Do you live in Roxbury, NY full‑time or part‑time?
Do you earn money from homeowners or visitors?
Do you own a home here, or hope to one day?
ACTION REQUIRED: The Town Board is about to enact a law that would block many future homeowners from renting their homes for a full year after they buy, directly threatening local jobs and devaluing Roxbury property. Time is running out.
Everyone agrees: people should be safe in their own homes and in any home they rent. Those safety rules must apply equally to full‑time homes and short‑term rentals.
But the current draft does more than set safety standards. It makes policy mistakes that take money out of working people’s pockets and makes it harder for every homeowner to sell when the time comes.
If tourism dollars shrink, the tax base shrinks with them. When that happens, the town still needs the same (or more) tax revenue. Who makes up the difference? You do.
People who provide cleaning, food, beverages, entertainment, retail, and other services to visitors all lose income when unnecessary restrictions push guests to other towns.
Our ski mountain, wedding venues, restaurants, grocer, wine shop, retailers, and farm‑stands—and the people they employ—depend on full‑ and part‑time homeowners and the guests who stay in their homes.
They need more spending, not less.
Plumbers, electricians, handypeople, landscapers, mowers, cleaners, trash haulers, roofers, plow drivers, firewood suppliers, hot‑tub and pool techs, contractors, and builders will lose work if homeowners have less demand or cash‑flow to pay for it.
A one‑year ban on rental activity for new homeowners, and limits on transferring permits, will send future buyers to friendlier communities. That contradicts the Town’s stated goal of attracting long‑term citizens.
The sharing economy and experience economy are not going away.
Not everyone who buys in Roxbury will rent part‑time, but most buyers today expect to have that option to help cover costs. They do not want to be told that they cannot participate in a normal modern economy without facing overreach and delay.
They will simply buy elsewhere.
Our Town’s population has been shrinking, and our citizens are aging.
Making homes harder to sell and less attractive to new buyers risks trapping older residents in properties they can’t easily sell when they need to move on.
The two are not connected. Our housing shortage comes from decades of too little building, not from neighbors renting out a room or a second home to cover their costs. If the Board wants affordability, it has to build for it. Cutting rentals just drains money from the town and puts nothing back.
They work against the Plan’s six major goals, including “Economic Development and Employment,” “sustainable economic growth,” and “attract young families and professionals to the Town.”
And they do nothing to advance “affordable, inclusive housing” or the Plan’s vision of “a thriving, inclusive, and resilient community that integrates its rich historical and rural charm with a sustainable economy, modern infrastructure, and a high quality of life for all residents and visitors.”
This law hurts full‑time neighbors and second‑home neighbors alike. If visitors go elsewhere, Roxbury’s workers and homeowners pay the price, and the Town’s vision of a thriving, resilient community is reduced to just words on paper.
We must do better than this, together.
We are asking the Town Board to adopt the revisions to the proposed law described below in Section III, in full and without dilution.
If the Board has questions about any of these revisions, we ask that they NOT pass the current draft, but instead sit down with concerned residents and business owners to craft a final law that protects safety without harming Roxbury’s people and economy.
If you earn money in Roxbury or if you own a home here, if you care about the future of our Town, add your name to this discussion and 'Letter from Concerned Residents':
If you couldn't attend the Public Hearing last July 13, you can still share your views through the emails below, mail, or dropping off a letter:
Roxbury Town Hall:
56 Hillcrest Drive Roxbury, NY, 12474 (map)
To the Town of Roxbury Town Board:
We write as residents, homeowners, business owners, and employers of the Town of Roxbury. Some of us operate short-term rentals. Many of us do not. All of us share a deep and lasting stake in this town. We live here, we run businesses here, we employ our neighbors here, and we intend to be here for the long term.
We want to begin by setting aside a framing that has crept into this conversation. The proposed law, and some of the discussion around it, suggests a divide between “locals” and “out-of-towners,” as though short-term rentals are something done to Roxbury by outsiders. That picture is not accurate. The people who own, operate, and depend on short-term rentals in Roxbury are local by every meaningful measure. We are part of the present fabric of this town and central to its future. There is no us-and-them here. There is only Roxbury.
Roxbury has always been a place people come to stay
Hospitality is not new to Roxbury. It is part of who we have always been. The Dixon Manor was built more than a century ago as a rooming house, owned by people from outside the town and rented to visitors on a short-term basis. Welcoming guests, and earning a living by doing so, has been part of this town’s character for generations.
In the 1970s, Roxbury saw a wave of second-home development. For decades afterward, many of those homes sat empty nine months of the year. The arrival of short-term rental platforms changed that. It turned dormant houses into a source of year-round activity and year-round revenue, supporting local businesses through the shoulder seasons and broadening the base that funds the town’s services. Short-term rental did not disrupt Roxbury. It revived a part of it.
What short-term rental actually is in Roxbury today
It is important to be clear-eyed about the market this law would regulate. In Roxbury, short-term rentals are overwhelmingly second homes, operated by the owners themselves. For most, the rental income offsets the maintenance, the carrying costs, and the property taxes of owning a home here. It is part of what makes ownership possible for many families, and it is a meaningful contributor to the tax base that funds our schools, our roads, and our municipal services.
