENDMENT TO ADD A NEW SUBPARAGRAPHS TO §165-21.3.” The Board agreed to strike the “A” in order to leave “SUBPARAGRAPHS” in the plural.

As noted last month, the word “meet” needs to be added to “C,” so that the last sentence shall read, “Any advertising of the subject property must meet the requirements of this paragraph.”

Verifiable refractions to be posted in each STR are covered under “E. A further Notice in substantially the form set forth below shall be conspicuously posted in each Short Term Rental,” which lists:

(a) Jewett has a noise ordinance
i. 60 decibels from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM
ii. 50 decibels from 9:00 PM to 7:00 AM
iii. No outside music after 9:00 PM
(b) Do not attract bears or raccoons. Do not feed or attract wildlife.
(c) No garbage can shall be left out overnight, unless it is protected by a commercial bear proof container.
(d) The occupancy of this property is ______. No guests or visitors allowed. [Number shall be determined by CEO.]

Mr.Kroyer noted that the numbers of 50 and 60 decibels could be changed, but that those decibel levels would be recorded from the property line. He checked it out with his own decibel meter that he has on his smart phone. Mr. LaPierre noted that many properties do not conform to the specific distances. Mr. Kroyer noted this is not an “end all and be all,” but a step forward. He said there were eighty-seven (87) people on the Town of Lexington’s Public Hearing via Zoom, and soon enough the Town Board of Jewett will hold its own Public Hearing, and can expect many attendees as well. It is a topic many people feel strongly about.

SECTION 3. VIOLATIONS of the proposal, (a.), defines the people who can determine such violations as “i. law officers, ii. the town CEO, iii. the Town Attorney or his/her designee, and iv. any other such employees and/or officials authorized by the Town Board.” Under (a) i., the Planning Board decided to change “law officers” to read “law enforcement officers.”

This section further defines violators subject to suspension or revocation of the certificate to “(b) i. 3 violations within 12 months; ii. 4 violations within 24 months; and (c) violations may also be prosecuted in the same manner as other Zoning Violations as set forth in the Town of Jewett Zoning Law.”

The subsequent pages of the handouts were the proposed Local Law #2 of 2021, where the struck-out phrases will be omitted, with the phrase also to be replaced under Chapter 105 NOISE, §105-3, Definitions, (A). The phrase reads “In addition to the above the making of sounds greater than 1) 60 decibels from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM; 2) 50 decibels from 9:00 PM to 7:00 AM; and 3) outside music and/or yelling, hollering or hooting after 9:00 PM shall be prohibited.”

Agenda Item 4: Recommendations on Proposed Zoning Code Amendments

Mr. LaPierre had been thinking about a form that could be created for people to fill out should they have a complaint with STR properties. Mr. Kroyer said that was a good idea, and he just happened to have provided a “Proposed Methods” handout. Once the proposed “Local Law #1 of 2021 Zoning Amendments Regarding Short Term Rentals” is passed, it has been proposed for the Town to hire an individual to be on call 24/7 to respond to these calls. This individual would not act as a Law Enforcement Officer, but would simply be authorized to observe and document violations from the property line, then submit a notarized affidavit to the Town CEO.

With 3 violations within 12 months, or 4 violations within 24 months, the Town CEO would have the legal authority to revoke or suspend the Certificate of Registration for the Short Term Rental, as well as have the legal backing to deal with nuisance offenses. Should the STR owner continue to operate, the Town Attorney would then pursue every available option to rectify the situation including recurring fines, tax liens, and/or criminal charges.

The Town will mandate by policy that the rules (no parties, no guests, noise restrictions, garbage, parking, and no trespassing) be prominently stated in the advertisement and that violation of these rules will result in the immediate termination of the rental agreement. The Town will also mandate by policy that the rules shall be sent to the Renter by text or email within 3 days prior to occupancy and a response received accepting and acknowledging these rules. Failure of response would terminate the rental agreement. Mr. Kroyer said that following these mandates would result in a paper trail that could be followed in the pursuit of legal action by the Town.

