Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6954
I 0"0-111 6 2-CUR. e So Pa vd `-se. (Skore i2 & L / [ ct ositi fe,rprekfi , be- 8O- (c)-1 )M()- C.PJYI Tb 6' i va Pel-10 ' vecio,s f ►--ez,, 4-zuf.s. -� )(xvi 6 e_c- Jo )46 Arai- HI Sec. 8u- ice/ Pi+ 5/sll6, Deere/Pe" mor- OA) ti ow or ..- Office Location: � J ��QF , O Mailing Address: ' :l® Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank � ;R t 53095 Main Road ' % � P.O. Box 1179 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) # .' Southold,NY 11971 "4 ' ® $a���� Southold, NY 11971-0959 }; =�COUNit,* '''� ',,r http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631)765-1809 Fax(631) 765-9064 COVER SHEET WITH ZBA FILE I STATUS OF FILE ZBA# 5"/ Name : Loom , 14 Ura(E Tax Map #: 10--b SO- `- 1 % Location : �yq 0 pareid ise, atove RA/ • ICL [ ] Refund issued : CANNOT activate or reactivate file (Applicant has withdrawn application). [ NO REFUND DUE, based on time spent for Town to process application and hearings- (t‘00.(zIknon S i>/a.)C� > [ ','. ] Obsolete & expired; CANNOT reactivate this file: NEW APPLICATION NECESSARY: Extensive time has passed; Zoning Code changes are now in effect and this application expired. NOTE: Applicant may apply for a new application with Building Inspector for a new Notice of Disapproval and submit NEW application with all documents and current maps to ZBA, or modify plan to conform to the current code. This Town file based on applicant's previous year requests has expired. [ ] No forms to be scanned; FILE # VOID: APPLICATION RETURNED. (All forms were returned to applicant early in process, as requested by applicant.) ,/i,/,iii- '- BOARD MEMBERS °i Southold Town Hall �'� o" * soot - 53095 Main Road • P.O. Box 1179 a Leslie •Kanes Weisman,Chairperson i ®� O ;� �� eirf OP .'t % Southold,NY 11971-0959 SrA6 Eric Dantes ; Office Location: k 14-r Gerard P.Goehringer Gt ',.,: - 4rAr cc $ Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning '`O ®ufi '�-��it 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) i �� Kenneth Schneider ';l'Y�'®U����;;�i�� Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net t5) )1t,0 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631) 765-1809 • Fax (631) 765-9064 May 24, 2016 Katsh Law, LLC Salem M. Katsh 65 Ryder Farm Lane Orient,NY 11957 RE: File# 6953, Lisa Cradit 560 Sound Road, Greenport Dear Mr. Katsh: I am writing to you on behalf of the Zoning Board of Appeals ("the Board") in response to your letter dated May 10, 2016 in which you requested that 1) the hearing in the appeal of Ms. Cradit be re-opened, and 2) that the appeal of Ms. Bloom, be"reinstated and be heard." Request to re-opening Cradit Appeal The Cradit Appeal will appear on--the--Board's June 16th agenda. -At-that-time your request to re- - open the appeal will be considered by the Board. Please be advised that although this meeting is open to the public, the Board does not take public comment at this meeting. Request to reinstate Bloom Appeal The Board is granted certain powers and duties under section 280-146 of the Town Code. The Bloom Appeal was an appeal from a determination of an administrative officer that sought an interpretation of a certain provisions of Chapter 280 of the Town Code pursuant to 280-146 (D) (1). Specifically, the Bloom appeal sought an interpretation of Chapter 280 pursuant to a Notice of Violation issued by Code Enforcement Officer Buckner. Once Officer Buckner rescinded the Notice of Violation, the Board was without authority to hear the application. The letter rescinding the appeal did not give an explanation for the rescission. Please contact the Town Attorney directly for more information regarding the reasons for the rescission of the appeal. Sincerely, J - ire/iteJi- a Leslie Kanes Weisman Chairperson cc: Vincent Messina, ZBA Special Counsel WILLIAM M.DUFFY SCOTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY oil . Supervisor bill.duffy@town.southold.ny.uso0 , ‘4. Town Hall Annex, 54375 Route 25 STEPHEN F.KIELY als P.O.Box 1179 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY ttcr) Southold,New York 11971-0959 stephen.kiely@town.southold.ny.us � }# ` L l A ��� Telephone(631) 765-1939 LORI M.HULSE =:��'®U t�;;d Facsimile(631) 765-6639 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY — ,,. lori.hulse@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD May 4, 2016 ZelEgIr Ms. Lauren Bloom A� '� 206 487 N. Windsor Avenue Bridgewaters,New York 11718 Q • 6(M-:,‘ Re: Rescission of Notice of Violation 1690 Paradise Shore, Southold, New York 11971 Suffolk County Tax Map Parcel: #1000-80.-1-18 Dear Ms. Bloom: Please be advised that based upon further investigation, the Notice of Violation dated January 21, 2016, is hereby rescinded. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, Nicole Buckner Code Enforcement Officer ./ Fee:$ Filed By: - Assignment No AO_ — RECEIVE APPLICATION TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS APR ® � ���� AREA VARIANCE�(� House No. 16 MO Street ?area,r i S� 5(of giamlet (AT 4 /' j 4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SCTM 1000 Section S.-0 Block f Lot(s) / Lot Size u3°1 at) Zone (24) I(WE)APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED / BASED ON SURVEY/SITE PLAN DATED L. Owner(s): Qt/ 1 e ' log 2 Mailing Address: /, 4G P4/4 til.)'.57C ,: �U 14 .C,7,-1 )gil m-) ` 6 } 1 Telephone:51 6 351- 3 lx: Email: la v 4 1 6 . iDD,,se e('i V'K 4. .ca NOTE: In addition to the above,please complete below if application is signed by applicant's attorney,agent,architect, builder,contract vendee,etc.and name of person who agent represents/ Name of Representative: 4 4i1 1 '/ /7 , ka7 el) for(Owner( )Other: Address: LC ,. ,y e,(e., .61 — 11 tie, l/ ,7-)e,147- )) CI r Telephon ' 2(?J 9 Fax: Email: c/<;17�%k e 1k. I /\/l e, ad, Please check to specify who you wish orrespondence to be mailed to,from the above names: ( )Applicant/Owner(s), (Authorized Representative, ( ) Other Name/Address below: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REVIEWED SURVEY/SITE PLAN DATED and DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED FOR: " ( )Building Permit ( ) Certificate of Occupancy ( )Pre-Certificate of Occupancy ( ) Change of Use ( )Permit for As-Built Construction ( ) Other: Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article,Section,Subsection of Zoning Ordinance by numbers.Do not quote the code.) Article: Section: Subsection: Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: ( )A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. ( )A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law- Section 280-A. Interpretation of the Town Code,Article , . 0 Section ) ( )Reversal or Ot er A prior appeal( ) has, -(4lhas not been made at any time with respect to this property,UNDER Appeal No(s). // Year(s). . (Please be sure to research before completing this question or call our office for assistance) Name of Owner: ZBA File# AI,S0 i .18)0-•-- if ; e0 - 1II 62N J 1 1 qsy RECEIVED Katshldaw LLC APR ® 5 2016 65 Ryder Farm Lane Orient, NY 11957 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS skatshakatshlaw.corn 646.712.1347 (tel.) 646.417.5777 (fax) www.kaishlaw.corn March 24, 2016 Salem M. Katsh Attorney at Law Honorable Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 54375 Main Rd Southold, NY 11971 By Certified Mail and/or By Hand Re: Appeal of Transient Rental Property Enforcement Letter to Laurie Bloom Dear Sirs and Madams: I represent Ms. Laurie Bloom in connection with her appeal of even date regarding an enforcement letter she received dated January 21, 2016 from the Town of Southold Code Enforcement Officer. The appeal papers are enclosed herewith. The instant appeal raises a narrow issue of law concerning whether the Town's new "transient" rental zoning ordinance (§§280-4, 280-111(J)) is subject to Code §280-121 pertaining to the grandfathering of non- conforming uses. I was advised on Monday, March 22, by a clerk in the Department of Zoning Appeals that there are no established procedures or forms for the filing of appeals under §267-a of the New York Town Law pertaining to appeals from any "order, requirement, decision, interpretation or determination of the administrative official charged with the enforcement of the zoning local law."' 1 To be sure, there is a Town of Southold recognizing this type of appeal and provision regarding fees—"For applications for interpretations on appeal from an order, decision, or determination of an administrative officer, the fee shall be RBCEIVBD 6 1 APR 0 5 2016 Nonetheless, the documents that are attached satisfy all of thezferf BOARD OF APPEALS requirements applicable to raising this issue before this Honorable Board. Eight copies for each appeal are enclosed, along with relevant exhibits, a payment of$300, and signed Transactional Disclosure and Authorization Forms. Because the issue on this appeal is extremely time sensitive as well as being a legal issue with no issues of fact to resolve, we have asked for an expedited decision. Unfortunately, because the attorneys and Code Enforcement Officer in the Town Attorney's Office are the officials whose actions are being directly challenged, we are constrained to move for their recusal from their normal role as legal advisors to the Board. A motion for disqualification of these individuals is also enclosed. We would be pleased to discuss with you or your representatives any and all procedural and/or substantive issues pertaining to this matter. Respectfully submitted, s Law LLC uthoriz- 'epresentative) BY i i /,, Salem . Katsh an order, decision, or determination of an administrative officer, the fee shall be $300 for each section of the Town Code for which an interpretation is requested." 2 RECEIVED 67co APR 0 2016 BEFORE THE SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS x Appeal Under Oath of Laurie Bloom of 1690 Dated: Southold, NY Paradise Shore, March 24, 2016 Southold, NY 11971 x PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This appeal is being filed by affiant Laurie Bloom of 1690 Paradise Shore, Southold, NY 11971, Southold, NY 11971, pursuant to §267-a(4)1 of the New York State Town Law and §§280-146 and 148B of the Town Zoning Code.2 The Town Law § 267-a(6) also provides that the filing of this appeal automatically effectuates a "stay [of all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from...." This appeal raises a narrow question of law—specifically, whether the Town's new "transient" rental zoning ordinance (§§280-4, 280-111(J)) 3 is 1 The Zoning Board of Appeals is charged with the duty to "hear[ ] and decid[e ] appeals from and reviewing any order, requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination made by the administrative official charged with the enforcement of any ordinance or local law adopted pursuant to this article. NYTC § 267-a(4). 2"The Zoning Board of Appeals shall hear and decide appeals when it is alleged that there is an error in any requirement, decision, interpretation, or determination made by the local administrator in the enforcement or administration of this chapter." 3 The new STR law defines a "transient rental property" as follows: A dwelling unit which is occupied for habitation as a residence by persons,other than the owner or a family member of the owner,and for which rent is reccired by the owner, directly or indirectly,in exchange for such residential occupation for a period of less than 14 nights. For the purposes of this chapter.the term "transient rental property" shall mean all non-owner-occupied,single-family residences.two-family residences,and townhouses rented for a period of less than 14 nights... It further provides: The presence of the following shall create a presumption that a dwelling unit is being used as a transient rental property: RECEIVED6M APR 052010 subject to the provisions of Code § 280-121 pertaining to grand atherin RD OF APPEALS of non-conforming uses. For many years, at my property located at 1690 Paradise Shore, Southold NY 11971, I have offered short-term rentals of the kind now ostensibly prohibited by the new STR law. The official action that requires this Board to resolve this question of law is the decision and determination of the Southold Code Enforcement Officer, set forth in her letter to affiant dated January 21, 2016 (attached hereto as Exh. A), that I "have been found to be in violation of' the new STR law The letter states that the "specific violation" "was observed" on January 21 2016. The Code Enforcement Officer's finding, as stated in the letter, was unequivocal and unconditional. The letter further threatened criminal penalties -a fine of up to $8000 per day. The letter required that corrective actions be taken immediately—that I must forthwith "cease the leasing of the subject property for a rental period of less than (14) nights". On these facts and for the reasons discussed below, I respectfully ask this Board expeditiously to reverse the decision and determination set forth in this January 21, 2016 letter. As the issue on this appeal is purely legal, and in view of the fact that I am critically obliged at this time to enter into rental agreements for the 2016 tourist season, I respectfully ask the Board to accord this appeal expedited treatment. Affiant and my authorized representative, Salem M. Katsh, Esq. will make themselves promptly available for a hearing or other appropriate proceeding. DISCUSSION I. The Relevant Facts Are Not in Dispute The following are the relevant facts. They are few in number and uncontestable. On a continuous basis dating long before the new STR law was passed, my property at 1690 Paradise Shore, Southold NY 11971 has been advertised on the internet as a property that may be rented for short (a) The dwelling unit is offered for lease on a short-term rental website,including Airbnb,HomeAway.VRBO and the like;or (b)The dwelling unit is offered for lease in any medium for a period of less than 14 nights. 2 periods of time. Numerous short-term rentals were entered into. See (09çL( RECEIVED e.g., Exh. B. APR 052016 II. The Code Enforcement Officer's January 21 Letter Unlawfully Flouted the Code's Grandfathering Provisions_(§28O-12 l ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS The Code Enforcement Officer's announced determination, in her letter of January 21, that I "have been found to be in violation of the new STR law, inexplicably ignores, and runs afoul of, the grandfathering provisions in the Zoning Code, § 280-121. My short-term rental activities pre-date the effective date of the new November 2015 STR law. I have the right under 280-121, therefore, to continue renting my property as before. I respectfully urge this Board expeditiously to issue a ruling making clear that the Code's grandfathering provisions apply to the new STR law. This ruling will repair my rights (and those of all others similarly situated). More specifically: The Code Provisions. Section l of Chapter 280 of the Zoning Code defines a "non-conforming use" as follows: A use, whether of a building, sign or tract of land, or combination of these, legally existing on the effective date of this chapter, which does not conform to the present use regulations of the district in which it is located but which is continuously maintained after the effective date of these regulations. Section 121 of Chapter 280 of the Code provides that any "[prior] nonconforming use of buildings or open land...regardless of change of title, possession or occupancy or right thereof, may be continued indefinitely...." Section 121 further expressly provides that this right to continue a prior use applies to "all uses and buildings that become nonconforming by reason of any subsequent amendment to this chapter." Unquestionably, short-term renting is covered by §280-121 as a non- conforming use. Short-term or "transient" rentals are expressly defined as a use by the new STR law. See §280-4B(192), §280-111(J). And a "transient rental property" as defined in the new STR law, is listed as a "prohibited use" under §280-111(J) of the Zoning Code. The Constitutional Principles. It is well recognized that town governments do not affirmatively want to permit non-conforming uses. Prior non-conforming uses are, as the courts have noted, "tolerated" because to allow homeowner investments and assets to be wiped out by a new zoning law would be unconstitutional, as it would effect a 3 RECEIVED APR © 52016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS fundamentally unjust confiscation of private property. This is clearly the law in New York State. As announced by New York's highest court: (��( It is the law of this state that non-conforming uses or structures, in existence when a zoning ordinance is enacted, are, as a general rule, constitutionally protected and will be permitted to continue, notwithstanding the contrary provisions of the ordinance. People v. Miller, 304 N.Y.2d 105, 107 (1952); Matter of Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Weise, 51 N.Y.2d 278, 287 (1980) ("[A] zoning ordinance cannot prohibit an existing use to which the property has been devoted at the time of the enactment of the ordinance"); Keller v. Haller, 226 A.D.2d at 639, 640, 641 (2d Dep't 1996).4 The very clear provisions of§ 280-121, and the settled Constitutional rulings that these provisions faithfully honor, are mirrored in the zoning laws that have been enacted throughout New York State and across the Nation. Shamefully, this Town's Board and its enforcement officials have inexplicably denied the grandfathering of the rights of persons such as myself who entered into short-term rentals long before the new law was- enacted. The new STR law would wipe out our investments of tens of thousands of dollars of constant improvements to attract high quality renters, as well as an income stream that is critical to our livelihood and ability to continue living in Southold. When we and the scores of citizens like us bought their houses and rented them for short periods during the year, we were acting lawfully. We had every right to rely on the legal status quo at the time we bought our houses and put them to lawful use. After the fact, we cannot be made to suffer very serious economic injuries because the Town desired, long after we commenced our activities, to amend the Zoning Code. The purpose of the Zoning Code's grandfathering provisions, and the Constitutional rulings on this subject, are designed precisely to protect us from what would be a gross injustice. III. The Letter Represents Incompetent And Arbitrary Actions. Wholly apart from the grandfathering issue, the Code Enforcement 4 See also Pelham Esplanade, Inc. v. Board of Trustees, 77 N.Y.2d 66 (1990); Town of Ithaca v. Hull, 174 A.D.2d 911 (3d Dep't 1991) ("Fair and intelligent land use planning tolerates nonconforming uses partly because property owners would otherwise suffer undue financial hardship if precipitously faced with discontinuance of an existing nonconforming use and loss of investment due to rezoning"). 4 RECEIVED APR 5 2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Officer could not possibly have "observed" on January 21, 2016 that a (07(" N rental of less than 14 nights had been consummated, let alone that such a rental had been "specifically observed" on that date. The reason is simple-- no rental or lease agreement of any kind was in effect. No "specific violation" could possibly have been "observed". My husband and I were the only persons having the rights of use and occupancy. It cannot seriously be contended that the Code Enforcement Officer's assertion in her January 21 letter, that I was "observed" committing a "specific violation" on that date, was other than false. Nor was there any basis whatsoever for her to threaten me with massive criminal penalties. Citizens should not be made subject to such irresponsible conduct.5 Prayer For Relief I am advised that there are many other legal issues that infect the new STR law. This appeal focuses upon just one. However, since virtually all of the persons adversely affected by the law are persons who have engaged in short-term renting for a long time, as a practical matter, the crisis the Town Board's new law has created can promptly be resolved by this Board simply confirming that, by virtue of§280-121 and the Constitutional principles it expresses, the Town must respect provable, prior non-conforming short term rental activities. I therefore respectfully request that this Board issue an appropriate order holding that Zoning Code §280-121 applies to the new short-term rental law and that the Code Enforcement Letter sent to me dated January 21, 2016 is accordingly null and void. 5 If what the Code Enforcement Officer—or some third party making an ill-informed complaint to the Officer--"observed",was an advertisement that did not exclude a rental for less than 14 nights,the new law on its face does not in any respect make the act of advertising a rental--whether for one day,a weekend, for less than 14 nights, or for an unspecified time period--a violation of anything.To be sure,under the new STR law, certain advertisements can raise rebuttable "presumptions"that a violation of the law has occurred. That,however, does not make the ads illegal. Nothing can be termed a"violation" under this law except a consummated rental for which rent is received for a period of less than 14 nights. See text of statute at n.3 supra. And the letter I received from the Code Enforcement Officer does not say that some presumption has been raised by advertisements for my property. It says that"I have been found to be in violation"of the new law and must cure my violation "immediately" on pain of criminal penalties. 5 RECEIVED osi APR 052016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Respectfully sAir itted, I L uric :'oom EXHIBITS A&B PATRICIA BZDYK Notary Public, State of New York No . 01BZ6122395 Qualified in Queens County Commission Expires February 07,20A 7 sutern +v b-e4re._ ±4-Cs Z3r4 dcu� aF ciT /i 2v�� 6 I RECEIVED (Ay APR ® 5 2616 EXHIBIT A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LETTER DATED JANUARY 21, 2016 FROM SOUTHOLD CODE ENFORCEMENT OFICER TO APPELLANT LAURIE BLOOM „...... ...,..., , -wit,ppner -:?-1..4,„;..- ,„17451N. -7..,r,„ ,,-,:Q „, ,,,,,,,,),„ -"-----mk•k-.`"'”" 1,4•1'.77';0.'4, la,°* . """latilie i'd„,;:el<,.a.7,,,,... -.4t,"'-''''' ''-'m l' („M`A.it.USS ELI $e . . t•IILAIVI AV litIFFY ,a. f)"fr t,17- „.. , , ,,,-.,,, 1,,,ki/L.3014. ,:i,...,0,,ivii,"„iit,„Eouthold,r4,,y.us .., -.., af4 F.Kr.lr n i i, iliv,,\ .0 , t17,1:: Soot ho.t.... . -%•• 1., OI A.,.• ,N,,,,,„, ,- . • AIL.HULSE , :."° A'”, '',. .•..,, , .., ,,, , Aee , ,„ ,... 0011, ,,,, ' 4 .•. , 'k-i(331 I "iT,F,,,(ifi;.;.9 (RECE VED CI 1.1',k1tt.pii,1,(::1e. 1 , 3 I TOW N ATTORNEY (9 i bold ny,d s . • town:643!t. .. 0 • , 's‘N., , '‘•' 'A,z,-.. I,„ ',-4;',s,.-‘ ,-,'., 1,'•-•, ‘,,‘ ... oFFIc.E OF TI,TE To.--,' , ATTORNEY APR 5 2016 ‘ - L1) TOWD,1-.OF SOLI 110 „ ;v- ---,-,. ,. ..,,..4*,,y,,,,,. ,,..t.,,,,,, 'NTICE OF VIOLT[0..N -()IDE (1.--.--'0 Ir ../1-1)V 1,', :‘;‘;.:',-`et$4,-.:--gk%...,- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Janualy 21,2016 • ".. v,,,1-,,,, . ' '•,i- ° .'. 1,'.‘*".4-•<,,,, . 481,14-,Wndsor Avenue . , '.--,,, , -.---,--- N, ,,,tv,yotk,.1171S -- i ,0-' .: Atiohmaters, e . ‘.. .,.4 IJ!::‘,„\,' ,,,,,,,,0:,,iilk,a„rci:0utsnety'Sprhoa-tx0e,m%oputhoried e,,IN!tellv(iY00.o4irkr;,111.91781. .;;•••''' '''',,,, - '' Dc NI,tAAL,WI'F.,--;„' .• -, . . . ::-.° - --•,,, , Isk,c-'',,,,,‘,:e0,*4,,' .',''''' '''..,, r,,,4% - • . ,-,4,•; 4: .,.,, ....-.:„,, , ,, . LI;,,,,,,,,, , 4 a ye ., ,...- ..,,,=, i ti,-Th„ ''ti: aVel*'". 2$0,44i4,1,‘j„ Q,specific -,etific. ,,,.. vionia-vti joolttat,wloiniithl,\tiv;:f,:b7steireoddie;ftht„zhe is 404,,,, anuary, . .8 s16.4„.. - I' '''`4: --•.',',w'‘.• '' ''• .., ,•--,-• rT•-•' ''''' :::°:it s. '- „ , . • 7 :: vi4115.1rii:iiot%.':;:ko.'.i.r;:f.,..;;,.,H504° ''la,,,f:014::;;:z71;t li' , 'a\\>. .',,,:::::13,s,,,44-1.e:n lirepH,,,v:•541i_iirso",p,rti:es,,asHdefined in §280-4 as: , ,,,„,... .,, , ,,f ,?..,\IN,!,,,- ,. ,,,t,.. „_..,,,,,,,.. • I- ' :",..r. ".,- ?',.:,,I,ii.-,--2,4-:•'..'A ,... .i2:::•-•":';`."'i 2:.'i.'..'-.4:;;gt: °: ''''''"' . ' -- . 1=,R,, -tit-IF,IsPi71,''''=:-.1 ..... • y.,,,,Kvi.,%N...: . .,,,-.....,,,,„ , ,„ , :. ,-.-„ :,f,...' ,:%,.'... , .: =,‘,,f !-.,,,‘4„, ,blta1 .tsid.enPC., b?1P,t.A ers,°bi;sti'ioethoewrnteir, . .., w, .... ., . ,,..,.4tviii, etr.viistite, ;renias reeei,— 7,1,-.,, , .,, ..„ ,,,-1,,,,,,,,,,:- :-. :.- -,--Liakvo ,,,..6 ,--- ...,,. - --., 4 '''''''l'I f 1;:*0 ',,,.:,"1,41,*•„.:' •A, ,.,„,,,,,, ,‘,., -.,k' g4. 4i . .cjitt.fors_ua:1sid,ential..occupation property shall mean tnrcV 7.,..4.:(.:',..v.r.:-- .%;,,,--,- ,:',.------ .,.;A\c., ,,],;t.„.,,„fi„„,,.---..the term utra,natent rental .,for A period of less than ,,. ,,...,,,,, .i?..:°"...=.,=,°,=,. ._ ,--ro, ====e's'oi 1,111114trt',t'l- • . ,.• , „,,,,,,,,,,, ,,i ••,r„, , ,..tfo.r me Fu, ,..,-,. ' . ., - K-• ' - ' 1 41 f' 14 niab,&and shall not include: =s*nglq''''Itsti'V ily otp,' dencesf , f unity reskiencea,and '••j.,..-,,,°....,..,,,,;,,,,,,..-:.•• ,Ititl:%• ',21'.;i4tq'e.t111;ips%EcablitaiFit penOriblfe0,1k,x,‘,:„i-:r.,',*trsi.i:4e•'' . ,„;%ai,„.i,-,7°>: -. 1-,A-t,..r-,,,° °,,•,;,y, , ,t„, ..,,,*'"4-'7477::': „tk''' ‘11#,' -'‘‘•,,,‘t.-s',1;‘ itu‘\14'26.11,busin. /t$ST'0-1.'ilt..„,611,4 ,,--,w2...-A.z.q.,- . 44.....4A-i,-1-i,,,„ pv,it,17,°!..: _•., ,,,.; chtturvioi„,, Qt.‘e 41,&!..,„‘ rsz ‘‘ , < 2—., °...-ti•:°"'.'s,,,"'`,1„fitsF,J<,„ ,'<'iiii.„;74 II','• '4141,01-&Pg..,:,,,..,..,-..-.. .N-- ,;:::7''''vn .i'-Nkv.‘,:::-. . v‘'; 0iente That is. 1 -bireak,,:fas,t artice4tertngtn,.11'i !.= = ,,,,,. .....,,„ 1,.. ,,.....tii lipt iCtiltatAkitt› ,..or we j ' =.4'==-4,,',;,-.:1==, .,=‘,.'=.71,!,==.:t.:=:.,. .,,,,,---calAKA.11`,f;$1' . A.,....t,* ..,-.•...-4.,0,,,,,,.. '''''',.:': tic,,,, ,i14'•, .,-,:est,.,. 1 , .t entst,w4,,‘, , , : -.4'•TA°°!*,.....':,:"‘ 't '''''''''" r'-'4'lwzgfi).1typerigtext4 ,e; .,...lcv,.„ 4 4,6Se •:.„ ''''''' °•°°i;'''',°-.71 ,ex.e.' ' .:, -°*"'41.1101.41°Z?'N'14n,—,,t•.-:-fze:;° ::'i.-!':;4'?•°°::44 -i:1„.4M-.;;,t,6'!ki. 4<ri ° -°... J..--rsi,°,g1,4„4.,, r . - , " -1 „„;,1-„,,..k.vv,:,„„4•41.: 3 ' „,„:444,4,,,:t1,4&,„,,,, ,..,-.., 2,,, •/,,„..44,„,,,...Lo„,,t4.-:- -',4,1,,,k,• 13,3,1,---.041,4,6rittiliTio . ,, • ,,, A,,,,:!...c.s..4,1",°•-°!.„ „-.'-''',:-V.•P•44 ew:47e•i,e4 ..,4:ttkqns„.,,;., iiirrit,..., „ 6t,icttorillaitylCrthaamixkv" okr"-,N1,a-,. '--\„ ---°°' ,-.1 ,•:ii:-......°°-..- . : ..:i.!%7=i- ,°°:,:-'4",•• =4,,,,,"444•1::,:; *It Igkt. ,-,..,, tri-Ntafe,...4-143.to-,-.,,, .z. ,,„',..„.,,,,,„3..,.'4,,,,,,,,..ziN.ZAll'.''''•'4,. .4,.%‘k.;::::7N'VA*4.\,;;Z: 44....,„ ,.....,.Art'ke.eTte,„tiChied,,,. ,-;,,..41 ,,i , A,..,-7...,7j,,i „ ,:,- -!-''--..frv:. .,,:,,,,,A, „k,',..-"A'*%,t.4-40.,;,'-'',,',-,...k.‘..,,„„..,, '• •',• ., ' , ,4,,,,,,1,'' X04.'4,9'4'• ••',.° 4•144,st-wei . 4 e,,,-, s.”,--,,,,,t,„,:,,,,„?..„,,,, „ .1;‘,,,..;..4ii.'', ntk,ow.miA, 0.- ..--, . -•...4••°-....., ...'M -4,;-4• Ivtik4.1,4 4,,. - •-•'' k44,,.....*4 •• ,, „ , °,-• ----,-.‘,...4,• - ,,,,,,,r•-:,t•'r• • "'-rik, . 4. ,,A,,N -- ,‘,,,i, - v ' '4,, ,, • ,e,..5".,.' ?l 2 - ' , -,T1,1e...,'•..s0""4,,,'-'''A-'''''". . ;1436.-,4 41,10,„° '' s' 14...‘W.X.vs,,,,,, ,„4 .,,,•,,,,.,-,Ss,„ .,,-, ,,,,•‘4,,,,,,,, ,.,,,q:,. , -,ssi, ,, ‘, %, ..% '`'':.•' ,'''- '''''':•.1.4. .i":',:i"" ' ''''',,t?'.'';' ',",Z,*.S.'°''',*Pr`4''''Archia,,s,;,, ,,,,,14,!,,,Z,.'„: ,''''-*S.,t,,,•,,f,mitp,-„,,,,, ' SP,s,41:•,,,,,,..,• ,'',',t,s'-44,,:;,,,"`<,',!: ,.',X,Nt..,s,-.•,,,,,‘',A*X%,,,itsziw. ,,t,ty „t,>,4,1, „,4„,, i ..,,,, i.. -;=,...,,,,:;,,„:„...„.„,.,,...,id„fieo.,,,,A1411.4".tt,:.1.„.7..,...„..k....-1 .-0,,,, •=...,,,,,,,,,----- „ ..,==....,*4:'ile.it4, :.%,„ '', ',„',04:4*Zt,..••-• --4,„t, , '44,14,-wt'.....°', .,,,,s.1!,.... ,i ,.,,, •-:...,-:4°.z,:it'' - ''''-',..i..;•,,.i,,,44tiCA,41.,,,1c4i': .,:,.','-,,,7-e *,:,,,,i,t,,,,,,,-3,,t,,,,c4,,-, l'-:-.,...,.'*°:;17,41,,‘-' -° - .;-;:,-,°.--,,i:',N,,siArig„.-.0.-e41,7;.;:1/4',1,:T." • vtr ,,, ,..0'.‘,.ft ,''-'• ---‘ ,'''.-%, .-' •= '' = ::,'':°:,:=---.' .iLt=::);:ite,-,:*.4,EAei-TA4L.,,,1,2:::ivii.-g-- , --. H:.--:frr,..',,,,:,,,' ' ----;-,r-°,,,,,„.„,„,;_'--.~,,-,-.KP.-:;' -. ,4?",..v.v..t.4,,,i.,:es, ''',-,,,,..1u.,i34`'flp„,,,,- '.'2,,.\.,,4,*,„„ „A „7.,,,,g‘,, •,, , ' ..w•%., -,,,,,-. , .....4.- . ..ef'-- -, • ,t.W. . -"Ve.t.A. ,4,- •,.., ,,,, , -.•,„,,,-,,is, „ .,%,4- , °-..„%.,>•., 44. , 4,1\,4, Ak,• ••- , l' ' ''•:,',"-""er;r4,';:,*'' ' 1.="',I•;,7.,'454,-'4-4.-"rS°: r,,,4`-6.,''''''' r.:"*.t4...r445.•;:r..--' "7. --,, - - - • ,a4Y,ri.i•,'r• ''':r? '.A.,yi,•4,•,-r'''w -- ,,,,,,,,,,-.,4,k- A4,-.,,,, ,,,,-.41;;„0.• tv-ot, i:-'.,1,..1-.°°,'i;°;t'''' .•.. . -.-1,-zv.-...,.:.,,,,, „°_,.. ,,,-7..*1.'4.„ ..,,,g.,.„,,,,,v,,-,,,,,,,,,,t.,16°Nfli,,,,,:;0,.- ?.,sp,,,•4 :7,tok„,,,A., ‘-.4.. . .-1,.,. '4;-;-" '*,.FAAr.--• „ ,..hkAv:-- -Pr-,, •P' ;,‘ to'l ,..-,,„A„ - rrr,p,e,P1.- -;1.4 ' "" -.4-,...::,'4t4'.,,".,:`•*.:t1";,%1,-;4!1',1:-..--''':i.-/ ,'-NN.,::-.4wte.s. RECEIVED • . APR 0 5 2016 ?\cli 1' •; - - : - _ . . ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - r :``'(b) ,A dwelling unit,located of Fishers Island'„ due to the unique characteristics of � the..Island, including the lack ©f formal lodging for visitors. (.;., <2) The presence of the following shall create a presumption that a dwelling unit k hein` i' ' ,„ „ - - used as a. transient rental property; • - I ;„ - . (a) The dwelling unit is offered for lease on'a short-t ;rni rental Website, including _A'Irbnb, H©meAway,eVRBt7 and the like; or � .;_ °, -_ ; '° (b),,The dwelling unit is•offered for lease in any medium for a period of less than 14 '",,',/‘ >m - nights..,; ' = > ° - - • •. , (3)'"Thetbrego g presumption may-'be"rebutted by evidence presented to the Code •-•Ex forcement Officer for the Town of Southold:that the.dwelling unit is nota transient :' ' • ,rehtal'property. - i „ . ,„ ,. . . 4 - The;killowxiig:corrective..measures -im must be takenmediately: ' , 2, oosi,; ` ;` - er lea Ing th'e:subject property for a rental period of less than : fourteen>(1.4) :nigh . ko�� ;, �e'1 For the purpeosof applying•the penalties'described i n.:,in Code of the Town of Southold, your first violati,o ,"shall,:be,deemed to have4occurred as of January 21, 201 6. , ya4 �. , . _ sew.„,,.w ;,-„,,:,.,„1,- , _ °Please,note: A,violation ofth s',Coeis`punisbable by fine.not to"exceed $ 8,000.04e.° Each Day - ,,,,-,•••.:.....a o t r-xl ''1, . : ° llconstttt e.a r ionahe ar� -tof1e se, after court determination ,ne , , , ., ,, , :,.•--,•,.:,, „ °tti. ;• ,_ , � , - , . 1 l you have any,, que_st offs, please contact the undersi" ed:‘> ,...i:: - • , > ° Sincerely, " e ',A,• - e.' • , , • 1 ;;Nipole luckrer > - ,:q-.•• ' a s.t'!: ,, ':�a�.4"4i,.o`�'`. k'i m. 7' bde'E�nft rc�]enntOfficer.-: .. • i:/rte ..''''' .> ''' yy,,�� ru ,? "3•^',,q:. e ke>Ra, c ?:�a.e` ._: j 'ii,�, .t ., • 4 ^.L�. : :;;y`.,4 . ,. phi ` ` ,, 1.1.;' ' `yea .Q.7..,° ::,'= 't,:d>,: It ;� - ` • w r ` n Y w° •I>' • °...."7-. . '� v • n , d'` <a F a > a, iv ' > • C ' J, . y Kxa • °fin. ; :,..:1*:...."..' OF�; ,1 i e 're" �• '° 'v,. - ° m.r RECEIVED (04M APR ® 52016 EXHIBIT B ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SHORT-TERM RENTAL AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY APPELLANT LAURIE BLOOM PRE- DATING NEW STR LAW Dear Jennifer, RECEIVED We look forward to your visit and want you to know that we will do everything possible to'make your stay pleasant and p •] enjoyable. APR 0 5 2016 Your confirmation number is:#26975.We have you confirmed for: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RESERVATION INFORMATION(#26975) , . ? Yeoseeireciee, Jennifer _. M.. = Brooklyn,NY 11249,USA Estimated Arrival:4:00 PM afeire?ja The Lighthouse Cottage $1,275.00 Thu,Jul 2,2015—4 Adults—$425.00 Fri,Jul 3,2015—4 Adults—$425.00 Sat,Jul 4,2015—4 Adults—$425.00 m Depart Sun,Jul 5,2015 cleaning and garbage fee $125.00 Thu,Jul 2,2015—$125.00x1=$125.00 Sub Total: $1,400.00 County Occupancy Tax: $38.25 Tax Total: $38.25 Total: $1,438.25 Our Polices: RENTAL HOUSE POLICIES&RULES: Rates and policies are subject to change and vary during both high and low season periods and for some special requests. Please review on line calendar and rental site for detailed rates. Cancellations: The cost of 25%of the entire reservation should be remitted by check or will be charged to your credit card to reserve your booking and the balance 60 days prior to check in.If your travel plans change and you must cancel your reservation,please call us at least 60 days prior to your arrival date for a cheerful refund of your deposit less a$250 processing fee.In the unlikely event that you must cancel with tens than 60 days notice,shorten your stay or check out early,please understand that we must ask you to take responsibility for your entire reservation.If we can rebook the house for that time at the original rate then a full or partial refund will be made less the aforementioned cancellation fee.To insure against adverse circumstances,including natural disasters over which we have no control,we strongly advise that you purchase your own travel insurance policy. To confirm your reservation a valid credit card must be supplied with an expiration date at least one month beyond that of the completion date of the rental,as well as full name,address,cell and land line telephone and numbers of renter.All prices quoted are plus tax and cleaning fee. Arrival time is between 4.30 pm and 5.30 pm and departure by 11 am unless other arrangements are specifically made in advance.An extension of your stay beyond these dates and times unless also arranged in advance will be considered an additional days rental and charged accordingly. The house key can be picked up from and returned to the Shorecrest Bed and Breakfast along with any beach passes or other additional items supplied that are not part of the beach house supplies unless other arrangements have been made. Occupancy: There is a maximum sleepover occupancy which varies from house to house.Please refer to the web listing and confirmation receipt for details.The renter must supply the names of all persons who will be steeping in the house. Large parties or late night events(after 11pm)are not allowed unless booked as part of an event.If,the police have to be called to the house for any reason due to disturbance such as loud music or behavior the rental will be invalidated and the entire cost of the stay forfeited.Any damage beyond normal wear will be charged to your credit card and a valid receipt for work done will be supplied to you.Similarly please do not remove household items as you will be charged for their replacement. Smoking: There is no smoking permitted inside the house or rooms;however you may smoke in the Garden or deck area.There is a $500 house cleaning fee for violation of this rule.Smoking inside the house will result in invalidation of this lease and you will be asked to leave immediately without refund or return of your security deposit. Pets:Dogs that are fully house trained are welcome in some houses.There is an additional deep cleaning fee of$125-$175 depending on the property.If the carpets or furniture are soiled or your pet sheds profusely there may be an additional fee as appropriate.Animals are not allowed on the furniture and if we find that the furniture or bedding is soiled or needs special cleaning due to pet hair,there will be an additional charge of$250 depending on the condition,Similarly owners must pick up after their dog from the garden and beach and must be dispose of in the appropriate containers.No animals are to be left unattended in any of the houses unless they are secured in a crate.If your dog barks for extended lengths of time when he is left alone then he may not be left as this could disturb other residents of the neighborhood.Since one of our houses recently experienced a large amount of damage due to a dog being left alone in the house,we now require a$750 security deposit in advance for pets,returnable once the property has been cleaned and inspected. Cleaning and Garbage Disposal: Please dispose of all garbage in the trash bags provided.Only some houses have trash pick up service and there are many wild animals in the vicinity so it is best not to leave trash outside unless contained in the bin provided with the lid firmly attached.Please read the manual provided for your particular rental. There is an additional housekeeping and garbage removal fee for the first week of any stay.For stays of two weeks or longer arrangements can be made to have our cleaning team come to the house weekly for an additional fee.In some house's there is a weekly$50 garbage collection fee per week far stays longer than one week as all garbage collection in Southold is privately contracted for.In Souhtold township enough yellow garbage bags will be provided to get you started and separate recycling bins.You will need to purchase additional yellow town bins at the local store if pick up is provided at the house. ozeoet000reeeeoe one : x,„, „, o Please discuss with management refuse arrangements for your particular house. ONSISINATOMI* '‘ Dear Elizabeth, We look fcrward to your visit and want you to know that we will do everything possible to mate your stay pleasant and RECEIVED enjoyable. Your confirmation number Is:#26234.We have you confirmed for: APR ® 5 2016 RESERVATION INFORMATION(#26234) ElizabethZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ' '`���� New York,NY 10075,USA Estimated Arrival:4:00 PM eee-eereeeteee.eeet eeeee The Lighthouse Cottage $975.00 Thu,jun 4,2015—4 Adults—$325.00 Fri,Jun 5,2015—4 Adults—$325.00 Sat,:un 6,2015—4 Adults—$325.00 1,0.Depart:Sun,Jun 7,2015 cleaning and garbage fee $125.00 Thu,Jun 4,2015--$125.00 x 1 ee$125.00 Sub Total: $1,100.00 County Occupancy T0x $29.25 Tax Total: $29.25 Total: $1,129.25 Our Policies: RENTAL HOUSE POLICIES&RULES: Rates and policies are subject to change and vary during both high and low season periods and for some special requests. Please review on line calendar and rental site for detailed rates. Cancellations: The cost of 25%of the entire reservation should be remitted by check or will be charged to your credit card to reserve.your booking and the balance 60 days prior to check in.If your travel plans change and you must cancel your reservation,please cal!us at least 60 days prior to your arrival date for a cheerful refund of your deposit less a$250 processing fee.In the unlikely event that you must cancel with less than 60 days'notice,shorten your stay or check out early,please understand that we must ask you to take responsibility for your entire reservation.If we can rebook the house for that time at the original rate then a full or partial refund will be made less the aforementioned cancellation fee.To insure against adverse circumstances,including natural disasters aver which we have no control,we strongly advise that you purchase your own travel insurance policy. To confirm your reservation a valid credit card must be supplied with en expiration date at least one month beyond that of the completion date of the rental,as well as full name,address,cell and land line telephone and numbers of renter.All prices quoted are plus tax and cleaning fee, Arrival time Ts between 4.30 pm and 5.30 pm and departure by 11 am unless other arrangements are specifically made in advance.An extension of your stay beyond these dates and times unless also arranged in advance will be considered an additional day's rental and charged accordingly. The house key can be picked up from and returned to the Shorecrest Bed and Breakfast along with any beach passes or other additional items supplied that are not part of the beach house supplies unless other arrangements have been made. Occupancy: There is a maximum sleepover occupancy which varies from house to house.Please refer to the web listing and confirmation receipt for details.The renter must supply the names of all persons who will be sleeping in the house. Large parties or late night events(after 11pm)are not allowed unless booked as part of an event.If the police have to be called to the house for any reason due to disturbance such`as loud music or behavior the rental will be invalidated and the entire cost of the stay forfeited.Any damage beyond normal wear will be charged to your credit card and a valid receipt for work done will be supplied to you.Similarly please do not remove household items as you will be charged for their replacement. Smoking: There is no smoking permitted inside the house or rooms;however you may smoke in the Garden or deck area.There is a $500 house cleaning fee for violation of this rule.Smoking inside the house will result in invalidation of this tease and you will be asked to leave immediately without refund or return of your security deposit. Pets:Dogs that are fully house trained are welcome in some houses.There is an additional deep cleaning fee of$125-$175 depending on the property.If the carpets or furniture are soiled or your pet sheds profusely there may bean additional fee as appropriate.Animals are not allowed on the furniture and if we find that the furniture or bedding is soiled or needs special cleaning due to pet hair,there will be an additional charge of$250 depending on the condition.Similarly owners must pick up after their dog from the garden and beach and must be dispose of in the appropriate containers.No animals are to be left unattended in any of the houses unless they are secured in a crate,If your dog barks for extended lengths of time when he is left alone then he may not be left as this could disturb other residents of the neighborhood.Since one of our houses recently experienced a large amount of damage due to a dog being left alone in the house,we now require a$750 security deposit in advance for pets,returnable once the property has been cleaned and inspected. Cleaning and Garbage Disposal: Please dispose of all garbage in the trash bags provided.Only some houses have trash pick up service and there are many wild animals in the vicinity so it is best not to leave trash outside unless contained in the bin provided with the lid firmly attached.Please read the manual provided for your particular rental. There is an additional housekeeping and garbage removal fee for the first week of any stay.For stays of two weeks or longer arrangements can be made to have our cleaning team come to the house weekly for an additional fee.In some houses there is a weekly$50 garbage collection fee per week for stays longer than one-week as all garbage collection in Southold is privately contracted for.In Souhtold township enough yellow garbage bags will be provided to get you started and separate recycling bins.You will need to purchase additional yellow town bins at the local store if pick up is provided at the house. eeeze-e .