There is no investor class buying up Roxbury. The economics simply do not support one. Rental revenues in this part of Delaware County are modest, and the absentee, extraction-driven model that has drawn concern in larger markets does not pencil out here. It is not what is happening on the ground. A law written as if that were the reality here would regulate a problem the town does not have, and would fall instead on the residents and second-home owners who actually make up this community.
Where the proposed law goes wrong
We want to be fair. The draft contains sound and necessary safety provisions, and we support them. Our concern is with the provisions that have little to do with safety.
The draft clouds genuine safety regulation with housing policy. The one-year waiting period before a new owner may operate is not a safety measure. It is an attempt to steer the housing market, and as written it penalizes new owners while doing nothing to address the structural causes of the region’s housing shortage.
It also addresses safety unevenly. If the true concern is that homes used for lodging be safe, inspected, and compliant, that concern applies to all housing. Singling out short-term rentals, while leaving the rest of the town’s existing housing stock untouched, suggests the goal is something other than safety.
We have detailed these and other concerns, including the non-transferable permits, the local-presence requirements, the parking rules, and the open-ended fees, in the accompanying synopsis and alternative draft. We will not repeat all of it here. The pattern, though, is consistent: a reasonable safety core wrapped in provisions that reach well past safety.
What we believe will happen if this law passes as written
We do not raise these concerns in the abstract. We have watched more restrictive approaches play out in neighboring communities. In Shandaken, a heavier regulatory hand has been accompanied by precisely the concerns we raise here: downward pressure on real estate activity and on the local tax base, without any corresponding gain in affordable housing and without resolving the underlying structural problems. We do not want to import that outcome to Roxbury.
If this law is enacted as drafted, we believe the consequences for Roxbury would be serious and lasting:
Real estate transactions would slow, as the income that makes ownership viable here is curtailed.
Property values would soften, undermining the very tax base the town relies on.
Town revenue would decline, even as the law delivers no offsetting benefit.
Jobs would be lost. The cleaners, property managers, contractors, and others whose livelihoods are tied to short-term rental activity would see that work shrink, with no plan from the board for what replaces it.
New business activity would have little reason to take root, with a smaller visitor base to support it.
The town would expose itself to avoidable legal risk in how some of these provisions are applied.
None of this would create a single new unit of affordable housing. The structural causes of the housing shortage would remain exactly where they are. The town would have weakened what is currently holding up its economy and received nothing in return.
To be direct: there are genuinely good ideas in this draft, and some profoundly damaging ones. The good ideas are worth passing. The damaging ones are worth rethinking before they do harm that is difficult to undo.
A different vision for Roxbury
We are not asking the board to do nothing. We are asking it to aim higher.
Hospitality is one of Roxbury’s core industries. The path forward is to build on it, not to hollow it out. A healthy visitor economy and a growing tax base are exactly the tools a town uses to create new, homegrown, and sustainable opportunity. We have seen what that looks like here already. Projects like The Dixon hotel and restaurant and The Kirkside Inn will be employers and draws, and they will exist and thrive because people come to visit Roxbury and have places to stay. The next generation of such projects, supported by public-private partnerships and creative financing, can be employers too. They depend on the same thing: visitors who want to be here.
So we would ask the board to focus its energy on the question that actually matters. How do we attract more of everything this town needs? More visitors. More second-home owners. More investment. And more long-term, full-time residents. What is the plan to make Roxbury a place more people want to be, rather than to constrain what is currently sustaining it?
What we are asking for
Concretely, we ask the following:
Pass a clean short-term rental safety law, with clearly defined goals and practical requirements, that safeguards health and safety without undermining the existing economy of Roxbury or its future prospects. The accompanying alternative draft is offered for exactly that purpose, and we would welcome the chance to work with the board on it.
Recognize that the draft as written will not increase the supply of affordable housing, and was never structured to. Its likely effect is real economic harm to the town, falling hardest on long-time and underhoused residents who can least absorb it.
Tell us how you intend to encourage the creation of new housing units, and how the town plans to use state and federal programs - in partnership with private initiatives - to support the production of new, safe, and affordable housing.
Tell us what housing and community programs you intend to pursue to attract and retain new long-term residents.
We offer this letter, along with the accompanying alternative law and synopsis, in good faith and in a spirit of partnership. We share the board’s interest in a safe and thriving Roxbury. We are asking only that the law reflect that shared goal, and that it do nothing less productive.
