By Robert Sample
Cities and towns of all sizes have wrestled with the increasingly popular trend of property owners offering their homes as short-term rentals, and on July 9, the Kent Town Board opened a public hearing for residents to sound off on a zoning amendment that would allow and regulate this form of housing accommodation in town.
The amendment defines “short-term rentals” as those parts of residential properties rented for fewer than 30 consecutive nights. By and large, Kent residents who spoke at the meeting opposed any measure that would permit such rentals. However, if it were allowed, they suggested at the very least that such rentals require significant restrictions.
New York City native Nina Chernoff expressed concern that short-term rentals could degrade the local environment – particularly the health of the town’s lakes.
“I have never lived in an area quite so beautiful and so environmentally conscious,” she said. “When you open it up to people to come into this area on a short-term basis, they don’t have an investment in our jewel of a neighborhood.”
Chernoff said she fears an increase in noise pollution and garbage from short-term visitors, as well as potential septic system overload – which could end up overflowing into leaching fields and, ultimately, bodies of water.
From an economic standpoint, Chernoff said visitors would be less apt to dine at local restaurants because rental properties encompass kitchens, while hotels do not.
She suggested the town restrict the practice to owners who live either on-site or within a short distance of their rental property. This would discourage outside investors from buying up homes to use for this purpose, thus making it difficult for potential permanent residents to find homes in town.
Former Town Supervisor Kathy Doherty noted that the proposed amendment would permit short-term rentals in R-10 residential districts – such as the Lake Carmel Park District, where she lives – as well as those zoned R-40 and R-80. She said her own neighborhood is too dense for this purpose, and the lake it encompasses already has water-quality issues from runoff.
“How does having these short-term rentals benefit us as taxpayers?” asked Doherty, who suggested that as an alternative, the town attempt a three-year pilot program for these rentals.
Deputy Town Supervisor Chris Ruthven said the reason for the proposed amendment is because residents who are looking to make extra income have already started renting out their properties.
“We had no regulations prohibiting them, or allowing them, and we had residents complaining,” he said. “This gave us an avenue to try to get a grip on what was happening. I don’t know how it benefits the town other than it allows us to start to be able to control something that seemed to be starting to get out of control.”
“There are residents who depend on this to be able to stay in their homes,” added Councilwoman Anne Campbell.
Kent Building Inspector Bill Walters noted that under the current rules, a homeowner with a short-term rental can incur violations and end up in court. After that, all will remain quiet at that property for months, “and then, we get a phone call from a neighbor that it’s back again… And we write them back up,” he said. “So, sometimes, we’re chasing our tail.”
The new rule would also require all neighbors within 150 feet to be notified of any proposed short-term rental.
The building department has begun to develop an application that residents would use to apply for a short-term rental permit.
Tom Ridge is part of the Lake Sagamore Cooperative Association, which has a 30-day cutoff for short-term rentals. “The 30-day limit has worked for us,” he noted.
Mary De Bourbon also lives in a lake community. “In addition to overtaxing the building department, you’re going to see a lot of police calls because people like to party and neighbors will call the police,” she said. “You can expect to have to add some police or overtime costs.”
Kent Conservation Advisory Committee Chairman William Volkman said the popularity of short-term rentals in vacation communities such as Long Island’s east end has led to rules such as seven- or 14-day occupancy limits, as well as minimum stays.
“You end up with a more attractive client – somebody who’s not going to come in for one or two nights and have a big old party, leave a mess, and leave the neighbors annoyed because they were up all night,” he said.
Volkman pointed out that absent such rules, the building department won’t even know what’s going on. Such accommodations will lack fire alarms, security controls, and other measures to ensure the safety of occupants.
“So, the purpose of this law is to try to rein that in so you don’t end up with some weird disaster,” he noted.
The public hearing was the town’s introductory comment-and-discussion session on the topic, and it was kept open for further discussion in the future.
Comments