Ms. Bernard said this is all part of due process and gives the town the capacity to do their job. Mr. Williams said that if the certification registration is numbered it should be displayed. Mr. Kroyer said that they were supposed to have been putting that in their ads, but they haven’t been. Mr. LaPierre said that when information from the renter comes in, it should be forwarded to the Town CEO. Mr. Kroyer liked that idea and said he would suggest it.

Ms. Bernard read the Planning Board’s responsibility listed under §165-42. Report of Planning Board: “A. In making its report on a proposed amendment to the Town Board, the Planning Board shall make an inquiry and determination. Concerning a proposed amendment to the text of the law, the Planning Board shall find: (1) Whether such change is consistent with the aims and principles embodied in the law as to the particular district concerned; (2) Which areas and establishments in the Town will be directly affected by such change and in what way they will be affected; (3) The indirect implications of such change in its effect on other regulations, and (4) Whether such proposed amendment is consistent with the aims of the Comprehensive Plan of the Town.” Mr. Kroyer clarified that the Board’s responsibility to this law is in regard to all Zoning districts within Jewett. Number (3) applies in terms of how this new law applies to the pre-existing Noise Ordinance, which has already been worked through.

Mr. Williams noticed that under §105-5 (1) of the Noise Ordinance regarding the operation of lawn tools, et cetera, the times are not consistent as operating from 9:00 AM and 7:00 AM Monday through Friday and 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM on the weekends. He thought it should all be consistent.

Mr. LaPierre expressed his concerns of LLCs owning properties strictly as rental properties. He does not object to all LLCs owning properties, but insofar as owning properties as rental businesses where the owner is not a resident: That type of business should qualify as a motel. Mr. Kroyer replied that the Town Law has definitions regarding these terms. He considered anything less than thirty days is an STR, whereas a Seasonal Rental is expected to last for a season – winter or summer, or generally longer than 30 days. The motels that are in Jewett pre-exist the Zoning law, or would be required to have a Special Use Permit (SUP). Mr. LaPierre said they are subject to state laws. Ms. Bernard said that right now, STR’s are what Seasonal Rentals used to be. People started doing AirBnBs because they could make a lot more money on it.

Chair Kroyer stated that what the Board has to do tonight is to make recommendations on the current proposals that have come back from the Town Attorney and the Town Supervisor with input from the Planning Board. Mr. Kroyer said he could justify these amendments within the Comprehensive Plan. Two strengths of the Town are quietness and cleanliness, so these laws promote both the quietude, and the cleanliness through the garbage plan that STR owners are required to create. Under “IV. Goal Statements of the Comprehensive Plan,” Goals 1: Rural and small town character is maintained, Goal 2: Jewett maintains a clean and healthy environment, Goal 6: Businesses operate in an unobtrusive manner consistent with the character and needs of Jewett, and Goal 11: Create opportunities for a younger population. This represents due diligence with the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Board is looking at these amendments tonight, which is the task that it has been given to do.

Tonight, he said, is not the night for public comments, or a public hearing. The Planning Board does hold Public Hearings for Special Use Permits and Subdivisions, but the Town Board holds the Public Hearings specifically for proposed Zoning amendments.

Chair Kroyer reported to the Planning Board the meetings he held considering all issues pertinent to this proposed Zoning amendment:

On February 15th, he met with Buck, Christine, and Elliott Spero. That meeting was held in person at the municipal building. They were in favor of passing these proposals, but want the Town to go further and make the STR law a Special Use Permit, and/or prohibit STRs from within five hundred feet (500’) of a residential dwelling. They believe also that STRs are essentially motels and do not belong in residential districts. They are hopeful of these regulations preventing irresponsible STR rentals.

On February 17th, Mr. Kroyer spoke with Chris Hopstock. Chris Hopstock owns an STR property, and supports the proposed amendments from an STR owner’s point of view. He is a member of the newly forming Short Term Rentals Coalition.

On February 18th Mr. Kroyer attended a Zoom meeting with Jim Pellitterri, Carol Muth, Barbara Schobel, Chris Hopstock, Buck and Christine Spero, and Elide Belle. They discussed the newly forming Short Term Rental Coalition of responsible owners who would offer assistance in promoting responsible behavior for STR owners. This is a work in progress and the effects remain to be seen. Several people expressed support for the proposed amendments. Elide Belle was in support of passing the proposed amendments.