Respectfully,
Esther de Jong, Green Label Home LLC, Esther’s Listings LLC, Lic. Associate Real Estate Broker with Coldwell Banker Timberland Properties
Michael Guilmet, Green Label Home LLC, Disegno21 LLC
HUTS, Wayne Congar, CEO Co-Founder
Roxbury Barn and Estate, Casper de Boer, Owner
Catskill Mountain Wood, Allen Aujero, Owner
Catskill Mountain Wood + Daughter, Judith Maguire, Owner
Roxbury General Store, Robin Factor, Owner
Cupcake Cottage, Peter Ross, Owner
Plattekill Mountain, Laszlo Vajtay and Danielle Vajtay, Owners
Watershed Cafe, Andrew Williams
Chappies, James Chapman
Roxbury Bottle Shop, Caroline Fauvel, Jennifer Rhodes
Roxbury Manor South LLC, Mary Wynn-Ball, Owner
Liberal Arts Roxbury, Kevin Moore, Owner
Bellfire in the Catskills, Mina Teslaru and Rich Tazzara
Catskill Dream Team, Margaret “Peggy” Bellar, Lic. Real Estate Broker
Steven C Tedaldi, Homeowner
Richard K Zia, Homeowner
Steve Heidinger, WKNDhaus LLC
Amanda Wright
Abhilash Mohanty, Soka Properties LLC
Christopher Lee
Sara Golan, Serhant
Wilfredo Perdomo, Destino
Stacy Keck-Colliton, Coldwell Banker Timberland Properties
Kimberly Lynas, The Inn at West Settlement
Rich Cafiero
Carol Adams
Nicole Haroldson
Linda Koch
Rita Karpoich
Ashley Trattner, Red Kill Mountain Homestead Farms
Alisha Knapp, House Cleaner
Cricket Keys, Catskill Dream Team
Luca Lisella
Geoffrey MacDougall
read more
II. Synopsis of Proposed Revisions to the Roxbury Short Term
Rental Local Law
Submitted in connection with the July 13 public hearing
Purpose of this submission
The Town Board’s draft Short Term Rental Local Law gets the most important things right: it requires that short term rentals be safe, inspected, and insured, and that they meet real life-safety standards. No one disputes those goals.
The concern is that several provisions in the draft go beyond health and safety and instead regulate housing supply, property resale, and personal privacy — areas where the case for burdening short term rental owners is weak, and where the effect would be to suppress the visitor lodging that Roxbury’s tourism economy runs on. This alternative draft keeps every genuine safety requirement intact and revises only the provisions that reach past that purpose.
Each change below is paired with the reason it does not weaken the law’s stated safety goal.
What was kept, unchanged
So the Board can see this is a constructive proposal and not an attempt to gut the law, the following safety provisions are preserved in full: the permit requirement itself; the mandatory in-person pre-permit inspection; smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, fire extinguishers, and working egress; the $300,000 liability insurance minimum; potable water standards; the two-per-bedroom occupancy cap; posted house rules; 911-address display; the 90-day transition period for existing rentals; the two-year permit term; and the Code Enforcement Officer’s authority to act immediately against genuine health and safety threats.
What was revised, and why safety is not weakened
1. One-year waiting period — removed. The draft barred any owner who buys after the law’s effective date from applying for a permit for a full calendar year, with the stated intent of preserving housing stock. This is housing policy, not safety policy — a one-year delay does nothing to make a home safer. It penalizes new owners, depresses the value and usability of property at the moment of sale, and, as the Board itself acknowledges, does not address the structural causes of the region’s housing shortage. Removing it costs the law nothing on safety, because every safety requirement still applies the moment an owner does seek a permit.
2. Non-transferable permits — replaced with a permit that runs with the property. The draft made permits non-transferable, so a buyer of a compliant, permitted rental would have to shut it down and apply from scratch. When a short term rental is sold, much of what is being bought is the property together with the revenue it lawfully produces; a non-transferable permit extinguishes that value at closing, for no safety reason. The revision attaches the permit to the Dwelling Unit rather than the owner, so a compliant rental conveys with the property and continues operating without interruption on a sale. The new owner need only file updated contact information within 30 days, and the unit must remain compliant. Safety is preserved because every standard continues to apply to the unit, and the Code Enforcement Officer retains full authority to inspect following a transfer where circumstances warrant.
3. “Local Manager” and “Local Emergency Contact” — replaced with a single 24/7 phone contact, with no residence requirement. The draft required two separate designees, each subject to residence rules (within 20 and 30 miles) and fixed response times (30 minutes by phone, one hour in person). In practice, those rules require an operator either to live locally or to hire a local property manager. Most short term rental owners are second-home or out-of-area owners who cannot meet that standard, and a hard local-response mandate of this kind is not common practice elsewhere. The legitimate safety interest is narrower than the draft assumes: that someone can always be reached to address a problem. The revision requires a single Responsible Party reachable by phone 24 hours a day, with no residence requirement and no obligation to appear in person. Safety is preserved because there is always a reachable contact who can summon emergency services, law enforcement, or a repair; what is removed is the de facto local-residence requirement that would exclude the majority of owners.
4. Parking — re-anchored to emergency and municipal vehicle access. The draft required one off-street space per bedroom and banned on-street parking outright. On a five- or six-bedroom rural home that is an unreasonable amount of dedicated parking, and on historic homes or village lots with limited frontage it could bar participation entirely. The real concern, and the one the fire department cares about, is that municipal and emergency vehicles can always pass and reach a property. The revision drops the per-bedroom count and replaces it with that access standard: within the village, including along Main Street, on-street parking is fine so long as it does not block municipal or emergency access; outside the village, the property must provide enough parking that guest vehicles do not block such access. This serves the genuine safety goal — unobstructed access for first responders — without prescribing parking lots in front of family homes.
5. Neighbor notification — privacy protected, contact preserved. The draft compelled hosts to mail their name, home address, email, and cell number to every property owner within 200 feet. The legitimate goal is that a neighbor with a concern can reach someone. The revision keeps that goal — adjoining owners receive a 24/7 contact number, and the Town holds full contact details and will provide a contact number on request — while not forcing the broad disclosure of a resident’s personal home address and email to the surrounding area.
