Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Yeah.

You know how I know each other Huh?

We have a couple. Nothing crazy.

It's a nice facility, don't get me wrong, just but for all that all those people, it's Yeah. It's cold.

I'm comfortable. All right. Uh, is it It's 7 o'clock. Time to rock. All right. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Like to call to order the city of Rome Planning Board meeting for August 2025. Call the meeting to order. Mark Espazito, your chair, vice chair, uh, Joe Kandra is not here this evening. and Eric Gonzalez, board member. Eric Gonzalez is uh out of town. And Marcus Bazto, the chair, have Britney Fumeola, David Smith, board members, here that makes a quorum for us. We have Danielle Salsbury from Community and Economic Development all the way to my left, your right. She's managing it and kind of good things for us. We're broadcasting live on

YouTube, YouTube. So, you can, you know, you can tell all your friends and relatives. the city of Rome Planning Board's live stream on YouTube. We have Mr. Garrett Woff from Community and Economic Development Corporation Council. We have Jim Rizzo. Uh let's see. Oh, look at live stream. It's right there. Yeah. https roam new york.com/planning board at 7 p.m. meeting. All right. All right. So, uh let's go through our agenda. Item one, review and approval of the 1 July 2025 meeting minutes. I make a motion to approve the July 1st meeting minutes. Second.

All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Public service announcement. Upcoming meeting dates 9th September and 7 October. First Tuesday of the month. The 9th is not the first. We probably skip because of Labor Day.

Labor Day. Yeah. Yeah. So it's not it's the second people tracking for September. Um Okay. First item. Uh, new business, no old business. Public hearing request by Efficient Night LLC for three lot minor subdivision, 310 to 312 South James Street. Uh, call the public hearing open. First call. Any members of the community like to speak for against the project? None heard. Second call. Item one on our agenda. Public hearing request. Third call. Third and final call. Public hearing request. Three lot subdivision 310. This 312 South James Street. None heard. The public hearing is closed. Now we have our environmental seeker review request. This is item four on our agenda uh for three lot minor subdivision 310 312 South James Street. And our subdivision review request again by Efficientite. Am I saying that right? Hey, look at me. LLC for three lot minor subdivision 310 312 South James Street. Uh please come forward. State your name for the record. You're representing the petitioner.

Good a good evening board. My name is Jeff Moore with more land surveying. I'm here to represent the efficient night LLC on a three lot subdivision on Ridge Road and South James Street. be at the northwest corner of the intersection. Um, currently they own approximately almost three acres right there. uh be just below the Access Federal Credit Union and it's surrounded by the church and then the rail the old railroad on the north and they're looking to basically separate out an older pole barn that's on the property and then the rest of it's all vacant and they're so lot one would have um that is the right the main building and I I have paper cops here if you guys don't have if you want to see

I'll take one pass yeah take one pass it So that show here it open board. So the they're keeping the main building. Is there anything in the pole barn today? I don't I don't go inside the building. So I hear you. Are they looking to sell off? I believe that's the overall goal. I don't think it really just curious.

No, I if you could picture this would be the old Away building on South James. So, as you see in the map or on the maps in front of you, the Away building would be uh lot one, which would be approximately 1 acre 0.9. So, it' be the asphalt, the Away building. It would have road frontage on South James and on Ridge Road. Lot two would be the green circled parcel, which is a 6 of an acre. That would basically be residual lands out back, more or less just a giant parking lot at this point in time. Um, it's actually old railroad property from way back when. And then lot three would be on the bottom left corner of your map. That's where the yellow circle is. It'd be about 2 ten of an acre. Um you know, we'd be adhering to the side setback of the 15 foot minimum setback on the left side. And um I would have road friend on Ridge Street, Ridge Road. Um it conforms to your subdivision regulations and all all aspects and go from there. Feel free to answer any questions.

Thank you, sir. Any questions, member of the board? Thank you sir. Community economic development. So as you said the proposed partial dimensions are compliant with the zonic code minimum min minimums. There's no wet planes wetlands or flood planes um to worry about. So our department recommends issuing a secret negative declaration and uh approving the proposed subdivision plan is presented. And since it's minor when we approve the itat it becomes the final. Correct. Okay. So, let's do a seeker review. You get a motion to issue a negative deck or not. Make a motion to issue a negative deck on the seeker request. Second.