-- s -'e zeeeelte. Le!i"* xPlease discuss with mananement refuse RECE WED 6%—y APR 0 5 2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Board of Zoning Appeals Application AUTHORIZATION (Where the Applicant is not the Owner) 1, Laurie Bloom residing at do laurie.bloom@rivkin.com___ (Print property owner's name) (Mailing Address do hereby authorize Salem N4. Katsh and KatshLaw LLC ()Agent) to appeal on my behalf to the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals. „of . (Owne/s Signature) / q- /Z1-0 0 A-1 (Print Owner's Name) . ' , . WV( . RECEIVED AGENT/REPRESENTATIVE APR ® 7 2O'6 TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM (t APPEALS The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics probibitvcontlictc of interest on the part of town officers and empcis4c� CTI 'oo of this form is to provide information which can alert the town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME : / gip. ,, 4,, e • --__ (Last name,f rst name,middle i-ilial,unless you are ap l.i iny>,in the name of someone else or other entity,such as a company.It so,indicate the other person's or company's name.) TYPE OF APPLICATiON: (Check all that'apply) Tax grievance , _—� Building Permit VarianceTrusteePermit Change of sone, Coastal Erosion .. Approval of Plat / Mooring Other(activity) , . �A' ;-i[r�.r I f z _� lanning - Do you personally(or ihirough‘your company;:spousc,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? ",Relationship"includes by blood,marriage,or business interest."Business interest"means a business,including a partnership, in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. ? ` YES i If you answered"YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated: Name of person employed by the Town'of Southold , — Title or position of that person . _ _ - ' - - Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the town officer or employee. Either check the appropriateline A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,Or child is(check all that apply) : _____ A)the owner of greater that S'%of the,Shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(when the applicant is a corporation) , . -- . - - . , ,. - . ,, ` . . " ' - B)the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in it non-corporate entit;A (sr hen the applicant is ndt h corporation) C)an officer,director,partner,or employee of the applicant; or _ _ D)the actual applicant - - DESCRIPTION OF RELATLO`vSI-IIP' : - - - 4 ' Submitted this _day,of:, ti — . _____ 40Signature 1/_L ?.. --- — -- Print Name Ca,L / ,, . . , 14_'_:. ____ !/ - - RECEIVED APR 0 5 2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APPLICANT/OWNER sq -11 TRANSACTION.AL DISCLOSURE FORM The Tenn of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of town officers and employees.The purpose of this form is to provide information A filch can alert the ton n of possible conflicts of interest andatluw it to take whates cr action is necessary to avoid same. YOUR NAME: (Last name,first name,middle initial,unless you are a ppl)ing in the name of someone else or other ennt3.such as a company.'If so,indicate the other person's ni NUMMI ay's name,) TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply) Tax grievance Building Permit Variance Trustee Permit Change of Zone Coastal Erosion Approval of Plat Mooring Other(activity) Planning Do you personally(or through your company,spouse,sibling,parent,or child)have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold?"Relationship-includes by blood,marriage,or business interest,"Business interest" means a business,including a partnership,in which the town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of(or employment by)a corporation in which the town officer or employee owns more than 5%of the shares. YES NO 7. If you answered"YES",complete the balance of this form and date and sign where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold Title or position of that person Describe the relationship between yourself(the applicant/agent/representative)and the tow a officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A)through D)and/or describe in the space provided. The town officer or employee or his or her spouse,sibling,parent,or child is(check all that app13): A)the ass ner of greater that 5%of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant(w hen the applicant is a c(,rporation) B)the legal or beneficial tinner of any interest in a nun-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corpora(ion) C')an officer,director,partner,or emplu>ee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this e:, ,1) t y of AMC, ,201_La Signature Print NaAte— ' RECEIVED BEFORE THE SOUTHOLD ZONING APR 2016 BOARD OF APPEALS ZONING BOgRD • S Dated: Southold, NY March 24, 2016 Motion to Disqualify William Duffy, Steven Kiely and Nicole Buckner from Representing Town, or from Providing Counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, in this Proceeding We respectfully move to disqualify William Duffy, Southold Town Attorney, Steven Kiely, Assistant Town Attorney, and Nicole Buckner, Town Enforcement Officer, from participating as attorneys on this appeal.` The subject of this appeal is a letter dated January 2016, to appellant Laurie Bloom.,It states that she"has been found to be in violation" of Southold's new short-term rental law ("new STR law"). See Exhibit A to Appeal filed herewith. =The said letter is printed on the-,stationary and letterhead of Messrs. Duffy and Kiely, the Office of the Town Attorney. The letter is signed by Ms. Buckner. Some thirty-five identical letters have been sent in the same fashion, on the same letterhead and with Ms. Buckner's signature, during the period November 2015 (when the new law became effective) until at least March 6, 2016. There is no question but that the letter and the enforcement effort it represents was crafted and adopted by the.Town's lawyers—Messrs. Duffy and Kiely--to whom Ms. Buckner reports. The Zoning Board of Appeals has been set up to utilize the advice and counsel of the Town's attorneys. As a general matter, giving the attorneys this role may well be appropriate. However, when a matter comes before the Board for adjudication that appeals from the conduct of these very officials, it is self-evident that these Town officials should not participate in any substantive manner. if,hypothetically there would be testimony taken in this case, Messrs. Duffy and Kiely and Ms. Buckner.would ipso facto be key witnesses. To be sure, while no testimony will be needed to resolve this appeal, this hypothetical illustrates the conflict of interest. • o }, RECEIVED (99cy APR 052016 The question on this appeal is a'legal question and calls for an BONING BOARD OF APPEALS interpretation of the Zoning Code—to wit, is the new short-term rental law subject to the grandfathering provisions of Code §280-121? The issue, in our view, is so clear cut that anyone with experience in applying the Code, including any non-lawyer members of the Board, will have no difficulty reaching a decision. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that it would only be normal and natural for the Board to seek and receive counsel's advice. In this case, however, unless they are disqualified, the persons that would be called upon to provide such advise would be the same persons whose actions are being challenged. If the Board were of the view that an attorney's advice were critical, the Board could hire an attorney with no ethical conflicts to help out. We also have no objection with the Board's hearing oral argument on the question of law presented, at which time Messrs. Duffy, Kiely and/or Ms. Buckner can defend their challenged conduct and contend that the letters are lawful and do not infringe upon vested grandfathering rights. But it is obvious that they cannot serve as the attorneys for or provide counsel to the very tribunal that is charged with impartially deciding this appeal. In conclusion, we respectfully ask the Board to issue an order disqualifying Messrs. Duffy and Kiely, and Ms. Buckner, from providing any ex parte advice to the Board in regard to this appeal or otherwise acting in the capacity of attorneys or advisers,to the Board. Respectfully submitted, KatshLaw I.{L-C (Authorized Repr 'wive) BY: ® Salem M. Katsh Dated: March 24, 2016 2 69 ri RECEIVED! Certificate of Delivery APR 2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I, Robin Phillips, of 65 Ryder Farm Lane, Orient NY 11957, hereby declare and certify that on this day, the 25th day of March, 2016, I delivered to the Office of the Southold Zoning Appeals Board the within Eight Copies of "Appeal of Transient Rental Enforcement Letter to Laurie Bloom". Rob' Phillip 0004 ELIZABETH A.NEVILLE,MMC � y® ®may Town Hall,53095 Main Road TOWN CLERK ® ; P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York 11971 REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Zr. Fax(631)765-6145 MARRIAGE OFFICER ;'*� Q �' Telephone(631)765-1800 RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER ®.( Als- 7' www.southoldtownny.gov FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER .,,,,,,,, • OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: Southold Town Zoning Board-of Appeals FROM: Elizabeth A.Neville DATED: April 7, 2016 RE: Zoning Appeal No. 6954 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 6954 for Salem M. Katsh for Laurie Bloom-The Application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Also enclosed is a Letter to the Zoning Board of Appeals from Salem M. Katsh, Attorney at Law Dated March 24 of 2016,A 6 Page Preliminary Statement Under Oath of Laurie Bloom Dated March 24 of 2016, Exhibit A is a Letter from Southold Code Enforcement to Appellant Laurie Bloom Dated January 21 of 2016, Exhibit B are 2 Short-Term Rental Agreements Between Laurie Bloom and Guests for the Dates of July 2-July 4 of 2015 and July 4-July 7 of 2015, Board of Zoning Appeals Application Authorization from Laurie Bloom for Salem M. Katsh of KatshLaw LLC, Applicant/Owner Transactional Disclosure Form from Laurie Bloom,A Letter of Motion from Salem M. Katsh of KatshLaw LLC Before the Southold Zoning Board of Appeals Dated March 24 of 2016, Certificate of Delivery Signed by Robin Phillips on March 25 of 2016. * * * RECEIPT * * * Date: 04/06/16 Receipt#: 202464 Quantity Transactions Reference Subtotal 1 ZBA Application Fees 6954 $300.00 Total Paid: $300.00 Notes: I Payment Type Amount Paid By CK#402 $300.00 Salem M. Katsh Southold Town Clerk's Office 53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Name: Bloom, Laurie 1690 Paradise Shore Rd Southold, NY 11971 Clerk ID: SABRINA Internal ID:6954 . 'r A 4, +0 . ° .. ,, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD l`+ OWNER STREET ' 0 •DISTRICT • SUB. LOT :* ER.O"V#NER N : E •� r ACREAGE r + ALL-La/lid . 7-:.wa..A4 1 .4 r! . 1 0 0 Co. h c-ta.ric. 4 )-F. Sit Wr4 y -• r * PE OF BUILDING ;ES. r / !. SEAS. VL. FARM COMM. I IND, B. MISC. Est. Mkt. Value ' 'kND IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS al_41,Ve • _ . . se-VIA/317u. i In 4 40 i d Aft 2t7v f 0 0 - is 00 v`�1l !v !?/ '444..AwT4' a . 41d.7e.,el, .t r, p . 4-0 a$ o-1) .a-. _/ice�"7 $/77 rP1w,? '� 77 �s „, e ,l 'y "I , 76-0 2-C o ,'3 d d / d /..„7,.„;,„,i�, G°9eio .:;- ��I P t ,ems.�. c*f4,�Ic ,ay11 z. 26-10 e Del ¼/7y' '7't -L[17 1 :�-Dar . o- -N fr- AGE BUILDING CONDITION7.4_019k-Lim kik, e.C1(bYk.. r4' 2',s Ira e NEW NORMAL BELOW - ABOVE , FR a T:GE 0M W / de ./ c/ _l,� 16/7/8 Fdrm Acre Value Per Acre Value FRONTAGE ON ROAD �� # 0 a _______ i?_ 6 6 a Q� ` •I II_LI9 1 BULKHEAD tifaote 2 Lu3 DOCK LED'illable, 3 voadland - ' i”- ® Q .. 403, I wampland r�az 0 . rushland ct (•1i— _•--__._...__, ..._. .. .. ... ,t - louse Plot wor . - atal --, . ' %,•k.`:..z44.Z.'",',11,, ‘" tot' ,! i"N . ,, " i • . . - lirl".116‘ S 'ft ti PV ed.- ,... 1 - 1• . ;,, .• 11a --'•---...ge CO g..- ,, VI 0,' ,', . • 4 .'!;;; .fe'li /....:.- -4 "Y;::;-•:' I!(•.;''ii 4'. xt...__ 0 ... ? 0 --. ; •74" s'ket . - ir.i ., ,rros. 14. ..., ..- . .. I 10 . . r11 11 1 - • 6 , •1' • *'''s ..: 0 • ' 1: . 'a ...mllgill r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII , . Li. . . tv. ]. . . - - , • ..",:•,. -., ..., ;, iia9111111 1 .: ..-, ....... . .._., .. , . •, ..1,1.,,, . , 4... 1 ,i.. ENE. III 11 , 4.• . .4. .. .. ..... . tu 1.....- -.---...""^-,•---___ .,.. ' •4't ..: "^ 4.• ''' I -7*-- -.'"?.. , •.• . . , ,, .,. ..._....40.-. ,. ---•-.''IV ' •.t,,a0 i 1111 Iiiin, ••"^ ''.--.. ;;•• -• -..... - • i 1 ; 111111. _ ... 1.-zsiolye.-.. • . . ..: .., J ' i ....I. . . II • :.." - s i *..__L—',- I ! i zia 7 I ii ' : i.s‘ 1 1 I 41 . - _ - .- . . . . • • , -T-1---r-a , , ,- , --4..—f-H, . " . . " _ , ,.. , i i 1 I ,1 1 i • : t-1 . _________ ....... ................... _. ,T• 4 1 b . Bldg. '3 -- 3 7 OS' a 2 4..., ,,,,,0 4/7 Foundation 1 81....a.4, I Bath - .. 1 — _ - , I/ (tension 113 ,0 4 ...., kry Basement -- Floors • - -------`---- . ' 1 (tension y ,riz .... 94 2 7- 2 41/ Ext. Walls iC 1-6.17 1 Fi3 '!c- l' Interior nish 1 G Wt.( IT h0"fly ? •-, •,(•;'tv )1 ___ _ . Fire Place Heat /A(J14 .i.' - 3 3 X I I €0,9i.„ it A 5.___ .2 Porch Roof Type _ ___ 7/ " . .. ____ Porch Rooms 1st Floor ' .eszeway Patio Rooms 2nd Floor 3 rage Driveway - _— —.Dormer , - - B. Pit-7,79.4 yrik.e_te_ _........... _._..... _1 . . .6,....., . t . _. _ . • ,e---,. .• • TOWN OF SOUTHO`D Cocisq Bonk ltk[G DEPARTMENT RECEIVED TOWN CLERKS OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. APR 0.7 2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No. ......A..::4 ....... Dote x c ... , 1942.. THIS CERTIFIES that the building (coated at Mit...11.53r.a...R(i fig .la£..; } .&tF, ,..BthRati Map No*** Block No. ......**llr. Lot No. *#* conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated October 23 19 63- pursuant to which Building Permit No.'".../$22... dated Ct 2$ • , 19 61, was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the opplicalate provisions of the law. The occupancy far which this certificate is issued is HIM= OMR MILT %MAXIM This certificate is issued to ....5 $i 1...0",).1;1 i.s...021143. (owner, lessee or tenant) of the aforesaid building. Building Inspector a ' VOWS NO. z WI RECEIVE() TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT APR 07 2016 TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, IC Y. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS BUILDING PERMIT (TI-IIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) N? 1592 . Z Date October 23 Permission is hereby granted to: Baker..1.1eiekolsoon....JVC.....Tosoph.Clark gosithoid to •Itaild-on,--oddlt-ion-ork-on-oxisting-threeninft at premises located at SA Paroase-Shores-Road Southold pursuant to application dated Ootpber. 23 1961..., and approved by the Building Inspector Fee ..... 470.4 ...11 • Building Inspector ti MOM NO. t TOWN OF SOUTHOLD i'dil BUILDING DEPARTMENT aEdEIVED Town Clerk's wee APR 0 7 2016 Southold, N. Y. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Certificate Of Occupancy No. .z7551. Date kit/. . 7 . . . , ia.2? THIS CERTIFIES that the building located at . Fal'td1-430. [Ql"0.4 .RSy�d. . Street Map No. ?X Block No. _.4s74. - . Lot No. .$C214410,1.4 N.7 t conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated . . . . . eopt 7 . , 1916 . pursuant to which Building Permit No. .$$5.9 . dated . SQ.P!t. . 7 . ., 19.76, was issued, and conforms to all of the require- ments of the applicable provisions of the law.The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is .Priiitete. .Que. .ftlialY.dW.e2Uiug. xr.S.tb. addittort.• . . . The certificate is issued to ..Tose-9h clarit . . . .Owner_ (owner, lessee or tenant) of the aforesaid building. Suffolk County Department of Health Approval . t"a• .UNDERWRITERS CERTIFICATE No. 4399911 . . Oct 29 1979 HOUSE NUMBER - . 1b69O. . . Street . -Paradise. Shoves •road. • . .Southold irf;/z14.4J �f ,tf�..7 / 7t; V ` a Building Inspec r 6 qvii TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE APR (0 7 2 SOUTHOLD, N. Y. ZONING HOARD OF APPEALS BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE REMISES UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) N? 8850 , Z Dote .. ' , 39:7 Permissiori'Is hereby granted to: s C"..t., . . _ie.-4i _ 4-444z140-€40 'rte,.. .. . ... to ..;c1 .‘,4,44e..t 42.444...tzeia .., ..44:44.,444(..." at premises located ot ... /J..Jy(1/ dere7 ' I r f • f ..�, r El..: pursuant to application-dated the l r- --..;:l t _ Z1' ' i� ., arxia�roved by lie..4.4.. :_, Building- sp Inector. • •. - - a-- •• _ . X45' •. M. .. - i ♦ ..r . • i(/;4441444444444eL"*•- Building Ii sectgr ' Er , , • r - , PONE 110. )(CL/ RECEIVED TOWN OF SO V iHOLD BUI I rc DEPARTMICNT APR ® 7 2016 Tema Clerk's tee Southold, N y. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Certificate Of Occupancy No. P.969. Date Oct 2? , 19. THIS CERTIFIES that the building located at .P.ara i59. Mira* .U. . . . Street Map No Par. Sh Block No. . . .xx Lot No. n Southold conforms substantislly to the Application for Building Permit heretofore fled in this office dated 4118.. .. i. ., 10.77. pursuant to which Building Permit No. 9.41;. . dated Sept 9 , 1977. ., was issued, and conforms to all of the require. meats of the applicable provisions of the law.The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is private accessory storage building The certificate is issued to .Q OP.h.A'..Q arts Qwnor (owner, lessee or tenant) of the aforesaid building. Suffolk County Department of Health Approval - N.R• UNDERWRITERS CERTIFFICATE Na,Nan* HOUSE NUMBER . . . .169P. . . . . . Street . . Paradise. Nhcme s. %uthoati /4$4.00,-,t Building . 1 . .t ,® Pill 5C6\kLo A Mariella Ostroski 1�� 855 Brigantine Drive Southold,NY 11971 631765-1099 631765-2865 (cell) Mostroski2@gmail.com May 3,2016 Zoning Board of Appeals Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Dear Ms.Weisman, RE: Laurie Bloom#6954 Town Code,Article XXIII,Section 280-121 (non-conforming uses) Transient rental properties: 1690 Paradise Shore Road,Southold,NY SCTM#1000-80-1-18 This is to serve as a letter of reference for Ms.Laurie Bloom,who has owned the subject property for the past 3 years. Ms.Bloom enhanced and improved the property to the benefit of herself and her neighbors. She has rented the property for short term stays to vetted families through the use of a property manager. If there were a model plan for short term rentals,Ms.Bloom is the ideal candidate. She had made it clear that her goal is for financial relief for herself in covering her mortgage but not to the exclusion of careful consideration of her neighbors. I would be in support of Ms.Bloom being able to lawfully continue to rent her home as she has over the past few years. I would not be in support of a zoning change to accomplish this goal. The prudent and proactive use of a permit process with stringent enforceable guidelines would be the appropriate way for our Town to proceed. This would provide an opportunity for a respectful homeowner to find financial relief and for the Town to shut down any homeowner unwilling to follow the guidelines. Thank you for your service to the communities of Southold Town. Respectfully, Mariella Ostroski • , . (09'63 4-67(76)-( Toth, Vicki From: -.Deborah Rivera <drivers@thesuccessiongroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 9:56 PM To: Toth;Vicki ; Subject: STRs must follow the law like everyone else Attachments: • LevelPlayingGroundforSTRs.docx Dear Ms.Toth, Repealing the short•term law"will send us down a very slippery slope. I appeal to you and the board to stand your ground. • Deborah Rivera Pittorino - Founder and Managing Partner The Succession Group'&Greenporter, LLC www.thesuccessiongroup.com 212-260-1919 ext. 201 - THE gu c SSiDN - • 1 ` - _fig, May 3,.2016 Ms. Vicki Toth Zoning Board Appeals Town of Southold Re: Short term rentals and the law VIA EMAIL Dear Ms. Toth and Board Members of the Township of Southold: , 'My name is Deborah Rivera Pittorino and I,'am the owner of a 30 room hotel in the Village of Greenport, on the North Fork of Long Island. 15 years ago, I invested my life savings and all my dreams into a small lodging business called Greenporter Hotel. When I decided to go into this business, I was obligated to seek permitting in order to build and operate a lodging establishment in an area zoned for commercial use. In accordance with the law, I underwent the laborious process of applying for a hotel license, a health department license and a liquor license. , Additionally, I was required to provide ADAaccessby building ramps and accessible bathrooms and guestrooms and was also:required to install an elevator for guests in wheel chairs. As a' result, I underwent inspection from the Suffolk county health department, the local fire department and was also required to take commercial insurance to protect the interests of my customers. All of these measures were taken to ensure•that I was operating a business in a manner that was safe for my customers and in accordance with the laws of the county in which I conduct business. - In addition to the litany of requirements to establish a legal lodging business in the State of New York, I was also obliged to register with the NY State Tax authority and collect sales tax and also collect a Suffolk County occupancy-tax,part of which funds tourism promotion on behalf of the New York State and Suffolk County. When I established by business in October of 2000, I`was not aware that I had the option to establish a rooming house whereby I could just rent rooms by listing them on the internet without having to seek business licenses, health department and fire safety approvals and other - requirements. I was not aware of that option in October of 2000 because it was not legal then and I do not know of any law that makes it legal now. I understand that operators of illegal rooming houses are seeking exception to the law in that they were operating illegally before but because no one stopped them,they should be allowed to continue to operate illegal lodging businesses. I ' believe that allowing this exception is a slap in the face of business owners on the North Fork who endured the process to operate a legal lodging business, restaurants, bars,'vineyards or event halls, to allow just anyone to start renting rooms, operating restaurants, day care centers, hair salons, flower shops or any other business by just putting a sign on their door and listing an ad on a website without seeking the proper licensing or tax authority registration. This is what is referred to in third world countries as "informal economies" whereby citizens run amok and set up businesses without the proper approvals and without registering with the tax authority to contribute to the communities where they operate. You should all know that New York State is looking to raise sales taxes because the coffers are bare. In the end, all of you will have to pay for the tens of millions of dollars are not making it to the coffers of the State and local governments as the result of Short Term Rentals. Short term rentals are undercutting legitimate businesses like mine by charging less because they do not have to collect the taxes or undergo the expense of safety equipment and training or licensing from any authority. As a result of business going to these illegal operators, legitimate hotels are collecting less State and Occupancy tax and the public will eventually be called upon to foot the bill for this. Based on a quick search of the AirBnB website, looking at listing for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, excluding those listed as B&Bs, based on availability there are over 800 overnight opportunities. Based on the average occupancy rate through May 2016 equates to 192 THOUSAND rooms annually. Because we collect approximately $30 per guest room between sales tax and Suffolk County occupancy tax, the total loss to the State and county is almost Six million dollars for half the year which makes it closer to 15 million annually as summer and Fall are our busy months. There are approximately 18,000 available legal rooms on Long Island that operate by the rules, and these additional 192,000 do not contribute to the municipal coffers and go uninspected, unlicensed, and operate with complete disregard for the safety and security of their paying customers or their residential neighbors. By not having to undergo the same health inspection and safety process, the lives of families are being put in danger and residential communities are being turned into business districts. The parking lots and residential streets are overflowing with cars and the noise of all night parties during summer weekends from these rentals and this is an infringement on the lives of families who purchased homes in what they thought were residential neighborhoods. In addition to asking that these lodging business register with the NY State Tax authority, we are asking that short term rentals be subject to the same inspection processes that exist for the hotel and lodging industry, including: • Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act design requirements as well as other safeguards like providing such added security as swimming pools with anti-entrapment features and exceeding balcony railing standards. • Fire and sprinkler systems, a fire and emergency evacuation plan, smoke detectors, and accessible fire extinguishers. • Security systems, electric locks with deadbolts, and night latches. • CPR and emergency trained-staff • Regular health and safety inspections by local, municipal, or state departments and agencies. • The added security of knowing that hotels are covered under liability insurance. We feel that if we do not see order restored in the formal lodging industry, small hotels like mine will consider surrendering our hotel licenses. We will then list our rooms on Airbnb, At W° HomeAway and VRBO and no longer be subject to the collection of taxes,the health and safety rules of the county, as well as zoning and business laws. We will save on the expenses of business insurance, health and safety staff and licensing in addition to other costs associated with running a legal lodging business. As the saying goes, if you can't beat them,join them—and with,that,the state and county governments will have no one to maintain safety conditions, collect taxes and enforce the law. If that is the desired outcome,then allow those who were breaking the law before,to continue breaking the law because they were doing it before someone told them to stop. If these businesses want to rent by the day, let them get in line for B&B licenses like everyone else and if not, they need to abide by the policies established by our local government governing short term rentals. Respectfully yours, Deborah Rivera Pittorino `Toth, Vicki From: Deborah Rivera <drivera@thesuccessiongroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 9:56 PM To: Toth,Vicki 6 ,L.6 Subject: STRs must follow the law like everyone else RECE'4� �'�� Attachments: LevelPlayingGroundforSTRs.docx MAY q `016 Dear Ms.Toth, 4°IV1IG BDAfZp(7FAPP ,qL Repealing the short term law will send us down a very slippery slope. I appeal to you and the board to stand your ground. Deborah Rivera Pittorino Founder and Managing Partner The Succession Group&Greenporter, LLC www.thesuccessionrroup.com 212THE :'--260-1919 ext., 201 .4 SUCCESSION 1 x( fi �� KV . w� 6 j3+ RECEIVED May 3, 2016 MAY 052016 Ms. Vicki Toth Zoning Board Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Town of Southold Re: Short term rentals and the law VIA EMAIL Dear Ms. Toth and Board Members of the Township of Southold: My name is Deborah Rivera Pittorino and I am the owner of a 30 room hotel in the Village of Greenport, on the North Fork of Long Island. 15 years ago, I invested my life savings and all my dreams into a small lodging business called Greenporter Hotel. When I decided to go into this business, I was obligated to seek permitting in order to build and operate a lodging establishment in an area zoned for commercial use. In accordance with the law, I underwent the laborious process of applying for a hotel license, a health department license and a liquor license. Additionally, I was required to provide ADA access by building ramps and accessible bathrooms and guestrooms and was also required to install an elevator for guests in wheel chairs. As a result, I underwent inspection from the Suffolk county health department,the local fire department and was also required to take commercial insurance to protect the interests of my customers. All of these measures were taken to ensure that I was operating a business in a manner that was safe for my customers and in accordance with the laws of the county in which I conduct business. In addition to the litany of requirements to establish a legal lodging business in the State of New York, I was also obliged to register with the NY State Tax authority and collect sales tax and also collect a Suffolk County occupancy tax,part of which funds tourism promotion on behalf of the New York State and Suffolk County. When I established by business in October of 2000, I was not aware that I had the option to establish a rooming house whereby I could just rent rooms by listing them on the internet without having to seek business licenses, health department and fire safety approvals and other requirements. I_was not aware of that option in October of 2000 because it was not legal then and I do not know of any law that makes it legal now. I understand that operators of illegal rooming houses are seeking exception to the law in that they were operating illegally before but because no one stopped them, they should be allowed to continue to operate illegal lodging businesses. I believe that allowing this exception is a slap in the face of business owners on the North Fork who endured the process to operate a legal lodging business,restaurants, bars, vineyards or event halls, to allow just anyone to start renting rooms, operating restaurants, day care centers, hair salons, flower shops or any other business by just putting a sign on their door and listing an ad on a website without seeking the proper licensing or tax authority registration. This is what is referred to in third world countries as "informal economies" whereby citizens run amok and set up businesses without the proper approvals and without registering with the tax authority to contribute to the communities where they operate. You should all know that New York State is looking to raise sales taxes because the coffers are bare. In the end, all of you will have to pay for the tens of millions of dollars are not making it to the coffers of the State and local governments as the result of Short Term Rentals. Short term rentals are undercutting legitimate businesses like mine by charging less because they do not have to collect the taxes or undergo the expense of safety equipment and training or licensing from any authority. As a result of business going to these illegal operators, legitimate hotels are, collecting less State and Occupancy tax and the public will eventually be called upon to foot the bill for this. Based on a quick search of the AirBnB website, looking at listing for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, excluding those listed as B&Bs, based on availability there are over 800 overnight opportunities. Based on the average occupancy rate through May 2016 equates to 192 THOUSAND rooms annually. Because we collect approximately $30 per guest room between sales tax and Suffolk County occupancy tax, the total loss to the State and county is almost Six million dollars for half the year which makes it closer to 15 million annually as summer and Fall are our busy months. There are approximately 18,000 available legal rooms on Long Island that operate by the rules, and these additional 192,000 do not contribute to the municipal coffers and go uninspected, unlicensed, and operate with complete disregard for the safety and security of their paying customers or their residential neighbors. By not having to undergo the same health inspection and safety process,the lives of families are being put in danger and residential communities are being turned into business districts. The parking lots and residential streets are overflowing with cars and the noise of all night parties during summer weekends from these rentals and this is an infringement on the lives of families who purchased homes in what they thought were residential neighborhoods. In addition to asking that these lodging business register with the NY State Tax authority, we are asking that short term rentals be subject to the same inspection processes that exist for the hotel - and lodging industry, including: • Compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act design requirements as well as other safeguards like providing such added security as swimming pools with anti-entrapment features and exceeding balcony railing standards. • Fire and sprinkler systems, a fire and emergency evacuation plan, smoke detectors, and accessible fire extinguishers. • Security systems, electric locks with deadbolts, and night latches. • CPR and emergency trained-staff • Regular health and safety inspections by local, municipal, or state departments and - agencies. • The added security of knowing that hotels are covered under liability insurance. We feel'that if we do not see order restored in the formal lodging industry, small hotels like mine will consider surrendering our hotel licenses. We will then list our rooms on Airbnb,' HomeAway and VRBO and no longer be subject to the collection of taxes, the health and safety rules of the county, as well as zoning and business laws. We will save on the expenses of business insurance, health and safety staff and licensing in addition to other costs associated with running a legal lodging business. As the saying goes, if you can't beat them,join them—and with that,the state and county governments will have no one to maintain safety conditions, collect taxes and enforce the law. If that is the desired outcome, then allow those who were breaking the law before, to continue breaking the law because they were doing it before someone told them to stop. If these businesses want to rent by the day, let them get in line for B&B licenses like everyone else and if not, they need toabide by the policies established by our local government governing short term rentals. , Respectfully yours, Deborah Rivera Pittorino VC\orA00)(ixj °1roth, Vicki - - From: Joy Ellinghaus <joyellinghaus@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 12:53 PM To: Toth,Vicki `Z Subject: Appeal May 4,2016 Dear Vicky Toth, Hello Ms.Toth. 1 am writing in support of Laurie Bloom's appeal before the Zoning Board this Thursday, May 5th,2016. Laurie has rented her home out for many years prior to Southold's two week minimum rental law going into effect. She has dozens of accounts of appreciative, happy renters and zero history of any negative interaction between her renters and her neighbors.Laurie's renters tend to be families,who just like the demographics of her neighborhood,are there to enjoy the kind of summer the North Fork is famous for, but who are not able to own a home on the Fork or rent for a week in a hotel. Since Bed and Breakfasts do not take children,that is not an option for a family. I believe, in Laurie's case,her rights to rent her home should be grandfathered. She has been an ideal example of a responsible renter and has taken great care to make sure her home is safe, clean,and within a fair pricing range for a family. Please consider her grandfathered rights to rent as a reasonable solution for the quagmire of new rental homes that have recently come to market.It is the handful of experienced landlords like Laurie, who can help alleviate a needy market,and who deserve to continue their practice of renting as they have been doing for years. Thank you for your consideration. Joy Ellinghaus 1 1,40V9 jBefore the Southold RECEIVED �' Zoning Board of Appeals MAY 03 20 1,6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Joint Supplemental Submission of Lisa Cradit (#6953) and Laurie Bloom (#6954) in Support of their Appeals for an Interpretation of Town Code Article XXIII, Section 280-121 (nonconforming uses) in relation to Transient Rental Property. x Hearing: May 5, 2016 1:15 p.m. To the Honorable Southold Zoning Board of Appeals: We have not heard, nor are we aware, of any arguments or views that have been filed or otherwise officially put forward in opposition to these appeals. Nonetheless, we are aware of various informal views that have been expressed to the effect that short-term rental transactions concluded before the new law was passed,were unlawful, and, hence, the requirements for grandfathering cannot be met. In order to ensure that our position on this issue is clear, and that this Board, if it should entertain this argument, has a solid record upon which to consider it, we are filing this supplemental submission. Introduction Appellants Lisa Cradit and Laurie Bloom filed their Appeals ##6953 and 6954 on or about March 25, 2016 pursuant to Article XXVI Section 280-146d of the Town Code for an Interpretation of Article XXIII, Section 280-121 (nonconforming uses) in relation to the new short-term rental law, Article XXIII, §§280-4, 280-111(j) and 280-4b(192) ("transient rental property"). As set forth in their Appeals, Appellants seek an Order invalidating decisions by the town code enforcement officer, set forth in identical letters sent to each of Appellants dated January 21, 2016, holding that each of them had been "found to be in violation" of the town's new short-term rental law. See Exhibits A to Appellants' Appeals. If 60 The Order Appellants seek would provide that: 1. Article XXIII Section 280-121 of the Town Code is applicable to the new short-term rental law (Article XXIII, 55280-4, 280-111(j) and - 280-4b(192) ("Transient Rental Property")); 2. Appellants' non-conforming use is permitted by Article XXIII 5280- 121; and 3. The letters sent to Appellants, Exhibits A to each Appeal (#6953 and # 6954), are hereby vacated and are null and void. No Issue Exists As to the Applicability of Southold's Grandfathering Provision (5280-121) As to the applicability of Section 280-121 (non-conforming [prior] use) to the new short-term rental law, no argument denying this fact has been or could be presented. The point is too clear for debate—the new law classifies transient rentals as a property "use" and provides that a rental for less than 14 nights is a "prohibited use." The new law was incorporated into the Zoning Code and adopts the code's criminal enforcement mechanism. The Town law's grandfathering provision, 5280-121, is generically applicable throughout the Zoning Code. No Credible Argument Is Possible that, Prior to Passage of the New Law, Short-Term Renting Was Prohibited by Some Implied, Invisible Law The Town Board has never advanced the position that short term renting was an illegal activity prior to passage of the new law. Nonetheless, we are advised that certain Town Board members have seemingly suggested that the Code has always prohibited the practice. If these suggestions in fact reflect the views of any Town officials, they are, as discussed below, misinformed as to the issues, the relevant facts and the law. Should they be expressed in this proceeding, they should be rejected. 2 I. Renting one's own home is a practice directly attendant to the right of home ownership itself. Undoubtedly, people have been renting their land, houses and property in all imaginable ways, all over the world, for thousands of years.' It is not surprising, therefore, that the Southold Code has never contained a prohibition as to rentals—of any duration-- of one's own home. See David Allbrittoll, et al. v. Cite of Clearwater, Civ. No: 03-004365-ci-20 (6t"Jud. Cir. Pinellas County FL 2007), a grandfathering case with very similar facts to this case, where the Court held that "defendant is unable to point specifically to any section within the code that expressly prohibits short term rentals prior to the enactment of the 2003 ordinance." A copy of this decision is attached as Exh. A. The Clearwater Town Board appealed this ruling, but the appeals court affirmed the opinion "per curiam," meaning that the issue was considered too obvious for further judicial discourse. City of Clearwater v. Albritton, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 19551, 969 So. 2d 1026 (Ct. App. FL. 2007). The Board's Supervisor, Mr. Russell, and the Board itself, have never justified the new law in terms of the need to add to or clarify some invisible old law. Thus, the Preamble to the new legislation states that "The Town Board of the Town of Southold has determined that with the advent of Internet based `For Rent by Owner' services, there has been a dramatic increase in residential homes being rented for short periods of time. ..." (Emphasis added.) In other words, this is a new law, meant to address a new problem—an "increase" in a long-standing and previously legal activity. Recognizing grandfathering rights does nothing to prevent the law from fulfilling its purpose of addressing such an increase. Although the Town Board did not conduct any empirical surveys or other studies to determine the actual extent of short-term rentals in Southold, Supervisor Russell stated, at the time the new law became effective, on or about November 1, 2015, that his basic worry was that the number of residences offering short-term rentals (he speculated the number was then 1 Some have offered the disingenuous sound bite that`commercial uses in residential districts are unlawful'. As this Board knows,such an assertion is simply false.While short-term rentals may be occurring in districts designated as"residential",these districts have for decades included hundreds of uses of a"commercial"nature. E,g., Code Section 280-13A. The issue is not whether a use can in some sense be called commercial. Thus,a 14-night rental,which is not prohibited by the new law in "residential"districts,is no less "commercial"than an outlawed 13-night rental. 3 -l`\ about 600 or 5%), would dramatically multiply: "Unless we take action now, how many`\ill there be in the future? 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent?i2 The obvious point for present purposes, of course, is that the Board has taken action. The new law has frozen the number of new short-term lessors at whatever level it was on the effective date of the new law (on or about 11/1/2015). As grandfathering rights phase out over time, the practice will dissolve entirely. While the Internet may or may not have occasioned some major increase in the number of short-term rentals, as Mr. Russell speculated, what cannot be questioned is that thousands of short-term rentals have been transacted in Southold over many decades. To our knowledge, never once—not in recent years nor in prior time periods-- has there been a prosecution or intimation that all these thousands of transactions have been illegal under some unwritten, invisible law. The record amassed through emails to the Board, and at hearings before the Board, demonstrates beyond doubt that short term renting was a recognized, accepted and lawful activity for decades in Southold.' Even Mr. Russell—Southold's Chief Executive Officer-- obviously viewed the a http://www.hamptons.com/Real-Estate/Land-and-Law/21295/Town-Of-Southold-Passes-New- Law-Prohibitmg.html#.Vyd1CWM1dE4. 