On February 24th, Mr. Kroyer met with Carl Giangrande, CEO, who is also in favor of passing the proposed amendments, as he is currently lacking the enforcement tools he needs to act on the violations. Once voted into law, the listed violations would enable him to revoke or suspend the Certificates of irresponsible STR owners.

Mr. Kroyer noted that overall he is not finding anyone saying these proposals are a bad idea; just some people saying that more could be done, as the Board has seen tonight with Mr. LaPierre’s concern over LLCs owning STRs with no permanent residents. People coming together from both sides of the issue is just another step proposed to be taken, but is probably not the end of the story. The pandemic tossed a monkey wrench into the Town’s plan of implementation, and the Town is still not back on target with its goals in this direction. The matter is not over. Mr. Kroyer said he gets several calls a week from prospective land buyers who want to put numerous tiny house STRs on the properties they hope to buy. This may be indicative of what the Planning Board may face in the future.

Mr. LaPierre read movingly from the Vision Statement of the Comprehensive plan. He stated that the permitting of houses dedicated solely to STRs and not to being residences to people being part of the community works absolutely against that opening paragraph. Mr. Kroyer reminded him we are not looking at the entire picture today, but at this aspect of it. He is not certain how to respond to Paul’s concern for LLCs. The ones that are there, the owners do occupy it for some period of time during the year, he said. Mr. LaPierre recognizes that not every LLC owner have a nefarious intent, but he is strongly concerned that those places that are built or converted to be nothing more than a rental are in direct opposition to the Vision Statement of the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. LaPierre reminded the Board that there was a situation in PA that went through three courts. Ultimately the decision went against the owner. There were twenty-seven pages of court hearing and determination, which speaks to the kind of mindset Mr. LaPierre is concerned about: Buying a property with nothing more than making an investment opportunity, which is not in the aesthetic of the town with its conservation land, natural beauty, and lack of population density.

Mr. Kroyer said the Town is making its laws stricter to discourage this. The Town is beefing up what it can, and will hire an individual to answer these complaints and fill out an affidavit. But he warned that if this becomes a SUP, there would not be enough hours in the week to meet the demand. He said it has been hard enough to get people registered, and stressed the importance to be realistic about what can be done to prevent STR owners from being everybody’s worst neighbor.

Mr. LaPierre wants things to go back to the original intent of renting a room in one’s home for a little rental income. Mr. Kroyer said this is what the situation has become, operating in our midst from about twelve years ago until now. He wants to help people who are suffering and this could potentially help the neighbor of a nuisance operator. The Board has to look at the criteria tonight. Mr. LaPierre is not disagreeing with what the Board is doing tonight, but he wants to be more proactive instead of catching up. Ms. Bernard says at least the Town of Jewett has done something to get to this point tonight on a topic that most towns are sitting on. Mrs. Schobel asked what the Town does if STR owners don’t register. Mr. Kroyer said a series of fines would ensue. They will keep getting hit with fines until they register.

Mr. Kroyer said he has heard many complaints from people who do the right thing and resented paying even last year’s minimal fee. He feels the County should have an Occupancy tax and that the towns should get that fee somehow. Some officials from other mountaintop municipalities think this should be the County’s job, and the County perhaps thinks it should be a State mandate. He said we have these proposals, which can be tweaked. This process began about two months ago with an email chain to all the Town Board members. He compared it to climbing a stairway, creating the rungs of a ladder in order to create a legal basis for dealing with the problem.

What Mr. LaPierre said has merit: These standalone businesses may present problems, and perhaps should not be in close proximity to a neighboring house. Yet verification is difficult. If eventually this becomes a SUP, then Jewett must determine how many within the town fit the criteria, and the need to perhaps create as many as eighty SUPs could prove overwhelming. Ms. Bernard suggested keeping a list of these so that the Town is forewarned of an issue it might follow. Mr. Kroyer said again that is tough to verify. Mr. LaPierre thought the Board should provide the Town Board a Memorandum for Record to keep an eye on these things. Mr. Kroyer reminded him of the need for clear lenses: Jewett is a small town with a limited bank account. Just one police car to patrol the town would create an enormous financial burden for our residents The Town needs to create a reasonable approach that can actually be sustained.

