Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ithaca BZA affirms zoning administrator on two short‑term rental grandfathering applications
Summary
The Ithaca City Board of Zoning Appeals on Jan. 6 affirmed a zoning administrator determination that two units at 224 Floral Ave and 410 Hudson St lacked grandfathered short‑term rental rights because city occupancy taxes were not current. The board noted the applicant may seek a use variance or judicial review.
The Ithaca City Board of Zoning Appeals unanimously affirmed a zoning administrator determination on Jan. 6 that two properties at 224 Floral Ave and 410 Hudson St did not qualify as lawful, nonconforming short‑term rentals because city occupancy tax requirements were not met.
Megan Wilson, deputy director of planning and the zoning administrator, told the board the city’s short‑term rental regulations adopted May 1, 2024 require two things to claim established rights: a valid certificate of compliance and that city and county occupancy taxes were current at adoption. "There’s not a lot of room for discretion in terms of our…who’s close enough to being in compliance and who’s not," Wilson said. "You either met those two basic items or you didn’t."
Amelia McLean Robertson, an attorney with Harris Beach Martha representing the property owner Mrs. Reyes, argued the failure to remit a city occupancy tax should be cured by notice and an opportunity to pay rather than by revoking long‑standing nonconforming rights. "The remedy here would be that she should just be able to pay those taxes and continue her use of the property as is," Robertson said. The attorney also corrected a clerical date in the file: the properties were operated as short‑term rentals since 2022, not 2002.
Mrs. Reyes told the board she did not intentionally withhold taxes and said she did not receive certain city mailings because they were mistakenly delivered to a relative’s address. "I didn’t mean to be delinquent. I would never intentionally just not pay that," she said.
City staff said records showed one property’s city occupancy tax payments stopped in March 2023 and the other had a certificate of authority but no remitted city taxes. Staff and the city attorney’s office said the city interprets the code on nonconforming uses (including sections related to lawful prior uses) to require that occupancy tax obligations be met for grandfathering to apply. City counsel noted that while county occupancy tax payments had been made in some years, the city requirement remained a separate element of the code.
Board members debated whether the appeal asked the BZA to reexamine an interpretation of the STR ordinance or to review the facts as found by the zoning administrator. Several members said challenging the ordinance’s legal framework would be a matter for higher courts (for example via an Article 78 proceeding), while the BZA’s role was to decide whether the administrator correctly applied the ordinance. After deliberation, a motion to affirm the administrator’s determination carried in a roll‑call vote.
Votes at a glance: the BZA affirmed the zoning administrator’s determination to deny established nonconforming STR rights for 224 Floral Ave and 410 Hudson St; recorded affirmative votes were cast by board members present, and the determination remains standing. The board advised the applicant that options include applying for a use variance or seeking judicial review.
The public hearing produced no public speakers and no written comments. Staff confirmed the board may close the hearing and still has up to 62 days to issue a written decision. The board then moved on to routine business and adjourned.