3 We do not believe that anyone would deny the widespread practice of short-term renting prior to the new law. Indeed,as noted in the text,the expansion of the practice was a key stated reason as to the alleged need for the legislation This fact is further illustrated by hundreds of emails from lessors and lessees alike that were sent to the Town Board m 2014-2015 prior to passage of the new law (and obtained under the FOIL). Undersigned counsel will provide copies of these voluminous documents to this Board at the hearing or otherwise on request.There can be absolutely no doubt that short-term renting was a long-standing,well-known practice.For example,an email from one Tom Gluck to Scott Russell dated March 25 2015,states: "Please allow short term rentals of 7 days. We have been enjoying a week in your 'wonderful town every year for a decade and would not be able to do so for 2 weeks given our work schedules" Similarly,Ken Grimes wrote to Scott Russell on March 26,2015, stating:"For l0 years I have been coming to Greenport for our family holidays."On that same date,Mark Hunt wrote to Scott Russell:"I love the North Fork and have been spending a week during the summer with myfamily in the area for several years. If the seasonal rental requirement were to change to 14 days,we could no longer afford to stay in your beautiful area." In addition to emails,there are scores of additional references in the transcripts of public before the Board during this period of time,including the hearings on August 26,2014,March 24,2015,May 21,2015,June 2 and 16,2015,and August 25,2015. These transcripts,which we incorporate herein by reference,may easily be viewed and/or downloaded from the Town website.Alternatively, counsel will also provide these in hard copy or electronic format upon request. 4 (r)°6A practice as routine and legal when he considered renting out his own home in 2014, a full year before the new law was passed. At a hearing in August 2014, he testified (August 26, 2014, Tr. at page 27): [I]n the beginning of May [2014 I] had entertained the notion and had a tentative deal with a property manager that would offer my site. I am currently struggling to pay a mortgage and rent and I thought it would be at least an opportunity to cover part of the mortgage. Ultimately it was never executed and I never rented it but I had always envisioned a light, occasional use on the site. Cf Clearwater, Exh. A at 7 ("All of the evidence presented to the Court indicates that City officials have been aware of short term rentals on Clearwater Beach for as long as they have been taking place"). II. Not only does the notion of an invisible law prohibiting short-term rentals defy logic, common sense and Southold Town's history, it not surprisingly flies in the face of this Country's basic jurisprudential values and laws. The Zoning Code's provisions (including the new short term rental law) are enforced by criminal penalties imposed for violations. All criminal laws must satisfy basic due process requirements. "Basic to our theory of justice is the principle that there can be no punishment for harmful conduct unless it was so provided by some law in existence at the time.... This is expressed in the maxim ... nulla poena sine lege (`no crime or punishment without law'." State v. Kramer, 318 MD 576, 569 A.2d 674 (Ct. App. 1990). Even if a law has been enacted, it cannot be so vague as to prejudice the public's ability to understand it and comply with it. As the Supreme Court graphically explained in Connally v. General Conti. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 393 (1926): The statute makes it a criminal offense for the street railway companies in the District of Columbia to run an insufficient number of cars to accommodate persons desiring passage thereon, without crowding the same. What shall be the guide to the court or jury in ascertaining what constitutes a crowded car? What may be regarded as a crowded car by one jury may not be so considered by another. What shall constitute a sufficient number of cars in the opinion of one judge may be regarded as 5 insufficient by another. . . . There is a total absence of any definition of what shall constitute a crowded car. This important element cannot be left to conjecture, or be supplied by either the court or the jury. Citing and applying this Supreme Court decision, New York's highest Court has stated, in People v. Nen'York Trap Rock Corp., 57 N.Y.2d 371, 378 (1982): As we have had occasion to reiterate in recent years, a prime purpose [of the "void for vagueness" doctrine] is "to assure that citizens can conform their conduct to the dictates of the law".... To this end, nothing less than "adequate warning of what die law requires" will do...." "As common sense and experience both tell us, unless by its terms a law is clear and positive, it leaves virtually unfettered discretion in the hands of law enforcement officials. People v Illardo, 408 N.Y. 2d 408, 413-414 (1979)."4 Here, of course, the implied or invisible law theory is dependent on assumed facts that are anathema to our judicial system-- a non-existent statute with unknown terms. Even if we were to entertain the fantasy of some invisible, implied historical law against short-term rentals, it would run squarely and fatally into the void for vagueness doctrine. What were the law's terms? What was prohibited? Weekends only? Less than a week? Less than 14 nights? Less than six months? Were there presumptions applicable to advertising as the new law provides? What were the penalties? $1 per violation; $50? $1000, $50,000? No prison time? Six months, 10 years, etc.? Conclusion For the reasons set forth in the initial Appeals, and based on the supplemental information submitted herewith,Appellants Ms. Cradit and Ms. Bloom respectfully pray that their Appeals be granted and this Board enter an Order providing that: 1. Article XXIII Section 280-121 of the Town Code is applicable to the new short-term rental law (Article XXIII, §5280-4, 280-111(j) and 280-4b(192) ("Transient Rental Property")); 4 Hundreds/thousands of additional citations can be provided to this Board on these legal points by undersigned counsel on request. 6 2. Appellants' non-conforming use is permitted by Article XXIII §280- 121; and 3. The letters sent to Appellants, Exhibits A to each Appeal (#6953 and # 6954), are hereby vacated and are null and void. Respectfully submitted, K_atshLaw LLC By: Salem M. Katsh For and on behalf of Appellants Cradit (#6953) and Bloom (#6954). Dated: Southold, NY May 3, 2016 7 M9cf EXHIBIT A David Allbrittoll, et al. v. City of Clearwater, Civ. No: 03-004365-ci-20 (6th Jud. Cir. Pinellas County FL 2007), 8Z-8o:(ss-tutu)NOT-71*Z9oct9VJZL:01so Y 6:sINU,LILXVd.LHORG21AS [mull)J," ',welse3]IAN n:o I o L LOOZ1OZIt'ltl OA J Y 5II 39Vd • 4(454 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY,FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO: 03-004365-CI-20 DAVID ALLBRITTON, et.al. Plaintiffs, vs. CITY OF CLEARWATE[I, Defendant. FINAL DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THIS CAUSE, having come on for Non-Jury Trial, and the Court having heard testimony of witnesses. having received evidence, having heard argument, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises,finds as follows: This matter involves a claim for declaratory relief, relating to the applicability of Clearwater Ordinance 7105-03, adopted on April 17, 2003 ("the 2003 Ordinance"), to certain property on Clearwater Beach. The 2003 Ordinance prohibits short term rentals of less than 31 days of residential properties. Plaintiffs are the owners of thirty one(31) properties on Clearwater Beach that they allege have been lawfully rented on a short term basis prior to the enactment of the 2003 Ordinance. Plaintiffs contend that such use of their properties was lawful prior to the adoption of the 2003 Ordinance. Therefore, they seek a determination that their rental activity qualifies as a lawful non- conforming use, entitling them to grandfather status which would allow them to continue short-term rental of their properties. In defense, the City of Clearwater ("Clearwater") alleges that short term rental of residential property was a prohibited use prior to the adoption of the 2003 Ordinance. In particular, it cites to definitions within the 1980 and 1999 City of Clearwater Land 1 d 2SOSt,9frL2L Wd71 :6 LOOa oa .,dd 8Z-go:(ss-tutu)Nc;" °",a x Z905I9t+LZL:01SO Y l.:SIN0.616Xtld1HOIa:IAS Y(aw117ir Wa)se31 INH Z6:01 01 LOOZIOZIS'ltl MON r 4116 3DVd 460, sit Development Codes ("the Code" or "the City of Clearwater Code") as evidence of the City's prohibition of short term rentals on Clearwater Beach. Although the City admits that neither Code contains a specific prohibition as to short term rentals, it alleges that certain Code provisions taken together reveal that such rentals were prohibited prior to the adoption of the 2003 Ordinance. Defendant contends that the 2003 Ordinance was meant to be a clarification rather than a change to the Code. Accordingly,it argues,the Plaintiffs are not entitled to grandfather status since their use was not a lawful as it was prohibited prior to the 2003 Ordinance. The parties stipulated to the dates that the twenty-four (24) of the properties owned by Plaintiffs began being rented on a short term basis. The Court hereby approves that Stipulation and incorporates it by reference herein. The parties presented evidence as to the short term rental start dates for.-the remaining seven following properties: 1. 1068 Eldorado Avenue (Dexter Properties) 2. 770 Mandalay Avenue(Kormendi) 3. 843 Eldorado Avenue(Kormendi/Powell) 4. 963 Mandalay Avenue(Kormendi/Powell) 5. 963.5 Mandalay Avenue (Scofield) 6. 975 Eldorado Avenue(Story) 7. 971-Eldorado Avenue(Lockwood) Plaintiffs presented documents and testimony from individuals personally familiar with the rental histories, relating to the time frames during which each of the above properties began being rented out on a short term basis. Defendant offered the testimony of Raymond Massieu, and Lisa Cowley, residents of Clearwater Beach. As 2 E 'd 2SOSb9-17LEL LOOZ OZ .,du Apr 20 2007 9: 14AM 7274645052 p. 4 £ polls a uo polo= aq CT paaaJJo put papualui SEM nlaadord alp jo paluasaid 0auappt9 atl�uo pasuq lvt{l spuj lmop aqd, sun aq}.jo uoilaod e /quo JO `uuai.laogs paluai atom sliun fe .'atpatlm of duilelaa Miouiilso! paluasasd sau.red atly •2utpllnq £toil onnl Tut OMS e stittluoa AAP P I1\i S•£96 Apodoad ,louq ail ptit *snot!uiuui u suteluoo Kemp-tun/1 £96 quodord Tuo13. otu, -lion OLIO SE Jotpopaumo saihtadoad snonniluoo are antIDAV keIEPTIEV S•c96 Put anuaAV Xureptrow £96 `anssr li; Sailladold agl Jo onwy £OOZ LEI iClaadoad atp uo sreluaa Liaol laotls;o aauapina panxasgo aq imp pa jilsal natssulAJ •aVI ssaulint s‘luepuojou 700z alt[ ui lsta! It !twat anal hogs .to, paaajjo 2uiaq ttuOag anuand "IPPMAI lAI OLL It paltaoi ,ivadoad aql `TllasTttainA! pa Jo Xtiouatlsal pue aauapina atp no pasuq lute spun unoO aqs. 700Z aaurs ssaippt suit It sitluaa uual!rolls Jo aauapina upas pug on lath poupsal otim`naissuini puouil{tu `ssaullm sxtpuaJa1 !til Jig patuiijuoa SEM SRI •L66I aauis Xioliugop lnq 4s0£6I aql ours f10)!!! Isom sisuq tui lamp a It paluaa uaaq suq l! lttp spuj lanoO alp `anuany optlopig 890I lv poo Suadoad aql Otup.reoll •aautuipiO £00Z all}3o uoildopt agl al aoud sputal.anal!rolls su pasn aq of papualui put paia•J0 atom so!i iadosd paitlndps -uou jig ltgl spin mop ail `sassauwA snoiren jo All mpaaa put a palmotiai leuosaad I alp no pasuq pue paluasaad aauapina lit parapisuoo SpnJaaea seal lanoD atm •Sliadoad ivluaa uual lions E se =pasn aq o1 papualui pun paaayo 2uiaq uu20q sailiadoxd paleindlls -uou atll Jo gaup uogm pug JI of salvia!llnoO ilii aJOJaq puss!lsatd out aaojoiota •aaumo alp.tpim lou `purl agl!DIM suer `aigaoildde Ji `snluls.'arlTEJputa0 of pJ u zip `aaut'uTp1O £OOZ alp Jo luauilatua lilt rauJr Alladord atil pasunatud ijilureld v .Ii nano `sntj •aaumo .ielnotlamd t uo luapuadap lou s! put Xuado.'d Ippin sun.' osn &upluoJuoouou ¶njm.e! t Jo l ouni4SIigt,Isa all loll salon lanoO pill. `molaq !Imp aloui It! passnasip (1)5091 PAGE 4115.RCVD AT 41201200710:10:12 AM[Eastern'• • a 1t Time]'SVR:RIGHTFAX111,DNIS:1 x CSID:7274645052 x L'_.—:.LDN(mm-ss):08.28 8Z-80:(ss-ww)NC, ' a.Z909t7961Z1:UIs3.6:SINt1.616Xvd1HOIN:NA3 w91se31 iw Z1:01:01 LOOZ10Z11,lv OAOd:9119 30Vd term basis prior to the enactment of the 2003 Ordinance. Testimony from Brian Andrus, the former property manager, indicated that the owners had some difficulty securing short term tenants and as a result, for a period of time they rented a portion of the property for longer than thirty one days. As discussed more fully below,the Court finds that the short term rental does not need to be the exclusive and continuous use of the property in order to establish a lawful non conforming use. The testimony and evidence presented to the Court satisfied the burden of proving that both properties were intended, offered and used as short term rentals prior to the enactment of the 2003 Ordinance. The Court notes that Defendant's witness Mr. Massieu testified that he observed evidence of short term rentals at 963 Mandalay Avenue in early 2003. The Court heard and finds credible, testimony from Ted Remak, the boyfriend of the owner and the manager of the property located at and 975 Eldorado Avenue,that the property has been rented ori a short term basis since at least 2001. The property located at 971 Eldorado Avenue is currently managed by Belloise Realty. Sal Belloise testified regarding the time frame during which these properties were rented on a short term basis. While the documentary evidence presented by Plaintiff was dated after the enactment of the 2003 Ordinance, Mr. Belloise testified that such rentals had begun prior to the adoption of the 2003 Ordinance. The Court finds Mr. Belloise testimony, based on personal knowledge to be credible and finds that short term rentals began prior to the enactment of the 2003 Ordinance. A former owner of 843 Eldorado Avenue, Susan Withers,testified that based on her personal knowledge developed while she owned a neighboring house located at 847 Eldorado Avenue, the 843 property was being rented on a short term basis in 2001. She purchased the property as an investment based on that personal knowledge. The 4 S 'd 2SOSb9.1,L2L WUS I :6 LOO Oz ,add 8Z•80.(ss•ww)NOa' 1.ZSOctOtrLZL:0133 Y VSINO.141.X11d1HOR HAS.Iaw11 aq,' uwaoe31 INtl Z6:O6:06 LOOZIOZIt IV MOH y 9149 391fd (A Court finds Ms. Withers' testimony to be credible and finds that the short term rentals on 843 Eldorado began prior to the adoption of the 2003 Ordinance. As to those properties identified above, based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Court finds that all began renting their properties on a short term basis prior to the adoption of the 2003 Ordinance. Accordingly, based on the stipulation between the parties and the Court's factual findings, all properties at issue began short term rentals prior to the adoption of the 2003 Ordinance. The City contends that regardless of the start date, the properties are not entitled to grandfather status because the short term rentals were prohibited prior to the 2003 Ordinance and thus Plaintiffs' short term rentals were not a lawful nonconforming use. The Plaintiffs do not dispute the City's right to enact the 2003 Ordinance. Rather, they contend that the Codes in effect prior to the 2003 Ordinance did not prohibit short term rentals of property on Clearwater Beach. Therefore, the City's attempt to apply the Ordinance to abolish their right to continue to rent their properties on a short term basis violates their right to grandfather status and essentially amounts to an improper taking. The City could point to no specific prohibition and no instances of enforcement of the ban prior to the adoption of the 2003 Ordinance. Accordingly, the parties seek a determination from the Court regarding whether such short term rentals were a lawful use prior to the enactment of the 2003 Ordinance, or whether such use was prohibited, under either the 1980 or 1999 City Codes. Municipalities such as the City of Clearwater,have the right to enact ordinances that restrict citizens' use of their property. Verizon Wireless Personal Communications, L.P. v. Sanctuary at Wulfert Point Community Ass'n, Inc., 916 So.2d 850, 855 (Fla. 2"d DCA 2005)("To be sure, a city council may enact ordinances, amend them, and repeal 5 9 'd - 2sosb9*'L2L wUs T :G Looa oa Jdd 82-80:1ss-ww)Noiivana.ZSOo/mu:aIso.i:SINa.NIXVd1H9R1:8AS.Iew1174611Aea wa7se31 WV ZI:06:06 LOOZIOZIi IV ai .SNL 39Vd them.") However, in order to enact an ordinance that limits a citizens property rights, X695 the municipality must follow the proper procedure: Under Florida law, ordinances which substantially affect the use of land must comply strictly with the notice requirements of§ 166.041(3)(c) 1., Fla.Stat.This provision states in pertinent part: (c) ... Ordinances that change the actual list of permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category, or ordinances initiated by the municipality that change the actual zoning map designation of a parcel or parcels of land shall be enacted pursuant to the following procedure: 2. In cases in which the proposed ordinance changes the actual list of 1 permitted, conditional, or prohibited uses within a zoning category, or changes the actual zoning map designation of a parcel or parcels of land involving 10 contiguous acres or more,the governing body shall provide for public notice and hearings ... (Emphasis supplied). "[S]trict compliance with the notice requirements of the state statute is a jurisdictional and mandatory prerequisite to the valid enactment of a zoning measure.".... Attempts of local government to grant zoning changes without compliance with procedural requirements have been deemed invalid and void. . . . Webb v. Town Council of Town of Hilliard, 766 So.2d 1241, 1244 (Fla. 1" DCA 2000) (citations omitted). In the present matter, the Plaintiffs stated numerous times on the record that they do not dispute the City's authority to enact the 2003 Ordinance. However, Plaintiffs argue that the City can only prohibit the short term rentals by expressly doing so through the proper procedure and must make such prohibition clear and unequivocal as it did in the 2003 Ordinance. The Plaintiffs presented testimony from The Honorable Owen Allbritton a retired Sixth Circuit Judge and Helen Dexter, a ninety-eight year old former owner of 1068 Mandalay Avenue, that for at least the last forty to seventy years, owners of property on Clearwater Beach have regularly rented out their homes to vacationers for 6 L 'd esOsb9t'LEL Wd9 T :6 Looe oa .add • 8Z130:(ss-ww)NoI NI y Z505179ML'AIsa Y 1:SIN4 g 616XVd1Hof1:aAS Y raw113U1.' 1.101Seal INV Z6:06:06 LOOZIOZIf LV OAO i.8618 39Vd i • A)r(OGI it periods of less than thirty days. Such rentals have been open and obvious and regularly advertised. All of the evidence presented to the Court indicates that City officials have been aware of short term rentals on Clearwater Beach for as long as they have been taking place. Various City officials were clearly under the opinion that Clearwater did not ban short term rentals prior to the 2003 Ordinance. See e.g., Plaintiffs' Exhibit 11,Various e-mails between City Officials. For example, in an e-mail from Bob Hall dated July 10, 2002, he stated that "[w]e have never enforced on rental time periods and there is no ordinance governing in the City." Moreover, one of the Plaintiffs David Allbritton testified that he began renting his property located at 849 Mandalay Avenue on a short term in January of 2003. Mr AIbritton stated that he had asked numerous City officials whether short term rentals were permitted on Clearwater Beach and none ever told him such use was prohibited. He served on the Municipal Code Enforcement Board for seven (7) years during which time the Board was never presented with a matter involving short term rentals. Defendant contends that short term rentals on Clearwater Beach have always been illegal and certainly was prohibited under the 1980 and 1999 City Codes. However, Defendant is unable to point specifically to any section within the Code that expressly prohibits short term rentals prior to the enactment of the 2003 Ordinance. Rather, the City contends that such prohibition may be ascertained by reading several different sections of the Codes and piecing them together. The 1980 Code provided that a permitted use for Plaintiffs' properties was as a "detached single family dwelling" which was defined as "a detached building or a unit in a townhouse structure designed for or occupied exclusively by one family." § 35.11, 7 B 'd 2S0St'9f17L2L Wd91 :6 LOOS oa -mu 8Z-80:(ss-ww)NOI1VNfO.ZSOS494LZL%OIS3.VS= LILXVILHD121:21AS:Iawll1U611A cJ walse31 WV ZL:O1:0 LOOZ1OZ141V OAO21.SLf6 39Vd 1980 Clearwater City Code (emphasis added). Clearly all of the Plaintiffs' properties can be classified as detached buildings designed for one family. In 1999 the City amended the Code and adopted the City Development Code. At that time the Code was amended to include a definition for"overnight accommodations" as follows: A building or a portion thereof designed and used primarily to provide sleeping accommodations for transient guests for a daily or weekly rental charge and including interval ownership and such office, meeting, restaurant facilities as are integral to the primary function. § 8-102, 1999 Clearwater City Code. The 1999 Code prohibited certain overnight accommodations, but continued to allow detached dwellings in Plaintiffs' neighborhoods. The definition for detached dwellings was somewhat changed to mean "a building separated from any other principal building and containing only one dwelling unit erected on an individual lot of record." A dwelling unit was defined as"a building or a portion of a building providing independent living facilities for one family including provisions for living, sleeping and complete kitchen facilities." § 8-102 1999 City of Clearwater. Code. Moreover, the 1999 Code contains a section entitled Residential Rentals. Division 23, 1999 City of Clearwater Code. This is section discusses residential rentals,but does not contain any reference to time limitations, nor does it differentiate between long and short term rentals. Pursuant to Florida Law, "[slince zoning regulations are in derogation of private rights of ownership, words used in a zoning ordinance should be given their broadest meaning when there is no definition or clear intent to the contrary and the ordinance should be interpreted in favor of the property owner." Rinker Materials Corp. v. City of North Miami, 286 So.2d 552, 553 (Fla 1973). Moreover, an alleged prohibition in a 8 6 'd ESOSt'9t'L2L WULT :G Looeoa .,du 8Z•80.(ss•ww)NoiminO.ZSoc1 gI LZL:OIsO L SING,L1LXtld1HDRf8AS x[awls iLI !I IeO waise3)Wtl ZL:OL OL LOOZJOZ1i'1G 0A321.S L10L BOYd City Code must clearly give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden. As noted by the Second DCA: A legislative enactment will not be declared vague unless the statute fails to give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what constitutes the forbidden conduct and which, because of imprecision, may invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. State V. Baal, 680 So.2d 608, 610 (Fla. 2' DCA I996)(ordinance prohibiting citizen from entering a St. Petersburg public park between dusk and dawn unless they have prior authorization found constitutional because it provided sufficiently definite notice in commonly understood language to citizens of ordinary intelligence of what was prohibited.). _ The Court finds that short term rentals of properties on Clearwater Beach were not prohibited under either the 1980 nor the 1999 Codes. Even piecing together various portions of the Code does not provide sufficiently ,definite notice in commonly understood language to citizens of ordinary intelligence of what was prohibited. Plaintiffs' properties are clearly all "detached single family dwellings" under the 1980 Code, based on the definition which included "a detached building . . .designed for . . . one family." § 35.11, 1980 Clearwater City Code. Moreover, under the 1999 Code, none of the properties at issue qualify as"overnight accommodations" as they were not "designed and used primarily to provide sleeping accommodations for transient guests . . . and including interval ownership and such office,meeting, restaurant facilities as are integral to the primary function." § 8-102, 1999 Clearwater City Code. Alternatively, even if such Codes did prohibit short term rentals the Defendant did not offer any evidence that such change affecting the use of land in 1980 or 1999 was properly enacted in accordance with the applicable rules. It was well established 9 ()I 'd aSOSb9i'LaL Wd8i :6 Loot oa Jdd 8Z•8O:(ss•ww)Nou.vuna.ZSOSb9bLZL:0153 L SING,611Xtld1H0121:21AS.[aw117U811Aea waase3]WW ZL:04:06 LOOuOZI'1W OAOa.SL166 39Wd that short term rentals on Clearwater Beach were an established open and obvious use of land for a long time prior to the adoption of the 1980 Code. Therefore, even if the changes in either the 1980 or 1999 Codes included a prohibition on short term rentals, there has been no evidence that such restriction which would certainly substantially affect the use of land, complied strictly with the applicable requirements. Accordingly, any such new restriction would be a nullity. See e.g., David v. City of Dunedin, 473 So.2d 304, 306 (Fla. 2°'d DCA 1985)("Inasmuch as Ordinance No. 72-75. as amended by Ordinance No. 77-48,seeks to regulate"all exterior signs,so as to protect health and safety and to promote the public," Dunedin, Fla., Code § 3-13 (1972), the ordinance and its amendment are zoning ordinances which are null and void if not strictly enacted pursuant to the requirerHnts of section 166.041"); Coleman v. City of Key West, 807 So.2d 84, 85-86 (Fla. 3d DCA. 2001), review denied, 828 So.2d 385 (Fla.2002) (court invalidated Ordinance relating to,short term rentals based on the City's noncompliance i with the notice provisions of the statutes relating to ordinance adoption.). The Court notes that prior to this action, no property owner on Clearwater Beach has challenged the issue of short term rentals under the 1980 or 1999 Codes. However, a challenge was never required because the City never enforced its alleged prohibition on short term rentals and prior to the adoption of the 2003 Ordinance, never clearly informed its citizens that such rentals'were not permitted. Since the Court finds that short term rentals were permitted under the prior codes, and all properties owned by Plaintiffs in this matter were intended and offered for use as short term rentals prior to the adoption of the 2003 Code, then the Court must determine whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to grandfather status allowing them to legally continue such rentals. Grandfather status can be explained as follows: 10 It 'd 2SOS119 1)L2L Wd8 i z g Looa oa Jdd _ i 8Z•80:(ss•ww)NOI1" '-,• Z505494LZL:OIS0.6:SINO.li6Xvd1HOIS:t kS.19w11 401,• `Ialse31INV z :01:06 LOOZIOZI41V ma.5646 30Hd k AHogsvt‘The application of zoning regulations to restrict an existing use of property'resulting in substantial diminishing of its value, may constitute a "taking by the governmental agency which requires the payment of compensation under well-established principles of constitutional law. 82 Am.Jur.2d, Zoning and Planning, § 178. To avoid these consequences, zoning regulations generally "grandfather" the continuation of existing nonconforming uses on property subject to the zoning classification. State v. Danner, 159 Fla. 874, 33 So.2d 45 (1947). Hobbs v. Department of Transp., 831 So.2d 745 (Ha. 5th DCA 2002)(quoting Lewis v. City of Atlantic Beach, 467 So.2d 751 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)). "A nonconforming use is a"[l)and use that is impermissible under current zoning restrictions but that is allowed because the use existed,lawfully before the restrictions took effect."Rollison v. City Of Key West, 875 So.2d 659, 660 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2004)(quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1540 (7th ed.1999)). Moreover, it is well established that the lawful non conforming use flows with the property,not the owner: We have been cited to no legal authority upholding the proposition that a municipality can, terminate a grandfathered nonconforming use of property simply because the tenant and operating license holder of the establishment on the property undergoes a change. It is clear that the concept.of grandfathered nonconforming use relates to the property and • the use thereof, not to the type of ownership or leasehold interest in the property. Hobbs, 831 So.2d 745 (citations omitted). Both the 1980 and 1999 Clearwater City Codes contain nonconforming use provisions which provide for grandfather status for lawful nonconforming uses. 1980 City of Clearwater Code, Article II § 42.21, Nonconformities; 1999 City of Clearwater Code, Article 6, Nonconformity Provisions. The 1999 Code states the purpose of the nonconforming provisions as follows: The purpose of this division is to regulate and limit the development and continued existence of uses,structures and lots which were lawful on the date of the adoption of this Code, but which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the terms established herein. While 11 21 'd 2SOSb9.171L2L wi e i :s Looa oa .add I 13Z•80$ss-ww)NOI.Lv ifla.ZS09494LZGOISO.1:SIN0 Y 14LXtld1HJRG2IAS,[awll 1146013a walse31 WV Z 1:01:01 LOOZIOZ/4 IV OA3214 911£1 39Vd J4 nonconfornities may continue, it is the intent of this development code 1196 to bring II nonconforming properties into compliance with the provisions of this code in conjunction with a change of use, redevelopment, or any other change of condition of the property in order to eliminate the nonconformity or to bring the nonconformity as practical as possible to a conforming state. § 6-101, 1999 City of Clearwater Code. A nonconforming use is defined in the Code as "any use of a building,!structure or land lawfully established that does not comply with the provisions for the zoning district in which such use is situated." § 8-102, 1999 City of Clearwater Code. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the short term rental of the properties at issue in this litigation are all established nonconforming lawful uses which are entitled to grandfather status, exempting them for the application of the 2003 Ordinance. The Court notes that while the properties at issue herein are all entitled to grandfather status, such continued nonconforming use must comply with the terms set forth in the applicable City Code. WHEREFORE,it is hereby, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the City of Clearwater Land Development Codes did not prohibit the short term rentals of property on Clearwater Beach prior to the enactment of Clearwater Ordinance 7105-03,adopted on April 17,2003. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the following properties (P-laintiff owners' last names are in parenthesis) were all lawfully used as short term rentals prior to the enactment of the 2003 Ordinance and are entitled to grandfather status as lawful nonconforming uses pursuant to the terms of the City of Clearwater Land Development Code: 1. 1068 Eldorado Avenue(Dexter Properties) 12 eT .d asosb91,GaL Wd6I =6 LOOZ OZ JdU sZ•8o:(ss•ww)Nai i` s1 Y Z5054941ZL:01S3 r L:SING.616XYd1HJRI:SA3 K Iawl13�° walse3]tw Zb:al:al LOOZIOZI'1V GADS s 561t130t/d A (OCM 2. 770 Mandalay Avenue (Kormendi) 3. 963 Mandalay Avenue (Kormendi(Powell) 4. 963.5 Mandalay Avenue (Kormendi/Powell) 5. 971 Eldorado Avenue(Scofield) - 6. 975 Eldorado Avenue (Story) 7. 843 Eldorado Avenue(Lockwood) 8. 849 Mandalay Avenue (Allbritton) 9. 849-1/2 Mandalay Avenue (Allbritton) 10. 940 Narcissus Avenue(Chen) 11. 864 Eldorado Avenue (Chrysochoos) 12. 831 Eldorado Avenue (George) 13. 966 Lantana Avenue(Meek) 14. 975 Narcissus Avenue(Meek) 15. 1024 Eldorado Avenue(Mitcham) 16. 1021 Eldorado Avenue(Mitcham) 17. 1020 Mandalay Avenue(Mitcham) 18, 918 Lantana Avenue(Parks/Barkes) 19. 22 Laurel Street(Satterwhite) 20. 755 Bruce Avenue(Satterwhite) 21. 65 Gardenia Street(Satterwhite) 22. 947 Narcissus Avenue(Satterwhite) 23. 1012 Mandalay Avenue(Satterwhite) 24. 979 Eldorado Avenue(Story) 25. 724 Mandalay Avenue(Parks/Barkes) 13 bi 'd 2SOSb9.0L2L WU02 :6 L002 02 .,dd 8Z-80:(ss-tutu)NolivNna..ZSOStigpLZL:a,so..t SING.LlIXWiH0Rl?IAS g rawll l4BIIAeo qua;sea]IAN Z1:06:06 LOOZ10ZIti Iva/to/A.56156 39bd 4 (40aVkSkl 26. rci Avenue Narcissus (Withers) 27. 847 Eldorado Avenue(Wiggins) 28. • 974 Mandalay Avenue(Hayslett) 29. 810 Lantana Avenue(Hagaman) 30. 805 Bruce Avenue(Hagaman) 31. 934 Narcissus Avenue(Uline) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Court reserves jurisdiction to determine entitlement to attorney's fees, if applicable and costs and for any other further relief as may be appropriate,,upon proper motion. DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at Clearwater, Pinellas County, Florida, this day of April 2007. ORIGINAL SIGNED APR 2007 NSM N.KHOUZAM . rT +c • NELLY N.ICHOUZAM Circuit Court Judge Copies Furnished To: Marion Hale,Esq. Sharon E. Krick,Esq. P.Q.Box 1368 Clearwater,FL 33757 Leslie K.Dougall-Sides,Esq. Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O.Box 4748 Clearwater,FL 33758 • 14 Si 'd 2S13St.917,L2L Wlo2 :6 L00a oa Jdu vkl!:14, \4\\ 6./VjAc\d Toth, Vicki From: Diane Ravitch <gardend@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 10:24 AM �� To: Toth,Vicki HCl Cc: Leslie Weisman;TEDHOY@aol.com; Mary Butz; Ray Rodriguez; Diane Ravitch �T Subject: Short-term rentals: my testimony (® RECEIVED SY Dear Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals of Southold Town: ZMAY ®4 2016 PE ONING BOARD OF APO My name is Diane Ravitch. I live on Hyatt Road in Southold. I am a writer, and I choose to live in this quiet location because of my profession. I am writing on behalf of myself and my spouse Mary Butz.We love the community, and we love Southold Town because of its unique character as a community where neighbors know one another and help one another.This sense of community is disrupted when renters spend only a weekend on our quiet road;they often hold raucous parties,then leave. I testified on behalf of the legislation to restrict short-term rentals because of this disruption by revolving-door tenants in our small community.Those of us who live in the community discovered that the "problem" houses were offered for short-term rentals on Internet sites such as AirBNB and VRBO.We and many others from across the town of Southold expressed our opposition to this practice, and the Town Board voted to protect the character of the town by requiring that short-term rentals must be at least 14 days. I am sorry I cannot be at the meeting to address my strong objections to the proposal to "grandfather"those homeowners who use AirBNB,VRBO or other online services to rent their houses for a few days or a weekend. "Grandfathering"these homeowners who now violate the law makes no sense. If the Town Board passed an ordinance changing the speed limit to 30 miles an hour in areas where it is currently 40 miles an hour,would anyone be able to claim that their"right" to drive 40 miles an hour was grandfathered in because they always went 40 miles an hour in the past? If the Town Board passed an ordinance against dumping debris on public roads,would those who have always engaged in that practice be grandfathered in? You can conjure many similar analogies.When the law is changed by duly constituted authorities, it applies to everyone, including those who engaged in those practices in the past. I would like to remind the homeowners that anyone who turns a vacation property into a rental is at risk of having their mortgage canceled.They will not be grandfathered in by their banks. 1 I urge the ZBA to reject this specious claim and reaffirm that everyone in Southold Town must obey the law. I am hopeful that the ZBA will exercise good judgment in reaffirming the intent and purpose of the law passed by the Town Board. (oQK3 c-r,.1F G9gt I thank each of the ZBA Board members for your service to our community.- I MAY 0 4 2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Diane Ravitch 2 /(1,,NA, 0 610 sti Toth, Vicki From: Joyce Beckenstein <joybeck@optonline.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 5:18 PM R CeYNED To: Toth,Vicki MAY 0 4 2.0 Subject: short term rentals ONIPIG BOARD Of APPEALS Z . To the Town Board: I wish to register my opposition to any grandfathering of"rental rules" especially since there have not been,to my knowledge, any laws or rules on the town books governing short term rentals of the kind we are now seeing upset the privacy and sense of community most people settled out here to find. How can you grandfather a law that doesn't exist? This issue is about shaping new codes that keep our hamlets secure and livable, not about preserving non-existent "rights"for those who wish to exploit a proliferation of web-crawlers looking for cheap(er)accommodations. Tourism is a wonderful plus for the local economy, I know, and should be encouraged. In that spirit I believe the focus should be on the support of more B&Bs, lodging that involves homeowners acting as hosts without leaving their homes to whims of strangers who woefully have too often shown themselves oblivious to the impact of their behavior on "neighbors ." Hopefully our leaders will lead the effort to support the enviable quality of family life that characterizes our North Fork. Thank you for considering my point of view Best regards, Joyce Beckenstein 1 \i4J,, (oq3 Toth, Vicki I From: Lois Derosier <loisderosier@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2016 3:57 PM RECEIVED To: Toth, Vicki MAY 04 2015 Subject: Fw: Use Variance vs Rental Law ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS To Southold Town Board Regarding the issue of"use variance" in short-term rental housing: Short-terms rentals were illegal IN THE PAST, and they are illegal NOW because of the new law enacted recently. It seems to me that some citizens are now trying to manipulate the law to suit themselves by citing "grandfathering' of this practice at the expense of those unfortunate homeowners who would like to enjoy the peace and tranquility of their own homes in this beautiful area. They were many meetings on this issue. The people of the town have spoken. The majority of them did not want short-term rentals. The Board considered all sides of the issue. The current law was enacted. This should be respected. Lois Derosier On Monday, May 2, 2016 3:39 PM, Lois Derosier<Ioisderosier(a�yahoo.com>wrote: To Southold Town Board Regarding the issue of"use variance" as applied to the new rental law: It was not legal to allow short-term rentals BEFORE. Under the new law just enacted it is not legal to allow short-term rentals NOW. It seems to me that the law is being manipulated to suit the interests of those who want to continue to rent short-term no matter what at the expense of those unlucky homeowners who are suffering the consequences of not being able to enjoy the peace and tranquility of the their own home in this beautiful area. The town had many meetings on this issue. The people have spoken. The new law reflects the wishes of the majority of homeowners here and should be respected as such. Lois Derosier 1 \445 Toth, Vicki (/) ‹.3 -6crcif From: BEEJCHRIS@aol.com kECEYVED Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2016 5:44 PM To: Toth, Vicki MAY 0 4 2016 Cc: lorihollander.1@gmail.com Subject: Cases# LAURIE BLOOM #6954 AND USA CRADIT# 6953 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS I wish to have recorded in each of these case files my objection as to their being considered to be Grand Fathered as an exception to the Short Term Rental Law recently enacted by the Town of Southold, N.Y. To be considered as a right to be granted an exception to the law it must have been a permitted use and a business that is not in a business district but in a residential area that effects not only the property values but the safety of the residents and quality of life should not be permitted. The question also arises that when did the land use "right"go into effect?Was it established or vested and had it ever been discontinued or abandoned or an activity which was a nuisance or harmful to the public health or welfare? The establishment of a income producing business for what period of time and the existence of reported business income on any and all tax authorities may be necessary to establish a grandfather status if permitted at all. Slavery was once permitted but was outlawed. Mine safety was never required but was enacted .Automobiles must pass safety requirements to be permitted on the public highway.You need a license to practice law.Things change over time but must be within the code. If you never had the authority or right to conduct a business than you do not inherit it by saying I have always done so in the past. Michael T. Burke Mattituck, N.Y. 1 h y `) Toth, Vicki From: Carole Donlin <nimsuzani@gmail.com> (09RECEIVED Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 1:25 PM To: Toth,Vicki MAY 02 2016 Subject: Carole Donlin-- Short Term Rentals Use Variance ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Dear Ms.Toth, I do hope the Town ZBA is not seriously considering what appears to be a questionable request for a "Use Variance" by some of the owners of short term rental properties on the North Fork. The contention that there should be grandfathering under a pre-existing regulation or law about short term rentals on the North Fork appears to be without merit.As far as I am aware,there was never a regulation or law allowing short term rentals in residential neighborhoods on the North Fork.Therefore there would be nothing to be grandfathered under. The actual issue seems quite straightforward. Previously there was a problem with short term rentals in our community. To correct it, a regulation was enacted after full and fair hearings, and that regulation became what is allowed. It's much like passing, for the first time, a regulation that people who walk their dogs on public streets must pick up their pet's waste material.Would one ask to be grandfathered in that instance simply because one didn't have to do that before the regulation was passed? What the Town enacted in regard to short term rentals was, I believe,too generous to short term rental property owners. But it was reasonable considering all the competing interests involved. I actually think the Town was very thoughtful in it's deliberation and the subsequent regulation and I applaud it's even-handedness.That this group of dissenters fails to understand this, or simply doesn't care is both unfortunate and reflective at best, of their seeming lack concern either for due process or for the privacy and quality of life of their neighbors.Surely,the ZBA will not be swayed by such self serving maneuvers. Sincerely, Carole Donlin 910 New Suffolk Avenue Mattituck, NY 11952 - Sent from my iPhone 1/41V`'. \ :\.T6 -:/4 k6;ef,,s4\ N.