Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegulating Short-term Rentals - Southold 2024.pdfFrom Airbnb to VRBO and Everything in Between: Regulating Short-Term Rentals in Your Jurisdiction Katie Hodgdon Counsel Association of Towns April 2024 Topics to Discuss •Introduction of short-term rentals in the United States •Tools to regulate short-term rentals •Case law update •Drafting a local law that will *likely* survive court scrutiny •Any other questions! Short-term Rentals •Not a new concept; however –popularity has skyrocketed over the last decade –Pandemic brought short-term rentals into the mainstream •67% more listing nights sold in 2021 than 2019 in small cities/rural markets (source: AirDNA) •Variety short-term rental platforms in United States –Airbnb, Homeway, VRBO •Airbnb-founded in 2008 –2014-$10 billion valuation –2016-$30 billion valuation –2018-had more listings than top three hotel chains combined –2022-8.4 billion in revenue –40% increase from 2021 Short-term Rentals •Potentially more profitable to owners than long- term rentals –In Ithaca, 2017 estimates found that a two bedroom unit would need to be rented 23% of the time to equal long term rental rate •All of this to say that popularity continues to increase and it is likely your jurisdiction has encountered short-term rentals •NYC biggest market in US for Airbnb; however, it is everywhere! Why Regulate Short-term Rentals? “Well, you know, you have to have zoning codes or else the whole thing could be chaos” -Leslie Knope, Parks & Recreation Why Regulate Short-term Rentals? •No regulation = no say and chaos abounds •Zoning is not a four letter word (literally and figuratively) •Accept that STRs are here and then craft regulations that suit your locality’s needs •Positives? –Increased tourism –Development opportunities / incentivize development Why Regulate Short-term Rentals? •Income to residents (and locals?) No tax revenue in most of NY –yet •Tompkins county-STRs included in Transient Occupancy Tax –Tax Law section 1202-f •Voluntary Collection Agreement (VCA) –in 2016 Tompkins County became the first county in the state to enter into a VCA with Airbnb, where anyone booking rooms through Airbnb in Tompkins county will pay 3% room tax •Most locals (towns / villages) cannot just impose a tax – need special state legislation to include STRs within tax structure Why Regulate Short-term Rentals? •Taxation of marketplace providers (Airbnb, VRBO) may be in the works (pending NYS 2024 exec budget proposal, also in Senate and Assembly one-house) •But! Why Regulate Short-term Rentals? •Loss of residential feel of neighborhood / community feel •Nuisances for neighbors (light, noise, trash, fire safety) •Parking issues / safety concerns •Address access to housing (STR means that abode is not rented out long-term) •Not subject to same safety / health codes as hotels / motels •Declining year round population can result in largely vacant properties •Increased demands on infrastructure Options for Local Regulation Local governments have many tools at their disposal to regulate short-term rentals! •Comprehensive plan •General zoning authority •Special use permits •Broader, outside the box authority Options for Local Regulation-Comprehensive Plan •Comprehensive Plan: –Town Law section 272-a –Village Law section 7-722 –General City Law section 28-a •The comprehensive plan is important! Provides the framework and backbone for zoning code •Necessary to adopt zoning legislation •Does not need to be in one “comprehensive” document or even written at all (?), so long as a court can ascertain that the plan exists and locality acting in furtherance of plan and public interest (Matter of Skenesborough Stone, Inc. v Village of Whitehall, 254 AD2d 664 [1998]) Options for Local Regulation-Comprehensive Plan •Why address short-term rentals in comprehensive plan? Locals are empowered to adopt regulations that align with the comprehensive plan •If short-term rentals are covered in plan and zoning regulations are aligned in furtherance of the plan –solid legal ground if challenged •STRs not covered in comprehensive plan? –Adopt temporary moratorium to modify and address STRs going forward Options for Local Regulation-Comprehensive Plan •Moratorium on STRs –should be reasonable in length and have a valid basis –Locality needs time to develop STRs within comprehensive plan and zoning structure and failure to implement moratorium might result in unrestricted growth that detrimentally impacts the character of the community –Should be able to point to meaningful legislation as a result of moratorium that furthers long-range goals Options for Local Regulation-Comprehensive Plan •Moratorium on STRs –should be reasonable in length and have a valid basis –Reasonable timeframe –Valid public purpose –Actually address the issue –Definitive end date •SEQR unlisted action –conditional neg dec most likely •Local law via home rule authority Options for Local Regulation-Comprehensive Plan •Do STRs have to be explicitly addressed in comprehensive plan in order to adopt local laws addressing STRs? •No, not exactly •To ensure the locality is on solid legal ground, the best scenario is to adopt a local