6. Fees — capped to cost recovery. The draft left fees entirely open-ended and amendable at any time. The revision ties fees to the Town’s actual administrative and inspection costs, requires a published schedule, and prevents a mid-term fee increase from being applied to an existing permit. This adds predictability for owners without limiting the Town’s ability to fully recover what it spends running the program.
7. Enforcement — proportionate, with cure periods. The draft allowed weekly-stacking fines and broad revocation discretion to operate before an owner had a chance to fix a minor issue. The revision preserves all enforcement tools — including immediate action against genuine health and safety threats, which is untouched — but requires written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure before fines stack for non-safety violations. This keeps the law’s teeth where they matter while ensuring penalties are proportionate to the conduct.
8. Inspection standard — applied to existing buildings, not new construction. The draft required each unit to be “in compliance with the New York State Uniform Code.” Read literally, that imports the new-construction standard — stair geometry, ceiling heights, egress-window dimensions, and the like — which a pre-1900 home cannot meet and was never built to meet. Roxbury has a great many such homes, and as written this provision would quietly disqualify much of the Town’s housing stock from ever being permitted. Importantly, this is not how New York treats existing buildings: existing structures are governed primarily by the Property Maintenance Code and the Fire Code as applied to existing occupancies, and the Uniform Code contains specific flexibility for historic buildings. The revision applies that correct, existing-building standard and adds a concrete life-safety checklist — sound structure, safe heating, electrical, and plumbing; working smoke and CO detectors; accessible fire extinguishers; and operable, unobstructed egress. The Certificate of Occupancy requirement is adjusted in the same spirit, since many older homes predate the issuance of such certificates; the revision accepts a Certificate of Occupancy or Compliance where one exists, and other reasonable proof of lawful occupancy where one does not. Safety is not lowered: the Code Enforcement Officer retains full authority to require correction of any genuine hazard. What is removed is the impossible demand that a historic building meet code written for buildings going up today.
9. Occupancy - reasonable rules for number of guests per bedroom. Some parents sleep with their children. There should be provision in the law to allow for a crib or for children to sleep in the bed with their parents.
A note on fairness and consistency
Several residents have raised a fair question: if safety and compliance are the priority, why single out short term rentals? Owner-occupied homes and long-term rentals house people overnight too. An STR-specific ordinance cannot, on its own, answer that — it can only govern STRs. But the Board may wish to consider, as a matter of consistency, whether the safety standards it expects of short term rentals reflect standards reasonable for dwellings generally, rather than a heightened bar applied to one category of owner. This alternative draft is written in that spirit: it asks of short term rentals what is genuinely necessary for safety, and no more.
A note on litigation risk
Two provisions in the draft also carry avoidable legal risk for the Town, and the alternative removes both. The requirement that an operator’s contact reside within a fixed distance of the Town invites challenge under the Commerce Clause, which has been used elsewhere to strike local-residency and local-agent mandates that burden out-of-area owners; replacing it with a 24/7 reachable phone contact serves the same safety purpose without that exposure. Separately, the draft’s open-ended, amendable-at-any-time fee invites the argument that it is an unauthorized revenue measure rather than a permissible regulatory fee, which under New York law must be reasonably related to the cost of the regulatory activity; tying the fee to cost recovery, as the alternative does, addresses that concern. This note is offered to help the Board steer clear of foreseeable problems, not as legal advice, and the Town’s counsel should of course review these points directly.
A note on what short term rental actually is in Roxbury
Much of the wider debate over short term rentals proceeds from a picture that does not match this community. Roxbury is not a dense market full of investor-owned units. Roughly two-thirds of the homes here are second homes, many held by the same families for decades, in a pattern that has defined the area for the better part of fifty years. There are very few pure investors, because the economics do not support that model: realistic rental revenues in this part of Delaware County are modest, and an extraction-driven approach simply does not pencil out here.
For most owners, short term rental is not a business so much as a way to offset the maintenance and carrying costs of keeping an older home — and, in turn, to keep current on the property taxes that underwrite the Town’s schools, roads, and services. Regulation built on the assumption that short term rental owners are absentee investors extracting profit will miss its intended target. It will fall hardest on the resident and second-home owners who actually make up this market, while addressing a problem the Town does not, in fact, have.
Why this matters for Roxbury
Tourism is Roxbury’s largest industry, and short term rentals supply much of the lodging that sustains it. Wedding venues, the ski and recreation economy, agritourism, and the contractors, cleaners, landscapers, farms, and shops that depend on visitor spending all rely on a healthy supply of places for visitors to stay. A safety law that is workable will be complied with and will protect guests and neighbors. A law that reaches past safety into housing and resale policy risks shrinking that lodging supply, weakening the broader economy it supports, and doing so without making a single home safer.
This alternative is offered in that spirit — to keep the protection the Board is right to want, and to keep Roxbury’s visitor economy intact.
Read more
Alternative Draft — Proposed for the July 13 Public Hearing
Prepared as a constructive alternative to the Town Board’s draft dated June 4, 2026. This draft preserves the safety core of the Board’s proposal while removing provisions that function as housing policy or privacy regulation rather than health-and-safety regulation, and that would weaken the short-term rental activity on which much of Roxbury’s tourism economy depends. This is a policy draft and should be reviewed by the Town’s municipal counsel before adoption.
Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Roxbury, this Short Term Rental Local Law as follows:
Section 1: Purpose
Tourism is the Town of Roxbury’s largest industry, and short term rentals provide much of the lodging capacity that supports it. Wedding venues, ski and outdoor recreation, agritourism, and the contractors, cleaners, landscapers, farms, retailers, and service providers that depend on visitor spending all rely, directly or indirectly, on a healthy
The Town Board further recognizes the particular character of short term rental in the Town of Roxbury. A substantial share of the dwellings in the Town are seasonal or second homes, many held by the same owners and families over long periods. Short term rental activity here is predominantly carried on by resident and second-home owners rather than by absentee commercial investors, and is most often used to offset the maintenance and carrying costs of owning a home in the Town and to remain current on the property taxes that fund the Town’s services. This Local Law is framed with that reality in mind, so that its requirements address genuine health and safety concerns without imposing burdens designed for a commercial-investor market that does not predominate in the Town.
At the same time, short term rentals can create health, safety, and quality-of-life concerns when they are not held to basic standards. The purpose of this Local Law is to set minimum health and safety requirements for short term rentals in the Town of Roxbury, so that guests, hosts, neighbors, and residents are protected, while keeping the permitting process predictable, proportionate, and workable for the property owners who participate in it.
This Local Law applies safety standards to short term rentals that are consistent with the standards reasonably expected of any dwelling used for human habitation. It is not intended to regulate housing supply, restrict the resale of property, or single out short term rental owners for burdens unrelated to the health and safety of occupants and neighbors.
Section 2: Authority
This Local Law is adopted in accordance with the Town Law of the State of New York, which grants the Town of Roxbury the authority to enact local laws for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, and welfare of the Town, and in accordance with Municipal Home Rule Law, Article 2, Section 10, which provides the Town of Roxbury the power to protect and enhance its physical environment. The Roxbury Town Board authorizes the Town of Roxbury Code Enforcement Officer to issue permits to use dwelling units in the Town as short term rentals per the provisions of this Local Law. Applications for a permit to operate a short term rental unit shall be processed under the procedures set forth in this Local Law.
Section 3: Definitions
Bed and Breakfast: A privately run lodging establishment, occupied by the property owner or the property owner’s employee(s), that provides guests overnight lodging and a daily breakfast for remuneration.
Bedroom: A room in a dwelling unit primarily used and furnished for sleeping.
Booking Service: A person or entity who, directly or indirectly: (a) provides one or more online, computer, or application-based platforms that individually or collectively can be used to list or advertise offers for short term rental units; and (b) charges, collects, or receives a fee for the use of such platform or for provision of any service in connection with a short term rental unit.
Dwelling Unit: A permanent residential structure used for human living facilities.
Friendly Neighbor Policy: The Policy created collaboratively by the Town of Roxbury Town Board for residents and visitors to the Town to share what attractions the Town offers and what makes for a friendly neighbor in the Town of Roxbury.
Guest: A natural person who is occupying a short term rental on an overnight basis, for no longer than 30 days.
Host: A person or entity in lawful ownership of, or with authority to act on behalf of an owner of, a Dwelling Unit operated as a short term rental unit who rents such unit to Guests in accordance with this Local Law.
Hotel/Motel: A commercial establishment, building, or group of buildings where overnight guests are lodged for remuneration, having a minimum of five lodging units.
Owner: An individual, group of individuals, or entity that has legal title to a Dwelling Unit used as a Short Term Rental.
Responsible Party: A natural person, who may be the Host, named on the short term rental permit application and permit and designated by the Host, who is reachable by telephone twenty-four (24) hours a day to receive and address concerns relating to the short term rental. The Responsible Party is not required to reside in or near the Town. The sole purpose of this designation is to ensure that a person can always be reached by telephone to address an issue, including by contacting emergency services, law enforcement, or appropriate repair or service providers as needed. No in-person or on-premises response is required.
Renewal Application: The process by which a Host who received a Short Term Rental Permit may apply for a renewal of such Permit.
Short Term Rental (Unit): A Dwelling Unit, or a room, group of rooms, or other living or sleeping space, made available, in whole or part, for rent by Guests for less than thirty (30) consecutive days, where the Unit is offered for tourist or transient use by an individual or individuals that do not have an ownership interest in the property upon which the Dwelling Unit is located. Any Dwelling Unit which is rented or leased, in whole or part, for a period of thirty (30) days or more to individuals or entities who then allow others to occupy the Dwelling, in whole or part, for periods of less than thirty (30) consecutive days, shall be considered a Short Term Rental and shall require a Short Term Rental Permit for such use. Hotels/Motels and Bed and Breakfasts are excluded from this definition. There is no minimum or maximum number of bedrooms in a Short Term Rental Unit. Short Term Rental Units are required to be lawfully established for residential occupancy, evidenced by a valid Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance where one exists, or, for a structure that predates the issuance of such certificates, by other reasonable proof of lawful occupancy as provided in Section 7.
Section 4: Permit Requirement
A. It shall be unlawful to use, establish, maintain, operate, occupy, rent, or lease a Short Term Rental within the Town of Roxbury until a valid Short Term Rental Permit is issued. The failure to obtain a required Permit shall be a violation of this Local Law and is punishable as outlined herein. There is a presumption that property is being used as a Short Term Rental if the property is advertised for such purposes with a Booking Service or otherwise.