( \ In Toth, Vicki From: Jane G. Stevens <janegstevens@outlook.com> 71 Y• May Sent: Sunda 01, 2016 6:00 PM RECEIVED To: Toth, Vicki Subject: Zoning Board Hearing Re Short Term Rental Law MAY 2 2016 Z1O.NIN.G BOARD @i Dear Southold Zoning Board: My husband and I purchased a home in Cutchogue in 2014. We had been coming out to the North Fork for decades and, in finally deciding to buy,we placed great importance on the serenity of our residential neighborhood.We followed the deliberations accompanying the passage of the short term rental law, and understood the final provision to be a compromise that took into account the need of some property owners to derive income from their property, while seeking to protect the interests of full time residents. To now grant a broad exemption to home owners who were previously engaged in using their homes in residential zones for commercial purposes--when such commercial activities were not legal in the first place--would undermine the efficacy of this carefully considered Code provision,defeat the purposes for which it was adopted, and reward certain property owners for their past transgressions of zoning restrictions. I urge you to reject the current attempt to obtain an exemption from the short term rental law. Very truly yours, Jane G.Stevens 3595 Beebe Drive Ext. Cutchogue, NY 11935 1 S jtJ • -vt Toth, Vicki From: Nancy Muller <nancy.g.muller@gmail.com> �� Sent: Friday, April 29, 2016 5:04 PM 41 To: Toth, Vicki RECEIVED Subject: May5 ZBA hearing MAY 0 22016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Dear Southold Town Board, I wish to point out that if some Air bnbs are allowed to continue as shorter than 14 day establishments you will be grandfathering businesses that were operating illegally in the first place. None of the issues have changed. Air bnbs will still bring commercialism to our neighborhoods . Zoning laws will still be flaunted. The noise issues and quality of life issues mentioned by so many people at the hearing last year will still exist. Of course, people who bought their houses for the express purpose of renting them out every weekend are going to hire fancy lawyers and fight back. But the town of Southold does not have to give in to them. Please preserve our neighborhoods for neighbors and say no to grandfathering businesses that chip away at our quality of life. Thank you, sincerely, Nancy Muller Nancy Muller Cell: 917-414-0665 Land: 631-735-9066 nancy.g.muller@gmail.com 1 fb Pl\ n-ch) 9- Toth, Vicki From: rmavity@earthlink.net Sent: Thursday,April 28, 2016 3:58 PM 610 To: Toth,Vicki Subject: May 5th ZBA Hearing at 1 pm Dear Vicki, My address in Greenport is 42 Sound Road. I spoke at the various meetings held last year when the short term rental laws were being formulated. So you know, I have always been opposed to any homeowner/neighbor renting out a room or rooms when the owner is not living on the premises. I am also aware that it has always been illegal to lease homes when the owner does not reside on the premises.There have been restrictions in effect against short term rentals long before last year. Neighborhoods are for permanent residents and are not zoned for commercial business. As far as I am concerned it makes no sense to grandfather a practice that has been illegal to start with.The fact that the law was not enforced by the Town of Southold does not change the law on the books and provides no merit to grandfather or implement a "use variance"for those homeowners who have been breaking the law. Therefore,the ZBA should vote against the case being presented by the homeowners who want to be grandfathered so they do not have to comply with the new ST rental laws. Sincerely yours, Carole and Richard Mavity • /r / -to fflY Y Aoth, Vicki \'fl From: Mimi Ellis <mimiellis@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday,April 27, 2016 7:00 PM To: Toth,Vicki Subject: Short Term Rentals To whom it may concern: It has come to my attention that there is an effort to grandfather owners who had been renting their homes on a short term basis before the passing of the new law,from the provisions of that law. While grandfathering makes sense in a host of government actions,this is not one of them.Adhering to the restriction on short term rentals is neither onerous nor does it require additional expenditure for the owner. It is a fair compromise between owners who rent and those who reside in their homes. Sincerely, Mimi Ellis 17192 Soundview Avenue Sent from my iPad • 1 `in ‘•°\ f av firs/ Toth, Vicki From: Ellen Wexler <ellenwexler@gmail.com> � V0y, 61, Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 4:56 PM To: Toth,Vicki Subject: Please stand FIRM on illegal short term rentals that are hurting our communities ZBA of Southold Town, I have been a resident of Southold Tow for many years.I have been extremely concerned about the problem of illegal rentals-People using residences as short term hotels! These activities are and have always been illegal in the state of New York. The situation has the potential to destroy our community. There is a rumor that many of these illegal rental landlords now say they should be grandfathered!!!That is like drug dealers being grandfathered because he has always sold drugs.People committing illegal activities that were NEVER allowed can not be granfathered! The granting of any variance(grandfathering)will wipe out effect of the the new rules that you have put in place.Before these rules the minimum rental was 30 days.You have reduced that to 14. Anything less will be a step towards the destruction of the Town. PLEASE take action to fine illegal rentals that are not registered,and rent for less than 14 days. I read that some communities are fining violators$10,000 a violation. Those of us who purchased their homes in residential neighborhoods did so with the understanding that the former ZBA code did not allow e for commercial businesses in these areas...especially ones that are absentee owner businesses.When we look at the uses that are allowed in residential neighborhoods there is nothing that allows absentee owner rentals to transients.The only transient rental business that was legal is a BnB.If a home was not a BnB then it was not legal for transient rentals and should not be grandfathered. Thank you, Ellen and Allen Wexler Southold,NY 1 Toth, Vicki From: Carolyn Greer <cgreer3339@gmail.com> Sent: Friday,April 29, 2016 11:13 AM vi To: Toth,Vicki Cc: Russell, Scott Subject: Zoning Board May 5th Attachments: short term Zoning hearing (1).doc Dear Ms. Toth: Attached please find a letter for the public record for the May 5th meeting of the Zoning Board re: the challenge to the 2015 short term rentals law. Kindly acknowledge receipt of it by return email and forward it to members of Zoning Board members and Trustees. Thank you. Carolyn Greer 1 i To: Southold Township Zoning Hearing: May 5, 2016 lol/t From: Carolyn and Steven Greer, 16 Sound Road, Greenport, NY 11944 Re: "Grandfathered Challenge"to 2015 short term rental laws While we cannot attend the May 5th hearing about the challenge to the short term rental law(as it happens during the business day and with short notice), we formally submit this letter to weigh-in about the maneuver by those who seek to negate the regulatory powers of the 2015 new law and thus put residential neighborhoods back in jeopardy of being ad hoc commercial zones. During the community meetings that were held over many months, which informed the Town Board of residential concerns and resulted in the new law that was passed, my husband and I were on record as being pro residential neighborhoods and also pro tourism! At multiple hearings we spoke to the issue: "Southold is a tourist destination-like it or not-and we are on the LIKE side because of the economic benefits,the bragging rights and for the pleasure of sharing. In tourism parlance Southold is a "product" and as such requires destination management. Tourist destinations must acknowledge and balance their dual responsibilities as host to tourists and as home to its residents.Tourists must be accommodated and integrated into the community like houseguests are welcomed into one's home-invited guests do not enjoy open access to private areas of the home. Residential blocks are the private areas of a tourist destinations' We noted that we chose a residential block to buy our home rather than "in town" in commercial zones and spoke about being dismayed that individual house owners now run internet short term rental businesses in residential neighborhoods—turning them into pop-up commercial zones. Zoned commercial districts are designed to accommodate tourists with parking lots,waste bins,open public spaces, and police management of traffic flow and parking. Neighborhood residential blocks are neither designed for nor equipped for the influx. Yes, Southold must be viable and enjoyable as a tourism destination and a hometown.When the Town Board passed and enacted a,minimum stay of at least two weeks it allowed homeowners the opportunity to earn income,guests to have a more authentic residential experience with a two week stay, and neighbors to experience less residential disruption. For shorter stays there are hotels, motels, B&Bs and campgrounds—so as a tourism destination Southold has a portfolio of choices. The 2015 short term rental was a compromise to allow for that mix. Now there is this legal challenge. In a recent Southold newspaper article Supervisor Russell was quoted as saying "the law we passed and the provisions it contains to ensure compliance is legal, defendable and enforceable." We hope this is true. And we hope that as the zoning board considers the "Grandfather challenge" it will indeed be a matter of interpretation of zoning and not a matter of how many people on either side of the issue show up at a zoning board hearing to speak. The Township must now be sure everything about short term rentals is legal and the public needs to understand the regulations.So we ask that the Zoning Board-as part of the public hearing—to please advise the public about: (311q 1. the current zoning status of the location (address)of each house requesting to be exempt 2. specifically explain what that designation allows and how it differs from a commercial zone The above will inform the public about the differences in residential and commercial zoning so we can understand the rationale of any ruling made and get definition about business activities as legal or not in our neighborhoods. Regarding the specific challenge:those asking to be exempted from the 2015 law claim that they should be allowed to operate as they were before their rentals became non-conforming to the 2015 new regulation- but the questions of the day seems to be: Wasn't what they were doing previously illegal? Prior to enacting the 2015 short term rental law wasn't it already illegal to rent houses for less than 30 days in Southold? And by NY state law isn't it also illegal to rent to more than 4 non family members? It seems the zoning board is being asked to "grandfather in"illegal nonconforming use that was at best flying under the radar. It is unfortunate that the 2015 short term regulation is not respected for what it was-a compromise informed by many voices heard at multiple town meetings and duly considered by the Town Board...and subsequently written and enacted to manage the new industry of short term rental businesses popping up in houses(not homes.) Those seeking not to comply with the 2015 regulations do so for personal benefit despite the negotiated public legislation—looking for loopholes without respect for the compromises that evolved from the public forums. Compromise does not seem to be on the table. Too bad, but so be it... We call on the town Zoning Board and town's Board of Trustees to enforce residential block zoning restrictions to protect residential quality of life;to enforce local and state building codes in short term houses used as rental businesses with the intent to protect travelers and residents from increased safety concerns of multiple person,transient occupancy usage; to enforce occupancy regulations;to track occupancy tax payments and finally to impose and collect violation fines as appropriate to help defray public service expenses of inspections and enforcement. (Suggestion: Perhaps the Town Trustees and Zoning Board should create a license and a registry for such short term rental businesses—or at least create and post on the home page of the town website a guide link for hosts and neighbors defining rights and regulations). Attached is a list of some references we looked at in trying to become informed and to better understand residential vs host rights in the short term rental business that has evolved in houses in our residential neighborhood, But in the end -we are not attorneys nor are we enforcement officers. We must rely on the Town Trustees and the Town Zoning Board to define regulations and insure compliance,to protect tourist and residential safety in neighborhoods and to nurture and preserve a residential quality of life in neighborhoods. Thank you. (041511 Reference notes: • According to NY state law "Preservation of the character of single-family areas remains a legitimate purpose of zoning." "Courts have regularly found a legitimate purpose in zoning regulations which are aimed at achieving a homogeneous, traditional single-family neighborhood. "A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs" • NY Legal memorandum LuoS • http://www.ag.ny.gov/pdfs/Airbnb%20report.pdf • http://www.southoldtownny.gov/ • http://suffolktimes.timesreview.com/2015/08/61692/southold-town-passes-short-term-rental- Iaw-with-14-night-minimum/ • http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/realestate/taking-the-work-out-of-short-term- rentals.html? r=0 • http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/legal-restrictions-renting-your-home-airbnb-other- re nta l-se ry i ces.ht m l • http://www.statelocalgov.net/ • http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/Iawssrch.cgi?NVLWO: • http://smallbiztrends.com/2015/12/new-york-cracks-down-short-term-rentals-airbnb.html • http://tenant.net/Other Laws/MDL/md10l.html • k�e V'/C.f /X (` \/ 1(45 (010 Toth, Vicki From: diane clemente <dianeclemente95@icloud.com> RECEIVED Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2016 10:24 AM To: Toth,Vicki MAY 0 2 2016 Subject: Short term rentals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Dear Ms.Toth, We are writing to urge the ZBA to uphold the law on transient rentals. Please do not allow absentee homeowners to use their properties as business. Home owners have the right to the quiet enjoyment if their homes. Sincerely, Diane Douglas William Douglas 445 Wood Lane Peconic, NY Sent from my iPhone 1 Irl c1 - IA) Pi 6''�1' )) r , ' PToth, Vicki J 1 v From: Barry Wiseman <barrywiseman@verizon.net> Sent: Wednesday,April 27, 2016 10:56 PM To: Toth, Vicki Subject: "Grandfather challenge" to 2015 short term rental law To:Southold Zoning Board As residents of Southold, we are strongly opposed to this attempt to overturn last year's two week minimum. That minimum was itself a compromise, and allowed for the first time for legal rentals of residential-zoned properties for two weeks or more. Previously all rentals under 30 days were illegal altogether. We don't think an illegal practice should be considered as "prior use" in a grandfathering argument. We urge the board to consider the nature of residential zoning in both its spirit and letter. When we bought our house here we never imagined our home could become surrounded by illegal commercial businesses operated by absentee owners out of residential-zoned properties. One or two of these in the neighborhood could destroy much of what we cherish about East End life. Rena and Barry Wiseman East Marion, NY 1 BOARD MEMBERS ,ilo'� Southold Town Hall i' �*®f ®Ut�® � 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179 Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 0� ' ® Southold,NY 11971-0959 afl �® Eric Dantes ', Office Location: Gerard P.Goehringer ` `4, -' p �` Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning �®�� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Kenneth Schneider ___4(C011 . Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631) 765-9064 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code Chapter 280 (Zoning), Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on THURSDAY, MAY 5, 2016: 1:15 P.M. - LAURIE BLOOM#6954 -This is a request under Article XXVI Section 280-146D requesting an INTERPRETATION of Town Code, Article XXIII, Section 280-121 (non- conforming uses) in relation to Transient rental properties, located at: 1690 Paradise Shore Road Southold, NY. SCTM#1000-80-1-18 The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours and prior to the day of the hearing. If you have questions, please contact our office at (631) 765-1809, or by email: Vicki.TothATowrn.Southold.nv.us Dated: April 11, 2016 - ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, CHAIRPERSON By: Vicki Toth 54375 Main Road (Office Location) 53095 Main Road (Mailing/USPS) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Y Ceti{.& #12745 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 week(s), successfully commencing on the 28th day of April, 2016. ' ?)/a.4..-L-1---- c:77--;.---e.-i-ii-e.---/ Principal Clerk e---3 Sworn to before me this day of 01 1A, 2016. LEGAL NOTICE 10:00 A.M. - CHRISTOPHER 'P. SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING WRIGHT#6948-Request=for Mule*, BOARD OF APPEALS from Article XXIII Section 280-124'and THURSDAY MAY 5,2016 t the Building Inspector's`January 20;2016, PUBLIC HEARINGS Notice of Disapproval based on an appli •- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,pur- cation for building permit to construct ad- C • STINA VOLINSKI suant to Section 267 of the Town Law and ditions-and alterations(dormers)to an ex= Town Code Chapter 280(Zoning),Town ' tigsjngle family dwelling,at;1)less than NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK of Southold,the following public hearings the code required front yard setback of 35 No. 01 V06105050 will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN l feet,located at:2775 Bray Avenue Laurel, Qualified In Suffolk County ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the NY'SCTM#1000-126-9-13.4 My Com011010n Expires February 28,2020 Town Hall,53095 Mai Road,P.O.Box 10:15 A.M. - ROBERT and FLOR- 1179,Southold,New York 11971-0959,on ll�0 A.M -GERARD and TRISIIA The Board of Appeals will hear all per- THURSDAY MAY 5,2016. ENCE TAYLOR #6944 - Request for pOOLE #6949 - R nest for Variance Variances from Article XXIII Section 280- sons or their representatives,desiring to be 930 A.M. - NEIL STRONSKI and ; 124 and the Building Inspector's Febru- from ArticleXXIIISechon280124andthe heard at each hearing,and/or desiring to PATRICIA PEREZ#6929—(Adj.from P BuildingInspector's February17,2016 No- ary 11,2016 Notice of Disapproval based subunit written statements before the con- 3/3/20]6 PH) Request for Variances tice of Disapproval based on an application elusion of each hearing Each hearing will from Article XXII Section 280-116A and on an application for building permit to for buildingpermit to construct an addition demolish existingdwellingwith deck and not start earlier than designated above. Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the to existing single family dwelling at;1)less Files are available for review duringi e u Building Inspector's December 22,2015, construct new single family dwelling with than the code required front yard setback lar business hours and prior to the daygof deck additions,at;1) less'than the code Amended January 14, 2016 Notice of of 40 feet,located at:3493 Ole Jule Lane the hearing. If you have questions,please Disapproval based on an application for required minimum side yard setback of 10 ' Mattituck,NY SGTM#1000122-5-22.1 PP PP contact our office at,(631)765-1809,or by buildino ermit to legalize`as built'addi- feet,2)less than the code required coin- 11.yy A _ HARRY and IRENE P g biped side of 25 feet,located at:1010 email:Vicki.Toth@Town.Southold.ny.us tions/alterations and accessory structures yard PIIII.IPP-OU.46947- Request for Van- Dated:April 11;2016 and construct additions/alterations to the Dean Drive (adj. to Peconic Bay), Cu- - - •- - -------- tchogue,NY.SCTM#1000-116-5-11- ance under Article IV Section,280-18 and ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS existing'as built'accessory structures,at 10:30 A.M.-JAMES the Building Inspector's March 2, 2016 LESLIEKANESWEISMAN,CHAIR- I) the proposed and`as built' accessory Applicant requests a,Special Exception Notice of Disapproval.based on an ap- PERSON backctruc100 is less than code rof the bluff, set- under Article III Section 280-13B(14).The plication for building permit for a lot line BY.Vicki Toth of 100 feet from the top of the bluff Applicant is the owner requesting authori- change, at: less than the code required 54375 Main Road(Office Location) 2)'as built'deck addition is less than the 53095 Main Road Mallin US code required setback of 100 feet from nation to establish an Accessory Bed and minimum lot size of 40,000 sq.ft.,located ( P� PS) Breakfast,accessory and tncidental:to the at:2300&2200 Rocky Point Road East P.O.Box 1179 the top of the bluff,3)`as built'deck addi- residential occupancy in this single family Marion,NY SCTM#'s1000-31-2-7&6.2 Southold,NY 11971-0959 tion located at less than the code required dwelling,with four(4)bedrooms for lodg- 1.:15 P.M.-LAURIE BLOOM#6954- 12745-1T 4/28 minimum side yard setback of 15 feet, lag and serving of breakfast to the B&B This is a request under Article XXVI Sec- located at:7125 Nassau Point Road(adj. casual, transient roomers. Location of tion 280446Drequesting anINTERPRE- to SCTMle Peco00-111c Bay) Cutchogue, NY Property: 1125 Windward Road Orient, TATION of'Town Code,Article XXIII, SC9:45 A.M.0-111-15-11 Ny,SCTM#1000-14-2-30.1 - Section 280-121(non-conforming uses)in 9:45 A. -SOUTHOLD SUNSETS, 10:45 A.M.-- MARY.'ANN"FEELS- relation to Transient rental properties,lo- LLC#6951-Request for Variances from CIIMAN 1#6950 - Applicant,requests-a' sated at 1690 Paradise Shore Road South- Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Special Exception under Article III'Section old,NY.SCTM#1000-80.1-18"`"- Budding Inspector's March 28,2016 No- 280-13B(14).The Apphcant is the owner 1:15P.M.-LISA CRADIT#6953-This tine of Disapproval based on an applica- requesting auithonzation to establish an is a request under Article XXVI Section tion for building permit to demolish exist- Accessory Bed and Breakfast, accessory 280-146D requesting an INTERPRETA- ne single family dwelling and construct and incidental to the residential occupancy TION of Town Code,Article XXIII,Sec- new single family dwelling,at;1)less than in this single-family dwelling,with two(2) tion'280-121 (non-conforming uses) in the code required minimum front yard bedrooms for lodging and serving of break-- relation to'Itansient rental properties,lo- setback of 40 feet,2)) less than the code , fast to the B&B casual,transient roomers sated at:560 Sound Road Greenport,NY required minimum side yard setback ofI Located at:560 Holden Avenue Cutchogue, SCTM#1000-35-1-14 15 feet,located at:4200 Kenney's Road NY 8�M#1000-110 5-21.2 Y. (adj.to Long Island Sound)Southold,N - _ SCTM#1000-54-4-3 i / i TOWN OF SOUTHOLD "11 - 15.4 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1 SOUTFIOLI7,NEW YORK 7 LQO I � M. - 1 AFFIDAVIT OF In the Matte'of the Application of MAILINGS LAURIE BLOOM . , tName of Applicants) . SCTM Parcel# l 000,80-1-18 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK , I, SALEM M. KATSH residing at 65 RYDER FARM LANE, ORIENT l I New York,being duly sworn,deposes and says that: 1 I "- On the 18TH day of APRIL ,2016,Ipersonally mailed at the United • 'States Post Office in,ORIENT ,New York, by CERTIFIED:MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached Legal Notice in . Prepaid enveopes addressed to current property owner's.shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the( )Assessors,or( )County Real /- Property Office for every property which abuts and is across a p Mc or private s .-- , or:vehicular.right-of way of record,surrounding thea.;,`leant':.pr pe ,,U ( _nature) Sworn to before me this ���" d of 4PkiL ,20 1(/ DIANE DISALVO . P1/#46.4r. NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK No. 01 D14 75593 (Notary Public) Qualified In Suffolk County o, My Commission Expires April 30, 20'0 mm PLEASE list on the back of this Affidavit or an a sheet of paper, the lot numbers next • to the owner,names,•and,addresses for which notices were mailed. Thank you. A _ ,,..,wrimgor7c;,,371;:_,-:.- • 1Se „ -,77.,'9,r':7:-i77;41„, ,,,, 41 , ,W644;ri' D,,- - v/xiivic: ,,,roto6IRTi ftv.,',Ac,.:4,_:, •.1,,. u.s. Postal Servioekv-: tt,,,,,v,r1'!'"'W;II -,4' ,x'V,i, '”, ____ _TIF * . 1, . ,..mta,- -i-prdidaet9_, ,i,, 'CERTIFIED-IVIAIL", ',RIE-.c.-40,0,I,.,. 4,,iitt:-',e;- '' ''' " Toni 41°'In'suraj2Ce 6°49292 -- ' - - I -rEti ,(Donlestic Ma: Y, , „,„,„,,,.,,,,....... nivittriga m , 7 1Z 1705iiiiiided)' ' ' "- r_, womesti9A1PiiqnlyMPPaYraPqle: 911E ,g.-,*d—,---,t t,, ui fficlorililf icairebsit,q'atr, , Ps'....aci, , ....10 , Lr) ' . . 6 V 1"Iiiir6.13's464 ' ' FARMINGVILLE Iii Nr,11:734, = For deliverxintormationweLoRroLlkez,Am..,_.,,,,,,_ i -, -, SOUTHOLD', NY 11 7I ii, s. p, !,, -, ,„ s ,..„,, , , i -a — 0957 , _Li k,,... , ,1 • "7 i 1 ., ,..,, N„'' ''' ,"", I I"- , N r- Po '9 , . 04 I - Pohla tg 0957 N 111112M1 Postmark ' N $2.70 04 , ru Certified Fee Certified Fee $0.00 Here ( ru sr.,.43,__, P Return Receipt Fee I... (Endorsement Required) $0.00 Return Receipt Fee so.00 e _re 0 (Endorsement Required) I, Restricted Delivery Fee i 0 .. $0.1-- / (Endorsement Required) IllIlliiiiilIl Restricted Delivery Fee SS\C- 0 ( 1=1 (Endorsement Required) ( 1 11111111111 04/18/2016 I , ) Er $0.4-7 ,, , ,Qe, , I CI Total Postage&Fees CI Total Postage&Fees $ \ 04/18/2 1, 1 m $647 \... ,0)/ • 1:rc Sent , , ,,,` $6: 7, l\ 1,1 Sent o , rq , , c:i treet,A.t.No• NM oS rtr pe oet,Bopxt NNoo; ii,":_r-- (,... i 1. /Itt.A4.,..•? ,„,, ,-;---)r.:: City,State,ZIP+• ' ' r Tattuctni moState3,800,g,Aurgus _IS 1.,r o'rrn",3144 Paig,on_0,0,6'O. ., ,,,..",:A1A. roklaMe.i-d1Mtire.... -LI cnts' ' 'g,:ofteverse for n;-lurs*postal,s6r,vicc,r.,.. ,I s posiai Se vier,eva„ ,,.,,, ,,;,:iist,,,,,,,, %,,ERIR_REpilwALT. F.1 , ;4.,..„'' , ' - ' , . _,--- 1 ,Yttatili FIE D,- AI1LTM EC EIPTt!" ru Dginildtii-Ma•Oir/Y; 01-11417-6 coage Pmvicied)' ''''' Ej '''' 'I'll"''• 'o- (Domestic,tefijCii4yiNb:insuiince Coverage Pro iiied.A.,'4 M For delivery inferlrietierbvieif our website At: '.eleime.Plee ,,, , = ,...„..„,.. „..,. ,,,,,,,.0....Trite at vimwnriarrart-cvarg‘iimvo information visit our,we s SOUTI-1011ii NY 11fm t. 1,, „ :,_,,, , _„, - D-• - ,r-CT-06S-20',- :: , 0 , .., „ _a ' ' `...: ',-, --r7-11199:h r- pot7030 /..-,-, f4.-4'LI' N %3. r- $2.70 ,,P,-;-------- -I r- Postage railffirli iik il Certified Fee $0.00 '`) N Postmark--$tr-O”. Cr— Postmark Certified Fee I 0 Return Receipt Fee Heren16 ,-,n-1 1 En (Endorsement Required) $ .CH) I v, Postmark ,0 $0.00 \N,c\ ..-- Return Receipt Fee 1111.4141- 1—. (Endorsement Required) $0.01.) ' APR 11'2016 Restricted Delivery Fee CI 11111111111111' \\,, , I 1=1 (Endorsement Required) \\ \ 1\ Restricted Delivery Fee i IT $1.J.Li.f. 1CP Endorsement Req red) i= (Endorsement ' IM Total Postage&Fees 1p 0 41.11NY Er & 61.‘ m $6-47 1=1 Total Postage&Fees Mill 'gip . ' Sent To 0 Tc-r<-7-z,1--"/(-. .,c`roohf ' i m Ke (1 'i 1=1 Street,Apt.No.; ,...-2 ef:) 674, ----) 1 rg r r- or PO Box No I CI Street,Apt No,i /.4, Wilw Zr „....r, City,State,ZIP+• a ‘,1\ IN or PO Box No IaCity,State,ZIP+4 nstr ,s-, 71rinr.11,siatr51:41V1,411U,OP:,0.,1 pirk: iir A 0.(\ e(v LT n 6 620&' psp9,413poo ugust 2006 ' '* ciliratIristriictiOns' ' IL,I 7:','1441000', t!)S 'D astal ServieTT L- ' ,,,,,4,1 *4,,, *4144. .0,w ,,;„,cp-EIRTIFI,ww,;,iy,m- korragiorpioviweay'',--i i 4P Lcisx-f- 1 1 To i(Comelti .Mai!Only;,Novinsurange ., . ,, ll- ---. mirs'iiee-Mir—wIlmiaw:.—)rnt""r"-VIIM 1 i- affie I-illaytin a I , , -I" COLLEGE'POINI4 1:1:(::1113,5, :' ppr7ew 644 r- POA& Ellingli 0 4 Certified Fee $0.00 i ru ', .1'• , polinIicir, i IR Return Receipt Fee $0 I—, '1. 1 Here 10.00 (Endorsement Required) 0 ^ . Restricted Delivery Fee . . Required) (Endorsement Er I= Total Postage&Fees $ 1 De I Lk 1,1 Sent To 4,1y 44 AS r-1 Street, Apt No., r-.T._ sa_Lc-. 9 (ki 4 0 N or PO Box No 9\ City St °OM, . ec--?„...f‘ ' P 1 e L i la ,Q,... ,,,'., "„ , <gmtlfigithOlnstructions rilt.Fotv 'ai3 ,)06 .i .,'r, 1, *10111 LAURIE BLOOM NOTICE MAILINGS Gary & Mariella Ostroski 855 Brigantine Drive Southold, NY 11971 Mark & Candy Moniyhan 14 Mt. Wilson Ave. Farmingdale, NY 11738 Edmund J. & Dorothy M. Kelly 6 Holmes Ct. Darien CT. 06820 Susan Massarella 119-25 9th Ave. College Pt. New York 11356 Peter K. & Gayle Johnston PO Box 91 , Southold, NY 11971 • SENDER: COMPLETE THI' TION ` , COMP,LETETHISSECTIONO IPIII ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete 0;� item 4,if Restricted Delivery'is desired. �� �® ,� ■ • , • Print you`r'7ame and address on the reverse .�irr►1L - re�-ee so that welcen return the card to you. ■ Attach this�card to the back of the mailpiece, B. Received by(Printed Nan c of •. hv= or on the;frih't if space permits. _,--=-. . illA '11 1. Article Addressed to: D. Is delivery address different .".-m r >1? 0 Y-s ' If YES,enter delivery address.elow: ;mo I V ' 1 sex .77 /1V-4. n Vie- , 3. Service Type j ( entified Mail® 0 Priority Mail Express' c7 pRegistered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise f/'/ 0� `/ � ❑Insured Mail ❑Collect on Delivery 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number 1 1 i i•' i i ` `=` � ' (Trarm from service label) ; i , ,i 710'`390 10002 17776 ;5312 r PS Form 3811,July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ' -.t Y, • ••, ',COMPLETE•THIS•SEC,TION ON'DELIVERY.'• • Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Si-azure item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 0 Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse X ,' .._`,, 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Ree ed .yy-•ri/1i•. C„Date.f Day III Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, / / / / g:44°' /G� or on the front if space permits. -., D. Is delivery addr-, different from item 1? 0 Yes (( 1. Article Addressed to: I If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No . 64,,,,,-, Dr ppR 0-iii E,:::, rel /b/Me ( V 3. S ice Type _. entified Mall® ❑Priority Mail Express'” ���jjjjjj Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise T/^ 0 Insured Mail 0 Collect on Delivery „q( Elft l� Q O 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number; , I : ' 1 '-'__`-'--__` - „_`_:_ --:-i E : -"�_ -1 (Transfer from service label) I 7 010 3 0 9 0• `0• 0 2 2 7 7'7 6 4 49 0 1 , PS Form 3811,'July,2013'1 . ' , }, ;Domestic Return Receipt \ i • SENDER: COMPLETE.THIS•SECTION' COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY 1 II Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. ' nature 2 item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 0 ,�/ 0 Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse 0 Addressee , so that we can return the card to you. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. �''A-�",,,, �' D. Is delivery address di erg rnj tern -Al Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delive a rd ess• ow: 'MO 1 0 ve. t\\s,)s,,.._._*:r:iy. 1 7 (q 5 // xe--( 3. Service Type Of 1 e9 i 0 entified Mail® ❑Priority Mail Express '❑ i 111 Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise � C / 0 Insured Mail 0 Collect on Delivery I /hV / t-, {,. 3 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. ArticleNumber? j j j f ; =l?L,I'''''i;•4''''':7;11:1;13 '3090 ` o'202! '7776 ` 44$3`'i (Transfer from service label) I—,.r, P i . 1 PS Form 3811i July 2013;„_„_;,. 1.�,1; ',;,,,.Qgmestic Return Receipt .,SENDER'•COMP ,i THIS,SECTION' j..,i'" (COMPLETE THIS-S ON ON DELIVERY ` a Complete items 1,2,and3.Also complete A. Sigt tura item,4.i$Restricted Delivery is desired. 'fir �1 %� / re Agent ' ® Print your name and address on the reverse , , (t ddressee so that we can return the card to you. B, ceived by(Panted ame C. of Plyrery ® Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, v• / n /�O nd" Z� l�'J 0 or on the front if space permits. - L I�/1 4 D. Is delivery address d�erent from item 1? es 1. Article Addressed to: ,y; 4--- ��� If YES,enter delivery address below: 0 No ty' i,--/ $,'',, *a IN ( y &p I L 0/I 1 (P ✓ e• 3. S ice Type Certified Mailo ❑Priority Mail Express" ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ard4/11,4 /) , I '3Ee ❑ Insured Mail '❑Collect on Delivery l�/� 4. Restricted Delivery. (Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. A(Transfer rfrom (traumber I T nsfer from service label) 7010 3090 0002 7776 4506 PS Form 3811,July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt ? CONIPLEtami5 SECTION 013:DELIVERY, ,? ;, ''SENDER' COMPLETE THIS SECTION ,. � II A. SignatUt Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete ! l,.__,—_._.._-- 0 Agent item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. a Print youi;name and address on the reverse ; ''/ 0 Addressee so that weaean return the card to you. B. Fl,ceived y(Printed am_e) C. Dat f livery ® Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, i5 c -Por kr I Y 6 or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes 1. Article Addressed to• N If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No Alcy 4-MAE, �//4 ZP 5.---/-04? -5" is: / , I /�� 7 / ,/ E 3.Xice Type cC6 e I G`V" / �yertified Mail® 0 Priority Mail Express- S. ccc�� t� ❑Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise /1 'y ❑Insured Mail 0 Collect on Delivery OCT JO /lbs/ t 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes PI 2. Article Number7776 4513 (transfer from service label) 7010 3 0 9 0 0 0 0 PS Form 3811,July 2013 Domestic Return Receipt - _ { } TOWN OFSOUTHOLD (09 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ty1 SOL?THOLD,NEW YORK t LO 0 PA AFFIDAVIT OF In the Matter of the Application of POSTING Laurie Bloom (Name of Applicants) • Regarding posting of Sign upon Applicant'l Land Identified as SCTM Parcel#1000- 80-1-8 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK)' STATE OIC NEW YORK) as attorney and authorized representative Salem M. Katsh ' residing at 65 Ryder Farm Lane orien ,New York,being duly sworn,depose and say that: April On the ?7th day of ,•2016 ,I personally placed the Town's Official Po$ter, with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon my property, located ten(10)feet or closer from the street or right-of- way(driveway entrance)—facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance,* and that i 1 3 I hereby corm that the Poster has remained in place for seven(7)days rior o the date of the'subject hearing date,which hearing date was shown to be -O/ ° (Sign re) Sworn to before me this 3 Day Of Cil , 201169 TRACEY L. DWYER �J NOTARY PUBLIC,STATE OF NEW YORK I $ NO.01 DW6306900 A I I ', , QUALIFIED IN SUFFOLK COUNTY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUNE 30,2.02 otary Public) I *near the ehtrance or driveway entrance of my property,as the area most visible to passerby. ZC` AG BOARD OF APPEALS MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: Town Hall Annex at North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor 54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold website: http://southtown.northfork.net April 11, 2016 Re: Town Code Chapter 55 —Public Notices for Thursday, May 5, 2016 Hearing Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of The Suffolk Times. 1) Before April 18th: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, 'to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Southold Town Assessors' Office, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability, and to confirm how arrangements were made in either a written statement, or during the hearing, providing the returned letter to us as soon as possible; AND not later than April 25th: Please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, along with the green/white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you later by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any envelope'is returned "undeliverable", please advise this office as soon as possible. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board during the hearing and provide the card (when available). These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) Not Later April 27th: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at the subject property seven (7) days (or more) prior to hearing. (It is the applicant/agents responsibility to maintain sign until Public Hearing) Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, not more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is supplied for posting on both front yards. Please deliver or mail your Affidavit of Posting for receipt by our office before May 3, 2016. If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. (PLE-ASE-DISPLAY YOUR-HOUSE NUMBER-AtWAYS). Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff Ends. iICiTIcE OF HEARIuIG The following application will be heard by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at Town Hall , 53095 Main Road , Southold : NAME : BLOOM , LAURIE # 6954 SCTM # : 1000-80- 1 - 18 VARIANCE : INTERPRETATION REQUEST: NONCONFORMI P G USES RE : TRANSIENT RENTAL PROPERTIES DATE : THURS . , MAY 5 , 2016 1 : 15 PM If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765- 1809 \ �\ 4,X,\QMAY 4 MB )4,7 • Marilyn Anne Marks ZJNING 130AR0 OF App 54300 County Route 48 Southold,NY 11971 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 May 4th 2016 In Reference to the appeals of Laurie Bloom and Lisa Cradit,I wish to urge the Board to recognize grandfathering as a fair,traditional and required procedure. I am attaching a portion of the emails that have been made public by the Town Board.These and hundreds of other written and oral submissions in connection with last year's hearings give a flavor for the types of rentals that are at issue,the investments people have made in good faith, the injury to the Town if this activity were precipitously outlawed,and how this activity has been ongoing for many years. Also,the many alternatives the Board could have considered,and still may consider,that would usefully regulate the practice without banning it altogether. When I appeared numerous times before the board I asked them to consider an economic impact study before fmalizing their decision.They refused to do so.Even if the law prevents an increase in short term rentals,we at least need to maintain the status quo.Not only lessors but many businesses are affected.One example:Last week I attended a meeting between the Long Island Wine Council Promotion Director,some winery owners and a group of Bed and Breakfast owners to discuss how we can collaborate to improve our mutual businesses.During the course of the discussion it was universally acknowledged that the vineyard businesses had been much worse than usual this winter. Our entire tourism business will be worse still the rest of the year. The fact is,if travelers cannot find a place to accommodate not just themselves,but their children, possible parents or grandparents plus the family pet,in a rental here on the North Fork,they will simply go somewhere else. And this, it seems,is what they are being forced to do,and the town's vitality will dry up. I am mystified as to why the town on the one hand encourages events and festivals, like the Tall Ships in Greenport,which alone draws over 20,000 visitors and yet has not addressed where they would like all these travelers to stay when there are only 600 lodging rooms on the whole North Fork, including hotels,motels and BnB's.Do they prefer that people drive through and go home? That seems to me like a horrible solution;traffic is already bad enough in the summer and on fall weekends.How much better it would be if at least a couple of thousand of those people could stay here for a few days.They would shop in the markets,eat in the restaurants and patronize all the other local vendors that have invested so much in our community. The new law is on the books but it is imperative to at least maintain the status quo. Sincerely, Marilyn Anne Marks ' Tomaszewski, Michelle From: Candi Harper <reprah,11939@yahoo.com>. Sent: Tuesday,March 24,2015 11:00 AM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Short Term Rentals Dear Scott, I would urge Southold Town not to throw the baby out with the bath when it comes to short-term rentals. ,I rent my house for a couple of weeks each summer, but I have a very strict rental agreement that limits the number of people in the house and prohibits parties. Summer rentals bring people to our area who spend a lot of money in our shops,and restaurants. We depend on tourism. I believe with minimum rentals of 4-nights and limits on the number of people in the house based on the true bed capacity,we can control excessive noise, partying and disruptions. We need to be careful not to impact our economy with unnecessary restrictions. Thank you, Candi'Harper East Marion 1 Standish, Lauren From: Tom Gluck <tgluck@gluckplus.com> Sent - Wednesday, March 25,2015 8:24 PM ((CM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Shortterm rental Please allow short term rentals of 7 days.We have been enjoying a week in your wonderful town every year for a decade and would not be able to do so for 2 weeks given our work schedules. Sent from a mobile device.. Tomaszewski, Michelle From: Krauza, Lynne V151 Sent: Wednesday, March 25,2015 10:52 AM To: Tomaszewski, Michelle Subject: FW:testimony/data on economic benefit of short term rentals for code committee Attachments: ;Testimony on Short term rentals.docx From: KEely, Stephen .. ""..�. ....,.._-.._. .......�._..,...,. _._.W_._vw...._..__ ._.._ ... _.a�.. ._ __..... .._._,..W..,.__.. Sent:Tuesday, March 24, 2015 4:30 PM To: Krauza, Lynne Subject: Fwd:,testimonyJdata on economic benefit of short term rentals for code committee 'Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTL•3inartplione Original message From: Abigail Field Date:03/24/2015 3:49 PM(GMT-05:00) To: "Kieiy,Stephen" Subject: testimony/data on economic benefit of short term rentals for code committee Hi Stephen Attached is testimony I will be giving the Town Board today if they have an open process on short term rentals, and that I would like the code committee to have. Please share with the committee. Thank you Abigail March 24, 2015 69 SI Dear members of the Southold Town Board and the Code Committee: My name is Abigail Field, I am an attorney in Cutchogue, and I represent about a dozen homeowners who do short term rentals in the town of Southold through VRBO.They use their homes part of the year themselves; and generally hope to retire here. TheyJove.their homes and Southold,which is why they carefully screen their renters and why they support responsible regulation of short term rentals. Responsible regulation includes a permitting process that ensures the homes are up to code,have no more guests than appropriate given the number of bedrooms, and other reasonable requirements to ensure neighbors feel secure that their quality of life is protected. Responsible regulation also includes consistent and evenhanded enforcement ofuot only a short terrri rental code,but related quality of life codes like noise and light ordinances, and transparency of enforcement actions taken. Responsible regulation would involve a permit fee that levels the playing field with B&Bs and hotels. Finally,responsible regulation would allow weekend-long rentals. While_the income from the rentals is very important to the homeowners I represent, as it is how they can,afford the mortgages,they understand that is not a compelling argument foriegulation that allows them to continue doing short term rentals. However,the overwhelmingly positive, large economic impact on the Town of Southold should be compelling, ,,Assessing the Economic Ymnacf of Short TcrniRentaf Quantifying the economic impact is not astraightfortward task,but we have gathered data that illustrates the large,positive economic impact. Short term•rental owners asked their former renters to complete an online survey about their rental experiences. In all,91 people replied. One question invited them to identify how many people they were speaking on behalf of; meaning how many people they had rented with. While some indicated they would only speak for themselves,many identified their group size, Through those answers, we learned that the data reflect the experience of about 400 people. The results reveal: 1. The maiority o out short term rentals were weekends and Most'Man tii-coniieitkiiiii s The majority of rentals were short stays-- one weekend-only o 57%-weekend o 33%-one week o 6%-2+Weeks o 4% -More than 2 weeks * Most plan to come again, but more than two thirds are likely to only if they can do so 'via a short term rental 1 March 24,2015 tO9Si o 98% said they would rent again through VRBO and 100% would recommend the experience to their friends and family o 71%say they are unlikely or somewhat unlikely to stay at a local B&B or hotel if VRBO or other short term rental was no longer an option. This result also shows that while there is overlap between the B&B/Hotel and short term rental markets, they are not the same market. Some cited the unique experience that only a home provides---the ability to stay'together as a group, experience the town like a local, cook and relax together,bring pets and children, etc. It is also true that one market can feed the other;the people who come here vis.VRBO may well return for a romantic'weekend at a B&B,or to take' advantage of a given hotel's location or amenities. 