law that is in alignment with the comprehensive plan Local Regulation Options –General Zoning Authority •General zoning authority –Town Law sections 261, 264 –Village Law section 7-700 –General City Law section 20 (24), (25) -These statutes give localities broad authority to adopt zoning regulations that suit the municipality’s unique needs Local Regulation Options –General Zoning Authority •General zoning authority -Adopt zoning regulations consistent with comprehensive plan -STRs –authorized in certain zones, not authorized at all (consistent with comprehensive plan), impose density requirements -Ensure that you are regulating the USE, not the OWNER -Weisenberg case-durational time limit appropriate because regulating use of the land, not the owner (in contrast to owner-occupied restrictions) -No use variance unless you want the use to run with the land (most likely) Local Regulation Options –General Zoning Authority •Permitting pursuant to Town Law section 261: –Does not run with the land as a variance may-is tied to the applicant / owner –Permits can be non-transferable •**Indicate in enabling legislation that permits are a privilege not a right and can be revoked for failing to comply** –Hignell-Stark case (2022) Options for Local Regulation –Permits •Considerations for permits: –Designate where applications are filed –Definitions –what constitutes an STR (eg, any dwelling rented for a period of less than 30 days that excludes hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts and the like) –Inspection by fire / code officials / property owner’s own professional before permit granted –Smoke / carbon monoxide detectors / fire extinguishers –Maximum occupancy requirements –Permit process –length of time to process, reasons why it can be denied –Give enforcing officer broad authority to impose reasonable conditions on permit so long as consistent with code and directly related to use of STR Options for Local Regulation –Permits •Considerations for permits: –Impose quiet hours (reasonable) –Permits displayed on property –Require filing of “Health and Safety Policy Guidelines” –include emergency evacuation plans / diagrams and provision of safety equipment –Ensure garbage removal is addressed –Notify adjacent property owners –Enforcement / penalties addressed •Complaint filed with owners, if owner fails to respond within two hours or reasonable period complaint goes to CEO to enforce –Reasons for revoking permit –Length of license / renewals / revocable at any point –All primary contacts listed Options for Local Regulation –Special Use Permits •Special use permits are a powerful tool to regulate STRs –Town Law section 274-b –Village Law section 7-725-b –General City Law section 27-b •Allows localities to require authorization of a particular use that is otherwise permitted in zoning code subject to requirements imposed by special use permit •Can / should place conditions on special use permit •Can require annual / biennial renewal (etc) Options for Local Regulation –Special Use Permits •Board designates authority to review permits (zoning board / planning board) •Public hearing conducted within 62 days (if using 274-b authority); can be extended by mutual consent •10 days before hearing notice sent to applicant and county planning board •Decision filed with clerk within five days of decision •Aggrieved applicants can commence an Article 78 proceeding within 30 days of decision Permitting -Fees •Frequently asked question –what can we charge for STR permits? Can we charge based on the assessed value of the property? A sliding scale based upon the nightly room rate? •In short, no –permit fees have to bear a direct relation to the costs of issuing the permit and inspecting / enforcing STR activity •Can have sliding scale but has to be rationally related to administrative / inspection costs to the locality –not based upon assessed value of the property or the room rates •Fees must be rational! Options for Local Regulation –Creative Methods -Additional authority to regulate STRs -Town Law section 130 –adopt ordinances that: -Promote the public welfare -Address health and safety regulations -Regulate hotels, motels, boarding rooms, etc, specifying their manner of running and ensuring cleanliness and fire protection -Require rental properties to register -Impose conditions not related to land use Options for Local Regulation –Creative Methods -Town Law section 136: -Authority to license and regulate inns, boarding houses, rooming houses and the like -Village Law section 4-412 –general authority of the Board of Trustees: -“Good government of the village, its management and business, the protection of its property, the safety, health, comfort, and general welfare of its inhabitants, the protection of their property, the preservation of peace and good order, the suppression of vice. . .” Options for Local Regulation –Creative Methods -Town Law sections 130 & 136 authorize adoption of ordinances to regulate -Villages can’t adopt ordinances so don’t worry about it -Why would you adopt an ordinance?  -Adopt a local law –can use authority provided in 130/136 to adopt local law via home rule authority -Local laws have the presumption of validity in court if challenged-ordinances do not -Ordinances require an affidavit of publication- local laws do not Options for Local Regulation –Creative Methods -Key tenet of zoning –regulate the use, not the owner -Can you regulate the owner (eg, impose owner-occupancy restrictions) if regulating pursuant to police power or licensing authority as provided by Town Law sections 130/136? -More likely to withstand court scrutiny as an exercise of police power; proceed with caution Case Law Update •Hignell-Stark v City of New Orleans –August 2022 Fifth Circuit decision –NY falls under Second Circuit jurisdiction but decision still provides guidance for moving forward –Property owners challenged city’s short-term rental law asserting: 1.Violation of Takings Clause of the Constitution, since owners had “vested property interest” in renewal of their licenses 2.Violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause of US Constitution by imposing residency requirements on any STR, thereby discriminating against interstate commerce 3.Violation of the First Amendment by imposing advertising restrictions that restrained free speech –Not addressed –court did not have jurisdiction Case Law Update •Hignell-Stark v City of New Orleans 1.Violation of Takings Clause: no dice for the property owners –to prevail on takings claim owners have to demonstrate: –Property interests were so deeply rooted in custom that just compensation for appropriating license includes monetary damages –No property interest –regulation provided that licenses were “a privilege not a right” and that even applicants that qualified for a license were not necessarily entitled to one –Regulation also provided that that license could be revoked or not renewed due to non-compliance –Property interest was not longstanding because licensing structure began in 2017 –**No Takings Clause violation** Case Law Update •Hignell-Stark v City of New Orleans •Important Takeaway #1 –Ensure regulation establishing permit system includes language indicating permit is a privilege not a right that is subject to revocation •This language will help locality avoid any claims of violating the Takings Clause for failing to issue or not renew a license Case Law Update •Hignell-Stark v City of New Orleans 2.Violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause of US Constitution by imposing residency requirements on any STR, thereby discriminating against interstate commerce •Commerce Clause gives federal government the authority to regulate commerce with and between the state •Dormant commerce clause –prohibits states (and localities) from passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce Case Law Update •Hignell-Stark v City of New Orleans 2.Violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause of US Constitution by imposing residency requirements on any STR, thereby discriminating against interstate commerce •STR regulation in New Orleans only authorized permits for resident property owners that resided on the premises (by way of a homestead exemption –similar to STAR benefit in NY) •Court found residency requirement was invalid on its face because it treated in-state and out-of-state economic interests differently, benefitting in-state and burdening out-of-state – even when city asserted police power Case Law Update •Hignell-Stark v City of New Orleans 2.Violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause of US Constitution by imposing residency requirements on any STR, thereby discriminating against interstate commerce •In order to survive claim, city had to demonstrate –Legislation advanced legitimate local purpose –That could not adequately be served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternative •City argued that the residency requirement prevented nuisances, promoted affordable housing and protected the character of the neighborhood •Court disagreed-other, less discriminatory options available, including increased enforcement and restricting number of permits granted Case Law Update •Hignell-Stark v City of New Orleans •Important Takeaway #2 –Do not impose a owner-occupied or residency requirement UNLESS locality can demonstrate that a legitimate public purpose exists for which there is no reasonable non-discriminatory alternative –Yes, NY courts have typically upheld this requirement, but not under the guise of violating the dormant commerce clause •Owner-occupied / residence requirements regulates the owner –not the use Case Law Update •Hignell-Stark v City of New Orleans •Instead, increase penalties in local law for violations and include language that revokes STR permit upon repeat offenses •Commerce Clause applies to all localities! •Do not include STAR benefit language in STR regulation –Creates residency requirement similar to homestead Case Law Update Hignell-Stark Decision –August 22, 2022 NOLA Moratorium on STR Permits –August 29, 2022 Case Law Update •Matter of Wallace v Town of Grand Island –NYS Appellate Division, Fourth Department 2020 –Property owner purchased single-family home in 2012 with sole intention of operating as STR –Town subsequently adopted local law prohibiting STRs in certain districts unless they were