B. Short Term Rental Units utilized for Short Term Rental purposes prior to the effective date of this Local Law shall have ninety (90) days from the effective date to apply for a Short Term Rental Permit in accordance with this Local Law. The Short Term Rental Unit will be permitted to remain in operation during this ninety (90) day transition period, unless a Permit application is denied. Should the Permit application be denied, Short Term Rental operations must cease immediately and may not resume unless the required Permit is issued.
C. All Short Term Rental Permits shall be valid for a period of two (2) years. A Renewal Permit must be secured by submitting an application for a Renewal Permit at least 30 days prior to the expiration of the existing Permit.
D. Permit runs with the property. A Short Term Rental Permit attaches to the permitted Dwelling Unit and not to the Owner, and remains valid upon the sale or other transfer of the property for the balance of its two-year term. Where a permitted Short Term Rental is sold or otherwise transferred, the new Owner may continue to operate the Short Term Rental under the existing Permit without interruption, provided that the new Owner files updated contact information for the Host and Responsible Party with the Code Enforcement Officer within thirty (30) days of the transfer of title, and the Unit remains in compliance with this Local Law. The Code Enforcement Officer retains the authority to inspect the Unit under Section 7 following a transfer where circumstances warrant. This provision is intended to ensure that a lawful, compliant Short Term Rental — and the goodwill and revenue associated with it — may be conveyed with the property, and is not extinguished merely because the property has changed hands.
E. The fee required of a Short Term Rental applicant shall not be pro-rated. A fee shall be refunded only where the application is withdrawn before the Code Enforcement Officer has begun review or inspection.
Section 5: Permit Application Process
A. Applications for a Permit to operate a Short Term Rental shall be available from the Roxbury Town Clerk, the Roxbury Code Enforcement Officer, and on the Town of Roxbury website.
B. The application to operate a Short Term Rental shall be submitted to the Town Clerk along with the required application documents outlined herein and the fee established by the Town Board via resolution.
C. Upon receipt of the application and fee, the Town Clerk shall refer the application to the Code Enforcement Officer to determine if the application is complete. If the application is complete, the Code Enforcement Officer shall, within a reasonable period, arrange for an in-person inspection of the Short Term Rental. The Permit shall not be issued until the Host has obtained any other required permits or approvals necessary to operate the Short Term Rental. Upon submission of a complete application, completion of an inspection that satisfies the requirements of this Local Law, and the Host’s procurement of any other required permits or approvals, the Code Enforcement Officer shall issue the Short Term Rental Permit.
Section 6: Short Term Rental Permit Standards / Application Requirements
A. Short Term Rental Permits are valid for a period of two years. The following are the standards and submission requirements in order to obtain a Short Term Rental Permit:
Contact information: the name, physical address, email address, and day/night telephone number of the Host and the Responsible Party. If the Owner or Host is a limited liability company, partnership, corporation, or other entity, the name and a contact telephone number and email address for a principal authorized to act for the entity is required.
Property address and Tax Map parcel number.
Proof of lawful occupancy: a true and complete copy of the current Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Occupancy for the Dwelling Unit where one exists. For a structure that predates the issuance of such certificates, the applicant shall instead provide other reasonable proof that the Unit is lawfully occupied and not subject to an open code violation, as provided in Section 7.
Occupancy: the maximum occupancy of the Short Term Rental Unit is based on the number of Bedrooms and available legal beds. Maximum occupancy per Bedroom shall not exceed two (2) adults, plus up to two (2) children under the age of twelve (12) where adequate bedding (such as bunk beds) is provided. The placement of one (1) portable infant crib or playard (e.g., a “pack ’n play”) per Bedroom is permitted and shall not count toward the occupancy limit, provided that total occupancy does not violate applicable State, County, or local fire safety and building codes.
Waste Removal: waste containers shall be secured with tight-fitting covers to prevent leakage, spilling, or odors, and placed where such containers are not clearly visible from the road, except during routine garbage pick-up times. The application shall provide either a written narrative describing the location of waste containers or a diagram depicting same, and shall indicate the frequency of waste removal, which shall be at a minimum weekly, and the name of the entity or individual providing waste removal services.
Parking Plan: a brief written description or sketch indicating where Guests are expected to park. The governing requirement is that parking associated with the Short Term Rental shall at all times leave municipal and emergency vehicles, including fire apparatus, free to pass and to reach the Dwelling Unit and neighboring properties. Within the village, including along Main Street and similar areas, on-street parking by Guests is permitted, provided it does not block or impede municipal or emergency vehicle access. Outside the village, the property shall provide parking sufficient to ensure that Guest vehicles do not block or impede municipal or emergency vehicle access along the roadway or to the Dwelling Unit. (This provision is written for unobstructed emergency and municipal vehicle access, which is the operative safety concern, rather than to prescribe a fixed number of spaces.)
Water: the source of the domestic water shall be noted and is required to meet all New York State and County Health requirements for potable water supply.
Fire and Safety Compliance: an emergency evacuation plan showing all egress locations, and the number and location of smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors.
Property Description: a list of the number of rooms, number of bathrooms, number of showers, and number of floors.
A copy of the Dwelling Unit’s registration with Delaware County under the County Occupancy Tax Law, or the registration number.