2. VRBO benefits our local ectdnoniY With'the.txirveyed groups spending on average $14850 in.town-dui in .tlicai 1ta.14168.650791}.Giveii that not every renter of.tiie, owners doing tine-saivey.renlied; and that less'than a,tenth of the listed pr►perties Were involved in-the survey, as,a:measure.of total economic.impact that number is low by at lest st,an-order-of'ina gn itu de: $ 168,650 TOTAL $ 55,000 dining out $ 25,475 Shopping • 29,300 tasting rooms $ 12,100 farm stands 9,900 Art 5,850 Spa 9,025 limo 2 March 24, 2015 0614 5,900 fishing 1,550 carousel /rink 14,550 other entertainment These numbers are small compared to'the total impact;these replies were from some of the renters of less than two dozen properties(some people not my client also sent the survey to their renters.)There are 300 such listings in the Town; quit;plausibly the true cumulative economic impact is more than 10 times the numbers above. 3. Not surprisingly,dining out was by far the largest economic contribution'to our town from VRBO rentals 4,1‘ Every guest dined out-'most between.3-5:times-and many businesses benefitted with spending distributed across several different establishments • Every single guest dined in a'local restaurant or bar at least once during their visit • The majority did so between 3-5 times (42%)while 28%dined out between 5-7 times, followed by 13%5 10 times and 9%dining out 7-10 times • The majority.of guests dined at multiple restaurants or bars dining their stay. i. 54%visited-3-5 different establishments ii. 25%visited 6-9 different establishments • The most popular destinations for VR130 diners tend to be the most expensive a 48%dined at the Frisky Oyster • 39% -Noah's • 31%-North Fork Table&Inn • 30%-Blue Canoe • Groups spent approx. $55,000 in local restaurants •- The majority of guests spent'between$500-$1,000 dining out during their stay (40%)While 20%spent tnore'than$1,000 4. However VRBO renters also generate considerable foot traffic in our local retail stores 3 6C1131 March 24, 2015 • Every guest patronized at least one local shop during their stay • 14% patronized a local store(gift, clothing,jewelry, grocery convenience, gallery liquor) more than 10 times during their stay • 36%visited between 3-5 different shops while 33%visited between 6-9 shops • 50%of guests spent between$100- $500 in local retail shops; 14%spent between$500-$1000 • The majority of guests (57%)spent between$100-$500 in local tasting rooms 5. And`it's not j:nst food and retail businesses that benefit, so.do our local tardier*, artists.and Other small businesses :• 81%purchased produce at a local far stand • 76%bought local art or handicrafts • 35%rented local transportation(car or limo) • 35%rode the Greenport carousel or skated on the ice rink • 27%visited a local spa • 14% chartered a fishing boat - s 26%of respondents spent between$500-$1,000 on these activities while 21% spent more than$1,000 6. Short term rentals via VRBO are stili a relatively new experience in.our.area • 47%of respondents were,first-time VRBO renters in our area • 27%had rented twice via VRBO in our area Specific Comments from my VRBO Renters: K B. Mar 3 Hi This would be such ashame! I completed the survey, and made sure to comment on how disappointing this would be, and how much potential future business the town of Greenport would lose out ori,just based on our group of 7's desire to return, both as a group of 7, and with other friends 1 relatives. 4 (09s1 March 24, 2015 A.H. Mar 2 I just filled it out.As part of our trip we had actually met with a realtor because we are interested in property in Greenport and'he told us of this possible law. I hope it does not, pass. I mentioned it in the survey but if.not for VIRBG we would never have visited Greenport last summer and since discovering it we've been back 3 more times. We truly love it there and given,our circumstances (children, dog, etc) a hotel or B&B just doesn't suit our needs. We go into town a lot and bring in revenue that would not have otherwise come into the village. Thank you,again for having us at your home. It is was beautiful'atnd we had a great time. Hi I would like to add, (there was no space for comments,)that everyone in my family(I have five adult children, a sister and brother,)received Christmas gift baskets from Vines & Branches this past Christmas and I intend to•order.to restock my supply.We discovered the lovely store on our stay at your lovely home last year.The gift baskets were very much appreciated by those who received them and I'm so happy to have spent time in Greenport and 'hope to return. I hope the survey and comments help. L. In conclusion,we urge the Town of Southold and its Code Committee to enact responsible regulation of short term rentals and enforce it consistently and transparently.That way the Town can continue to enjoy the profound economic benefits these rentals produce, while protecting the quality of life of year round residents. 5 (0613-1 Tomaszewski, Michelle From: Tom Gluck <tglUck@gluckplus.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25;2015 8:24 PM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Short term rental Please allow short term rentals of 7 days. We have been,enjoying a week in your wonderful town every year for a decade and would not be able to do so for 2 weeks given our work schedules. Sent from a mobile device. 1 (01 Tomaszewski, Michelle siormaissastisommar From: Scott DePetris <sdepetris@portware.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:52 PM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Minimum rental terms Scott, By way of quick introduction,I was born and`raised in Southold and graduated Southold HS in 1995. Many family members from the Albertson side of my family still live on the North Fork. I was told this evening that the town is considering a 14 day minimum rental'term for houses.As someone who thoroughly enjoys visiting home but can only do so for week long stays I hope this doesn't get passed-week long rentals allow more people to enjoy the north fork,see what it has to offer'and create economic benefit for everyone.Wanted to pass along my thoughts as you think through this. All the best, Scott DePetris President and COO Portware, LLC 233 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, NY 10279 Direct: 212-370-8350 Mobile: 917-270-3900 i (M51 Standish, Lauren From: Scott DePetris <sdepetris@portware.corn> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:52 PM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Minimum rental terms Scott, By way of quick introduction, I was burn and raised in Southoldand graduated Southold HS in 1995. Many family members from the Albertson side of my family still live on the North Fork. I Was told this evening that the town is considering a 14 day Minimum'rental term for houses.As someone who thoroughly enjoys visiting home but can only do , so for week long stays 1 hope this doesn't'get passed-week long rentals allow more people to enjoy the north fork, see what it has to offer and create economic benefit for everyone.Wanted to pass along my thoughts as you think through this. All the best, Scott DePetris President and COO Portware, LLC 233 Broadway,24th Floor New York, NY 10279 Direct: 212-370-8350 Mobile: 917-270-3900 i UPi Tomeszewski, Michelle From: Janice <robjans2@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 8:57 AM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Rentals •Please make rental minimum seven days not fourteen. Thank you. Janice Sweet Sent from my iPhone 1 Vt§i Tornaszewski, Michelle , _ From: Peter Aronson <paronson@peteraronsonlaw.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 9:38 AM To: Russell,Scott Subject: rental"changes Dear Mr. Russell: I love it in Southhold and look forward to summering in your town for many years to come. However,I have tieatd"that recently Southhold is considering changing the rental rules,requiring a Minimum of a two-week rental:I think this'would hurt the town and force many vacationers to look elsewhere for their summer fun. Unfortunately,-not every family can afford to get away from-work for more than a week at a tinie. I.hope Southhold does not go forward with this change. It could hurt the economy of Southhold,because I imagine fewer people would-choose to stay there. I believe it also would hurt the property owners,who would lose business with fewer renters. I hope this change does not come about.Thanks for considering my opinion. Yours truly,Peter Aronson - LAW OFFICE OF PETER ARONSON,LLC 11 Broadway(Suite 61S) New York,NY 1Q004 Tel:21Z-600-9531 ,Fax:646-536-$743 • E-maikpar:onscinOpeter 'onsontaw,com Web"bite::www".peteraronsonlaw.com Focusing-on Elder Law,including-Medicaid planning, Wills,Trusts;Ptbate.and Guardianships. This e-mail was sent by the Law Office of Peter Aronson,PLLC. This e-mail and attachments,if there are any,may include confidential and privileged information.Its contents are intended solely for the e-mail recipients If you are not the e-mail recipient and you received this a-mail,please delete the e-mail from your computer and please immediately contact the Law Office of Peter Aronson at 212-600-9531. Thank you. 1 Tomaszewski, Michelle _ _ _ From: Kathryn Manfredonia <elgwc1000630305@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26,2015 10:47 AM To: Tomaszewski, Michelle;Standish, Lauren; Russell,Scott;William Ruland; Doherty,Jill; Jim Dinizio;Ghosio, Bob; 1pevans@fishersisland.net Subject: Must Stay 14 Proposal For Greenport Rentals I am writing to express my dismay at that the Town Board is contemplating a two week minimum on rentals. I am not sure what the motive for this'would be,but let me,tell you why I believe this is an awful idea-not only for the small businesses that anchor your community,but for the overall health of your local economy. I am a resident of Manhattan and my family has been renting a home at Water Island,,Fire Island, every year for the past 20+years. About-6-7 years ago,we decided to mix it up a bit and started renting a home in Greenport for one week in June and we comeback around'the Maritime Festival. These family vacations are a highly anticipated way for our us to-reconnect and spend time together. I will tell you, that between our June and September trips, I complete 75%of my Christmas shopping in-Greenport, and buy all of my hostess gifts for the year. I've spent a fortune with White Weathered Barn,'Calypso and some of the other small businesses. I regret to tell you that my family will not be returning to Greenport if the two-week mandate comes to fruition. I am not sure if you are looking to attract'higher income tenants or trying to avoid groups of kids,but I will tell you what I believe will happen should you vote,in this regulation:Non-retired, upper middle income,professional people, are not taking two weeks in Greenport. Never Mind the financial ramifications Of a two week minimum, but who in the heck has the time?It is lice putting together a jigsaw puzzle to simply find one week where my sister,parents, and my professional and personal schedules mesh. We also will not forego our Water island vacation time and alternately allocate that extra time to Greenport. Secondly,I think you-will find that many people who.sign up for the must stay two weeks will offset the costs by splitting up the time and/or cost amongst larger groups of people—exactly what you likely do NOT want. Our family spends a lot of money in Greenport. I would very much hate to see the economy of that adorable community, and her very talented residents; suffer from a terrible decision like mandating a must stay 14 day rule. Kathryn Manfredonia Corgan 88 Greenwich Street, 1303 New York,NY 10006 Kathryn Manfredonia Corgan 3325 Piedmont Road,NE, 1501 Atlanta, GA 30305 i Tomaszewski Michelle (00is-j From: Mark Hunt<markhunt30@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26,2015 2:25 PM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Short term rental code Dear Scott,. I am writing you today to ask if you would consider keeping the one week minimum for summer rental. I love the North Fork and have been spending a week'duringthe summer with my family in the area for several years..lf the seasonal rental requirement were to change to 14 days,we could no longer afford to stay in your beautiful area. Thank you. Sincerely, Mark Hunt Sent from my iPhone 1 Tomaszewski, Michelle (OVA From: Mark Hunt <markhunt30@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26,2015 2:25 PM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Short term rental code Dear Scott, - I am writing you today to ask if you would consider keeping the one week minimum for summer rental. I love the North Fork and have been spending a week during the summer with my family in the area for several years. if the seasonal rental requirement were to change to 14 days,we could no longer afford to stay in your beautiful area. Thank you. Sincerely, Mark Hunt Sent from my iPhone 1 Standish, Lauren From: Gregory DePetris(Personal) <gregory.depetris@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday,March 26,2015 10:52 AM To: Russell,Scott Cc: William Ruland;Standish, Lauren Subject: Rental Code-DePetris/Albertson Family Comment Supervisor Russell and Deputy Supervisor Ruland, Thank you for taking a moment to acknowledge our comment on the Town's current discussion of shortteerm rental rules. Our story may not be unique,but we think it is important.and would be extremely disappointed to find out one day that having not shared our perspective,an important part of our lives and connection to our hometown could be changed for the worse. Our family has been in Southold-nearly for as long as it has been a town. Our parents,aunts,uncles and cousins are are business owners,school teachers and retirees,and all of Us identify ourselves with Southold as our familial center. - A few years ago, due to the rising cost of living,our mother was one of the first in the extended family to relocate to North Carolina,leaving our now,quite large immediate`family of thirteen without a central residence in Southold. As a result of a cousin's local wedding ceremony,we were strangely forced for the first time to find a place that could accommodate us in our hometown. Through our local netWork,we found out that a mutual friend in Greenport had'the capacity and the ability to house us. That summer began a weekly tradition that is now in its fifth year,a few byproducts of which include: -a new generation of young children who proudly wear their Southold High School sweatshirts around the halls of Connecticut elementary schools,telling stories of the•small town Where their parents grew up and from where they•riow identify themselves as descendants,and who begin counting the days until their return on the very day they leave -an dngoing opportunity for all of us to return'home'and reconnect with the values and physical touchpoints that have come to define Us es adults, in addition to the people who are now able to reunite each summer on the property we're able to rent -a chance to realize,coincidentally,that our grandfather(who held your office for many years)had taken action as supervisor generations ago that affected the family we.now rent from,and to;explore that history together as people who can appreciate the interconnectedness of the community and continue as friends -a new series of relationships that not only connect us back to the community,but which have also tethered our children to the people and places in such a way that they are likely-to also return for decades to come We can go on, but suspect you understand our point. None-of us are familiar with the distinction between 14 days and 7 days of rental requirements,we just know that the proposed ordinance would'eliminate the opportunity for us to do the things we can do today. We can't afford two-weeks of rent,butwe also can't afford not to return home to the things that matter to us all. Hopefully you will find a way to ensure that these good'and enduring aspects of local life can continue,despite the impact of whatever current and no doubt transitory issues are forcing you to consider alternatives. With sincerest regards and thanks for your public service, 1 L1S1.4 The Farrah/ofWayne and Kathleen DePetris(via the'l amily Of Lester and Hope Albertson) 2 I _ I (06151/41 Tomaszewski,,Michelle From: Milt Leppert <leppert@krausonline.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 3:54 PM To: - Russell,Scott Subject: Minimum Rental Terms Mr. Scott Russell, Please consider this a request to retain the present 7-day minimum rental period. By,way of introduction, I am Deacon Milt Leppert of Manhattan, Illinois. I am a Military Chaplain at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery in Elwood, IL and my church is St, Patrick's in Wilton Center, IL My wife, Juliet'andI have rented homes in,the Greenport area previously. Due to the demands and time constraints of ministry,increasing,the minimum rental to a period of 14 days would prevent us from vacationing on the North Fork in.the future. Please consider this request,and enable us to continue to enjoy Greenport and the-surrounding area in the months and years to come. +God's richest blessings always, Deacon-Milton and Juliet Leppert Home: (815)478-7146 1 10Cf 5.°41 Tomasaewski, Michelle From: Sarah Poole <poolesm@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 8:30 PM To: Russell,Scott Subject: regarding summer rentals in Southold Dear Mr. Russell, I understand that there is an ongoing discussion in Southold_town regarding the length of summer rentals,and that one of the options on the table would be a 14 day minimum for summer rentals. I am writing to share my concern with such an option and the impact that it would have on families that regularly vacation in Southold. My family has been coming to stay in Southold for the past 6 years,since my daughters were ages 1 and 2. Our weeks of summer relaxation and sun in Southold have become a regular feature of our summer plans, and something that we,look forward to every year, My husband and I both work full time and do not have significant amounts of vacation days;however,that has never stopped us from spending a week or even long weekends with family and friends enjoying Southold during the summer. The flexibility that we have had to come for a few days or several has meant that a summer vacation in Southold was always a wonderful,fun, relaxing and affordable option. During our visits we also regularly shop at the local stores and markets, frequent the restaurants and cafes,and generally enjoy the town and the many wonderful activities and services it offers. I am afraid that our vacations in Southold would no longer be possible if there is a requirement of two weeks. I know this concern is shared by the other families and friends that have traveled to Southold with us to share a house,or that we have met overthe course of the.summers. Realistically, my husband and I can not both take two consecutive weeks off from work. A minimum of a 14 day stay would also make the vacation significantly more costly,to the extent it would be prohibitive. In simple terms,a two week minimum would mean that we,and many others,would no longer be able to come to Southold for our vacations. I hope that these realities can be taken into account,and that a minimum (and certainly not a 14 day minimum) is not imposed. We are hoping that we Will be able to keep Southold as an important part of our summertimes this year,and years to come. All the best Sarah 1 (9151 Tomaszewski, Michelle From: Kate Grimes <mcmahonnyc@mac.com> Sent: Thursday, March 26,2015 9:45 PM To: Russell,Scott Subject: minimum seasonal rental term Supervisor Russell, For 10 years I have been coming to Greenport for our family holidays. I now have.2 children and we enjoy everything from the carousel,to Aldo's,the vineyards,ALL the produce stands in-the area,ClauIios,the Sandppiper,Southold Fish,the Coronet (still sad about losing the Arcade...).We all adore Greenport,and it has become a big part of our lives.This is where our family memories'are made. We have -what we consider-the luxury of staying for a full week in Greenport. if you made the minimum seasonal rental term 14 days,we would not be able to take our trip to Greenport anymore. Please,for families like myself that come and delight in Greenport in a most respectful way,please make the minimum stay 7 days. Thank you kindly for your consideration,Katherine Mcmahon 220.Mad ison.Ave.,2Q New York, NY 10016 (917) 496-0683 • i 1 (a Tomaszewskci, Michelle , From: Becki Wright <beckiwl@comcast.net> Sent Sunday, March 29,2015 11.35 AM To: Russell,Scott Subject Proposed short-term rental regulations Dear Mr.Russell, I'm writing to you from New Hampshire as I've recently heard of your plans to mandate a 14-day minimum rental code and I'm very.concerned.My husband"and I have family in the Southold area and have rented property for week long vacations or long weekends for many years now.Our family doesn't have room for us and our dogs and we've found a wonderful place we've been.renting for several years now.In fact,'we have already rented this place for the last week in July 2015.We absolutely love the area!We love the farm stands,the wineries,the restaurants,the people and thebeautiful scenery, { Increasing the minimum rental to 14 days would mean we would no longer be able to visit the area,ever.Most people!know, including ourselves,can't take 2 weeks at a time off froth Work.Evenif we could,we would never spend all of ourvacation time In one place'or in one chunk: I understand the concerns of the residents.However,in the many year's we've beenvisiting,We've-haven't seen or heard evidence from our family of these'party homes'.I'm not suggesting they don't exist,but I think you'd be hurting far more people than you'll be helping with a 14-day minimum rental.Not only will you be hurting local businesses who benefit from vacationers like ourselves,but you'll also be hurting many homeowners who rely on the rental income to pay,their property taxes:it's much more difficult for homeowners"to rent in 2-week increments.As I mentioned,most folks vacation for one week at a time.Increasing to 14-day rentals limits access to the area to a much smaller,elite group of folks,It will be more like the Hamptons.One of the reasons we love the North Fork so much is because It is NOT the Hamptons. I'm urging you to please.make the minimum rental requirement 7 days so we can continue to visit you're lovely area, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Becks Wright 1 1.9(15kii Tornaszewski,,Michelle From: Lesser, Michael <Michael.lesser@unh.edu> Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 8:03 AM To: Russell, Scott Subject: new short-term rental regulations Dear Mr Russell,I am writing because thy wife and I have been watching from afar about the controversy in Southhold and othertowns on the North Fork regarding short-term rental regulations. For well over twenty years my family has lived on the North Fbrk. My sister is a local school teacher and my,Mout and Dad are retired there. My wife and I regularly visit my family in the,summer and we use short-term rentals of 1-2 weeks which fits our time availability with our work schedules and our budget constraints.We love visiting the area to see our family and we always have a great time there! While I'understand the concerns of year round residents,and in no Way do.i want come off as someone"from away"telling residents what they should do I would encourage the various representatives to move carefully for the mutual benefit of all. For us,a mandatory 2 week minimum,or longer,would definitely limit our visits there because We are able to rent the same place that allows pets to come at a reasonable price. Our dogs are our children and we don't leave them with anyone.Adopting rules as are in place in the Hampton's suggests to me that that is what you will get;the Hampton's. An elite,high-end,rental area where only a limited number of people will have access. On the economic end we spend a lot of money locally as well as the rental'costs so the cumulative contributions to the local economy by renters should be considerable. Again,I understand that the residents have concerns but I thought it might be useful to hear from someone who loves the community and the ability to visit our family and how it might affect us as well. Thank you.for your time. Regards,Michael Lesser Michael P.Lesser,Ph.I), Research,Professor of Marine Science School of Marine Science and Ocean Engineering University of New Hampshire Durham,NH 03824 xnpl(tiith.edu. 603-862-3442 Office 603-862-1215 Lab 603-862-2621 Fax ItttptThitebsainh.ed'et/facultif esscr 1181) University of New-Hampshire I - 1 Standish, Lauren From: Lesser, Michael <Michael.Lesser@unh.edu> Sent: _ Thursday, March 26,2015 8:03 AM To: Russell,Scott Subject: new short-term rental regulations Dear Mr Russell,I am writing because my wife and l have been watching from afar about the controversy in Southhold and other towns on the North Fork regarding short-term rental regulations. For well over twenty years my family has lived on the North Fork. My sister is a local school teacher and my Mom and Dad are retired there. My wife and I regularly visit my family in the summer arid we use short-term rentals of 1-2 weeks which'fits our time availability with our work schedules and our budget constraints. We love visiting the area to see our family and we always have a great time there! While I understand the concerns of year round residents,and in no way do I want come off as someone"from away"telling residents what they should do I would encodrage the various representatives to move carefully for the mutual benefit of all. For us,a mandatory"2 week • minimum,or longer,would definitely limit our visits there because we are able to rent the same place,that allows pets to come at a reasonable price; Our dogs are our children and we.d'on't leave,them with anyone..Adoptiitg•rules as are in place in the Hampton's suggests to me that.that is What you will get;the Hampton's. An elite,high-end,rental area where only a limited number of people will have access. On the economic end we spend a lot of money locally as well as the rental costs so the cunutlative contributions to the local economy by renters should be considerable. Again,1,understand that the residents have concerns but I thought it might be useful to hearfrom someone who loves the community and the ability to visit our family and how it might affect us as well. Thank you for your time, Regards,Michael Lesser Michael P.Lesser,Ph.D: Research Professor of Marine Science School of Marine Science and Ocean Engineering University of New Hampshire Durham,NH 03824 mpl@unh.edu 603-862-3442 Office 603-862-1215 Lab 603-862-2621 Fax t Jlrntlbs,titttreduffacultyllesser giUniversity of New Hampshire 1 (01‘SN Tomaszewski, Michelle From: Paula Wright<thewrightthings@verizon.net> Sent: Friday, March 27,2015 3:58 PM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Short term rentals My family and I are some of the folks who avail ourselves of the opportunity to rent a property in your town each summer,for a- week. During that timewe often eat out at your restaurants,purchase foodat the farmers markets,and shop in your;lovely stores. If the code is changed to require a two week rental,we will no longer be able both afford the time and the cost to continue this practice. This would be very unfortunate. As a matter of fact,we have already reserved-and paid our rental for this coming July. If the rule is changed and properties'are not grandfathered in,what will.become of our-scheduled vacation??? I hope that more sane heads will prevail in this matter. Paula Wright thewri ghttt iings©verizon.net t • LiCLI Tomaszewski, Michelle prom: Karen Rivara <keeno59@optonfine.net> Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 9:31 AM To: Jim Dinizio;Doherty,Jill;Ipevans@fishersisland.net;Ghosio, Bob;William Ruland; Russell,Scott Subject: Short term rental Dear Supervisor Russell and Town Board Members, l am writing to support a 7 day minimum short term rental for Southold Town properties.A 14 day minimum would discourage many tourists and leave them with less choice for accommodations in our town.These short term rentals fill the need for accommodations in our town,and alleviates the need to build larger hotels.Tourism is an important economic engine in our town. Many tourists come to enjoy.the scenic beauty,farms and wineries, Agriculture and fishing support tourism , and tourism supports agriculture and fishing.This positive feedback loop is an important economic engine for the town. Thank you, Karen Rivara • - i i 1 Tomaszewski, Michelle From: Clyde Sanadi <clyde@sanadi.com> Seat: Sunday, March 29, 2015 10:28 AM To: Russell,Scott Subject Seasonal rental Code Attachments: Scott Russell.pdf To. Mr:Scott Russell. Supervisor,Town of Southold From:: Clyde Sanadi Date: March 29,2015. Re: Seasonal Rental Code Dear Mr. Russell, It has come to my attention-that the Town of Southold is discussing the merits of a 7 day seasonal rental term, versus a seasonal rental term of 14 days. As a.rnember of Tall Ships America, it is my plan to visit Greenport in July,when the fleet comes to.Greenport, as t did the lett time the tall ships came to Greenport.With such a rich maritime history, it is nice to see a fishing village as a port of call, rather than always a big,city. Many of us who support sail-training are planning tocome to Greenport for the Tall Ship week again this year. h#tp://W v:salitrairiino.orgltallshies12015atlaritiC/TSC2Q45thdek.ohp Every year, it seems many of us in America get busier and busier. It is hard enough for many•people to carve a week out of their lives, let alone 2 weeks. Most anyone would consider a few days to be transitory, but if a family or a group wants to visit Greenport for a full week, I think that is not transitory. I urge you and the board to use 7 days as the term for seasonal rental. Sincerely, 4 ,L; E- Y�`T" ,� �a Htr -rricyt� V�oycrq� , 110 yi x s, r rm p " �(,1 Sh,r,vFtri "`,P,,,, 'ilk ' ' j TA ( f1PS. c�'�;€�tkfL ,'At ion ttc1Cocast 2016 " I Clyde '' adi `.! .. . ' " , - A Irr "`',mit 6110 Rain Briar Court < ' • "" u; Temple Terrace, Florida 33617 r r `tittlri'i ,' il if::-;;-,:';*. S'...1 x 53 lr tt ti . ♦."SkI r. )2"`"••••.:7 ,F�z, s`•s. ',...A, — *ts hr�.tsi-� taw 75.2e �'r tt iVt" :4ptl.m4yVA `'t`rte ; .i rzx�t Z Juno 17.14 , :t k ci:r t 'w't }".�7 r">,}�; i 4 f. e W tYr vu .... � .xi:',s Er, r. I.`t•iirinfo rrt'ts gror.0 Voyage will `;; 7 .take Ow"or:toau rte Atkxtttic ,,r `. OeNQtt txtr gry to lire•free jcatrrvoy �"'tf^yis Tack?by LaiFoyatta ht 1700¢rtr! L."-i S cgttibr.rtg lho that.rtc r"rilotrartublp . .. Tomaszewski, Michelle From: Patty Weisenfeld <patty.weisenfeld@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29,2015 7:15 PM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Please make seasonal rental minimum 7 days Dear Mr Russell I am writing as afrequent vacationer on the North Fork in Southold Town. Our family routinely tenets fora 7 days period—sometimes that's all the vacation time we can get together! We'd be sad and disappointed to loose many of the wonderful stays we've had in homes with a 7 day seasonal. rental. Please make 7 days the minimum seasonal rental term why the proposed change? Sincerely; Patty Weisenfeld, 102 West 80th Street NY NY 10024 1 (09S1 Tomaszewski, Michelle From: Donelson,Sophie <sdonelson@hearst.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29,2015 6:08 PM To: Russell, Scott Subject: Minimum rental term Hi Mr. Russell, I'm writing to request that the seasonal rental term for 2015 be 7 days—we are longtime renters in Greenport and we'd like to keep it that way!We love the community and hope to continue to have this shorter-term rental option. Thanks for your time, Sophie Donelson Sophie Donelson Editor in Chief House Beautiful 300 W. 57th St., FL 27. NYC NY 10019 212-903-5224 ( sdonelsari@hearst.cbrn @housebeautiful @sophiedow 1 Let Ckj\ ./X Ralph Pugliese Jr March 28, 2015 Po Box 481 Cutehogue, NY 11935 031-431-9056 RE,© E , APR 2 2015 SUPERVISOR'S'OFFICE Dear Scott, TOWN OFSOUTHOLD I recently learned the town is looking to curb short term rentals.As I am,not a good speaker, and would have difficulty voicing my opinion'at a town board meeting, I chose to write,taking your time up which I apologize. I have a house in Cutchogue that took me many years to finish building and last summer rented it on and off. I would not be able to live here in the future if I did not rent the house. I have no pension, and my social security would not be enough to cover the taxes. I had no problems,through careful screening of inquiries on Homeaway. The shorter the term, the more People spent by going out to restaurants,wineries, and stores, Landscapers, Pool companies, and cleaning services also benefit. In my opinionthe people who rent homes are not likely to stay at a hotel or a b&b. It would be difficult fora family to rent four rooms at either a hotel or.b&ib and afford anything else.1or Christmas in the past I would rent a house in Vermont for the family for three to four nights. All great.memories of seeing my nieces and nephews learn to ski and spending time with everyone. This is what is great about short term rentals. I have never taken a.two week vacation in my' life, and I don't thinkmany,people Have, I have.a house in Westhampton that I used to rent for the Summer Season. You rent for.the Summer to the same people, which is legal in the Town of Southampton, but if you get a bad bunch, the neighbors are not happy, but it is fine in the town's eyes. I started renting short term there which is more work, and in the past four,years I had one problem, which was my fault by allowing minors to rent the house because the parents said I would not have any problems with them. I am conscious of the neighbors, and of course you don't want to upset them. If the town would make a set of codes that the renters would have to sign, it would put more responsibility on them. I feel by careful screening homeowners can rent short term to good people. I feel it would be a mistake to eliminate short tem rentals, I do not think a rental peniiit which costs 150.00 every two years in Southampton is enough. I think the town should require a yearly rental permit, charge a tax, (AS‘dti Which can be paid through a website, and have a list of codes that renters must sign and abide to. If a homeowner is careless, and problems constantly Occur, they should lose their right to rent. I do not feel the hotels or B&B's are suffering in the summer, and from what I have heard there are not enough places to stay in the Summer months. All of us starve in the winter. We are fortunate to live in a town that attracts as many people as it does, and this will keep real estate prices up and help all businesses. I feel the good outweighs the bad and by the town making smart decisions everyone can benefit. Southampton and Easthampton do not have it right and I hope Southold will be a leader. Thanks for your time Scott,happy to see you are seeking a fourth term! Ralph Tomaszewski, Michelle . From: Mads Svendsen <mads.svendsen@undp.org>. Sent: Thursday,April 02,2015 5:43 PM To: Russell, Scott Cc: greenportwaterfrontrental@gmail.com Subject: RE:Short term rental code Southold town public hearing April 7 2015 Dear Scott Russell, I am writing to you to make a plea for Southold town to go for a one-week minimum (and NOT a two-week minimum), My family and I (we have two children the age of 5 and 7 years old) have been renting from Pat Nelson for many years now for a week at the time. Over the years we have come'to truly appreciate Greenport(and Southold), its nature and peoples Importantly I believe we have helped the local economy significantly during our visits from our local provisioning, restaurant visits and trips to wine yards,local farmers, etc. Had a two-week minimum been in place we would have not been able to visit as often, given school holidays as well as cost, and it would, I believe— on balance— have been an inferior outcome for all parties. I knowmany families are in the same position and that a change in this regulation would have a wide,impact. As such I repeat our strong support for a one-week minimum in line with the NY state minimum. Many thanks in advance for-your consideration. Best regards, on behalf of the whole family Mads Svendsen 1' ' - . - Mads Svemdsen � - ' ._ ' Coo�ina�rof�eMamogumedConou�ngTeam (oci sY: ` ^ Bureau of Management : ' UnRedNo0onoOew�opmentP�gnumme ,ke ,A,., 4., ...), ' � - = SkypeID:mkevondnnn , . � m ^ r.,.i- ..r���� :����° / � '�` �.rm � - `, .^- .. . � `.,, ... . , ' . . , . 2-: . ' -------`-`-----`-`---------- ----` ---- -- ------ ----------- ---' ----`------------- --- Standish, Lauren From: Yehudit Moch <yehuditmoch@yahoo.com> Sent- Friday,April 10, 2015 4:02 PM To: scoff.russet@town.southold.ny.us; Louisa.evans@town.southold.ny.us jill.doherty@townsouthold.ny.us robert.ghosio@town.southold.ny.us james.dinizio@town.southold.ny us;william.ruland@town.southold.ny.us; michelle.tomaszenski@town.southold.ny.us;Standish, Lauren;Kiely,Stephen Cc: Judith Utiman;Abigail Field Subject: Please Approve Short-Term Rentals Dear Southold Town Board Members, We are writing to you as second home owners of a cabin in Southold, on Great Pond.We rent it out part of the time, use it ourselves when we can, and love it all the time.We are growing roots out on the North Fork. We hope to retire there sometime in this decade. Responsibly renting it out sometimes is the Only way we can afford it now. We and our renters appreciate the nature of the North Fork and add to the local economy -exploring it's wonders. Reasonable rules can be workedout to the benefit of the community. The realtor we bought through told about the ease of renting the cabin,short-term.This was an essential part of our financial calculation of our purchase.We maintain a one week minimum in the season off-season weekend rentals are the norm. Hardly anyone rents for more than a week.A two week minimum would force us out. Southold second homes would become the playground of the rich. Weekend visits can serve as an introductory gateway to the North Fork.We first came for a weekend bike ride which transformed our lives.We came out a few Other weekends and had not been out for more than three days at a time when wedecided to explore buying.We went around Southold with local realtors and fell in love with a property on Great Pond We rented the cabin for a few weekends before we bought it.Off-season most of the people whb rent from us come for only a Weekend. Most couldn't stay longer then. If you Were to restrict these rentals our cabin would mostly be empty,which brings the risk of vandalism.Southold businesses benefit from off—season weekend customers,at a time when business is generally slow.We understand that there is concern about constant turn over If you let there be one rental in a seven day period that issue would be resolved. When we bought our cabin, it had been left unoccupied most of the time for decades.The longtime owner was in their nineties and living far away,Their family annually came forless than a month.They had not made any investments in the property. it was neither heated,.nor insulated, nor up to code in many'ways. We spent around $100,000 upgrading the space. We Used a local architect, contractor and suppliers. Excellent help by local people cleaning the cabin and keeping up the grounds enables us to maintain it. We appreciate the protection by Southold of environmentally sensitive areas by the water. Over half,of our property is wetlands, and we see ourselves as guardians of nature there. It is an amazing peaceful place.We have watched baby red-winged,blackbirds,frogs and fish flourish there. We have a small beachfront area and go boating and swimming.This year and last we enjoyed watching people ice sailing and ice fishing on Great Pond. 1 (06151 We have been putting deep roots in Southold.We've cheered at holiday parades,teared up at the dedication of the Southold Volunteer Fire Fighters Memorial, eaten at fund- raising events.We got involved with the Greenport synagogue even before we bought our cabin and are active members.We got married there and welcomed the general community to attend through our wedding announcement which we proudly ran in The Suffolk Times rather than in The New York Times. We got our fifteen minutes of local fame when they sent a reporter to cover our wedding and put photo of it accompanying an article. Friends and family visit. Part of why we bought on the Fork is that our family lives"Up island`in Suffolk. Pumpkin picking is part of our annual ritual with our nephew. Our favorite spot anywhere is lying in our hammock looking out on Great Pond. People who seek to rent our property through online sites have seen our photos and read descriptions of it. The people who want to come and stay at our simple two bedroom cabin are looking for a peaceful retreat near the water. Renters have included individuals,couples, a few friends and multi-generational families. We always interact with the people who rent from us in advance to screen them. Only once were we approached by someone clearly wanted to have a noisy party and we turned them down. We get along well with our neighbors and have given them our phone number incase an issue comes up with our guests. Nothing has ever come up:We check with our neighbors about that regularly. We provide articles about local history and sites,tourist magazines and brochures from the Southold Tourist office. We send our guests tips about some of our favorite local places.Our guests explore the area.They spread a lot of money through the Southold economy:They eat at restaurants a lot and explore the wineries and shop,go to shows,golf or go fishing. Some of our guests have returned and brought other family and friends with them,who in turn have rented as well. One couple is now trying to buy a home of their own in Southold. Many Of our guests bring dogs with them. Frequently,they tell us that they would not come on vacation at all if they could not have their dogs with them.We send them a copy ofthe Southold Town dog regulations and a list of the public places they can walk dogs. During the summer season,we maintain a one week minimum.If you make the rule for two weeks,it would make a vacation in Southold prohibitive,both in terms of price.and time commitment, Most Americans do not even,get two`weeks'vacation. We understand that as a Board,your overarching concern with rentals is the quality of life in Southold. We respect and appreciate your efforts. We are also concerned about what our community will be like in the future. if you restrict short term rentals,the nature of the community will suffer as will local businesses. We are older middle aged, working, saving money and looking forward to retiring at our cabin within a decade. Please allow us and our guests to continue to be•able to enjoy all the wonders of Southold. Sincerely, Yehudit Moch and Judith Ullman Yehudit 2 May 22,2015 - . ,. MAY 2 2 2015 Scott Russell,Town Supervisor Southold Town Board SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE OF SO (0°1 TOWNTOSOUTH= 53095 Main Road,PO,Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Russell: I support short term rentals in our town because,I firmly believe that it's good for our local economy and benefits local business. I am a Greenport homeowner of nearly 10 years and last year I listed my property online at VRBO(Vacation Rental by-Owner)•for the first tirpe: i plan to retire to my home,staying close to;my husband's family who have been residents on the North Fork for generations,and whom have"beeri:local business owners'in Southold for more than 50'years. As you determine the right course of action in passing new rules governing short term rentals, please bear in-mind that most of us are responsible owners and gat out of our inrayto be sensitive to the concerns of-the community: I, like the vast majority of others take.proactive measures to ensure.that guests are responsible,respectful and'as minimally disruptive to neighbors as possible. For example; • I have requirements for my guests that are tougher than what the law or community requires for residents. I carefully screen each of my prospective guests. I require a copy of their driver's license.I limit overnight guests to two per bedroom and require the names of every overnight guest, I also require a signed,contract signifying adherence to strict rules governing usage and conduct I even limit the number of cars at my home to only those that can fit in my driveway and on the street immediately in front of my home,strictly prohibiting any parking in front of neighboring homes. • My guests are mature adults who are genuinely interested In enjoying all of the wonderful things our community offers. i have a minimum rental age of 30. I receive thank you notes detailing,their activities in town.during their stay. Nearly half of my renters plan to come back based-on their positive experience. • I tornmunicate with my rentersthroughout their visit and I am also local during their,stay. My husband and I stay..aboa'rd our boat in Greenport or at my family's,home, ' I am fastidious about upkeep on the interior and exterior of my home.1 have weekly visits from my local landscaper and local housekeeper. I pay extra for back-yard trash pickup from North Fork Sanitation so as to maintain the beauty of the home's curb appeal. to 15.1 • I have invested tens of thousands of dollars and countless sweat equity hours in upgrading the property value of my home,employing a wide range of local contractors, plumbers, electricians,etc., as well as endless personal hours in tending to its improvement. It is illogical to think any homeowner would diminish the value of their property, and by association that of their neighbors, by renting irresponsibly! • I am in close contact with my neighbors and speak often with them to ensure they aren't inconvenienced. 