All those in favor? I I. All those opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Uh, and then the subdivision review of the three lot minor subdivision. Motion. I make a motion for the subdivision review as requested by elegant for three lot minor subdivisions at 310 312 South James Street. A second second. All those in favor? I I All those opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Good luck with your project. Um, of course, you know, you got to comply with all city code. Um, but you got your approval and do you need copies? I'll Yeah, keep dropping.

You work with Garrett? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's why I get you to sign these. Nice. Thank you. You're welcome. Nice to see you. Good luck. Yes. Yes.

All right. And item six, our final item, recommendation to the common council regarding ordinance number 9807A, amending Rome city code of ordinance chapter 8 zoning code. This involves a permitting process for short-term rentals, which is not currently addressed in the code. Probably a good idea to address this in the code. We've read through this. We have some comments. I think this does a pretty good job. You mind if I go ahead?

Okay. So, the things we kind we read through this and some minor things we think you might want to the the uh common council might like to consider. I think it's implied in item one that uh it's meant to be on a per address or per unit basis, but I think we want to kind of specify that, you know, it's $150 annual fee either for every if it's a single family home that the permit applies to that. And if a owner owns 15 properties in the city, it's not a a a permit for all of the properties. Um, also if you have a multi-unit dwelling, I would imagine the common council wants uh a permit for each unit with a kitchen and and bathroom maybe. Um or if you if the common council wants it per uh address and you know if there's four units or not per address per parcel if it's like one one lot if you want the permit to be for all four apartments then either way clarify it and so there's no ambiguity. Um second item I think uh we looked at uh talking about adequate off- streetet parking. I think um we don't want to specify that any parking would be in excess of what's allowed by the code. So I think the city code for our one so many parking spaces,

right? Certain uh certain zoning districts have parking maximums that are set forth in the code. And so we would just uh recommend assuming this is the intent of the co uh the council just clarify that this doesn't override those maximums unless the intent is to override those maximums. Yeah. And the other thing is I mean if you have a a unit that can have four tenants. I mean why don't we have the council come up then you can ask questions rather than just talking at one.

Yeah. Um either way, Rick. Um you know, so you'd have I don't know if you have a place with six beds or you got three dual beds and I think it's unlikely you're going to have six cars, but but then again, you could possibly have six people all driving separately. So I think um as far as that's we're concerned with the parking, it was put into place to complement the the the zoning that's already in place.

Okay. Um I in in my head I'm thinking of a couple different areas. Uh we're looking for how many um beds there are. So we're going to look at the floor plan of how many beds there are for that unit um for a couple reasons for fire and for for parking and and and just for the general neighborhood um you know work to work with the neighbors in the the area. So, so we would know how many people would should be there versus how much parking space you have.

Would you would it make sense to I'm just kind of spitballing here. maybe put the onus on the land owner or their agent to advertise that there are two or three x number of off- streetet parking spaces and that's the maximum that they when they advertise that you got parking for two vehicles. You're not allowed to have more than that. I mean, we could I would I would defer to corporation council on it. I don't know how that language I don't know what the language looks like in a contract,

but I but well, but I think you could as part of the permitting process say, you know, we don't want someone renting out an Airbnb and having a party and having 30, 50 cars show up, right? So, if they had language in their Airbnb advertisement says, "This parcel has two off- streetet parking and that's what you're limited to. You can't have, you know, 50 cars come 30, 20, 10." Okay.

I I I think the intent was to to not styy any people from doing what they want with their property. But on the other hand, um if people want to come over, we don't want to say you can't come over and have people park on the road. It's just they can't overnight park or have like 18 cars there for three straight days. Yeah. Right. So, the intent there was to to make it work with the neighborhood without limiting what that property can do for for, you know, people that won't want to live there.

And certainly, I think no owner that's renting their place through Airbnb wants someone having a party and damaging their property. Yeah, I think our comment was more just that clarification so that you know, we've got parking maximum of the code. Someone can't just go and say, "Well, oh, I'll spend $150, get a short-term rental permit, and now I get to ignore the parking maximum because I can just say, well, I have a short-term rental permit, therefore I can have as much parking as I think I need." Yeah.

Um I mean, we can do that if if there's language that we can put in there that that would work. I mean, you guys know as well as as anybody else at this codes versus um zoning, planning, and stuff like that. Um, I'm I'm we are more than amendable to put anything in it that that we think works best. I'm just trying to make it work for the most people without overreaching. Yeah.