Insurance: the Dwelling Unit must be insured by an insurer licensed to write insurance in New York State, or procured by a duly licensed excess line broker pursuant to Section 2118 of the New York Insurance Law, for a minimum of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) of coverage for third-party claims of property damage or bodily injury arising out of the operation of a Short Term Rental. Such coverage may be satisfied by insurance maintained by a Booking Service that provides equal or greater coverage where the Host lists the Unit with such Booking Service. A policy declaration or other adequate proof of insurance is required.
The Host is required to ensure that current and accurate information is provided with the application, and any changes to the information included with an application shall be updated within thirty (30) days of such change.
B. The Code Enforcement Officer may deny an application for any of the following reasons:
The application is incomplete or does not include the required fee.
The application does not meet the requirements set forth in this Local Law.
The Dwelling Unit does not meet the requirements for the in-person inspection by the Code Enforcement Officer, or access is not granted for purposes of an inspection.
C. Renewal Permits: In the event any information submitted in the most recent Short Term Rental application has changed, the applicant is required to update that information in the renewal permit application. All renewal applications require the renewal application fee. Renewal Permits shall be valid for a period of two (2) years.
Section 7: Inspections
A. Pre-Permit Inspection: The Code Enforcement Officer shall conduct an in-person inspection to confirm that the Short Term Rental is fit for safe occupancy. The inspection shall evaluate the Dwelling Unit against the standards applicable to existing buildings under the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code — principally the Property Maintenance Code of New York State and the Fire Code of New York State as they apply to existing occupancies — and not against the standards applicable to new construction. An existing Dwelling Unit, including a building of historic age or character, shall not be required to be brought into compliance with current new-construction code as a condition of obtaining a Permit, except where a specific condition presents a genuine hazard to life, health, or safety. Consistent with the historic-building provisions of the Uniform Code, the Code Enforcement Officer may accept alternative means of achieving an equivalent level of safety where strict application of a requirement would not be feasible for an older or historic structure. The Code Enforcement Officer shall confirm that:
The Dwelling Unit is lawfully established for residential occupancy — evidenced by a valid Certificate of Occupancy or Certificate of Compliance where one exists, or, for a structure that predates the issuance of such certificates, by other reasonable proof that the Unit is lawfully occupied and is not the subject of an open code violation.
The Dwelling Unit does not pose a hazard to life, health, or safety, and its structural elements, heating systems, electrical systems, and plumbing are in safe and functioning condition.
The Dwelling Unit is sufficient to safely accommodate the maximum number of occupants applied for in the application.
The Dwelling Unit is equipped with working smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors as required by the Fire Code of New York State for existing dwellings, with accessible fire extinguishers, and with means of egress that are operable and unobstructed.
The 911 address of the Dwelling Unit is prominently displayed at the end of the driveway in numbers at least four (4) inches high.
(This standard is intended to ensure a genuinely safe place to stay without requiring an existing or historic building — of which Roxbury has many — to meet new-construction code it was never built to and could not feasibly meet. It applies the life-safety and maintenance standards the State already uses for existing buildings, with the Code Enforcement Officer retaining full authority to require correction of any genuine safety hazard.)
B. In the event the pre-permit inspection indicates that the Dwelling Unit is not in compliance, the Code Enforcement Officer shall provide the applicant with a list of items constituting noncompliance. A Permit will not be issued until all items of noncompliance are remedied.
C. Subsequent Inspections: If the Town of Roxbury or the Code Enforcement Officer learns of information, after the initial inspection, that raises a reasonable concern regarding compliance with this Local Law, the Code Enforcement Officer may determine that a subsequent inspection is warranted. Granting access for reasonable subsequent inspections is required to obtain or maintain a Permit. If a subsequent inspection reveals noncompliance and a Permit has not yet been issued, the Dwelling Unit must be brought into compliance before a Permit is issued. If a Permit has been issued, and the noncompliance presents a threat to health or safety, the Permit shall be temporarily suspended while the issues are remedied; for noncompliance that does not present a threat to health or safety, the Code Enforcement Officer shall first provide written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure before any suspension. In the event of a temporary suspension, the Code Enforcement Officer shall provide the Host with a list of the items constituting noncompliance, and the suspension shall remain in effect until the Dwelling Unit is brought into compliance.
D. Failure to provide the Code Enforcement Officer with reasonable access to perform inspections as outlined herein shall result in either (a) denial of a Short Term Rental Permit, or (b) suspension of a Short Term Rental Permit for the duration of time access is denied.
E. A temporary suspension may be appealed within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of the suspension by filing a written notice of appeal with the Town Board. The Town Board shall schedule a public hearing to determine whether the suspension is warranted within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the written notice of appeal. The hearing date may be adjourned by agreement of the Town Board and the appellant.
Section 8: Requirement for Posting House Rules
All Short Term Rental Units shall post for Guests a list of House Rules. The minimum requirements for House Rules include:
A. The name and a contact telephone number for the Host and the Responsible Party, with a brief description of who to contact for what. B. Maximum occupancy as provided in the Short Term Rental Permit. C. Instructions on dialing 911 for emergency, fire, or ambulance assistance, and instructions for calling poison control. D. The Short Term Rental address location (911 address). E. An emergency exit plan. F. The location of all fire extinguishers and carbon monoxide detectors. G. A property map that clearly depicts the Short Term Rental property boundaries, with a statement that guests may be liable for illegal trespassing. H. Procedures for waste removal. I. A statement directing Guests where to park, consistent with the parking description approved with the Permit, and instructing that vehicles must never block or impede access for municipal or emergency vehicles, including fire apparatus. J. If outdoor fires are allowed by the Host, a statement that outdoor fires shall be made solely within a firepit, fireplace, or woodstove, using only clean wood or charcoal; that firepits and fireplaces must be contained, not burned during posted burn-ban timeframes, and avoided in windy weather. If the Host does not permit outdoor fires, this prohibition shall be stated in the House Rules. K. A copy of, or the registration number for, the Short Term Rental Unit’s registration with Delaware County under the County Occupancy Tax Law. L. A copy of the Friendly Neighbor Policy prepared by the Roxbury Town Board, available on the Town of Roxbury website.