1 encourage them to contact me if they ever have any problems so that I can remedy them immediately. I have only ever had complaints from one neighbor: a husband/wife next door that are two of the most vocal advocates against short term rentals in our community. In fact,their complaints started before my first guest ever arrived! At one of your meetings,this pair cited my home as an example to support their negative opinions. I was flabbergasted! In light of what I have shared with you about my home and my shortterm rental practices in this letter, I hope you can appreciate how important'it is to seek balanced and fact-based opinions on this issue. I also wanted to speak up and urge you to pass a 3 day minimum stay because short term rentals are primarily driven by group activities done over a weekend. My guests come out to Apple/Pumpkin pick,visit vineyards and attend local weddings. They cannot,and do not, make these activities into week-long events.And given the economics of a group, often with children and pets in tow, B&Bs and hotels aren't ari option. In fact, 9 months a year all-of my guests are weekend stays. Only 1/200 requests were for a two week or longer stay. In summary, I respectfully ask that you: 1. Do not let hysterics and a few bad apples distort your view of the short term rental opportunity. The overwhelming majority of owners go above and beyond to act responsibly and support smart regulation.Those that offend should be identified and stopped. But characterizing.the entire practice or all owners as irresponsible is a, mistake. Short term guests spend money during their stays:eating out,visiting farm stands/buying local goods. Lees not turn that economic win into a loss! 2. Do not send a message to short term renters that they are unwelcome in our community. They are a critical part of keeping our community growing.What better way to support and encourage families and businesses to be a part of Greenport for future generations? 3. Consider 3 clay minimum rentals. This reflects how our guests want to visit our lovely town and anything greater will discourage them from staying. Recall that the survey presented by Abigail Field noted that nearly two-thirds of the 400 short term renters in Greenport fast year won't come back if short term rentals are no longer available. Thank ou for t conside.ra'`'.n. sa'Cradi LCIS1 Standish, Lauren From: Debra Barford <dsbarford@yahoo.com> Sent:, Monday,June 01,2015 5:44 PM To: William Ruland; Russell,Scott;ipevans@fishersisland.net; Doherty,Jill;Jim Dinizio; Ghosio, Bob; Standish, Lauren Subject: Re Proposed rental limits in Southould We have heard through the owners of Cabin on the Pond cottage in Southold that the council is proposing to impose various limits on individual residence rentals. My husband and I, as well as my daughter and her husband have rented at Cabin on the Pond several times, and have really enjoyed our time there, We don't tend to be the typical tourists who see all the sights, but love to stay close the to cabin, spending time on the pond or reading in the hammock. We tend to patronize the restaurants and coffeeshops in Southold, and pick up.our groceries in the local supermarket. We enjoy being able to rent for a long weekend, rather than being forced to rent for a whole week or even 'two weeks. Especially in late fall and winter, itis a beautiful place to kick back and enjoy a slower pacer We love the fact that Southold is not a usual 'tourist' destination, and that the pace is slower on the North Fork, with more rural areas, and we definitely would like to see the ability to rent for shorter times continue in this area. Judith and Jehudit are gracious hosts, and very hands on in the way they run their rentals, We feel very comfortable renting from them, and hope to visit again. Respectfu I ly, Debra Barford Chicago, IL 1 (10 Standish, Lauren From: Serena Liu csmsliiu1@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday,June 01, 2015 3:25 PM To: Russell, Scott,William Roland;1pevans@fishersisland net;Doherty,Jill;Jim Dinizio; Ghosio, Bob;Ghosio, Bob, Standish, Lauren Subject: proposed rental limits in Southold To Whom It May Concern, I am writing to express my dismay at hearing the news that Southold Town is planning to limit short-term rentals of residentalproperty.I have been a repeated guest atthe,"Cabin on the Pond"on Soundview Ave,owned by Judith Ullman and Yehudit Moch.I live and work in New York City,but the North Fork is one of my favorite places to spend weekends,mostly in the off-season(I like to.come in the autumn and winter,but have also come at other times,most recently this past March).In previous years,l would typically stay in.a hotel in Riverhead,but found that a rental house offered me more space,privacy,and room for my dog to stretch his legs,as well as more proximity to the areas.1 like most:on the North Fork,I have Come.to fall in love with Southold in'paiticular,for its peace,beautiful landscape,and the friendliness of its residents.My last visit,I was joined by my brother and sister-in-law,both of whom also fell in love with th'e area(really,who wouldn't?,).,In•truth, I have entertained ideas of eventuallybuying niy own home in the region! While I am at the Cabin on the Pond,I am meticulous about caring for the property, and ensuring that I,my dog,and any guests do not cause a minute's worth of inconvenience to the neighbors,or any other townspeople.Any,responsible renter would do•the same,and any responsible landlord can and should take the proper precautions tp limit the number of guests,screen potential applicants vigilantly, penalize guests Who cause problems as a means to'deterring them from future visits,etc. As a frequent visitor,I have contributed not insignificantly to the local economy.I have eaten countless meals at Erik's(my absolute favorite),the Rotisserie,La Cascada,'the North Fork Table and Grill,bought wine at the shop next to La Cascada,breakfast pastries at the blue Ducjc,goat cheese from Catapanb Farm,,;I think I even had my car serviced once at Southold Auto!This is not to-mention the money I've spent in adjoining towns,at Briermere Farms,Salamander's in Greenport,the Village Cheese Shop in Mattitciok,various farm stands...and the list goes_on. Should this plan to limit short-term rentals come to fruition,I have serious doubts as to whether I would continue to visit the North Fork on a regular basis,which breaks my heart.When there are so many other home rental options in the Hudson RiVer Valley,Berkshires, Bucks County PA,etc.,the idea of returning to stays at hotels next to the Tanger Outlet Mall in Riverhead is less than .appealing,Arid, simply cannot afford to take a week's vacation,let alone 2 weeks or more,as the new plan proposes.I am saddened that this plan is penalizing responsible long-term renters such as myself,who have come to appreciate all that makes Southold special. Sincerely, Serena Liu,VMD,MS,DACVP 1 Standish, Lauren From: Tricia Baldes <tricia.baldes@creativevisions.org> Sent:' Monday;June 01,2015 10:10 PM To: Russell,Scott;William Ruland; Ippevans@fishersisland.net; Doherty,Jill;Jim Dinizio; Ghosio, Bob;Standish, Lauren Subject Southold Town proposed rental law Dear Town Board Members, it has some to my attention that you are considering a rental minimum for Southold. I truly hope that you reconsider this-especially during the off-season. I have been vacationing in Southold for twenty years. I was introduced to the beauty of the town by my stepmother, who owned a second house in what she calls"God's Country". In more recent years,my family and I have made a tradition of renting a house_in Southold for two weeks in July/ August. As a teacher,married to a man who is self-employed, I'have the freedom to take an extended vacation each year. We look forward to our time in Southold,when we can spend long days at the beach wondering what will be on the board at the Southold Fish Market. My husband,a fishing hobbyist,makes daily trips to Wego to findout what is running and to purchase fresh bait. We love the friendly-atmosphere Of happy hour at Founder's Tavern and the wonderful food at the North Fork Food Truck. We look forward to following up a sunset at Kenny's beach with a lovely meal at Elbow's"East. We have developed too much of a fondness for the goodies at the Confectionary toner- especially the dark chocolate covered pretzels! This year,my husband's family is visiting usfrom Ireland in September. We were delighted to plan a long weekend over the Jewish Holiday of Rosh Hashanah to bring them to enjoy the beauty Of Southold for a few nights. A restriction like the one proposed would make such trip impossible, I hope you see that Southold benefits from having ah influx of visitors--especially during the off-season,even if only for few,nights at a time, Warm regards, Tricia Baldes 1 109 5.14 Standish, Lauren From: Tom Strekas <tstrekasagmail.com> Sent:. Monday,June 01, 2015 7:14 PM To: Russell,Scott;William Ruland;1pevansca fishersisland,net; Doherty,Jill;Jim Dinizio; Ghosio, Bob; Standish, Lauren Cc: Judith Ullman Subject: Proposed limits on rentals in Southold My wife and I are residents of Baldwin in Nassau County. Over the past 5 years or so we have visited the North Fork at least a dozen or more times during which we stayed over at least one night, in addition to at least as many day trips. We have stayed at vineyard B&B's (Shinn and Sannino Bella Vita), at rental properties situated on Great Pond and at hotels, including the Greenporter. All have their benefits for various types of visits, and we have enjoyed them all. We have introduced a number of our friends and family to the restaurants,wineries and many other venues in the towns of Southold,Mattituck, Orient,Last Marion,Cutchoque arid Riverhead during these visits. [Noah's,The Frisky Oyster,a Mano,The Iron Skillet,The Candy'Man,Blue Duck Bakery,Brierrhere's etc,to name only a few] We have heard that the Town Board is considering plaeing•miriiinum times on rentals and even eliminating weekend rentals altogether. I urge you not to support.this. One major reason for my family is that we could not easily afford a rental of.more than one week. So that would mean that we would sadly have to limit our stays and visit other locations. Also,particularly during the off- season,we cannot stay more than a weekend because vacation times are limited. So these stays would be curtailed. We could still visit hotels, but this option is limited•because pets ate not allowed and we have them. Also, when we want to bring family renting•tntiltiple hotel rooms is simply not an option and frankly not as comfortable as renting a cottage or house for the weekend. Sb that Would also limit our trips, We hope that the proposed limits are not put in place. We urge you not to support this restriction. Tom and Fara Strekas 1 51 Standish, Lauren 61 From: Sandra Mackowiak <slmack@optonline.net> Sent Tuesday,June 02,2015 8.03 AM To: scott.russell@ltdwn.southold.ny.us;William Ruland; Ipevans@fishersisland.net; Doherty, Jill;jinn@jamesdinizo,com;Ghosio, Bob Cc:, Standish, Lauren Subject: Southold Limiting Rentals To all involved, Myhusband and I travel out to Long Island several times during the year. Not only do we visit from N.J.we rent places to stay, as we can bring-our pets with us and not worry about Kennel facilities and care,yet alone extra costs added to our visit. Wecanrelax,and not rush home and our pets don't have the trauma of separation from us. We understand you are trying to put limits on rentals,SUCH AS WEEK OR 2 WEEK LIMITS,AND NO WEEKENDS RENTALSI!!I How awful of you to do this to those of us that spend money in your town!! We come mostly not only in the good weather, but even in December and January or February when tourism is at it's low.' Who wartts_a hotel,room to sit on just a bed or one chair while staying on vacation???? Yet alone hotels don't all take pets or charge ridiculous prices daily to bring one. Think about how comfortable these renters can have us really enjoy your areal A B&B is not only noisy because of other guests but not private and certainly not lots of space because you'd have to pay a,great deal for-a suite and even then most likey just a small TV or none in that suite. Of course then you have to share one with others in a common room I Why are we vacationing and spending money to stay at a B&B to spend our away time with complete strangers??? We visit all the wineries and bring home at least 2'to 3 cases of wine from our visit. This-could hurt your Wineries limiting visits from out of town folksil What a Shame to destroy that business. We've supported the local restaurants as-well such as North Fork Table and Inn,O'Malley's, Elbow East, Founder's Tavern, Erik's Breakfast and Lunch,and Soundvlew Restaurant as well. That's only.a few to mention. I ask you to,consider not going,through with this action and save Southold to have return visitors with certain rental privileges!!Thank you and please refrain from implementing such changes. Sincerely, Len and Sandra Mackowiak 1 (0C101 d i Standish, Lauren From: The Winemaker Studio <winemakerstudio@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,June 02, 2015 3:21 PM To: Russell, Scott;William Ruland;1pevans@fishersisland.net;Doherty;Jill;Jim Dinizio; Ghosio, Bob; Standish, Lauren Subject Short-term rental;Southold Town Board Hearing Dear Town of Southold: The Winemaker Studio by Anthony Nappa Wines is our business. A substantial number of our customers are visitors to this area. I am very concerned that preventing weekend vacation rentals will meaningfully reduce my customer base. I believe requiring a two-week minimum stay would definitely have a negative impact for our business and for the North Fork economy. Operating a small business on the North Fork is difficult; costs of doing business are extremely high out here and we rely on tourism as a large part of our business income. Please do not pass this law that would make it even harder by restricting our customers from being able to enjoy the beauty of the North Fork. Thank you, Anthony & Sarah Nappa Thank you for supporting your local winemaker! The Winemaker Studio 2885 Peconic Lane Peconic,NY 11958 (774) 641-7483 www.wineniaker-studio.eom 1 51 Standish, Lauren From: Maureen Massa <maureenmassa@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday,June 05,2015 8:45 AM To: Russell, Scott;William Ruland;Ipevans@fishersisland.net;Doherty,Jill;Jim Dinizio; Ghosio, Bob Subject: Short term rentals To the Board: Thank you for the time and patience at the hearing this week. In looking back at the speakers and the speeches, I think - it is interesting to note that at least 5 of the speakers who spoke in favor of increasing the time period to 14 or 30 days live on the same two block road in Greenport. Clearly,there is an issue with a house on their street,and perhaps that issue should be addressed separately,rather than impact the entire community with greater restrictions. Alsowanted to note that if the restriction were changed from a 7 day,minimum to 3 days out of any week,the neighbors would have time where there was no one in occupancy,which they probably have now anyway. Just because an owner lists a place for an entire year, It does riot mean they rent it all the.time, Many owners list and theh use their homes during the times they don't rent, Reducing from 7 to 3 wouldencourage people to arrive during the off season and continue to support businesses during the tough winter months. In season,owners prefer to rent 7, 14 or 30 days. But should not be required to. Also;perhaps an exception should be made for:rentals where the'owner lives within a mile or where they hire a caretaker who lives within a mile., Would make sure guests are compliant and provide jobs for locals too! Thank you for your attention. Maureen Massa 1 g‘ji _Russell, Scott From: Alan Schweitzer <alancarl@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday,July 10, 2015 12:08 PM To: Russell, Scott;William Ruland; "Ipevans@fshersisland.net"; Doherty,Jill;Jim Dinizio; Ghosio, Bob Subject: Short-term rentals To the Board: The issue of short term rentals in Southold Town, as in other cities,.is a vexing one. I've attended two hearings already held by the Board, and 1 saw with my own eyes the seriousness with which the Board has approached the issue. But more Work lies ahead, and'I appreciate the Board taking whatever time is necessary in listening to and analyzing the various views and ideas of residents on both sides of the issue. I fully understand the Board's mandate to strike a proper balance between growth and presentation, but he proposed 14-day minimum rental law is overkill and hurts, most of all, local Southold retail business.The Board would be ill-advised to impose draconian measures merely to satisfy what appears to be a vocal minority-and.1'say "appears"since no'polls or studies have been conducted to accurately determine the attitudes of residents and the economic impact of the proposed 14-day rule. In the absence of good data-or as in this case any scientific data at all (sorry, but counting emails really doesn't cut it)- no town governing body..could accurately asses the impact such major change in the rental law would have. Moreover, once done, it would be very difficult to undo-or to undo the damage caused by its implementation: For many potential visitors to the Town,a 14-day minimum stay is a high hurdle. Many families who would like to visit Southold would find it financially impossible to do so; moreover, only a relatively few breadwinners.are lucky enough to enjoy two weeks'vacation time from their employment.And even if.renters do agree to renting for one week out of two,there will be significant economic impact to the area-especially in the off-season when tourists tend to rent for a long weekend, notfor weeks. It is my opinion that the proposed preclusion the Board seeks to impose leads to the logical conclusion that the Board believes.increased tourism is not in the best interests of Southold Town. But certainly the Board is playing with fire in every considering such an approach, and I urge caution. Many new businesses have sprouted in,Southold over the past several years as more families discovered arid chose to visit the North Fork;some or most of these businesses will be forced to shutter their doors permanently if the Board,without adequately considering this recent growth, imposes the 14-day rule.(As these business opened with the opportunity more visitors presented,fewer visitors will guarantee their demise.This is not the result the Board seeks.) 1 strongly disagree with the proposed 14-day minimum rental law and urge the Board to reconsider and to take whatever time-is necessary tis further discuss with the'community other options-including.a rental law with teeth- before imposing recessionary measures that will hurt the town by slashing growth, curtailing tourism,and making it impossible for thousands of potential visitors to enjoy ail that Southold Town has to offer. Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion. Alan Schweitzer Southold,NY 1 Totvaszewski, Michelle From: Russell,Scott Sent: Monday,June 15,2015 2:21 PM To: Tomaszewski, Michelle Subject: FW:Short-Term Rental Letter From; bj green[mailto:bjgreensf@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday,June 15, 2015 2:18 PM To: Russell, Scott Cc: Sj Green Subject: Short-Term Rental Letter • Hello Supervisor Russell, My wife and I are 2nd homeowners within Southold Town.We purchased our home a couple of'years ago and have experience renting to visitors in both summer and extended stays in the shoulder seasons: I wanted to reach out on this issue regarding our experience and also opinion on pending rental period legislation. Generally, I understand arguments/opinions on both sides of this issue. We originally began renting our home to offset significant repair and maintenance projects such as roofing, plumbing and tree trimming work.following our purdhase. I can say that 140%of our rental income has gone directly toward"home improvements which also,benefit local contractors and even our neighbors considering the previous condition of our house. I believe its important to understand the overall,eoonomic benefit that rentals generate for local contractors. In addition to local businesses such as the wineries and restaurants. I do understand that some residents may feel "unnerved"by transient traffic. However, as 2nd homeowners, we're essentially transient as well. Do residents upset by home rentals suggest Southold abolish non primary home.ownership as well? Otherwise, people coming and going is simply a product of having neighbors. I do see whyresidents do not want very short term traffic and time of turnover is a material concern. This makes sense. In our experience, we have rented a 7 night stay in the "off-season" (not summer)only once in 2 years. My point is that by extending the rental requirement to 7 nights(which we're.0K with),,Southold will effectively shut down the rental market for 9 months. Maybe once or twice per year a house will rent for an off season week. But that's really about it A 7 night minimum Still allows rental owners some Opportunity for off season income. Any longer period will result in zero rentals in.the off season. I believe this is a realistic assessment. Its important for those opposed to rentals understand that much is being achieved by eliminating weekend (3 night+) rentals. The transient presence in their neighborhoods is also being eliminated for 9 months out of-the year, There will be other effects of rental limitations such as a spike in Summer rental fees as owners try to make tip for lack Of off season incOme. I expect Surrimer weeks tbget very expensive by next Summer. The downside being that the North Fork will not be an affordable vacation option for many families. Another pragmatic.observation I'd like to share concerns hotel/B&B options for visitors. Many of the families that have rented our home would simply go elsewhere as hotels and B&B's are not practical lodging options. The cost would be exorbitant and they're specifically looking for.a home environment with access to yard space and shared common areas. (01s-tit Lastly, in Sour experience, we have had no issues with our neighbors. In fact, our immediate neighbor has introduced herself to many of our guests and even brought them fresh flowers from her garden. I will add that we are extremely selective"hosts" and have turned down so many reservation requests on Airbnb that they threatened to remove our listing. All of our guests are families or groups of older professionals with verified personal information. If done responsibly, home rentals can be a benefit overall. We'd welcome a registration/permitting process and any taxes that might entail. Most importantly, the current 7 night minimum requirement effectively restricts home rentals to the Summer season. Any contrary experience to a large degree, beyond a spot week or two, Would be due to a homeowner renting for shorter periods in violation. Thank you for your consideration and work to date on this issue. Best of luck as you continue the process! Regards, B.J. Green • 2 C1/40C)Ok Russell, Scott From: Russell,Scott Sent: Monday,July'13,2015 9:30 PM To: Russell, Scott Subject: FW:Southold needs short-term rentals and tourism! Importance: High ! ak Ne From:Laurie Bloom [rnailto:laurie.bloomQa rivkin.com] Sent: Monday,July 13, 2015 3:52 PM To:Russell;Scott 0 Subject: Southold needs short-term rentals and tourism! Importance: High Ob t July.12, 2015 RE:Public Hearing on Short-Term Rentals 11 a (..,(11:,1Dear Supervisor Russell: it has come to our"attention'that the Town Board is now planning to legislate a minimum short-term rental period of 14 days. This information is extremely disheartening considering that many of us who provide short-term rentals from our homes have presented a reasonable response to-the need for a shorter duration minimum,based on the fact that 99% of those renting houses are interested in no more than 3 to 7 days. This is primarily because a 3-day weekend or a week is what many working couples and families can afford financially and in vacation allowance from theif'workplaces. To mandate a longer stay is to effectively eliminate a visit to the North Fork as a vacation destination for a very large portion of the guests we see;guests who spend significant sums of money during these short visits. The guests our houses see do not fit.the profile of the bad actors that we keep hearing about as being the cause of the need for this legislation.Our short-term house guests are mostly families with children and often a-dog. They rent houses for the value it provides as a hotel room, if even available in Southold,would make the visit too expensive when multiple bedrooms are needed,and hotels do not allow guests to bring a pet—which is also a huge draw since boarding brings another expense and other concerns that most of our guests would prefer to avoid.it seems more reasonable to simply enact'a series of rules that should be enforced-if•the,y aren't already on the books—that shut down those who are abusive to their neighbors'.We have heard nothing but praise from our neighbors about the guests that we have hosted. We operate under a strict set of rules;maximum occupancy,rio parties,no noise,pick up after dogs,etc.,and our home is managed by a professional property manager and bed&breakfast owner.Those we host,and,we have done so for 3 years, have never bothered any of our neighbors. Please understand that our home is not a business enterprise—it is our home,and we love at.We'bought the most distressed property in our private community and made it among the best investing close to$100,000 in.repairs and renovations.We are not looking to fill it with the kinds'of people'who would damage it.We are staying in our home every weekend that it is not rented,which outside of June through August, is almost every weekend.We live full-time in Brightwaters,approximately 1 hour away,but consider ourselves residents of Southold.We have many friends here and are active in our community.We plan to retire here full-time.In the meantime,we rent our home short-term during the summer to help cover the costs of maintaining our home. 1 LOCI';#11 While we would all like to know and like our neighbors,if a fear of strangers is the impetus for the legislation discussed, it is ill-conceived, unrealistic,and probably unconstitutional. The"we don't like strangers,"approach is adverse to tourism;working against the efforts of many North Fork businesses who spend significant sums to bring visitors to the region so they can remain in business.And,those businesses employ local residents:Do we really seek to risk losing jobs and businesses?There simply are not enough day visitors to compensate for the short-stay guests you are seeking to eliminate. From a practical standpoint,you cannot choose your neighbors. Even an unpleasant guest for 3 or 7 days would be preferable to that same miserable situation for 14 or more nights–or as a permanent resident.Is the moving in and out really the issue?Are less,but longer term,guests the solution if the guest is disruptive?We take considerable care in screening the people we allow to stay in our home. it also costs quite a bit of money to seek out these quality guests. Legislating a 14-day minimum can have another unintended consequence which not only harms the Town,but also the owner. As those looking to rent learn that they cannot visit for the long weekend or single week that theydesire,they will get together with other friends and relatives to rent for 2 weeks and split up the time among themselves.They will do this without the knowledge or approval of the owner–essentially removing control over the property from the owner or,as in our case,the property manager.Not only will this completely counteract your intended purpose,but it creates a scenario where it can only cause harm to the owner and bring more unidentified guests than intended, We do the right thing by our neighbors and community and it is truly unfair to remove the rights of those like us who have harmed no one because of the bad acts of a small few. It is also wrong to think that ending short-term rentals somehow removes strangers—that is,tourists—from our neighborhoods,given your exclusion of the rent-a-room business model-. We urge you to reconsider this approach and instead adopt a registration system whereby all short- term rentals must be registered with the Town of Southold,for a fee,and that that registration comes with a set of rules (akin to the ones i already impose),a maximum occupancy per house–perhaps no more than 2-persons per bedroom, 'no parties,and that those that violate the rules lose their rental privileges for the season and must reapply the next year and show that they have remedied the issue. It is a fact that short-term guests Spend more than long-term renters and as a community,that is largely supported by tourism,this action will have widespread consequences on ourcommunity. Our restaurants,farms,vineyards and shops will see a decline in business. When there are no homes available for less than 2 weeks minimum stay,there will effectively be no short-term rentals.Families will find other more affordable vacation options.Couples that once came for a 3-clay weekend,or booked destination weddings-here will look elsewhere.Those looking for a quiet weekend away will go somewhere else. Is this really the net effect that We are looking,for? Has anyone spoken to the businesses who will be most impacted by a large reduction in tourism?Are they even aware of what's going on?Has anyonedone any kind of study about what a January in July economy would do to those who count on that influx of visitors to pay their employees–local people who rely on tourist dollars to survive?Where will locals find employment When they are no longer needed?Where will students find summer jobs when they are no longer needed?Has anyone considered what will happen to the beautiful swathes of open spaces we all enjoy as we pass farms and vineyards if visitors stop coming?Has anyone imagined a main road where these spaces become hotels and condos as farmers are forced out? Sure,something has to give.We urge you to use this effort to enforce the rules and shut down the offenders, We want to preserve the character and quality of life of Southold.We do not want it to look like Riverhead in order to provide the lodging needed to accommodate the guests who fuel our economy. How can we expect to enjoy the benefits of a tourism-driven economy if we don't welcome tourists? Please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.There are many good people providing short-term rentals in Southold who truly care.We want to be a part of the solution. Sincerely, 7 1 54 Laurie Bloom and Leonard Thon 1690 Paradise Shores Road Southold NY 11971 (631)665.1366 1rR1vK1N RAD1.ER_ .111(30l.l''. Al I', Laurie.J. Bloom Director of Marketing and Communications 926 RXR Plaza,Uniondale,NY 11556-0926 D 516.357.3251 T 516.357.3000 F 516.357.3333 laurie.bloom@rivkin.com Please do not print this email unless it is necessary. NOTICE.This message may contain information that is confidential or privileged.If you are not the intended recipient,please advise the sender immediately and delete this message. See:hi,t0:7AVvivi.rivkinradler.contlernatkiisclalmer.efro for further Information on confidentiality This email has been scanned for entail related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast For more information please visit httb f/vww.riiimecas#:coni. 3 6615* Standish, Lauren From: Leslie Simitch <leslie@islimited.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 14,2015 7:45 AM -, To: Standish, Lauren 015 Subject; SOUTHOLD SHORT TERM RENTAL POLICY JUL 1 L SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Hello Ms.Standish, We are entering our plea to allow fora Southold Town 3-day minimum rental period.A 14-day minimum rental period would be untenable,would cause us financial distress and would likely mean that we need to taste our investment plans- elsewhere. I have been coming to Southold every'summer and winter weekends for almost 20 years now. The,area is very_dear to my heart and to that of my extended family.We have spent many happy moments here,and feel a deep connection to the town and cornmunity.-1 have owned a home here for 15 years,and in addition my husband and I rent another home here every,summer.My dollars and those of my friends and family help'to support the farm stands,small businesses and restaurants-on the North Ehd. Last year my husband and bought a large home in Southold.Our plan was for him to can move permanently to Southold.We Would like to buy anotherlhouse next year which he will renovate as an investment.if that works then We want tb.biJy another house,again.as an investment.My husband is a licensed contractor and these.are the project's that he laves to do. If our plan works we will be paying taxes and employing members of the community to,assist in his renovations. Our plans are largely based on the possibility of renting these homes for income when we or our friends are not in residence.We will depend on this revenue to subsidize our business-model.We-are a 60-year couple who cherish our homes and neighborhoods.We will only rent to guests who can agree to our rules.Only nuclear families,no parties,no groups,no more than two cars,no smoking,respect for neighbors,etc. Our guests will be made aware that our neighbors are our#1 priority. I hope that you are able to put yourselves in our shoes so that a-solution might be found that will allow us to remain in the Town of Southold.if alternate solutions to specific bad-rental situations could be found(penalties),the rest of us could live in harmony with a 3-day rental minimum-on our homes. Thank you for your consideration of our needs: Best, Leslie Simitch 1 (061:g4 Russell, Scott _ From: Joy Ellinghaus <joyellinghaus@idoud.com> Sent: Tuesday,,July 14,2015 4:14 PM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Re:North Fork/Short term rentals Mr. Russell, _ Thank you for providing me with Mr. Schweitzer's letter and your response. Accept my apology if you felt I may have suggested you are a feeble minded politician. I believe quite the opposite'which is why I am contacting you directly.I am relying on your good judgment to get us out on the right(and reasonable)side of this issue, Which is why I cannot understand why 7 nights is simply not a good enough compromise for a minimum. I am not decrying a minimum,permits,registry etc.. I am asking for some clarification as to why your earlier proposal for a minimum went from 7 nights to 14. I was not able-to attend that meeting in early June as my daughter(also a Lily)was not finished in school yet, nor was there any, clear indication explained in the local paper other than to say there were"varying opinions". I agree there is no scientific data for you to grasp onto. One might make the argument then that it is even more prudent under those circumstances to err on the side of caution,or perhaps not err at all,seeing as there is no need for this law.Perhaps the Town can put codes into effect piecemeal, all the while simply responding to complaints as they surface? Without scientific data you are left with guesstimates,no?Pm not big on guesstimates and I'll be happy to get back to you next summer to tell you how I am personally faring but even if half of the 600-Short term properties you mentioned provide 8 weeks of tourists who are'willing to spend upwards of$i000 per week(a modest sum considering a-meal at a restaurant,local shopping at Walbaur's and a day in Greenport arida vineyard),that is still potentially A LOT of tourist dollars! If you do the nonscientific math that:none of the business owners can confirm for you: (300 houses x8 weeks= 2400 weeks-x$1000 per week=$2,400,000.00).Without the data,playing with even a guesstimate like that would make me nervous. As,I've already stated,I don't understand why 7 nights is-not acceptable to the board. Can you please tell me the adverse impacts that were.raised with 7 nights and how they would be alleviated by_a 14-night stay as opposed'to a 7 night period?What if there is a bad tenant,they will be there for two weeks now rather than one?Are there more police calls in homes with short term rentals than in homes with year round rentals?Is there data that exists there? To another point, I suppose I will do everything I can to at least rent my home for two rentals out of a season but if I am to rent to a year round tenant,my year round rent will be inclusive of summer rental prices and just like most year-round rents on the North Fork,it will be prohibitive to the kind of employee you mentioned business leaders being concerned about. Nevertheless,I amn happy to hear yotrhave not made your decision and will continue to assess and consider all input,realizing also this is not a case of zoning. I hope to continue an ongoing discussion with,you,Above all,I hope I am not staring at an empty house for half of my summer next year. I can assure you that home is desirable,my tenants lovely,and that in every single regard I am striving to make everyone's experience amazing,it's what I do. That includes my neighbors by the way,most of whom I've known my whole life. They are the very last people whose lives I want to disrupt: I vet my renters carefully and am able to choose who I rent to since there is no shortage of people who want to rent for the week.I don't know that I'll be able to say that for the few and far between'that might want a two week rental. As I said in.my earlier letter,the market is simply not there for two week rentals. If this bill passes,I imagine the hotels will be booked in a matter of days,well in advance of the 1 (.91 season, Yes, they will be happy,but what will we do with all the other tourists who want to come for a week(or a weekend for that matter)? I honestly don't know what other answer there is other than the compromise you first proposed: the 7 night minimum. Thank you for your time. All the best, • Joy On Jul 14,2015, at 2:06 PM,Russell, Scott<scottr@southol'd.townny.gav> wrote: Ms.Ellingfhaus: I have deliberated on this issue for some time. I have been public and candid with my concerns with the challenges this issue presents to the Town.To suggest My position has changed because'30 or so people"swayed me not only questions my motives,it suggests that I am a feeble-minded.politician that caves into even a modest amount of public pressure. I can assure you that the input I have received urging a longer than 7 night stay has come from considerably more than a few people, However, I try to consider all input when making decisions and have not and will not make decisions by the loudest voices regardless of how many there are. I am sending to-a response that I sent another gentleman on this issue just a few days ago. I outlines my perspective and discusses several different components involved with this issue.If there are any . questions I did not address in that response,please feel free to contact me and I will be glad to answer them. Scott From:Joy Ellinghaus,Cmailto joyellinghaus( idldud.corni Seat:Tuesday,July 14, 2015 1:56 PM To: Russell, Scott Subject: Re: North,Fork/Short term rentals I can't find an insult in my letter to you,but if you bring it to my attention,I promise to apologize. Joy On Jul 14,2015, at 1:36 PIM Russell, Scott. seott a'lsoul'hdidtownny.gov>wrote: Ms.Ellinghaus: am happy to discuss this issue With you and a1»certainly willing to offer my perspective, I do not think that casting insults is a good start. Scott From:Joy Eltinghmus [mailto:joyeilinghausOlcioud.corn] Sent:Tuesday,July 14, 2015 1:26 PM To: Russell, Scott Subject: North Fork/Short term rentals Mr. Russell, you need to bring