By Jake Palmateer
ONEONTA _ Concern over the city's summer-rental ordinance and the actions of the Planning Commission is mounting as the baseball camping season gets under way.
Several city officials said they are expecting a large turnout tonight as the Planning Commission is scheduled to hear from a property owner whose application was denied by the city clerk.
If the city reverses the denial, it would result in three summer rentals within 100 feet of each other, Fourth Ward Alderman Michael Lynch said at Tuesday night's Common Council meeting.
Public hearings before the Planning Commission will be held at 7:15 p.m. tonight in City Hall for 4 Shaffer Ave. and 32-38 Rose Ave., which are new applications.
Also on the agenda is Joseph Harkenreader, who owns a property at 20 Myrtle Ave. that was denied status as a renewal by City Clerk James Koury.
The summer-rental ordinance revised last September by the city was intended to prevent summer rentals in that area from being closer than 200 feet to each other. However, rentals deemed renewals by the city are exempt from density requirements.
"If you stood on Myrtle Avenue, you can see all three of these properties," Lynch said. "This issue has exploded in the Fourth Ward."
Renting weekly in the summer, especially to the families of baseball-camp attendees, has been a growing business in recent years with the opening of Cooperstown All-Star Village, Cooperstown Baseball World and Cooperstown Dreams Park.
Under the latest version of the city's summer-rental ordinance, a property owner must first submit an application for a renewal or a new permit to the city clerk's office. The clerk may then issue a renewal of a permit to previously permitted property owners. New rentals must meet the density requirements. The clerk forwards qualified new applications to the city Planning Commission for further scrutiny.
Denials by the Planning Commission are appealed to the Board of Public Service.
Debate over previously permitted'
Kristen Sloth, owner of 57 Spruce St., one of the three referred to by Lynch, had a renewal request denied by Koury. But in March, the Planning Commission overturned that decision "due to unusual personal circumstances."
Sloth told the commission that her property had been a permitted summer rental for several years, but she took a hiatus from the rental business as she arranged an international adoption.
City Clerk James Koury said his interpretation of the ordinance was that "previously permitted" meant in 2007 and not in years prior to that.
Harkenreader's renewal request for his previously permitted property at 20 Myrtle Ave. was also denied by Koury. That property had a permit in 2006 but not in 2007.
"I do think the city clerk, in my view, decided correctly, both in the Spruce Street application and with the Myrtle Avenue application," Mayor John Nader said.
Lynch said his constituents are afraid that because a precedent was set by the approval of Sloth's permit, Harkenreader's permit will get the green light from the Planning Commission.
"Because we screwed it up once doesn't mean we have to screw it up again," Lynch said.
But city Attorney David Merzig, supported by the mayor, clashed with Lynch on Tuesday night over the influence the Common Council can have on a Planning Commission decision.
The Common Council does not have the authority to tell the Planning Commission what decision to make, Merzig said.
However, Lynch said, that by acting on Sloth's request for a renewal, the Planning Commission has stepped out of the bounds of what it is authorized by the ordinance.
"This says very clearly what their role is and they have gone beyond that," Lynch said
"You're free to express your opinion," Merzig responded.
"Count on it," Lynch countered.
Nader agreed with Lynch that the Planning Commission made the wrong decision on Sloth's renewal.
Some suggest ordinance changes
First Ward Alderman Maureen Hennessy, one of the drafters of the revision, said the situation was a "glitch" in an otherwise successful ordinance.
There are 29 properties approved for this summer, including 23 renewals and six new rentals.
Nader said this is roughly the same number as last year.
In 2006, with a less-strict ordinance in place, there were only 10 approved, although city officials said then that they believed there may have been several others operating without permits.
Nader said there have been "very few" calls and complaints from the year-round residents regarding summer rentals.
"We have our incidents here and there but nothing that stands out," said Lt. Dennis Nayor of the Oneonta Police Department.
But summer rentals have generated concern, especially among Center City residents, about traffic, noise and other quality-of-life problems during a time when Oneonta is normally quiet.
Eighth Ward Alderman Kevin Hodne said Monday that a cap on the number of summer rentals should be considered.
Planning Commission Chairman Rob Robinson suggested the definitions of what is and what isn't a renewal need to be clarified, along with the appeals process for renewal requests that are denied by the city clerk.
However, Robinson said the Common Council should also look at what it is intending to accomplish with the ordinance.
"It still is not addressing the problem because no one has clearly explained what the problem is," Robinson said Tuesday. "It's a piece of legislation in search of a problem."
Opposition to summer rentals could actually be reaction by year-round residents to student-rental problems, Robinson said.