Later, the Town will go through the entire Host Compliance sheet to see who is putting the rules on their website. A lot of policy here must yet be put in place, including the individual who will be taking the complaint calls. Ms. Bernard wondered whether the Board could schedule a time to sit down in the Planning Board’s meeting for a review of this -after it is promulgated- to formally track this. Mr. Williams said he brought it up at the Town Board meeting, but that Mr. McCrary noted that it is not the job of the Planning Board to review the STR policy that it had recommended right off the bat. Ms. Bernard would prefer to have the information ahead of time to discern things are working.

Mr. Kroyer would like to put acceptance of these proposals to a vote tonight. If the motion passes, then it goes to the Town Board meeting next week, which will have to take a vote to set a Public Hearing for the April meeting. If with all the Public Hearing input, this is voted into law, and the Town Board sets the yearly fee and fines for the Noise Ordinance, they could potentially hire someone who is willing and acceptable before this summer. They will have to vote on that too. By as early as May there could be a phone number on our website for these calls. Then the renewals will go out, Mr. Giangrande can do more inspections, and hopefully by the end of this year it is all organized. If someone is a bad actor, the Town has four types of officials who can register the affidavit of complaint. Given this, Mr. Kroyer has taken everyone’s opinions, and gained the support for the proposals.

Mr. LaPierre thought the registration fee could be prorated based upon the number of bedrooms so there is a sliding scale for the fee: A base number that anyone could pay, a sliding scale based upon number of bedrooms, and thereby not everyone is penalized. Mr. Kroyer will bring this idea to the attention of the Town Supervisor.

Mr. LaPierre asked how many STRs existed at this moment. Mr. Kroyer said Host Compliance claims ninety-five, but that only about eighty are registered. Mrs. Bower, Mrs. Carl, and Mr. Kroyer worked from the tax records and managed to identify another seven. Someone suggested that the Town approach AirBnB directly for their records. New York City had fought AirBnB in Court for their listings and won, but Mr. Kroyer prefers to deal with the issue as a mountaintop community.

He asked if anyone else had anything to say specifically about these amendments under consideration tonight. Mr. LaPierre asked whether Mr. Kroyer had made a note to make a form for neighbors’ complaints to suggest to be mandated through policy, which would be part of how the recordkeeping would be administered. Mr. Kroyer answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Kroyer said he would entertain a motion to recommend to the Town Board that the Zoning Amendments titled “Local Law #1 of 2021, Zoning Amendments regarding Short Term Rentals and Local Law #2 of 2021, A Local Law Amending the Town Noise Control Law” should be adopted. The first motion was made by Mr. LaPierre, seconded by Ms. Bernard, and subjected to a Roll Call Vote: Ms. Bernard – aye; Mr. LaPierre – aye; and Mr. Williams – aye. The motion passes. Mrs. Epstein filled out the Decision Form and made six copies for Mr. Kroyer.

Agenda Item 5: GCPB report from Mr. LaPierre

There was a Boundary Lot Line Adjustment from the Town of Coxsackie referred because it was on the County Route 81 Right-of-Way (ROW). The GCPB claimed no jurisdiction.

In the Town of Catskill, the GCPB approved the Site Plan application for the Happy Clown Ice Cream and Bake Shop located on the Route 23B ROW with the recommendation to add plantings to improve the appearance of the site.

The New Baltimore Fire District brought forward an Area Variance for the installation of an oversized LED sign, which the GCPB said was a local decision.

In the Town of New Baltimore, Sanzi/Beradi requested a Use Variance for the conversion of an existing twenty-eight unit motel to a fourteen unit senior living residence for those over fifty-five years of age. The motion was approved unanimously as a local decision.

The Blackthorne Resort in the Town of Durham is seeking to add thirty new sites, two new bath houses, water lines and septic to its campground. The GCPB approved the Site Plan noting that attention to wetlands and an agricultural data statement are needed.

In the Town of Catskill, Rivertide Aikikai is seeking an Area Variance for an overhanging addition to the front of their building. GCPB voted unanimously that this is a local decision.