owner-occupied –After seeking use variance, which was denied, property owner challenged town’s short-term rental law asserting that the residency requirement constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking Case Law Update •Matter of Wallace v Town of Grand Island –Court disagreed –to demonstrate an unconstitutional regulatory taking, property owner has to demonstrate that “under no permissible use would the parcel as a whole be capable of producing a reasonable return or be adaptable to other suitable private use” –Owner required to provide economic evidence regarding economic return-failed to meet this standard –One is NOT constitutionally entitled to the most beneficial use of their property –Mere diminution in return does not rise to taking –owner could still enter into long-term lease, sale, other permissible uses Case Law Update •Matter of Wallace v Town of Grand Island •Important Takeaway–Property owner unsuccessful because failed to demonstrate the local law rose to the level of a regulatory taking •Given Fifth Circuit decision, if property owner had argued violation of dormant commerce clause that discriminated against property owners, case could have had a very different outcome •*Concern is not with takings issue-be concerned about violating commerce clause!* Case Law Update •Weisenberg v Town Board of Shelter Island –United States District Court-Eastern District of NY 2019 –Town adopted STR local law in 2017 that: •Imposed licensing and advertising requirements on certain vacation rentals; •Prohibited STRs from being rented more than once in a 14-day period; and •Imposed civil penalties for violations and authorized town board to act as reviewing authority –Owner-occupied units not included in definition of vacation rental properties subject to STR local law Case Law Update •Weisenberg v Town Board of Shelter Island –Property owners filed suit, alleging, among other things: •Local law caused lost income due to reduced rentals; •Local law violated the Fair Housing Act; •Local Law violated Town Law; and •Local Law violated US / NY Constitution Case Law Update •Weisenberg v Town Board of Shelter Island –Local law caused lost income due to reduced rentals: •Property owner lacked standing, as they were in an owner-occupied unit that was not subject to the STR local law Case Law Update •Weisenberg v Town Board of Shelter Island –Local law violated the Fair Housing Act; •STR local law does not violate Fair Housing Act, as act makes it unlawful to discriminate in sale or rental of a “dwelling,” and STR excludes properties that are rented for more than 14 days at a time –Therefore does not constitute a dwelling and thus does not violate FHA Case Law Update •Weisenberg v Town Board of Shelter Island –Local Law violated Town Law section 261; •Town Law 261 authorizes towns to regulate and restrict “density of population, and the location and use of buildings, structures and land for trade, industry, residence or other purposes” •Not a general police power but instead a power to regulate land use –Town must ensure to regulate land use rather than the individual or owner that occupies it •Regulation imposes durational requirement that is an appropriate exercise of land use regulatory authority Case Law Update •Matter of Weisenberg v Town of Shelter Island •Important Takeaway #1–Regulating length of stay in a STR local law is proper exercise of zoning authority under Town Law section 261 •Shelter Island STR local law prohibited more than one stay in a 14-day timeframe –regulates the length of the stay •Durational requirement regulates the use, not the owners or users •Locality can feel confident in using zoning authority to impose durational limits Case Law Update •Weisenberg v Town Board of Shelter Island –Local Law violated US Constitution •Owners asserted they were denied Due Process under Fourteenth Amendment because they established fundamental right to rent their homes under NY law •Court found that owners have no vested right to existing zoning status of their property unless they can demonstrate that they made substantial expenditures in reliance on zoning status –eg, entitled to a permit •Owners could not demonstrate this and thus were not denied due process Case Law Update •Matter of Weisenberg v Town of Shelter Island •Important Takeaway #2–if a property owner can demonstrate substantial expenditures in reliance on the zoning status of their property, they may have a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim if STR changes the status of their property that deprives them of their intended use •Vested rights seems to be a high standard to meet but should still be considered when drafting and implement STR local law Case Law Update •Weisenberg v Town Board of Shelter Island –Local Law violated US / NY Constitution •Owners also asserted that the record-keeping and search requirements in the local law violated their right to privacy under both the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and Article I, section 12 of the NYS Constitution •Local Law required STR owners to maintain rental registries for the town to examine at any point, subject to automatic fines and license forfeiture for