SARANAC LAKE — The village is proposing a slate of amendments to the landmark short-term vacation rental law it passed last year.

The amendments are aimed at addressing resident concerns, simplifying the law and giving the development board more concrete criteria to approve or deny applications, while maintaining local homeowners’ ability to rent a portion of their property to supplement their income. A public hearing on the amendments will be held at 5 p.m. on Monday before the board votes on whether to adopt the changes.

The amendments would create new classes of STRs — hosted and un-hosted — with separate caps for both types. Village officials said it was evident the public prefers STRs with hosts living on-site.

The amendments would also set density restrictions to reduce clusters of STRs by establishing a 200-foot buffer zone around STR properties.

The amendments would eliminate a clause allowing for exemptions to district caps, since the other amendments would get rid of caps on individual zoning districts and have just villagewide caps.

The full slate of proposed amendments, annotated into the existing law, can be found at tinyurl.com/a2x3cakb. Changes to the law are highlighted in red text.

The amendments would do away with the district-based maximum caps on STR permits, leaving just two villagewide caps — one for hosted and one for unhosted — with an expected higher cap total for hosted STRs.

Matt Rogers, from the LaBella Associates engineering firm the village contracts with, recommended moving away from capping by district, saying that districts are too large of an area because they have multiple neighborhoods and different types of them with different needs.

Board members felt the amendments eliminated the need for exemptions, which were intended to allow people making improvements to property the chance to get a permit after their district cap had been exceeded. Trustee Matt Scollin called this change the “big trade.”

It took the board countless hours of discussion, debate and work to craft the initial law. A similar abundance of work was put into these amendments.

The amendments were created through a collaboration between the village board and its development board, which is in charge of granting STR permits, hearing appeals for exemption and generally administering the law.

Several of the changes came about after the first batch of STR permits went before the development board earlier this year, as unforeseen issues arose. This slate of amendments seeks to address all of them at once.

Trustee Kelly Brunette said when they adopted the law, they knew it would likely need to be tinkered with.

The two boards have spent weeks discussing every possible scenario that they might be faced with, with several dual-board work sessions and dozens of amendment ideas proposed.

There was a fair amount of difficulty in fitting amendments into the existing law. One small wording change in one section of the law impacts numerous other portions of the law, requiring further changes to address those impacts.

Several development board members have said they’re concerned by the number of bedrooms in the village being used as STRs, but that there’s been no criteria for them to deny permit applications in the law. They also didn’t have the ability to regulate the clumping of STRs in specific neighborhoods.

They had the ability to use discretion, based on the “character” of the neighborhood, but most members felt that it’s too vague and open to interpretation to actually rule on. The board said they wanted their decisions to be consistent and grounded in code or law.

–

Density

–

The density amendments would establish a 200-foot buffer zone around each STR unit where no new STRs can be allowed, “to maintain neighborhood balance and prevent over-saturation of STRs.”

“It would be helpful in making decisions, instead of us stabbing in the dark,” development board Member Meg Cantwell-Jackson said of density limits.

Rogers said some municipalities he works on STRs with have density limits, like setbacks in the development code. How many feet these minimums are set at, seems arbitrary to him and it seems like boards just pick whatever number feels right. The development board chose 200 feet because it’s a number already used in the code for other purposes.

Districts E1, E2, E3, B1, B2, B3, B4, G, L3 and the cabin colony homeowners association in K2 are excluded from this density requirement. These districts encompass the village downtown, Lake Flower Avenue and AMA Way. This is because board members wanted to encourage STRs downtown, in commercial areas where commercial activity is expected, as opposed to neighborhoods. They said having them in these districts — where there are already businesses, or have historically had STRs — wouldn’t change the character of these neighborhoods.

Cantwell-Jackson pointed out that downtown has much of the village’s affordable apartments and said she didn’t want to see STRs push them out. Development board Member Katie Stiles pointed out that downtown STRs would likely not be hosted, so there will be a limit on how many would be in these multi-unit buildings.

The amendment for density restrictions came from neighbor complaints about STRs, which were approved in March. To read more about this discussion, go to tinyurl.com/4sen99f6 under the section “Density debate.”

–

Why they abandoned exemptions

–

Rogers recommended against allowing for exemptions to the cap for renovation or new construction on vacant lots. These exemptions were intended to encourage development of properties that might become homes or apartments later. But Rogers said houses built for STRs tend to get built as tourist homes — not built at a price-point people can afford later and without the right amenities to become a house later.

Development board Member Dan Reilly said, from what he’s seen, STRs in Lake Placid are not rolling over into new homes. He said new-build STRs maximize bedroom and bathroom space, opting for smaller kitchens and living spaces because they are used less by temporary guests. He also said they tend to be “McMansions” — “overbuilt” and designed to attract someone willing to pay a lot of money for a weekend there.

Development board Member Bill Domenico felt homes will sell and get fixed up anyway in a strong market, so there’s not much point to having these exemptions. People buy up property here every time there’s a disaster like the coronavirus pandemic or the 9/11 attacks.

–

Hosted

–

Rogers also recommended having “hosted” STRs where the host lives on-site. These types of STRs are less likely to have issues with loud parties.

A hosted STR is defined as one that is the owner’s “primary residence.” The host would need to stay at the property overnight during each rental to qualify for this. Hosted STR applicants would need to sign affidavits that they meet these qualifications. If the host changes their status and does not live on-site, their permit would be void.

In Rogers’ opinion, hosted STRs are good for letting someone keep or upgrade their home, but unhosted STRs generate income for someone to live somewhere else.

Reilly said, to him, there’s a big difference in whole-house rental and someone renting out a room or ADU in their home — the difference is in having “little hotels” or an alternative revenue stream. Reilly said he doesn’t think STRs should be a business opportunity and called them “a cancer on the community.”

–

Further changes discussed

–

The boards said there’s still work on the STR law application they want to do. Trustee Aurora White said she wants a publicly available tutorial, a guide to STR permit applications that applicants, neighbors and village officials can refer to.

Brunette wants a more accessible way to make complaints about problem STRs.

Currently, the village sets a cap of new allowable STRs each year. The village currently has around 120 STR units, representing around 255 bedrooms, or slightly more than 600 occupants. This year, the village board set its villagewide cap for new permits at 10.

Rogers recommended the board come up with a maximum number of STRs they want in the village. He said Lake Placid has “ceded the market.”

“How many of our homes do we want to allow as vacation homes?” he said they should ask.

A village report last year found that STRs make up around 5.3% of the village residential housing stock — which is made of 1,527 properties.

Development board Chair Tim Jackson felt that at some point, cap and density would create natural limits.

Reilly liked having a maximum number of allowable STRs in the village and having on-site hosting be a requirement — he’d rather defer a permit to a single-home resident rather than to someone who can afford more than one home.

“Lake Placid is toast,” he said, adding that he believes these restrictions would save Saranac Lake from following the same fate.

Domenico said it’s hard for the village to replace genuine year-round village homes once they’re gone. There’s not much room left, because urban sprawl is horizontal, and the hamlet where development is feasible inside the Adirondack Park is mostly filled already.

Mayor Jimmy Williams said he takes pride in the law, and that it’s doing a lot of what it was meant to do. The rule that only village residents or people with LLCs with at least 25% local ownership can apply for STR permits has quelled the swell of land speculation of properties as investment STR properties that were building before the law.

The two boards discussed meeting together annually to go over the STR law and propose further amendments.