So, so that's the goal. So, yeah, that that would work. And I and I do think um I'll certainly discuss this with uh Gerard Feny as well. We did have a brief discussion on it. Um because I I mentioned how um Garrett had a question about the parking. Um I think I think if we have simple language in here just stating that basically everything is going to be in compliance with the existing code as well which includes parking existing code and obviously the zoning code but just get understanding of overnight parking. Yeah. is not allowed on the streets or excessive. Right. I don't know how you would put that.

Well, that's the thing. Well, that's what when you say in accordance if you just say that um I'm thinking it could be more of a catch-all provision that nothing in this section shall be deemed to um override the existing sections of the of the of the code of ordinances and appendix A zoning, you know, so that that way you you're not even you're not just stating something. So in other words, it would obviously overnight parking or any other parking requirements and that kind of thing would still be applicable. Um I think I think a concern was that that this section would allow some exclusions in there which you know may or may not have you or a perception that there may be exclusions to the code.

Well, we can we can definitely add that. That's if if you can get if you guys can. So I think it could even be just like one sentence just saying you know to that effect. Yeah, it's better in there than not in there. Yeah. Yeah. That's and that's that's what I was thinking. Oh, I'm sorry. I was going to say the main thing is just to avoid incentivizing people to start paving yards and things along those lines being like, well, I got to get the maximum right parking I could possibly need. At that point, they would have to go for zoning to get the right Yeah.

square footage and stuff. And the other thing is in item 2e or the third and final thing that we we kind of thought of uh the host shall be responsible for ensuring that tenants comply with um city code all you know all city code rules and regulations and then maybe um you know uh including but not limited to garbage, recycling, winter parking, public nuisance. I don't think you want to leave an opportunity. The item F kind of, you know, kind of comes back and alludes to the fact that you mean all, you know, kind of all city codes and everything, but I think stating it there might be a good idea, too. Somebody goes, "Oh, it's all I have to worry about is garbage, recycling, winter parking, and public nuisance, and noise." Like, no, you got to worry about that your tenants are complying with all of the city code, not just those. So, maybe just, you know,

so we can clean up that language. Yeah. to where it would say something to the effect of all the host shall be responsible for ensuring all tenants comply with city rules and regulations relative to uh city codes including but not limited to exact stuff. Exactly. Yeah. Basically just prevent yourself from putting building a loophole in by mistake and language.

That's the kind of thing I could I could entirely see in my interactions. I could I see someone going like, "Well, it doesn't explicitly say that." And it's like Yeah, like the common council has specifically contemplated and worried about garbage, recycling, winter parking, public nuisance, and noise, but that doesn't exclude you from everything outside of that. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Other I mean, shopping carts. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. You can't take shopping carts off the grocery. No, you cannot. The city code prosecuted about, you know, 400 cases of shopping carts. I I have that on my resume. You have you really? Oh. Oh, yeah. Oh, wow. That's a frequent one.

But another one is like you can't have like you see people with pets in the grocery store. That's not allowed in the city code. But to go back, sorry. Okay. To go back to our first point in regards to the was it the council's an intention to have the fee per unit? Um, it was our intention to each Airbnb would be a self-contained entity on that property. Um, I believe and and and I'm I don't know the exact codes off the top of my head, but once it reaches a certain three-bedroom, it's a apartment complex or

multif family that's cut off as four units. Anything four and above It might it might even be three. I'll need to go back and double check. I know we have single unit and double, but I don't think we did we change it. I would have to go back and double check. It's either three or four. That's the cut off. I forget. I know some municipalities go more into detail. I know, for example, when we submit our pro housing um data every year, they have breakdown. some place break it down like one, two, three, four, five, then multif family, but we break it off at either three or four.

I just think it would be important to have so someone has one single residence, they're paying the same fee as having a resour.

So, that's something that I I guess I'm going to have to look at, think about. Um, but the intent was, uh, you know, one business here. This is an Airbnb. This is an Airbnb. Um, if they're the same entity that's having two or three, they would have to get one for each place. Um, we did not think to that level of two units within one house, meaning that it's like house rental. So, um, I would Yeah. The duplex, they could advertise two Airbnbs. bedrooms. They all had to be Airbnb have like 18 bathrooms, but