non-compliance –Owners could demonstrate compliance before license revocation but fines were automatically issued Case Law Update •Weisenberg v Town Board of Shelter Island –Local Law violated US / NY Constitution •Court allowed these claims to proceed, which resulted in the town amending their local law to comply with the Fourth Amendment –Important Takeaway #3 –Ensure property owners are afforded the ability to comply with requests for records and respond before fines are issued •Any requests should be reasonable –monthly reporting requirement has been construed as excessive and violation of the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizure) Case Law Update •Calvey v Town Board of North Elba •United States District Court-Northern District of NY 2021 •March 2020 –town and village boards adopted legislation requiring property owners to obtain revocable permits for short-term rentals, which included any dwelling rented for less than 30 consecutive nights and prohibiting any rental to exceed more than 90 total days in a calendar year •Localities excluded from STR Local Law: –Owner-occupied units where owner resided on premises at least 184 days/year; –Condominiums and townhouses that had an active HOA; and –Carve outs for rentals on certain streets Case Law Update •Calvey v Town Board of North Elba •STR local law gave locality the right to inspect the STR to ensure compliance with the local law at any reasonable time of day upon giving notice to the owner •Penalties of $350-$1,000 for first offense and $1,000-$3,000 for second offense if committed within five years, and maximum allowed under law if additional offenses occurred •Each week of continued violation constituted a separate violation Case Law Update •Calvey v Town Board of North Elba •Plaintiffs filed suit alleging, among other things: –Denial of equal protection since similarly situated property owners were treated differently via the carve outs; –The local law constituted an unreasonable search and seizure by authorizing inspection without a warrant, justification, or chance to protest; and –The local law violates due process by requiring a permit that interferes with their property right (dismissed without prejudice –not ripe, although prior case law suggests this claim would not stand ) Case Law Update •Calvey v Town Board of North Elba •Plaintiffs filed suit alleging, among other things: –Denial of equal protection since similarly situated property owners were treated differently via the carve outs; •Court allowed this cause of action to survive, asserting that the property owners had a plausible claim that the STR local law created a distinction among similarly situated owners without a rational basis –Important Takeaway #1-do not distinguish among classes of permittees unless there is a solid rational basis (and even then try to avoid it) Case Law Update •Calvey v Town Board of North Elba •Plaintiffs filed suit alleging, among other things: –The local law constituted an unreasonable search and seizure by authorizing inspection without a warrant, justification, or chance to protest; –Locality argues that the STR did not require a search but instead required consent to a search as a condition of a permit –Court denied motion to dismiss, citing Weisenberg as well as the principle that requiring an inspection to obtain a permit deprives one of any economic benefit from their property (Sokolov v Freeport, 52 NY2d 341 [1981]) Case Law Update –Fourth Amendment Issues with STR permits: •Property owners have asserted that requiring a search of the premises prior to issuance of permit constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment •Administrative search –need owner consent or an emergency situation to inspect, otherwise an administrative search warrant is required Case Law Update –Fourth Amendment Issues with STR permits: •Requiring an inspection prior to issuance of permit does NOT constitute an unreasonable search and seizure, so long as the option for property owner to provide certificate of evidence of own inspection is available –Municipality either inspects premises itself OR property owner has the ability to produce certificate of inspection from a licensed engineer –Infinite Green, Inc. v Town of Babylon, 2022 NY Slip Op 00407 –Supreme court has found that a locality can require inspection if property owner is expanding current use / occupancy (People v Bifulco [2003] –Suffolk County garage inspection for ADU) Case Law Update –Fourth Amendment Issues with STR permits: •Can you impose inspection requirements? Not unreasonable to ensure premises are up to code and have requisite safety features •Avoid court scrutiny –provide for inspection by locality OR accept certificate of inspection that meets locality’s requirements –This ensures that locality will not run afoul of any potential Fourth Amendment claims Local Law –Tips to Survive Court Scrutiny •Clear, concise definitions in code –what constitutes a short-term rental? •Regulate the use –not the property or user –Shelter Island-Durational limits regulate the use- acceptable! –Town Law 261 durational requirements appropriate use of zoning authority •Include language in LL indicating that