good judgment to the table for this short term rental issue and,use it with laser precision to ensure the North Fork 2 Ogl does not implement a law that could have painful repercussions for the very tourist industry that we have been cultivating for the past several years, There is simply not a demand from them for two week rentals. For example, this season in my own income property, only ONE rental is for two continuous weeks. The rest of the season is fully booked by one week rentals. If this is repeated next summer, let me make clear what will happen in just my property: North Fork tourist dollars will have gone down from eight weeks to two. Saying nothing of my own hardship, I shudder to think of the affect on the carpenters, electricians, cleaners, landscapers and plumbers that I employ all season long. I am not looking to circumvent the law; I will be made whole by a year round rental if I must, but I can assure you those year round tenants will not drop the $1800 a week on vineyards, restaurants and shopping that my weekly summer guests do. Even a two-week tenant stays home and cooksl.Are you really willing tagarnbie with this because of a few squeaky wheels? You can't possibly believe that this has the support of the economic industry on which so many of us now rely. By the way;what were the concerns of some of those 30 or so people that swayed you to send the proposal-back from seven nights (perhaps reasonable )'to fourteen, (clearly unlikely end untenable from a vacationer's standpoint)? Surely there are solutions short of a sweeping new law with unforeseeable consequences for our economy and quality of life. It has not been made dear how the fourteen night stay benefits either the nature of the North Fork or the tourist industry over a seven night stay, A seven night minimum means seven nights, correct(?) NOT A WEEKEND, despite assertions to the contrary. I wouldn't be happy giving up weekend rentals but a seven night minimum is a compromise.I could live with since it is the majority of my business. Perhaps swayed by some extreme voices, you are on the wrong path with fourteen nights, Please get back on track. Sincerely, Joy Ellinghaus • 3 From:Janice Claudio[mailto:Janice@claudios.com] Sent: Monday,July 13, 2015 3:30 PM To:Russell, Scott Subject: ***SPAM*** Length of Stay Considerations Scott, The extreme seasonality faced by those operating businesses within Southold Town is a daunting element of our life. For many many of us,there are basically the ten weeks of summer to make a profit which must pay the expenses of the lean months and the heavy annual bills such as property insurance and real estate taxes. Add weather into the ten week mix and it is a scary ride. Government should do everything in its power to embrace the tourist trade. Tourism is a huge economic engine for our community and affects the plumber,community hospital,as well at the retail shops and restaurants. Please find a way, to balance the needs of the business community with the quality of life issues of homeowners. There are many many fine families renting homes for a week stay, Hotels are in short supply and require two nightstays with prices approaching$300 a night. At a multi-thousand weekly rate they are simply unaffordable to many. So too,many companies only.provide an annual vacation of two weeks.. A twoweek minimum is simply too long for those with such limited vacation time. A two week minimum stay is simply too long and damaging to the businesses within our community. I ask you to NOT consider such a proposal. One week will accomplish the goal you are seeking which I believe is a more considerate visitor, We are all tourists when we leave our home town. We don't suddenly become disruptive people Thank you, Janice Claudio 2 61(59 Russell, Scott From: Russell, Scott Sent Saturday,July 18;2015 4:36 PM To: 'Janice Claudio' Subject: RE:***SPAM*** Length of Stay Considerations Janice: This issue isa tough call for me. I recognize the perceived benefits that short-term rentals bring but there are consequences,as well, and I am trying to look at the issue globally.The local law that is being proposed is subject to a public hearing and I will listen to both sides with an open mind but I do think that there drawbacks that need to be considered. - I tried to get an understanding of the benefits these rentals bring to the local economy and went to The Greeriport- Southold Chamber of Commerce and the Mattituck Chamber of Commerce to get the business owners opinions.There was no consensus and, in.fact,you are only one of a handful of businesses that contacted me to express opposition.The local hotels and B&B's are part of the business community,as-well.They have all made a considerable investment in the right to operate hotels and also pay substantial property taxes and are heavily regulated.These are the costs of doing business.Short-term rentals don't have to deal with any ofthat. How difficult would it be for a Local restaurant to operate if it hadtostart competing with other new restaurants that got to open up wherever they wanted,whenever they wanted?They wouldn't have to invest in the zoning required, pay any taxes and would not have to-deal with any of the permits, inspections or licenses that restaurants have to deal with.Free enterprise is great but it only works if everybody is playing by the same rules, I deal with the local business community all of the time.The biggest complaint I hear is the lack of rentals for their workers.There about 600 houses being offered for short-term rentals.This is about five,percent of the houses in Southold.There were none just a few years ago. How many-will there be in a few years.Ten Percent?Twenty percent? This is a lucrative business and,sooner or later,there will be very few houses left to be rented year-round.Rentals are already scarce and removing yet even more from the market would make it even harder for local businesses.It's hard to find employees when they don't have a place to live.These are also families that would live in Southold year-round and spend money year-round. Despite what others might think,the board is not trying to regulate-bad behavior. Most of the houses being rented don't generate-any complaints regarding noise, etc. The problem is that people who live in a residential neighborhood never expected to live with a-commercial operation nearby.They are concerned about the new faces coming and going every few days:This is especially true when there are several guests in these homes at one time with several cars coming and going all hOurs of the night. These homeowners have raised no objections to tourists coming to town.They just didn't expect the house next door to them would be turned into a hotel to host them.Southold Town and several organizations have made a considerable effort to promote tourism in Southold.These efforts have worked and tourism has been a big partor the local economy long before short-term rentals became part of the landscape.There is a lot more to Southold than just tourism but if we chased every opportunity to expand tourism at the expense of all else,then we are bound to erode the very quality of life that people who live here expect. Southold has a desperate need to expand its inventory of hotels and other accommodations.We can do that through the"Comprehensive Master Plan and other tools. I don't think simply ignoring this issue is the right way to go about it. Scott 1 (CM Resell, Scott From: Joy Ellinghaus <joyellinghaus@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 22,2015 1:42 PM To: Russell,Scott Subject: Re: North Fork/Short term rentals Mr. Russell, First I want to express my heartfelt angst for the tragedy that befell our community this week. I am saddened beyond words as I imagine you are. I understand this must be a challenging time for you as you continue to represent our community while dealing with such a•sad and horrific event.I'm sorry I am burdening you with something that in the scheme of things seems quite irrelevant And I thank you again for the time you're dedicating to this'issue and to me personally. I wanted to reply to the last email you sent to me and I would like'to be able to attend the meetings around'this issue but as you'know;I will not be.ableto attend the next Meeting as I will be away. I will submit my comments regarding the 14 night minimum as,you suggested in the weeks'to come. If I am understanding correctly,the main purpose for 14 nights was two fold, one was to keep the rental in a non-commercial/passive income status according to the definitions of the IRS (which both 14 nights and 7 nights would accomplish),the other was less turnover to appease the complaints of those who feel that simply being able to rent short term out of residential homes is disruptive to the nature of the North Fork and their neighborhoods. Ws also true that the Town uses the term short term/transient rental in a definition that already exists and that this definition is"less than 7 nights" and is only allowed right now in residential/resort zones;to enlarge that area to include residential areas would not only effectively add commercial status to residential zones,doing so would in general,undermine the zoning traps. I will put hope in the"special exception".Would it not be-possible for the Town to limit the definition of "transient rental"to less than 7'nights but pick up the term"short term rental"as 7 nights to 14 nights,allowing these to function in residential homes without creating commercial status for the duration ofthose nights or terms?Perhaps lithe same person wanted to stay longer than 14 nights, (anywhere between 14-30 nights)then a separate lease,would have to be created so thatthe rentals would always be under 14 nights.The 7 night minimum could exist within this structure. Was the Town planning on dealing,with more than 30 day rentals in a residential community,as in a full summer rental,or are these not applicable as you are not hearing complaints about these? If you are,I might suggest that these ate the rentals in fact that need commercial status, as the IRS suggests,and as such these rentals are in need of permits,registry, inspections,etc.. You made a revealing statement about the seasonal rental market that I believe could benefit from deeper understanding. In your scenario I"simply turn one week renters into two week renters but I can't make my one week renters suddenly be able to get or be able to afford a two weekvacation. That is simply hot going to happen in my business and I'd like to explain why. Obviously,in our country most people take one week vacations,but it is more nuanced than that. You surmised that seasonal rentals are generally monthly or biweekly terms,but that exists only within the MLS system (of which I am a member.) It is imperative for you to know that this is not the case,for the 400+ homes on the VREO or HorneAway sites. Mr.Russell,.I am an agent with Douglas Elliman in Mattituck, and even so, I have turned away from the MLS system in renting my own homes for the past few years because it has been too difficult for me to get rentals for two weeks or longer. That is how I ended up renting my homes short-term through online sites like llomeAway •1 (0CM and VRBO. I am not alone in this. There is simply not enough demand on the MLS for a two week plus time block.But you could easily book your summer, as I have, with one-week rentals through VRBO/HomeAway. That is why these sites have been so successful. There is a colossal demand for one-week rentals and these sites fill the gap that the MLS misses: rentals of less than two weeks. Please understand:for the purposes of these sites, one week is the Majority of most people's vacations and one week vacations are what are mostly booked on these sites. That is not going to suddenly change. For you to say you don't want to completely eliminate the seasonal rental market,I'm afraid to tell you that for these homes and for these renters,that is what you will essentially be doing.I'm not sure you are either aware of that or believe that. But I can tell you,and I am telling you,having two homes that I rent on the North Fork,having used these two sites for a number of years,having very desirable properties'with very successful rental histories: I do not get requests for two week rentals through these sites! My business is only successful with one week rentals. Allow me to illustrate further: On the MLS there are countless homes still sitting unrented even though we are in the middle of summer. One week rentals on VRBO?There are 74 left out of 419 for the first week of August for example,now add that perhaps I have a pet?:that goes down to 22.I would be happy to meet with you and show you these scenarios directly through the MLS and the VR13O sites if you'd like. (And Pm not suggesting that my quality of tenant will diminish with a two week rental, I'in making a cheeky comment that neither will disruptive tenants disappear with this law,but now they will be disruptive for two weeks rather than a weekend or even a week. Sometimes in fact,people who can afford to stay longer are even more entitled and arrogant and feel quite dismissive of the neighborhood.) In your scenario my house will sit empty for half the summer or I risk fines. Like I said,I can't make my one week renters suddenly-able to get or,afford a two week vacation. This law is just not worth the cost and I stilldon't know WHO it is supposed to benefit.I'm afraid there will still be complaints even with two week rentals, some people Will not be satisfied. The lower turnover that you see as a benefit,I see as no turnover at all and the death knell for my entire business, I know this market well,extremely well,for those who don't understand it,this law is brimming with unforeseen consequences. I am still not seeing.any benefit of a 14 night minimum as opposed to 7 nights,You have not convinced me. Have I convinced you? Sincerely, Joy Ellinghaus Please feel free to share my letter with your board and thank you again, On Jul 14,2015,at 7:29 PM,Russell, Scott<scottr southolcltownn gov>wrote: Ms. Ellinghaus: The distinction that the board drew between a 7 night minimum and a 14 night minimum were based a few factors. 2 The Town code already defines short-term rental which is referred to as"transient rental"in the definitions.The use of a property for rentals shorter than 7 nights is considered transient and only permitted in the Resort/Residential zones.It is also permitted in some commercial zones under certain. circumstances.Permitting the rental of homes in the residential zones would effectively convey commercial uses to the residential zones.That completely defeats the purpose of the zoning map. We discussed other options such as a minimum of 10 nights but then looked for guidance from other sources.The IRS does not consider rentals of more than 14 nights to be passive activity. Using the 2 , week IRS standard to define commercial versus residential seemed to be a rational basis for the new code. The distinctive feature of short-term rental is the rate of turnover of the units. Extending the minimum stay from 7 to 14 nights reduces the turnover rate.Since we did not want to completely eliminate the seasonal'rental market,we rejected demands for a 30 night minimum.Seasonal rentals have been part of the landscape for many years without incident and these typically rent biweekly or monthly.We recognized the importance of the seasonal rental market but needed to balance that with the over, riding public goals such as community character,impacts on rentals and impacts oh local business which includes hotels and B&B's. Regarding bad tenants,the general comments I have heard from advocates of short-term rentals is the superb quality of the tenants these owners select. I do not think that your ability to find good tenants evaporates with increasing your minimum stay to 14 nights.I am unaware of any reason why the quality of the guest would go down by extending the required stay. The board did'discuss the idea of creating a"special exception"to the residential codes.This is similar to how B&B's are sanctioned. It would require approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals after a public hearing.The code would include specific criteria for approval and requirements for operation that would regulate-parking,occupancy etc.This would provide clear goals of the Town and would allow neighbors the right to have theirvoices heard on a use being proposed in their corrlmUriity.This may be a reasonable option to accommodate the need for short-term rentals while assuring neighbors the right to be part of the approval process. The code amendment we are voting on tonight will simply serve as a notice of a public hearing on the law 30 days from now. It cannot go into effect until after the public hearing and a vote of the board. Even then,it is unlikely to impact any rentals until after the fall season is over. This is still time to submit your opposition to the board and for us to contemplate other possible solutions., Scott From:Joy Ellinghaus [mailto:joyellinohaust icloud,corn1 Sent:Tuesday,July 14, 2015 4:14 PM To: Russell, Scott Subject: Ere: North Fork/Short term rentals Mr. Russell, Thank you for providing me with Mr. Schweitzer's letter and your response. Accept my apology if you felt I may have suggested you are a feeble minded politician. 3 I believe quite the opposite which is why I am contacting you directly. I am relying on your good judgment to get us out on the right(and reasonable) side of this issue. Which is why I cannot understand why 7 nights is simply not a,good enough compromise for a minimum. I am not decrying a minimum,permits,registry etc.. I am asking for some clarification as to why your earlier proposal for a minimum went from 7 nights to 14. I was not able to attend that meeting in early June as my daughter(also a Lily)was not finished in school yet,nor was there any clear indication explained in the local paper other than to say there were"varying opinions", I agree there,is•no scientific data_foryouto grasp onto, One might make the argument then that it is even more prudent under those circumstances,to erron the side of caution,or perhaps not err at all, seeing as there is no need for this law. Perhaps the Town can put codes into effect piecemeal,all the while simply responding to complaints as they surface? Without scientific data you are left with guesstimates,no?I'm not big,on guesstimates and I'll be happy to get back to you next summer totell you howl am personally faring but even if half of the 600 short term_properties you mentioned provide 8 weeks of tourists who are willing to spend upwards of$1000 per week(a modest sum considering a meal at a restaurant,local shopping at Walbaum's and a day in-Greenport and a vineyard),that is still potentially A LOT of tourist dollars! If you do the non scientific math that none of the business owners can confirm for you: (300 houses.x 8 weeks=2400 weeks x$1000 per week=$2,400,000.00). Without the data,playing with even a guesstimate like that would make me nervous. As I've already stated,I don't understand why 7 nights is not acceptable to the.board. Can you please tell me the adverse impacts that were raised with 7 nights and how they would be alleviated by-a jd night stay as opposed to a 7 night period?What if there is a bad tenant, they will be there for two weeks now rather than one?Are there more police calls in homes with short term rentals-than in homes with year round rentals?Is there data that exists there? To.another point,I suppose I will do everything I can to at least rent my home for two rentals out of a season but if I am to rent to a year round tenant,my year round rent will be inclusive of summer rental prices and just like Most year round>rents'on.the North Fork, it will be prohibitive to the-kind of-employee you.mentioned business leaders being concerned about. Nevertheless,I am happy to hear you have not made your decision and will continue to assess and consider all input,realizing also this is not a case of zoning. I hope to-continue an ongoing discussion with you. Above all, I hope I am not staring at an empty house for half of my summer next year. I can assure you that home is desirable,my tenants lovely,and that in every single regard I am striving to make everyone's experience amazing, it's what I do. That includes my neighbors by the way,most of whom I've known my whole life.They are the very last-people'whose lives I want to disrupt. I vet my renters carefully andamable to choose who I rent to since there is no shortage of people who want to rent for the week. I don't know that I'II be able to say that for the few and far between that might want a two week rental. As I said in my earlier letter,the market is simply not there for two week rentals. If this bill passes,I imagine the hotels will be booked in a matter of days, well in advance of the season. Yes,they will be happy, but what will we do with all the other tourists whowant to come for a week(or a weekend for that matter)? I honestly do/1'4i know what other answer there is other than the compromise you first proposed: the 7 night minimum. Thank you for yourtime. All the best, Joy 4 69m On Jul 14,2015, at 2:06 PM,Russell, Scott<scotta'a.southoldtownriy.gov> wrote: Ms.Ellingfhaus: • I have deliberated on this issue for some time.I have been public and candid with my concerns with the challenges this issue presents to the Town.To suggest my position has changed because"30 or so people"swayed me not only questions my motives, it suggests that I am a feeble-minded politician that caves into even a modest amount of public pressure. I can assure you that the input I have received Urging a longer than 7 night stay has come from considerably more than a few people.However, I try to consider,all input when making decisions and have not and will not Make decisions by the loudest voices regardless of how many there are. I am sending to a response that I sent another gentleman on this issue just a few days ago.I outlines my perspective and discusses several different components involved with this issue. If there are any questions 1 did not address in that response, please feel free to contact me and I will be glad to answer them. Scott From:Joy Ellinghaus f rr ailto ayeliinghaus@Idoiid.com] Sent:Tuesday,July 14, 2015 7.:56 PM To: Russell, Scott Subject: Re: North Fork/Short term rentals I can't find,an insult.in any letter to you,but if you bring it to my attention,I promise to apologize. Joy On Jul 14,2015,at 1:36 PM,Russell, Scott <sciSt.r rt,southOIdtbminl y* wrote: Ms. Ellinghaus: I am happy to discuss this issue with you and am certainly willing to offer my perspective.I do not think that casting insults is a good start, Scott From:Joy Ellinghaus mlftts:'a blliriyhatasiQiieloud,cbm] Sent:Tuesday.,July 14,2015 1:261)..M To: Russell, Scott Subject: North Fork/Short term rentals Mr. Russell, you need to bring good judgment to the table for this short term rental issue and use it with laser precision to ensure the North Fork does not implement a law that could have painful repercussions for the very tourist industry that we have been cultivating for the past several years. There is simply not a demand from them for two week rentals. For example, this season in my own income property, only ONE rental is for two continuous weeks. The rest of the season is s (CO 1 fully booked by one week rentals. If this is repeated next summer, let me make clear what will happen in just my property: North Fork tourist dollars will have gone down from eight weeks to two. Saying nothing of my own hardship, I shudder to think of the affect on the carpenters, electricians, cleaners, landscapers and plumbers that I employ all season long. I am not looking to circumvent the law; I will be made whole by a year round rental if I must, but I can assure you those year round tenants will not drop the $1800 a week on Vineyards, restaurantsand shopping that my weekly summer guests-do. Even a.two'-week tenant stays home and cooks) Are you really willing to gamble with this because of a few squeaky wheels? You can't possibly believe that this has the support of the economic industry on which so many of us now rely. By the way, what were the concerns of some of those 30 or so people that swayed you to send the proposal back from- seven nights (perhaps reasonable ) to fourteen,, (clearly unlikely and untenable from a vacationer's standpoint)? Surely there.are solutions short of a sweeping new law with unforeseeable consequences for our economy and quality of life. It has not been made clear how the fourteen night stay benefits either the nature of the North Fork or the tourist industry over a seven night stay. A seven night minimum means seven nights, correct(?)NOT A WEEKEND, despite assertions to the contrary. I wouldn't be happy giving up weekend rentals but a seven night minimum is a compromise I could live with since it is the majority of'my business. Perhaps swayed by some extreme voices, you are on the wrong path with fourteen nights. Please get back on track. Sincerely, Joy Ellinghaus 6 (QV Standish, Lauren From: HydeII, Carol Sent: Tuesday,August 11,2015 11:46 AM To: Russell,Scott; Kiely, Stephen;Krauza, Lynne; Duffy, Bill;Standish, Lauren;Tomaszewski, Michelle;Norklun,Stacey Subject: FW:Summer Rentals I am forwarding the e-mail as per Mr,Carullo Thanks, 6:911W - n) Carol 'From: carullo3di@verizon.net[mailto:caruilo3di@verizon.net] AUG 11 2015 Sent:Tuesday,August 11, 2015 11:40 AM SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE To: HydeII, Carol TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Subject: Summer Rentals Carol, Thank you for your help—hopefully you'll receive this email and forward it accordingly Thank You Bob a...d....::����i" .-:.i��..���.. ►.. .wt.::::.r..�..�......»..:...::+.. ...i....+...+<....%'-:.�.1�.:�.�..1..»�...+..i.i.� _'....:.tL+...rs- To: Scott Russell and Stephen Kiely Dear Sirs. I would like to add my voice to the issue of summer rentals on the North Fork and In Orient Point in particular. There has been a great deal of back and forth regarding this issue and I might add unsubstantiated claims as to why Summer rentals are a bad idea for our area. But, it is not enough for opponents of summer.rentals to use conjecture, hear say and supposition to propose restrictive regulations, ordinances and or laws against. Especially by invoking so called problems from other communities that may or may, not be germane to our area. These opponents of summer rentals must prove Material Harm....and identify each infraction of public order as a means of setting the pretext for their-opposition in order to,establish that there is.a real problem to solve in the first place., Lacking that, their opposition is little more than another example of Not In My Backyard and a thihly veiled attempt to fight against'the tide of a phenomenon which I believe adds to the greater good of the community, Also, should there be the type of disturbances that are'claimed....why aren't the current codes, ordinance and protections currently on the books sufficient to address these problems as they arise. Why must there be-further restrictions and expense to the public coffers and our public resources to protect against a problem that hasn't been proved. 1 100 If you actually survey property owners who engage in summer rentals you will find that the vast majority rent their homes for a week or more and rent to families with children. Thus, summer rentals provide a benefit to the families that wish to summer on the North Fork and to the retail stores, supermarkets, restaurants and many other service providers in and around our area. In conclusion;we are privileged to live in an area that has so much natural beauty and is so blessed by the bounties of the sea, farms and vineyards around us. These are the main reason that many individuals and families increasingly want to come into our area to experience and enjoy. Summer rentals permit those families and or individuals to explore our area, learn about our fabulous environment, add to our economy through the sale of goods and services and ultimately promote real estate sales which add to our tax base for those interested in moving to our area as my wife and I did over 10 years ago. C urge the board to embrace the opportunities that summer rentals offer our community and reject. spurious claims and unnecessary restrictions. Yours Truly Robert parullo 265 Ryder Farm Lane Orient'Point NY 11957 2 V9 Public Testimony on Short-Term Rentals:August 11, 2015 A 14-night Minimum serves no one. I own a home that I have offered as a short-term.rental property.Before you chase me off with torches and pitchforks—let me say that I didn't just drop out of the sky-I have decades-long,deep-rooted connections to the North'Fork and it has been a primary residence at times and second home at other times for much of my life.My mother ran a horse farm in Jamesport for years after my father passed away,so I have spent a great deal of time on the North Fork. After many years of dreaming about owning a home,here,several years ago,my husband and I purchased a dilapidated cottage in a private community where at least 50%of the owners are seasonal residents. It Was a mess, but it was all we could afford.The prior owner had died at least a year before and the house had been sealed up full of old and rotting furnishings,growing mold and mildew.The lot was completely overgrown and littered with debris;garbage and broken beer bottles were everywhere as well as telltale signs that is was becoming a frequent hang-out for local teens looking for mischief. Prospective buyers likely ran from the place from the smell,and enormous amount of work needed,and we were almost one of them,but we really loved the area—and so we decided to roll up our sleeves and empty our bank book. We spentthe lion's share of our savings to renovate the biggest eyesore on the block into one of the prettiest. It is no longer an abandoned wreck but a home we enjoy spending ail'of our free time in,Our neighbors are thrilled to now see a lovely cottage that only enhances the appearance of the block and the real estate values of their homes. We have become close friends with our neighbors and.socialize with them frequently.,In fact,I was just elected Secretary of our Homeowner's Association. In fact,_we never.intendedd'td rent our home,but a major financial event forced us to consider it as a means to hold onto the house that We had planned our retirement around.so,we'did our homework and hired a responsible professional to manage the property;an owner of a bed&breakfast who knew how to carefully screen and attract quality people,manage the cleaning and check-ins of guests and ensure that all was properly handled. It isan expensive endeavor to do this in a way that we are comfortable,with,but we have been renting the house through.her—without incident-for the past 3 summers.The rest of the year,our family occupies the house weekly, Our short-term guests are almost exclusively families;some with a grandparent,young children and often a dog.Every one of them has been respectful of our property and neighbors.These are guests who want nothing more than to have a peaceful 3-night stay or week-long vacation. They walk to our private beach,dine in local restaurants, pick pumpkins and apples,visit the vineyards,rent bikes and kayaks and shop local for souvenirs. My neighbors have had nothing but praise for the people who have stayed in our house.When guests book our home,they are advised of the rules;and they are unwavering:no parties,no additional overnight guests,no noise,pick up after dogs, park only in driveway,etc.Broken rules equal a broken lease agreement and forfeiture of paid rent.No exceptions.To date,we have never had an issue with any guest, When we purchased here,we knew of others on the block who were renting short-term.It didn't bother us and none of the guests on the block have ever created a problem.We did,however,also have a home that went from short-term rentals to long-term/yearly rentals and the change was dramatic,The (oal TESTIMONY OF KATHARiNE BICKNELL OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK My name is Katharine Bicknell and I am a homeowner in the Hamlet of Southold. I am testifying today to respectfully request that the Board not enact restrictions against short-term rentals. Purchasing a home in Southold was a'dream come true for me,and I cherish the time I spend in my home and in Southold. I love waking up in my home,going for walks along the Sound,visiting farm stands and frequenting local stores and restaurants, i also find incredible joy in sharing my home and the area with my friends and family,and showing them the beauty Southold and the North Fork have to offer. While I treasure my home, I also rent it occasionally to help cover the costs of maintaining and upgrading the property,which benefits local businesses. Over the past year,I've used the rental income to help cover the cost of'installing a new roof,new drywells,and improving the landscape,all of which have benefittedicocal businesses. This year I intend to use the rental income to refinish the exterior of the house and deck,as well as other repairs. At some time in the future, I hope to not need rental incame'to helpoffset these costs,but that is not the case currently. As my-home is very valuable to me,)am very careful about who I rent my home to. I research the potential renters,I ask thermabout their plans for their visit,and I specifically communicate to each potential renter thatthe home could:net accommodate a large group or party,but that it is a wonderful place for a farnily to spend time together. I limit the number of guests and`I require a'significant damage deposit. TO date,i have not had any probiemt with any renters. While the rental Income helps me fund repairs and,improvements to my home,my renters also spend moneyat local stores,restaurants,farms and vineyards. While I prefer to rent my home fora minimum of one week;some people only have the time to spend-a weekend,and the revenue that rental provides —bathvto.me,and to local establ'ishments,Ts beneficial and valuable to all of us in Southold. I care deeply about my home and my community,and 1 make every effort to be a good resident and a good neighbor. On a more macro level,I am concerned that limiting short-term rentals will have a significant negative impact on the local economy. Many of our local businesses are dependent upon seasonal visitors. I have friends who have wanted to host.weekend events in the area,but have struggled to find lodging for guests due to limited supply. Restricting short term rentals will further reduce the supply of available.lodging,leaving potential guests no choice but to go elsewhere,and causing local businesses to lose the potential revenue. Finally,as each short term rental generates hotel tax for Suffolk County, enacting restrictions on short term rentals will reduce the potential hotel tax that Suffolk County could collect. Thank you for your attention and for your-service to Southold,and again,I respectfully request that the Board not-enact restrictions against short-term rentals. vigd Testimony of Abigail Field 8-1145 on Short Term Rentals This proposal is an attempt to stop vacation rentals,not regulate them. As other people will discuss tonight,stopping vacation rentals would have very damaging economic impacts on our community,and runs counter to all the millions of dollars invested in increasing tourism to our area. But that's only if the rentals actually stop.So the key question is:Will it stop them?For the reasons I'll explain, the answer is no. Passing this law does not give the town meaningful new tools to prevent short-term rentals nor any of the issues related to them. The 14-night minimum approach amounts to wishful thinking,not policy making. The Town Board should drop this approach,and return to a rental registry/permit paradigm,which is easier to enforce and Which can address quality of life issues Let's start with some empirical observations.Riverhead town has a 30 night minimum.Looking at the websiteVRBO.com,some three dozen properties in Aquebogue,Jamesport and South Jaimesport offered stays as short as two nights. Southampton has a two week minimum.VRBO offers about 300 listings,most of which are available for less than two weeks. Should Southolders really expect our government will be radically more effective at enforcing a minimum stay than Riverhead or Southampton is?Why? Southold has no history of effective enforcement of its noise ordinance,nor does it have a-track record of enforcing its B&B law.On Air Ba-right now,a number of homeowners appear to be operating'illegal B&Bs in Southold Town by renting rooms in houses they occupy while the rental is occurring. I'm not suggesting a 14-night minimum would have no effect on the rental market, even with no enforcement. Some vacation rental owners--particularly the nearly two dozen who hired me to speak on their behalf—are the kinds of owners who would stop simply because it is illegal.But I represent less than 10%of the vacation rental owners in Southold. So even if all my clients stopped,and someofthose I don't representstopped too,the experience of-Riverhead and Southampton proves that a significant number of vacation rental owners will just keep on renting short term.Surely the nuisance houses,which already don't much care for town code,are likely to keep renting. But we don't have to rely on the experience in neighboring towns.The word has been that enforcement will be complaint-driven.That means'we're hot going to enforce against everybody,just properties people complain about.' In its own way, doing complaint-driven enforcement is a kind of permission: look, you'll be illegal, but don't worry about it unless you have a neighbor who's angry at 1 (0q61 Testimony of Abigail Field 8-11-15 on Short Term Rentals you.Oh and worry if a code enforcer is mad at you,or someone else with power in the town ismad atyou—you'll be vulnerable.But if you keep your head down,we'll let you keep doing illegal rentals.Bottom line,to say enforcement will be complaint- ' driven is to acknowledge that short-term rentals will continue. But will the complaint-driven process work for those.properties? Let's say the town has a complaint from a neighbor who is sure that different people are staying in the house next door every weekend. The town identifies the property owner using tax records,writes them a letter asking them to prove they are renting legally;or simply takes the owner to court and starts an enforcement proceeding. Thing is,the town may discover that the owner was doing legal rentals,even though the neighbor was right—different folks were in the houseeach weekend. How?Well,the owner could have entered an agreement with Tommy Tourist for a two week rental,and then Tommy turned around without the owner's knowledge and split the time and cost with Tina Tourist. Or maybe the owner entered an agreement for a two week lease with Tina and Tommy,simultaneously.Regardless, it's one rental for two weeks,but two paths.to weekly turnover. Let's imagine for the moment that the town is-going to do proactive enforcement, not justrespond to complaints.To do that,the Town is counting on using two presumptions about rental advertising to assume illegal activity is happening and demand more information. First,if you're listing on the Internet,the town will assume you're illegallyrenting, without regard to the content of the ad.Second,if you're advertising in any medium, includingthe Internet,for less that 14 nights they will assume you're illegally renting.Either way,the homeowner gets a chance to prove that,regardless of the ad, they are only doing two-week rentals. So here's the thing:that first presumption—that an Internet ad means illegal rentals are happening—is blatantly unconstitutional. Truthful,non-misleading commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment,'so restrictions on such speech have to further a substantial governmental interest and affect no more speech than necessary.An Internet ad for a 14-night rental,or a 30 night rental,simply cannot be the basisfor presuming an illegal rental is happening. The presumption that an ad for a rental shorter than 14 nights indicates illegal activity is constitutionally fine'as far as it goes,but it doesn't go far;the presumption doesn't stop the town.from having to prove its case,and even without the 1 Central Hudson Gas&Electric Corp.v.Public Service Commission Of New York, 447 U.S.557; Edenfield v.Fane,123 L.Ed.2d 543, 113 S.Ct.1792,1798 (1993). 2 (06151 Testimony of Abigail Field$-11-15 on Short Term Rentals presumption,nothing stops the town from contacting a homeowner advertising for a facially illegal rental to ask the homeowner to prove she is only renting legally. (By the way,if you're wondering why someone would advertise for a shorter stay even if they will only agree to do a longer one,it's because of the website filtering and where demand is.Using a 2 week minimum will prevent most searchers from finding the property,because they are looking for shorter stays.However,those people may be willing to do a 2 week agreement,once they understand it's the only way to do it legally.) Bottom line,it's not clear what the presumption really does to simplify code enforcement. Let's dive deeper still into the mechanicsof proactive enforcement. Let's say the town wants to write letters to every homeowner in Southold Town advertising for less than a 14-night minimum stay,and ask that homeowner to show she's only doing legal rentals.How might the town do that? If you go to VRBO or Air BnB,the advertisement gives you neither the property's address nor(necessarily)the owner's name nor mailing address.If you book the listing,yoir get the information. I suppose it is possible to cruise the neighborhood with a photo and ultimately identify the house,but itwouldbe very time consuming. How plausible is it that the town will dedicate the resources to track down each house and then identify the owner's contact information? So presumption or no,how would the town do proactive enforcement?And without proactive enforcement,short term rentals don't stop. Give these enforcement issues: --poor enforcement track record in the town in general,and in neighboring communities with minimum stays in particular --a presumption of guilt that doesn't meaningfully simplify enforcement --not addressing nuisance properties directly and --limited capacity to reduce-turnover,even if perfectly enforced Southolders might wonder why the Town has chosen to go down the minimum stay road.There are two alternatives. First,the Town could simply beef up code enforcement capacity, and go after nuisance properties using existing town laws. Second,the Town could create a rental registry and permit process. Rental registries and permits are an easy and effective way to fund and do enforcement against nuisance properties. In addition,they create transparency for neighbors. 