In the Town of Athens, the fire commissioners of the West Athens-Lime Street Fire District are proposing the construction of a new 12,750 square foot fire station with four bays and storage areas for equipment, office space, bathrooms and decontamination/shower areas, and a new septic system. The project will combine two existing facilities. The GCPB approved the measure with recommendations: work done in the County Route 28 ROW will require a County work permit, wetlands may require a federal ACOE permit, that the lighting plan utilize energy efficient LED lights, and it is recommended that green infrastructure (pervious pavement, rain gardens, and vegetated swales) be used to manage Stormwater.

In the Town of Cairo, a Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit application came for a re-subdivision of two parcels into three parcels and the installation of a battery energy storage facility is sought within the interior of the property. The GCPB determined this to be a local decision, noted that it does not review subdivisions, and stated several concerns. The Greene County Highway Department expressed concern about future access points along County Route 23B, the close proximity of a new proposed road and the Dollar General entranceway, that the proposed road easement may be too narrow for a right-hand turn lane, and the question of whether the Dollar General’s ability to access the new road would be negated by the Stormwater Management facility. The GCPB recommended the Town of Cairo familiarize itself with NYSERDA’s New York Battery Energy Storage System Guidebook for Local Governments. Further questions were raised concerning safety protocols and emergency response, visual screening, security and lighting, local permitting and inspection processes, a decommissioning plan, wetland and stream impacts, an SWAPP, and the need for a rare breed of bats to access part of the site for foraging, breeding, and overwintering. Creating a pollinator garden was also suggested.

Agenda Item 6: Other Business

Mr. Kroyer said that the Scenic Byway project is currently experiencing financial shortfalls.. Peter Manning needs to get another grant to continue his efforts to complete the project.

The Flood Advisory Committee is to have it’s first meeting at the Jewett Municipal Building. The flood analysis survey will occur this year and is fully funded by Greene County Soil and Water and approved by the Town Board.

Mr. Williams said that he had received an email from a resident who wanted to sell land to the DEP. The DEP had told him that they were not interested because the land is in an extended designated hamlet district. The resident had received a letter from the Jewett TB saying that Resolution Number 7 from 2011 included his land in an extended hamlet. The question is, can he sell to the DEP? The town has the option of rescinding or affirming this decision every five years, and the Town has not voted on it. Mr. Kroyer said that he would obtain this information.

Mr. Kroyer said he would entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. At 9:40 p.m. Ms. Bernard motioned to adjourn, Mr. LaPierre seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

________________________________, Secretary

________________________________, Chair

From Paul LaPierre, member of Town of Jewett Planning Board 4 Mar 2021

To: Town of Jewett Planning Board

SELECTED EXCERPTS FROM JEWETT TOWN BOARD MEETINGS RE. SHORT TERM RENTALS.

ALL CAPS are my comments or responses to emboldened items.

November 17, 2020: Minutes of October 14, 2020

The board discussed the code enforcement officer’s report. The CEO said he sent a letter out to the house on 23C next to the Sperro residence, regarding their wedding event that they were not permitted to have. Councilman Quackenbush asked why their license was not suspended.

The CEO answered that the letter was a forewarning and that the next verifiable infraction may warrant pulling their certificate. He said he needs all complaints in writing.

The CEO also reported that he ordered a cease and assist on wedding events for the house on Round Hill Road and has been working with the owner to get him into compliance.

Mr. Giangrande also gave an update regarding the trailer on 296 and said he has had several conversations to address the various issues, which renders various results. He sent the owner a letter but the owner has not responded. He will send a second letter out warning of fines.

Christine Spero was given the floor to mention the incidents pertaining to the STR next door to them. Mrs. Spero said, “I have gone out to all the residents of the town of Jewett and asked them to sign a petition banning STR’s. I have over 200 signatures to date. I am presenting this to the town so that the board can see how many people are disturbed by STR’s and don’t want them.”

They asked the board what will be done. Carl Giangrande, CEO said he needs more verifiable infractions. The Sperro’s said they don’t understand, they have been doing everything the town has been asking them, for example keeping a paper trail of incidents and calling the police as needed, they asked Carl, CEO, isn’t that good enough and Carl said no, he needs more concrete evidence. Councilman Quackenbush will put together in writing the course of events that took place when he had gone to the property next door to them during the illegal wedding.