license/ permit is a privilege, not a right that is subject to revocation •Adopt a local law, not an ordinance –presumption of validity in court –Even if rest of code is adopted via ordinance! Doctrine of legislative equivalency Local Law –Tips to Survive Court Scrutiny •Do NOT impose a residency requirement –likely violation of dormant Commerce Clause –Even though this was upheld in Matter of Wallace! Argument was about regulatory taking-commerce clause not raised –Even though NY courts routinely uphold residency requirement! –Do not require STAR benefit for property to qualify – STAR requires dwelling to be primary residence –Residency requirement regulates the owner, not the use –Shelter Island has a “homesteader hardship”-authorized to rent more than once in 14 day period if owner makes less than 5x federal poverty level –this regulates the owner, not the use •Could face issues if challenged on that account Drafting a Short-term Rental Local Law •Identify the issues you want to address in the community –Look to your comprehensive plan •Create clear definitions •Designate enabling officer (Code enforcement officer) •Referral to county-GML 239-m •Require applicants to maintain “House Rules” that are provided to renters •Durational requirements via Town Law 261? •What has to be included in advertisements (registration or permit number?) •No primary residency in county or area –designate local contact that will handle issues Drafting a Short-term Rental Local Law •Number of vehicles authorized (reasonable) parking on street authorized? •What will fee for license / permit be? •When do applicants need to renew? •What to include in application for permit? •Will there be a limit on amount of permits one person or entity can hold? •Where can complaints be filed? •What constitutes a violation and what are the sanctions? –Shelter Island –reasonable time limit to comply –Officer that will issue cease and desist order (CEO) Definitions to Include •Include length of time / number of times a house or part of house / property must be rented out to constitute STR •Could define a “vacation rental” as a residence or room available for rent for periods of less than 14 days totaling more than 30 (or however many) days of a calendar year •Transient rental occupancy –use of a dwelling unit by a person or group of persons who occupies it or is entitled to occupy a dwelling unit for remuneration for a period of less than 14 calendar days, counting portions of days as full days Why are Definitions Important? •Matter of Friedman v Town of Dunkirk, 221 AD3d 1581(4th Dept 2023) –Property owner in “single-family dwelling” zone began renting property as short-term rental –ZBA –group of tenants that is transient or temporary in nature does not meet definition of a “family” –found STR was not authorized by code –Court disagreed-transient nature of stay is only one factor that can be considered for “family” purposes •Rental to four persons related by blood –meets code definition of family even though temporary stay –Consider every definition in the code!! Why are Definitions Important? •Fruchter v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hurley, 133 AD3d 1174 (3d Dept 2015) –Property owner in residential zone began listing property for rent for timeframes ranging from one night to an entire season •Rents the entire residence and does not stay on the premises –Code enforcement officer issued order to remedy for illegally operating bed and breakfast or hotel –ZBA found property owner should have obtained special use permit –Property owner asserted the type of rentals he provided did not require special use permit Why are Definitions Important? •Fruchter v Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Hurley, 133 AD3d 1174 (3d Dept 2015) –Court found that property owner’s short-term rental activity did not fall neatly into the town code’s definitions –Analysis turned upon whether the use removed the property from the definition of residential one-family and whether activity fit under another definition –Activity not a bed & breakfast or hotel –no food served and no common exterior entrance –Also not an owner-occupied dwelling, which was included in code –Court found the use does not fall within definition of what town required for special use permit Why are Definitions Important? –Important takeaway-definitions matter! –Town can amend code to include short-term rentals in permitting scheme, expand definition of tourist accommodations, transient rental occupancy . . . –Property owner unlikely to prevail on a vested rights claim if challenged once definitions amended since property owners would still be able to operate property –just under regulatory structure How Do Locals Regulate? •How do we know if someone is even running a short-term rental? How can we regulate them if we don’t know the STR exists? –Neighbor complaints –STR websites-presumption of operation (include in code) if property is listed –Google search –County registry if county has VCA with short-term rental platform –should have a list of properties –Software programs that track STR listings Questions? khodgdon@nytowns.org Association of Towns 150 State St Albany, NY (518)465-7933