Well, you know what? Yeah. So, so for for each unit, um Yeah. I think if you had a duplex, if you had a duplex, you'd want them to get two, right? So, you have a unit that has or three units, they would have to pay. I guess my question would be I know of a unit that has six bedrooms, one kitchen, three baths, and then there's a door that they can open it up that can be another two bedrooms with another kitchen or so. So I so I think it would be I what

defines a unit? Typically in building code, they usually do it based on per kitchen, right? Two kitchen, that's two units. That's that's typically how it it's been. I mean, I would think in that instance, they would do two permits because they could advertise them both. If they're saying we're only going to advertise one and rent it as the whole big unit, well, maybe somehow you got I don't know. And I don't know how you word that in the code, but I I just want to make sure that that all areas are comp, right? So you could have if there's two separate entities like if I mean if there's a doorway between the two and they can rent them out as two separate or one main unit,

right? What would be the best way to do that without burdening the the the business? Because I don't want to do that either, right? But they so I would say that they don't have to and I don't want to cause hardship either, but our interest is in the best interest of the city, right? So I mean, you all are the legislative body, so it's, you know, you guys need to deliberate. Yeah.

We're all playing from the same book. I just think it's going to be important that both areas are are right. So you're only charging one fee. They're they're going to and you give them one permit for the one unit, the other one could could fall short, right? Where they hold both units to the same standard have to comply on all on all ends. Right. Right. So, I'm sorry to interrupt. No, it's okay. I was just going to, you know, maybe an obvious point, but just I think it's just more of just clarification what we want

whe whether it's per parcel and if they they have units or whatever it is. I mean, if if that's the legislative decision, right? Um because I'm sure the city clerk will have that question and then it'll come up to the legal office, right? If if it's not clear, in other words, so so if it's parcel, if it's per or if it's or if it's I would say two units or less would be an Airbnb personally is is what I would say. Um two kitchens or less. And I think you'd also want to specify on a given on a given parcel because Yeah. Yeah. Because if you have a duplex, usually each apartment gets an address, right?

Yeah. I'm thinking of one. I mean, I've I've been to a few myself. Um but I'm thinking of one in particular in Rome that Yeah. It's just it's it's it's one house. Um, it's it's got like a it's got like an in-law apartment behind. It's always been there. Like an accessory accessory. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah. So, I'm Yeah, we'll have to look at that. I'm not telling. Oh. Oh, no. I think we I'm I'm glad I'm here tonight so we can have these conversations because, you know, we've gone over this for about a year and a half now.

Oh, wow. Um because I because we wanted it to be um focused and narrow and but yet not cumbersome and and overbearing. I don't know. I don't think you want to encourage too much Airbnb rentals, right? We don't want to encourage it, but we don't want to necessarily be mean to them either. I mean, it's I think it's it's a legal purpose. So, we can't I don't think we want to ban it. No. Um, but I think it's certainly in the cities and the community's interest to to regulate it to limit and, you know, be fair to the neighbors

and for the people that rent it out. So, so the things like the fire department knows what the the what they're getting into, right? So, those those were all the purposes for it. So, we could, you know, have good neighbors, have have safety for everybody involved, and not overburden the the um the city or the neighborhood. Well, and I think the council for bringing this together because there's certainly Yes. Yes. Very much so. And for what it's worth, Rome is certainly not the only municipality with because this is a conversation that's being had in municipalities across the country. Weren't some trying to do outright bans? Some think Lake Tahoe. Yeah. Some have tried to outright prohibit it. That's more legally complicated. We have a private property owner and

uh but the these kind of conversations on how do we do this? what's what's the balance we strike? Like this was something that we talked about a lot. I remember when I was in in grad school planning, this was just at the advent of Airbnbs sort of popping the forefront and it was the conversation a lot of cities were struggling with of how do we regulate this? Do we just treat it like a hotel? Could we, you know, what's what's the right balance? Because it's it's one of those things there weren't regulations for because it didn't exist. It's it's it's a new concept. I think it's really good idea for somebody out of town having an agent local manage the property, clean it, turn it over. Yeah. So, all right, Rick, thank you very much. I think we're good. So, we basically have those three things and then you guys kind of do your thing and that's our recommendation and yeah, appreciate it.

Got it. Yeah. Yeah. for the most part on the record decision and I'll copy to you. Okay. I'll give I'll have it to you tomorrow.

Okay. Okay. So, I think we need a motion to recommend correct with our Yeah. Our our recommendation to the city modifications. Yep. Modif Yep. Approval mod. Can we get a motion? I make a motion to approve with the recommend recommendations, excuse me, as outlined by the planning board. I second it. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion carries unanimously. Our fav favor it. Motion to adjurnn. I make a motion to adjurnn. I second it. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Motion carries unanimously. We are adjourned. Happy August.