PERHAPS THE TOWN COULD DEVELOP AND MAKE AVAILABLE A STANDARD FORM THAT WOULD IDENTIFY AND DESCRIBE HOW TO RECORD VIOLATIONS SO THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WOULD HAVE A BASIS FOR ACTION. A COPY COULD BE FORWARDED TO THE STR OWNER AS WELL. ADDITIONALLY A COPY OF OUR NOISE CONTROL LAW COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO EACH OF THE APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

2

Courtesy of the floor was given to the public to speak about short term rentals:

Nathan Miles took the floor and said, “I am a 7th generation resident of Jewett. Christine Sperro came to my house and asked me to sign a petition against STR’s. I am a caretaker of STR’s and I would like to encourage peace between the two parties. STR’s are not new, just a new way. If STR’s are banned, that would be unconstitutional. Mrs. Sperro’s petition wants to ban STR’s and some people who signed it, did not realize that. I am asking the town not to punish STR owners that follow the rules and are responsible.”

THEN THE RESPONSIBLE STR OWNERS CAN HELP BY SUPPORTING THE TOWN REQUIREMENT FOR A FEE-BASED REGISTRATION THAT WILL FUND THE HIRING OF AN ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND THE LEVYING OF APPROPRIATE FINES AND/OR SUSPENSION FOR NON-COMPLIANT STR OWNERS. THE REGISTRATION FEES, EVEN AT SEVERAL HUNDRED DOLLARS PER YEAR WILL BE READILY RECOUPED, BASED ON THE RENTAL FEES SHOWN ON THE STR WEBSITES, AND SHOULD BE SEEN AS PART OF THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS.

Leonard Seastone said, “I don’t care about past rentals, we have a problem now. New people are infringing on our area. The board passes laws and ordinances that are not enforceable.

No one is afraid of zoning. I would like the board to press the police. Look at what Lexington is doing.”

A&K said, “Well if you don’t like all the people coming here, then don’t live in a resort community.”

NOT ONLY ARROGANT BUT IGNORANT. RATHER, IF SOME WHO COME HERE CHOOSE NOT TO RESPECT THE COMMUNITY WHOSE AMENITIES THEY HAVE COME TO ENJOY, LET THEM GO ELSEWHERE.

Jason Pontillo said, “I used to be a part time resident, I am now full time. When Mrs. Sperro came to my house regarding the petition, I signed it but felt violated. She right away demanded to know if I was a home owner etc. We have a right to STR’s but I felt I had no choice but to sign her petition and I signed the lesser of the two instead of banning it all together. Please lets try to work together.”

Chris Hopstock said, “I own a home on Ford Hill Rd. that I rent out occasionally as an STR.

I make sure they know all the rules regarding noise, littering etc. For the last two and a half years our renters have been very good. Why punish the good owners? Also, STR’s are very good for the town as they increase property values.”

INCREASED PROPERTY VALUES ARE IMPORTANT IF YOUR PRIMARY INTEREST IS IN SELLING—IT’S NOT RELEVANT TO MANY WHO SEE THEIR PROPERTY AND HOUSE AS A HOME IRRESPECTIVE OF ITS MARKET VALUE. SEE DODSON COMMENT BELOW.

John Zarilla said, “In Lexington, they are adding water testing to their STR law. I have a Culligan system and our water is very good. Is this something Jewett will be looking to add onto their STR law?” Councilman Quackenbush said, “We have not discussed water testing but, it’s not very expensive to get done. I think Lexington is requiring owners of STR’s to get a sample test of their water either every 6 months or quarterly, it can be done in Hunter and its only $35 a test.”

Water Dodson said, “I would like to address the previous comment that was made saying that if we don’t like all the extra people coming up here then we shouldn’t live in a resort town. This offends me. I have lived here for over 15 years, this is my home. That comment paints the attitude of the 2nd home owner. Yes, this is resort town but 1st this is our home. Comments like those are what got us to the degree of this level. This is our home; please respect us like you respect your home”.

Elide Bell said, “I live here full time and I don’t disagree with STR’s. There is a way to come together. There should be a consensus with the general information that you must hang.”