3 • Testimony of Abigail Fiera 8-11-15 on Short Term Rentals 061 Do they limit turnover?No.But the obsession with limiting turnover is misguided. We are not the Hamptons,with high hedges to keep everyone out.We are traditionally a place that welcomes vacationing families,and so many of those• families end up putting down roots here.Families,overwhelmingly,do not vacation for two weeks at a time. 4 toq 8/10/15 Carlos and I have been visiting Greenport for the past 3 years.We have always enjoyed the village for its friendly community,peaceful environment,local fresh produce and vineyards.We frequent many of the restaurants,cafes,stores and have participated in many of the local community events. After renting for many years,we decided to purchase our own house in'Greenport.I.t is a charming and historic home,built in 1828.We have put a lot of care and effort into renovating it and making it a home of our own. Carlos and I both work in NYC and we are unable to spend as much time as we would like in Greenport.It is a great retreat for us on the weekends and we find it a relaxing getaway from city life. When we purchased the house we made the decision to rent our home to others so that they too can enjoy a peaceful getaway,where they can spend some time with family-and'friends,be Close to nature,the beach and enjOy everything the community has to offer.We feel that many of these short-term renters will become future,part-time residents of Greenport and perhaps eventually full-time residents, as we plan to be one day.Many of our own friends who have stayed in our home talk about similar plans for themselves. We have implemented a number of protocols to ensure that our house and the community are protected:Firstly,we are careful to screen all tenants who express an interest in our property,infect,we have turned many people away if there is any mention of extra large groups,or parties,particularly from young people. If you read the testimonials for our house,you will see that our tenants,appreciate the opportunity to stay in a large home where they can enjoy the village.Often these groups of 4-8 people are unable to be accommodated by hotels. Secondly,we inspect the home after each visit and do not return the deposit if there is any damage to our property or any neighbor complaints.So far,everyone has been very respectful and thoughtful while staying in our home. Thirdly,we are very clear with tenants from the outset and remind them that they need to be mindful of our neighbors when it comes,to noise,especially late at night. Fourthly,we have spoken to our neighbors and they have agreed to inform us when the parties are Iarger than we anticipated or when there is disruptive noise coming from thehouse so that we can monitor the situation. We enjoy renting our house and have met some great people in the process. It's great to be able to provide a quiet retreat for others and have them share in the Greenport community. We take pride In being able to introduce the town to new people,contributing to the tourism industry and providing numerous work VI 54 opportunities for the many contractors,real estate professionals,landscapers and cleaning people who helped us acquire and maintain our property. Instead of restricting the period of time when renters are allowed to stay in Greenport,we recommend more frequent communication with our neighbors about what happens in our community.After speaking with some of our own neighbors about short-term renters,we have received positive feedback and they have agreed to be part of the ongoing effort to keep a respectful relationship between residents and visitors. We,as owners,have the ability to control situations more so than any length of rental period restriction. We all want the same after all,and we can achieve it by implementing common sense rules that will not impact the economy of our town. Communication is key. (0q4 64 Testimony for Town Hail meeting re Short Term Rental Legislation. As some of you may be aware,a full page ad was run in the Suffolk Times last week by the group `Homeowners for Smart Vacation Rental Regulation',of which I am a member.The ad was aimed at alerting anyone living on the North Fork and whose livelihood depends on tourism,that the proposed 14 day minimum stay short term rental legislation would be detrimental to our economy,and would therefore adversely effect everyone who lives and works here. Interestingly,the Suffolk Times chose to run an article facing our Ad entitled'Report shows tourism is growing in Suffolk County(like it or not)'.The article started with this sentencer 'To the great displeasure of anti-tourism curmudgeons, it appears Suffolk County is becoming even more popular as a vacation destination'. The article went on to explain how increasingly important tourism has become to the economy of Long Island and that the East End is the main driver. 5.6 billion dollars was earned through tourism Long Island last year and yes,the East End, which includes the North Fork,was responsible for a good cheink of it. But listening to some of thecomments heard in this town hall during the last meeting on this subject,including those of some board members,and reading the anti visitoroomments in the Suffolk Times over the last few weeks,telling former visitors that they `should go to the South Fork' and`who needs them' and 'we.don't:want strangers on our streets',I can see how the editor who wrote the Times article got the impression that a lot of people prefer the tourists stay home, Meanwhile, Southold Town,North Fork villages,the Long Island Wine Council,the East End Arts council,are some of organizations who spend 10's of thousands of dollars each year to attract tourists,because they know our economy depends on them,so it is the responsible thing to do.They apply for and win grants to promote our area,from the NY State department of economic-development,and for a share ofthe Occupancy tax charged by our bed and breakfasts and hotels,revenue which is returned for distributionby the:Ll Convention and Visitors Bureau for tourism promotion.All this effort is made to attract visitors to our region. Meanwhile,We only have 600 licensed or commercial lodging units on the North Fork. And yet a festival like the Tall Ships for example,which was financed and promoted by the village of Greenport, can attract over 20,000 visitors. A weekend worth of destination weddings at vineyards will bring many thousands of guests,all needing places to stay.But where are they to go? Some canny big time Developers of chain hotels became aware of this unmet need and during the last half decade,with the enthusiastic blessing of the Riverhead Town Council,built more than 5 large hotels in Riverhead.These hotels attract visitors by promoting day trips by taxi or limos to our wine country,farms,villages,or special events.And I would bet that thetown of Riverhead would be very happy to approve another half dozen such hotels or resort type developments. My Bed and Breakfast and other North Fork lodging establishments have lost far.more due to competition from these large Riverhead hotels(like event and wedding guest business),than to vacation rentals.And other businesses stand'to lose too:Day-trippers do not patronize our local restaurants at night,or shop at our fish,farm and'fbod markets,or other stores. It is totally disingenuous for anyone to suggest that a day-tripper spends the same kind of money during their brief visit as an overnight visitor. Short term vacation rentals have emerged naturally,filling at least part of the demand for a place to stay on the North Fork,and keeping at least some traffic off the roads.The people who stay in a short term rental are overwhelmingly middle class families with children and pets.Aren't these the.kind of visitors we would most like to welcome to our community? Speaking of welcoming visitors in this community,a home owner in,Orient asked me to rent their house last year.It was last minute;their parents were ill and they were going to be spending the summer traveling to visit them.There were a lot of related expenses and as it was already late in the season the only rentals I could be sure of getting for them were weekly.Waiting to hope for a couple of two week rentals would have probably ended in failure,but on a weekly basis I booked it up pretty fast for them.As usual,all the rentals were families. One of the last to visit told me that a neighbor had set their dog on them and their children when they were walking to the beach and used to,let;it lose whenever he saw them,terrifying their children.HI had known I wouldhave called the police,but it was too Iate to do anything once I found out,and.as the house owners no longer need to rent it,the issue is moot.This is just one an example of how renting can be crucial to a homeowner in financial need,and how out of control angry people who don't like it can be. Some of the language I have heard from local residents, and Town board members seems to me to just stoke this fire. Another issue is enforcement. Why create yet another set of rules when the ones we already have are-not enforced?TTrr example;a neighbor of mine really loves fireworks)(this is not a renter.but art owncr),.and started:setting them Off on weekends about two Weeks belorc July 4n and has liter doing so just about every weekend since.Last Sunday night at 11.15 pm big bangs and rockets filled the air,My dog was frightened,the chickens too and my BnB guests wanted to know what was going on. So I called the police and asked,what are the rules regarding private citizens setting off fireworks on their property.I was told that this is against the law in NY State,and would I like them to investigate.Nothing could be much more obvious than fireworks and loud noises,but this neighbor has not been stopped from creating his own Crrucci display all summer. But I digress—back to tarring North Fork toursim into Riverhead day-trippers only. Our roads are already crowded during peak season and weekends in the fall,and if we further restrict accommodations now available in private homes,we are asking for more traffic on our roads and lost revenue for our businesses. So far froth agreeing that we deed to restrict short term vacation rentals,I think we should apply the same kind of logic that this bill applies to Fishers Island,which is to recognize that we do not have enough commercial rental accommodation on the North Fork,do not have the space or the will to build more hotels or resorts,and rather than vilifying vacation home rentals,recognize their value,if properly regulated. When I first spoke on this topic I asked that the town, before making a decision,study all sides of the issue,including the economic impact.The town board worked with the Code Committee,but we also have an Economic Development Committee,and they were not asked to consider this bill. Why not? As we seem to be short on facts and long on anecdotes in this debate so far,I would like to see the town use its resources and staff to gather those pertinent facts,and make sure the process followed in reaching a final decision is transparent and much better informed than it has been so far. The town board has said,they don't really know how many short term rentals there are now as opposed to in the past.Could.it,be possible that the situation has not really changed that much, but the rentals are just more visible because of the Internet?In the past,almost all rental were managed by real estate agents,but they wete.not really interested in rentals shorter than one month as there is not enough profit in that.Now people have the tools to manage on their own. But the fact is,nobody knows the real numbers.Most.of what I have heard from people who don't want their neighbors to be able to rent out their houses is speculation of what`might' happen,imagined catastrophes of speculators moving in,but no verifiable facts. This is not the kind of reasoning or basis on which responsible legislators should write laws,but they should take this opportunity to explain to thepopulation of our town why we spend so much money and energy trying to attract tourists if they are saying at the same time that a majority of residents don't want'thetn here,or atleast;not the`desirable' kind,so we should restrict their access.Because,based on what I am hearing,from our representatives,and as we have no alternative accommodation for visitors,or plans to build any,that seems to be the reasoning behind the decision to'vote for this restrictive legislation. In short it seems to me that the proposed law is driven by what people,and the town board`Don't want'withoutreference to or explaining what they'do'want.This'seems pretty typical of politics today,but I would hope that our town can do better than that. Marilyn Marks 54300 County Road 48,Southold,NY 11971 (0°134 Testimony re Short Term Rentals Legislation,Southold Town Hall,August 1l`s 2015 Let's talk about strangers on our blocks. If your block is like mine,which is small and quiet,come summer it's packed with people and guests. Everyone is out and has their friends and families and their friends out.It's non-stop all summer of guests visiting the North Fork.They come for the beaches,wineries and,summer fun, I don't know these people but most are friendly.Parties happen as they always do When many people gather in the summer. People have been coming to the North Fork for the summer for generations,Half the people here started with family vacationing here years and years ago and loved it so much they moved here. That's what my family did.Three generations of coming here.My parents moved here in the 60's andI have several family members that live here now.I bought my house 4 years ago and plan to retire here.I love it here.But I am still working and my career is in the city;I can't do the commute.But,in 5 years I will be here full time and,I can't wait. In the meantime I have spent my life savings on my house.My job demands are the highest in the summer so I.can't get out much.So,I rent to families that want to enjoy the North Fork.Families with children and maybe a pet,that want a family setting for their vacation.They want to enjoy what the North Fork has to offer,a beautiful and quiet vacation. These people are and have been accepted on my block and enjoy my neighbors.Never have I had a problem in two years that I_have rented.All the people on the block are having guests and extended families and friends in too.It's summer for Pete's sake. The money I have made has all gone back into the house.I bad waterfront damage from hurricane Sandy. The rentals covered that.I didn't have money after my renovations.It went to landscaping and many other homD improvements.All this money wentte local people doing the work.The lawn care,the house Cleaners,the•garbage removal>all is done with local people,all in the community. Plus,don't forget all the money the.renters are spending locally.Eating out,shopping,boating,going to our beaches and wineries.They are on vacation and we all spend more money than normal on vacation. The local merchants and the community benefit from this.It's what gets everyone through the slow months of winter. There-are many problems with people who own their homes and have parties all summer long too.How will we control all these people then?We all know such neighbors exist.What do we do about-them? There are no parties allowed with my renting.Limit of 2 cars only.I can go on about all the rules that are in the contracts but the point is it works and all are as fine on my block with my rentals as I am with their guests. I rent my house through a property management company.They get the people,interview the people,and draw up the contracts,and they check on these people.It works.I WOULDN'T JUST RENT TO ANYONE.This is my home and these are my neighbors that I tare about I see Ito reason why I can't do this.Your:restrictions will only lose the renters and the-money they bring into our town to help everyone get through the slow times. The proposed legislation doesn't make sense to the if you all look at the big picture. Patricia Walker 1020 Ruch Lane Southold,NY 11971 (0°611 Joanna and Dennis Lane :C` tc ✓o•ue= Licensed Real Estate Brokers Cutcho-aue Statement August 10th:2015.-•Pub'iic Hearing.. Rental Law We've been managing short term weekly vacation rentals on the NOFO since 2003, first for ourselves,then later for other people.This has been our livelihood for most of the last 10 years, amounting to hundreds of short term rentals with only zero reported complaints between numerous properties we have managed over the years. Some of the people in this roam tonight have occupied those houses for themselVes or their extended families for a week or so. Others we have worked with for a year or so and now manage their properties professionally for themselves. According to my (Joanna's) records, I had an email exchange about Vacation Rental permitting with Sup. Russell between June and September 2008, prompted by Riverhead's slumlord legislation passed by a Board that lumped all rentals together to ensure safe worker housings Vacation rentals were perceived by RVHD as only "seasonal" (MD to LD) or"monthly"and those tenants would be asked to produce a social security number and a copy of their lease kept on file in the Town, much like getting a dump sticker. HomeAway was being run by a couple out of their garage,and Vacation Rental Management software was buggy and awkward at best.The geeks and techies amongst us found new channels of communication with potential renters Who did not need to Visit the property and we worked together and pooled our expertise to ensure',processes were developed to ensure quality tenants could be matched with high end vacation rentals, to exceed all expectations. Here's what I said to Scott'about it at the time, selected extract for reason of length: "From:Joanna Lane<xxxxxx©propertyangels.com> Date: Sat, Jun 7, 2008 Subject;Re: Southold-Rental permits To:Xxx730@yahoo.com What I am pushing for is to get the VR(vacation rental) sector completely exempted from any other kind of rental permit law, and into a different category,subject to different rules.That's easier than going for one permit law to cover everything in my view. It's the definitions that matter, so that VRs cannot be exploited by slumlords. I am convinced this•can be done.VRs have certain unique qualities that are easy to define, but what we have going on right now is a blurring of boundaries between hotel operations(which is not a 16( real estate rental at all)and single family rental homes(which is real estate rental).To oversimplify the situation,the tourist accommodation sector(excluding camp grounds and the like),looks something like this: A. Hotels, Motels and B&Bs operating as hotel B. Hotels, Motels and B&Bs expanding into the vacation rental sector C. Single family homes and condos expanding into hotel operations D. Single family homes and condos operating as vacation rentals. Item B and C. is where the waters are getting muddy.This is confusing to the public,who don't always understand what they are being offered and there are no regulatory standards which have to be met. Heck,most vacation rental owners wouldn't even know that they are supposed to have CO2 detectors and smoke alarms.Not good. Few,if any of the places I know about would be attractive as worker housing,the rates are simply too high." i am not at liberty to disclose Scott's reply, which is his privileged information, but to be 'fair, he was very supportive, unlike the rest of the Town Board at that time who did not. Now 7 years later, (and I have not spoken-to the matter in the intervening period), I find we have muddied the issues even further by allowing an unregulated sector of the real estate market go unchecked. Everyone knew"this"was happening, but nobody knew exactly what"this"was. First"this"was ignored'for 110 years, now it seems some folks may be trying to push "this" back to the good old days when families would drive out, look at, then rent a seasonal rental or for a month. Those days are gone FOREVER. (pause) When I started "this" 12 years ago, Home Away was a husband and wife Mom and Pop business run out of a garage. Easily defeated back then, not now,: This is not going away-seriously, this is a tourist economy and this is how people now book their vacations, If you don't allow "this"to continue, the tourist economy will fail. First,the rhetoric has to stop. Pitting neighbor against neighbor is not healthy for our community, neither is Xenophobia to,a tourist economy. Nobody wants to take a vacation in the middle of a public controversy and we are already feeling the effects of that THIS SEASON. 69 I speak here not to add to the noise, but to cut through it and appeal to everyone to come together as a whole community and look not only left and right to your neighbor, but to really take a long hard look at the bigger picture and long term future. We need to use what's already there to make this work and that includes empty houses.That's right-the second homes stand empty for much .of the year. In move that rides against the grain of governmental thinking'in Europe, Japan is actually debating relaxing the regulation surrounding short term rentals so they can start to utilize the 8 million empty homes standing in the country. Building of new hotels and resorts puts extremely localised pressure on infrastructure and concentrates the income from tourists to fewer businesses. The public feel the effects-yet see fewer of the benefits from mass-influx tourism.Apart from the distribution of jobs, the influx of money from tourism will then be feltin very localised areas, around these hotels. if like Japan,we want to encourage further tourism without damaging the integrity of our destination, a solution has to be found. Encouraging private ownership and use of empty homes by permitting regulated short term rentals teems'like a solution that can do this. It puts ownership of property, and in turn the North Fork, back in the hands of the residents.Vacation rentals then encourage people to live in similar rhythms and pattern's of residents. You live amongst the North Forkers,shop where people shop,.go where they go. You are not buffeted through the corners to a tour. The natural flow of • the North Fork pushes you in new directions and each property has a different stream meaning the Visitors are dispersed more equally around the Forks. The alternative model is to build more hotels- in RVHD or wherever,then funnel huge numbers of people into Southold and focuses their impact onto the small towns and villages Whilst the profits are distilled down to reach only a handful of mega • corporations. The vacation rental model is the inverse. The visitors and the benefits are spread over, like a fine mist. Enough to notice, but not disrupt the natural operation of a city and the people that live there. This is what Japan is debating. Whether they can solve two problems at once. Permitting vacation rentals requires minimal investment. The properties are built.The people are ready and have the means to reach to their prospective guests, We could even think about creating a Town database. If people know that they have the option to supplement their income by using the'value of their property it will help lead to a higher rate of home-ownership and fewer properties standing empty as money and natural resources areexpended in order to build more lodging options for tourists. The next point that empty housing brings up is that the areas where these properties sit have been built to cope with having people reside,in them. Renting,out a vacation property means that the occupancy levels remains.in line with the original estimations. Not only is the local infrastructure designed to cope with these occupancy levels, local businesses rely on it. By allowing short term rentals, you are not stuffing in an extra layer of population that the people below are force to support, you are keeping occupancy at the levels that keep an area, and businesses thriving. You can argue that there is disruption and the risk of antisocial behaviour, but with regulated and professional property managers,these cases are in the Minority. To cite this,with infrequent and anecdotal examples, fails to acknowledge that living in a any community comes with a certain level of risk of this type of behaviour regardless of kRS4 rental regulation. Whilst a vacation rental may cause disruption, there is no evidence that rates of disruption are higher than the usual come and go of a normal rental property. This comes down to property management. Regulation breeds professionalism.-Prohibition breeds a black market. By limiting vacations and not actively encouraging the use of empty space,, regulation is not finding'a-solution to'the mis-distribution of housing. It is a modern-day crime that we allow buildings to stand empty:The last thing we want to happen is for absentee.owners to push up property prices without contributing to the local economy, The majority of vacation rentals are still rentedby the primary owners not by businesses that collate properties an umbrella, although I'm sure there may be some. The taxes on the property are paid, the guests bring income to local areas and the rental income is,also taxed.To allow people to purchase homes, yet not permit short term rentals accelerates the suffocation-of'the North Fork;punishing enterprise and commerce and encouraging avarice and the collection of'private assets by the few. What's,plain is that we have a crisis in.which we prefer to leave buildings to be empty than rented out for less than the arbitrary Minimum lengths imposed by increasing numbers of vacation regulations. Permitting vacation rentals will not solve the larger crisis of people being without homes. What it will do is lead to a more equal distribution of the wealth of tourism: It will be interesting to see how Japan decides to land on this issue and if they can use the vacation rental opportunity 109'61 to house new visitors in a sustainable way and get more people into its empty housing stock. If they are able to find an elegant solution, we may see destinations in Europe and America adopting a similar approach. Whatever happens on the North Fork now may well determine whether we are in-"this" business- meaning tourism at all. If we're out, then what else are We going to do? I'll end with this quick recap of the,3 non-reported complaints we had in 10 years- 1. a guest who complained that their neighbor mowed his lawn at exactly the time of her newborn baby's nap every afternoon - please could I (the property manager) have a word with him. Why don't you go and talk to him yourself, he's right next'door, I suggested? I have no idea how they worked it out, but that was the end of it. 2.a neighbor complained about a guest arriving with a waverunner and tearing up and down the.beach all day for week. Could I stop it.No, but good job he Wasn't there.for 2 weeks then, or a month....,.. So my question for the Community is. What problendo you think the 14 day limitation is going to solve?Wouldn't the effort be better spent regulating those who manage the properties, not those whostay in them. After all, they're the ones that set the expectations, not the guests. 69'54 1_5 © -,ROWIEn - AUG 112015 - 11 SHORT TERM RENTAL STATEMENT 8/12/2015 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I,Louise Pecoraro and my spouse Irene Kassow have owned a home in Southold since 1991. Before that we rented and were often house guests. We would make the trip out on weekends from Manhattan's Upper West Side, a mere 2 hour,drive depending of course on traffic and the season. For 5 years we have been full time residents,having given up our NYC apt.We don't miss the drive. We love the North Fork and over a 24 year period we rented our home 4 times-through a real estate broker and one time through a friend. This was helpful economically and it was done for varying lime frames.This has been a long and established custom for many residents on the North Fork. Fortunately We have never had a problem with tenants who littered,were loud,unruly and disrespectful of property lines.,Our neighbors shared no complaints . Nor had we incurred any mishaps. Now with the advent of AIRBNB and VHRBO this custom has come under scrutiny in a much more significant way..More people are on the bandwagon of this phenomena.No doubt technology'has spurred it's growth. Now we'-can mount-our own advertisements, communicate by e-mail,have moneys routed into our accounts and interview prospective tenants via'Skype. We are faced with a multiplicity of challenges,something like starting a tenoVation on an old house--you just don't know what you may encounter. So it goes with this phenomena. Residential zones,commercial zones, Strangers on our beaches,on our blocks,not enough parking spaces— money to be made by the:town, horneowriers,businesses ,traffic--the growth branches out into so many directions that the conversation becomes numbing, . contentious, driven by self interests.We're concerned about all of this. The underlining tension is how to cope with change--how do'we adjust as individuals as'a community. Do we invite it, shun it,object to it,oppose it, ignore it. One aspect of all this change is rental properties how to regulate the influx. So what do we need to do----because change is inevitable,it's here----What was is not what is-- We're for live and let live,within limits. So we're for establishing rental permits and other guidelines that may, allay anxiety and bring funds to the town. The length of stay is irrelevant in our opinion-- but tenants who are considerate is important.Therefore, registering tenants, enforcing noise ordinances,enforcing occupancy limits may be a way of regulating the"nuisance houses" and some of the other problems we are experiencing. We're for an inclusive environment,a sharing of the pie,instead of an exclusivity whether that be a economic exclusivity or a sharing of our beautiful setting. Rules, laws should be established and enforced, I think we are good neighbors,approachable neighbors caring of our place and environment and hoping to preserve beauty and character of the North Fork. It seems to us that if tenants, landlords, 1,00 full/part time residents are considerate neighbors,,and are not foisting noise, litter,etc. on one another, we should forego complaints and essentially"butt out of each others business" Our angle is we love the North Fork--and in my heart of hearts.although I hate tourists--we're trying not to let our prejudices,pet personal peeves cloud what's fair and reasonable--- as well as limit the benefits that we stand to gain from renting our home, our personal property in the future if we so choose. We think the most salient issue is not length of stay but rather behavior of tenants, responsibilities of owner/landlords,residents and enforcement-and on that note I hope we can come to equitable solutions. We respectfully subriiit this statement to the Town Board for consideration. Louise Pecoraro Irene Kassow t ` Box 182 loqs-11 Southold August 14, 2015 To the Southold Town Board I request you reject a two-week or 15-day minimum for residential rentals. The reasons supporters of the measure advance are spurious: Why should vacationers renting for two weeks be any more responsible and considerate than one-week renters? How are traffic and noise reduced when the rental period is larger? Why should anyone renting for two weeks have a greater stake inthis community than a one-week renter? Southold is not on the South Fork. The bar scene and the share houses don't occur here, and there is little reason to expect-them to move in. The Hampton's glamor, social scene and ocean are not about to flow north. On the other hand, permitting one-week rentals permits a larger and a more diverse rental population. People renting for a short period are more likely to spend their-fime exploring and patronizing area restaurants, wineries, stores.Two families renting one week each are going to check out more attractions than one family staying two weeks. In,my neighborhood short-term renters have been quiet and considerate. It is my former neighbors who caroused at 1 a.m. and resumed their noise after the police left. What I would like to see is stringent enforcement of noise restrictions. Yours truly, er4f 2: Daniel Gladstone RE© - [ V ED • AUG 1 4 21115 • SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD William D. Moore Attorney at Law 51020 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Tel: (631)7654663 Fax: (631)765-4643 August 17,2015 Hon. Scott Russell, Supervisor Hon. Louisa Evans,Justice/Councilwoman Hon.William Ruland, Councilman RECEIVED 1=ltins Jins biziiio REHonii.R bosio- Nazi:JiII POOL AUG 2 1 2015 Sotttliold'.l~oWnf1 and - AUG 2 4 2015 'LL): Town Hall Southold Town Clerk Main Rciad P.Q.Box 1179 SUPERVISOR'S OFFICETOWN OFSOUTHOLD Southold,NY 11971 Re: Short term rental Dear Supervisor Russell and Members of the Board: I have been following the back and forth discussion that has been held with respect to short term/transient rentals by reading the hearing transcript, local press coverage,and attending the public hearing last week. I encourage you to set aside the present legislation with its 14 day minimum requirement.. I know that each of you on the Board has the community's best interests in mind as you consider local legislation. With that in mind,I believe the 14 day minimum stay does not seek to regulate short term rental, but to prohibit it. You received a lot of comment explaining the typical length of visitors'stays, and 14 days wastheexceptions not the norm which is long weekends to a week at most, The 14 day minimum bears no relation to the actual rentals taking place,and begs for owners to engage in "clever"renting to meet the real needs of those renting for shorter periods. I did not-see any information from our police department indicating that short term rentals were causing excessive noise or disturbance in the community, Instead,those opposing short term rental stated a generalized concern-over the changing identity of guests in their immediate neighborhoods.. With ho increase in reported robberies,burglaries or other misconduct associated with our transient visitors,this stated fear of strangers is not justified. It appears that the complaints you have received are anecdotal and do not represent a problem requiring such a draconian act as prohibiting these rental opportunities for guests and visitors seeking to enjoy some time in our community. William D. Moore (0 ,i0 Attorney at Law August 17,2015 Re: Short term rental I did some research and have learned that according to the 2010 U.S. Census Data,there are 15,377 total housing units in the Town. And as I read the comments that have been given, it is stated that there are approximately 300 homes being offered by owners for short term rental on the websites. That means that less than 2 percent of the homes in the entire Town are being made available for short term rental use:. A whopping 98 percent of the dwellings in Town are NOT being used for short term rental. If only 2 percent of the homes in Town are offered,then the overwhelming majority of the residents and homeowners in Town are NOT experiencing whatever supposed impact that short term rentals are having on our community. And, as the Supervisor noted at the June public hearing,the Town is not getting complaints about loud music or disturbances. There simply aren't enough short term rentals to have an impact. Just because AirBnB and similar companies have made it easy for owners to list their properties on a"new fangled" computer app doesn't mean that many owners want to make the effort needed to properly host guests in their homes. And the fact that only 2 percent of the homes in Southold are being offered is proof that the easy to use computer app has not created a large market of homes for short term rent. Let me share an anecdote of my own. My home is less than 15 feet from the home next to us. That neighboring home is available through an on-line listing. The guests who have used that home have been kind, thoughtful neighbors enjoying the lovely community. In fact,we have met people from around the world who have come to enjoy vacationing here, and we have had the pleasure of sitting and enjoying dinner with them;and getting to know and make new friends. You have indicated,that a comprehensive rental law is under consideration. I encourage you to focus your efforts there. To insure that rental homes are safe, that owners are held accountable for the conduct of their renters with appropriate rules,to protect the character of the neighborhood from undesirable conduct. The proposed legislation does not address any of these issues which I believe are the legitimate concern of local government. Thank you for your time and your service to the community. Very truly yours, IC/3161 Standish, Lauren From: Russell, Scott Sent Thursday, September 03,2015 3:32 PM To: Standish, Lauren Subject: FW:August 25th Meeting and Chapter 280-Changes to Transient Rental Properties Attachments: Southhold Board Short-Term Rental Letter.pdf Can you make sure yoU print this before i delete it?Thanks. From: Matthew Kiessling [mailto:mklessling@traveltech,org] Sent:Tuesday,August 25, 2015 1:56 PM To; Russell, Scott; William Ruland; ipevans@fishersisland.net; Doherty, Jill; Jim Dinizio; Ghosio, Bob; Tomaszewski, Michelle; Standish, Lauren Subject: August 25th Meeting and Chapter 280-Changes to Transient Rental Properties • August 25, 2015 RECEOVIMTown Board of the Town of Southold Southold Town Hall SEP ~ 3 2015 53095 Main Road SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE Southold, New York TOWN OF SOUTHOLO Dear Town Supervisor Russell and Southold Town Board Members: The Short-Term Rental Advocacy Center(STRAC), a program of the Travel Technology Association, is a broad- based coalition of property owners and managers, hosts,travelers and businesses that recognizes the value of short-term rentals to both travelers and the local communities they visit. Increasingly, travelers are looking for short-term rental accommodations,that provide flexible housing options and allow them to spend longer periods of time in communities, in a unique setting, all while contributing to the local economy.As such,we believe municipalities should embrace this economic opportunity by working with industry stakeholders to establish a reasonable framework for regulating short-term rental activity so that all may benefit.STRAC counts among-its members, short-term rental companies such as HomeAway, AirBnB, and FlipKey. Short-term rental technology companies have created a vibrant marketplace for travelers and property owners,expanding the travel landscape by offering alternative accommodations and providing economic benefits to communities around the world.As the Southold Town Board considers legislation related to short- term rentals, it is important to enact public policy that allows both travelers and residents the ability to benefit from the vast tourism•and economic opportunities that short-term rentals provide. Travelers seeking short-term rental accommodations should see Southold as a travel destination that embraces short-term rentals and is willing to offer travelers and their families a unique option when it comes to accommodations.To date,the Southold community has realized a very real economic benefit from the presence of short-term rentals and the travelers who occupy them.Travelers choose short-term rentals for various reasons, including:the need to accommodate larger families that would otherwise require multiple hotel rooms, travelers with special needs or special needs children, or simply p desire for more lengthy and affordable stays. Regardless of the reason travelers chose short-term rentals, numerous studies have shown 1 (ottm that those in short-term rentals stay longer and spend more money during their travel versus hotel stays. The growth in demand for short-term rental accommodations is exponential and well documented. We urge the Board to act cautiously when it comes to limiting the ability for homeowners to rent properties for fewer than 14 days. Given the area's popularity, and the tremendous benefits of the industry, it is perplexing to see imposing a 14-day minimum stay on short-term rentals in Southold under serious consideration. Across the country,we have seen that when misguided policymakers seek to enact oppressive or limiting regulations on short-term rentals, such as the minimum stay provision outlined in this ordinance; the impact is such that it drives this popular pro-growth industry underground, effectively eliminating accountability and depriving communities of the corresponding tax and revenue benefits. With the proposed minimum stay;this bill would be detrimental to the owners,operators and hosts who currently choose to offer short-term rentals,as well as the local community's travel and tourism economy as a whole,This legislation is a blatant attack on short-term rentals,their owners and operators, and the travelers who enjoy them. Furthermore,the proposed penalties in this draft ordinance are excessive.We are aware of no other town or city in America that has proposed such aggressive penalties against its own citizens as•those set forth in this legislation. We encourage the Town of Southold to continue to work toward developing sensible short-term rental regulations that meet the needs of the town and the growing short-term rentatmarketplace. If reasonable regulations are enacted,then the town and surrounding community would have much to gain. The Travel Technology Association is available to the Town as a resource as you continue to develop short- term rental policies. We look forward to having the opportunity to work with you. We urge you to reject or defer the voteon any changes to local laws governing Transient Rental Properties for further consideration-: Sincerely Matthew Kiessling Director of Coalitions and Grassroots:The Travel Technology Association Executive Director:The Short-term Rental Advocacy Center 2 ...._..._.�__.__.....Revisions ..,.........T...._.� - , *, --S__ --_-- :::7-_—_-- 11-10-98 __—__— -_ __--_ 10-10-97 '..-"•-•-•._ ` 11-10-98 - °j 08-0&00 N 325,982 d ,. ' _ \- S 10-30-01 1 "" \ OUT/7/O�O 04-05-0229 A 12-29 04 10-20-01 zo 2 - kwti w4- , 13A(D)is 0 , r mrr ; /.v 1 / ,l r// , \, all x -4 b9.ct/ ,14 g n 7 / /49 m i Zvi ,/ l rP bLeybitA, � 1c „ - a2 S r7j1 , , , , , , r �,HoRF e r Cj'��) ;Ir„45 . I m / / / , rV r (Tap(Tap' y 0 --- 1`I q 10 1 m g 's' r n) i al 8 'pa 'w (J I ue as m /A 41)inakA:i 0 43 g m / d U we I�_ ` '� uP retley rx,/ / 25,E g - ✓L 42 g 1�� �/` ail cm - 4-------8g r r, �fl e ! // ,, ,y R) - Dt rte/ / nm g �v— I l .. - --115(")--.. --- ,;------ ,.0.40 at 15 1 6 11x7 262 (15t _ a) va 11x) - ( ' 3( "� ,� 114) ux 11n 1,1) 20 Y e 11s) ¢ ,esu) .. 38 — ,xe 8 (111 ,ex 1 rm1 ----- g 047 171 - ..-------37_-g_ -ped '� r a,7 ,,, a ,as „� n ns) _e Rx) e) 18 O R_ ( --38 _?3 8q(,-- ,es- m) (11,44 19 8 •__11 as) . ----181 _ ) __ 35 8 -------" s --- -- - Ret AB --- ,61(4) -_-_--- 5 5. r; - o -am r - an__ - ---- 1 EE O . -72 - a1t 30.1§ -- ----'- 003 ------16- 3 Z b 8 R.) iii m-- ax) 5, ______ D't _ -_____-152 is __-� O _ 42 ----- 8a --- �--____ 8 ae) __ __ (2s) �f2e1/ '.s`CM' X151 (x d ,, ��' ,' 141 • // D. g </ (I) ay- 1 , \ �q 26 g (447 '4, , r , N �1\ d I I 1 \ 1 1 ' 130 , PO YS El, I I o 1 (447 ,/',1g pxl 1 I I ------ 29� � ms �,ll 1 Ifs% N 324,082 b /' ,/ 'I, I - .. X65 I ,ss 1 1 -________ `Sy I (b) ,90 b g I] 28 r m 111 DME55 OWAVaf1OMEW1MIE ALLPW t 11 — SWd69b Lw _—sQ,—= Wx55900,Line II-- 011195WNMEF0.E9090OSMIe P,vDvM« SulJrvdm 101545 Bbd IWO -- Fm O1M LNv aWLno Woluav OWk,l«e W-- SOi00. 5 1 E 0.00.F...,...05 Owrn �.�-- sue0001500UOiEe No (21) BndW O yOIc,O.I.OLNc —W-- Iegvrv1D11111.. --lOT-- 1140 43 G SHSSI nL'O - Dead Soleil 01 mann v ——L—— Amb0Wm0l0,01Llne——a—— 115 Cou.ry lu,o lgN Oislnq Lb. ��� i E smms Owens. °" ,i.. N SlreamfsM,e Town Lun -- Pan Oalun lne —P-- Wast«vuim O,MC Wc--Wr/-- D Pawl No 23 ixve OIS 121 A(e)ar 121A -- .--s-- 121Ac V1ale we 1rM.onPm Lw olo.nim wm l)