Supervisor Pellitteri said, “Yes, we do this, we require all STR owners to hang town law information in their homes for their renters to see our laws.”

Elide Bell said, “How does the town know who rents?”

Supervisor Pellitteri said, “We have been working on this for a year, trying to work out all the details. We looked at STR law models from all over the country before we made a decision as how to appropriately regulate STR’s within Jewett. We hired a company that tracks STR rentals. We know who is renting. We began by making the law that STR’s need to register. We are now working on the fine schedule for those who do not register and for those whose renters don’t follow town laws. It has not been any easy process but whether you are in favor or not in favor, if we didn’t acknowledge STR’s they would go underground. This way they are regulated and we are at ground zero.”

Jake Johnson said, “I am a future resident of Jewett, a realtor and litigator in NYC. If the town removes an owner’s certificate there will be a legal battle. Property values will drop if you don’t allow STR’s. I feel that STR’s in Jewett is not a problem. It’s your local law enforcement that is the problem.”

IF STR’S WERE NOT A PROBLEM WE WOULD NOT NEED LAW ENFORCEMENT TO DEAL WITH THEM. WE DON’T NEED TO BE HELD HOSTAGE TO THE POSSIBILITY OF A LAWSUIT NOR TO THE DESIRE FOR RISING PROPERTY VALUES TO SATISFY REALTORS.

Rebecca Yarger said, “I just wanted to state that I have been running STR’s since 2016 and I have had fantastic guests. I agree with Chris and Nathan that the owners would like to cooperate with the town and be good neighbors.”

NO DOUBT TRUE FOR THE MAJORITY OF STR OWNERS, BUT THERE ARE SOME FOR WHOM THE STR FERVOR IS A MAJOR INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY, NOT A SUPPLEMENTAL INCOME—WITNESS THE RESIDENCES THAT OPERATE SOLEY AS STR VENUES.OR AS LLCs WITH ABSENTEE OWNERS.

4

Councilman Quackenbush said, “I agree with Rebecca and Chris. We have a lot of great owners out there but we have to deal with the bad eggs. We don’t really know the both of you and that’s a good thing”.

Councilwoman Romito said, “We need all the good and the bad to figure out a solution”.

December 15, 2020: Minutes of November 10, 2020

Christine Spero was given the floor to mention the incidents pertaining to the STR next door to them. Mrs. Spero asked the board what will be done as she does not want to spend the rest of her life calling the police every weekend. She also reiterated the fact that she has collected over 200 signatures for her petition to stop STR’s or to at least make a law saying that there has to be a 500’ minimum distance between an STR and a residence.

Supervisor Pellitteri said that the town is trying their best to work this out saying, “We don’t have the tools right now. We are getting the tools”.

COMMENTARY ON EXISTING AND PROPOSED SHORT TERM RENTAL GOVERNANCE

Added 9 Mar 2021

I would ask the Jewett Town Board to keep the following Statement of Purpose from Chapter 165 Zoning of theJewett Code uppermost in its formulation of regulations regarding the registration and oversight of Short Term Rental properties:

The Purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. In accordance with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, this chapter is designed to secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other dangers; to promote health and general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent crowding the land and undue concentration of population; to facilitate transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks and other public services; to assure privacy for residents and freedom from nuisance and things harmful to the senses. (Italics added)

5

Additional suggestions:

Re. Local Law #1 of 2021

SECTION 2. Addition to Town Code Chapter 165-21.3

E. a. An easily understandable and relatable equivalent example should be provided for each
numerical decibel value cited, per below:

Normal conversation, Conversation in restaurant, office, background music, Refrigerator, Air conditioning unit at 100 ft

60 db  Fairly quiet

Quiet suburb, conversation at home. Large electrical transformers at 100 ft

50db

Source: SOURCES: Temple University Department of Civil/Environmental Engineering (www.temple.edu/departments/CETP/environ10.html), and Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (August 1992).
b. Do not feed nor attract wildlife, especially bear and raccoons.

Re. Local Law #2 of 2021
SECTION 2. Wherever numerical decibel values are cited, an easily understandable and relatable
equivalent example should be provide, as above.