Section 9: Neighbor Notification
After a Short Term Rental Permit is issued, the Host or Responsible Party shall notify, in writing via first class mail, all property owners whose property adjoins the parcel containing the Short Term Rental Unit that a Permit to operate a Short Term Rental has been obtained. Such notice shall include a twenty-four (24) hour contact telephone number for the Responsible Party so that a neighbor with a concern can reach someone promptly.
To protect the privacy of resident hosts while still ensuring neighbors and the Town can make contact, the full contact details required under Section 6(A)(1) — including the Host’s home address and email — shall be filed with the Code Enforcement Officer rather than mailed to surrounding owners. The Code Enforcement Officer shall make a Responsible Party contact telephone number available to any member of the public on request.
(Note: the Board’s draft required mailing the host’s name, home address, email, and cell phone number to every owner within a 200-foot radius. This version preserves the neighbors’ ability to reach a responsible person at any hour while not compelling the broad disclosure of an owner’s personal information.)
Section 10: Permit Fees
Initial and Renewal Permit fees shall be set by resolution of the Town Board. Such fees shall be reasonably related to, and shall not exceed, the actual administrative and inspection costs the Town incurs in reviewing applications and conducting safety inspections under this Local Law. The Town Board shall maintain a published fee schedule available from the Town Clerk and on the Town website. Any amendment to the fee schedule shall apply prospectively only and shall not increase the fee for a Permit during its existing two-year term.
Section 11: Complaints / Enforcement / Penalties
A. Complaints. Complaints regarding the operation of a Short Term Rental shall be in writing and submitted to the Town Clerk. Complaints related to a Short Term Rental that fall within the purview of the New York Penal Law shall be reported to law enforcement. Upon receipt of a written complaint, the Code Enforcement Officer shall investigate to determine the presence of a violation.
B. Order to Remedy. Whenever it appears that a Short Term Rental violates any provision of this Local Law, or any other applicable law, rule, or regulation, the Code Enforcement Officer shall serve upon the Host and Responsible Party a written Order directing that the alleged violations be remedied within the time specified in the Order, which shall be reasonable in light of the nature of the violation. The Order shall specify the corrective action required. Orders shall be sent to the Host and Responsible Party by either (1) personal service, or (2) first class mail and electronic mail. The addresses provided in the Permit application shall be used for such notice.
C. Remedies. If the Host does not comply with the Order within the time provided, the Code Enforcement Officer may issue an appearance ticket, seek fines as provided herein from a court of competent jurisdiction, proceed with Permit revocation, or seek injunctive or other relief from a court of competent jurisdiction. Enforcement remedies are not exclusive and may be used cumulatively.
D. Permit Revocation. If a Host does not remedy violations outlined in an Order within the time provided, the Code Enforcement Officer may revoke the Short Term Rental Permit. The determination to revoke is in the discretion of the Code Enforcement Officer and shall be based upon the significance of the violation and the actions taken to remedy it.
E. Appeal of Revocation. A Permit revocation may be appealed within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of revocation by filing a written notice of appeal with the Town Board. The Town Board shall schedule a public hearing to determine whether the revocation is warranted within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the written notice of appeal. The hearing date may be adjourned by agreement of the Town Board and the appellant.
F. Expedited Process for Immediate Health and Safety Threats. If the Code Enforcement Officer learns of the potential for an immediate threat to the health and safety of Guests occupying a Short Term Rental or adjacent occupants, the Code Enforcement Officer may take immediate action to rectify the threat without first serving an Order, including initiating proper legal steps to discontinue operation of the Short Term Rental Unit and to remove Guests until the immediate threat is rectified. Where an immediate threat is present, a notice prohibiting occupancy shall be posted on the front entrance of the Unit. After taking immediate action, the Code Enforcement Officer shall notify the Host and Responsible Party in writing — by personal service, or by first class mail and electronic mail — of the action taken. Once the immediate threat is abated, the Code Enforcement Officer shall follow the Order-to-Remedy procedure set forth above. In the event of a Permit revocation, the Host shall have the opportunity to appeal as set forth in this Section.
G. Fines for Violations. Operation of a Short Term Rental without a valid Permit, or failure to comply with the provisions of this Local Law after written notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure, shall be subject to a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) nor greater than five hundred dollars ($500) for the first offense, and for a second offense within a five (5) year period, a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500) nor greater than one thousand dollars ($1,000). For a continuing violation that has not been cured within the time provided in an Order to Remedy, each week, or part thereof, that the violation continues thereafter shall be deemed a separate and distinct offense punishable in like manner. The Town may bring a proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover such fines.
Section 12: Separability
If any part or provision of this Local Law, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision, or application directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment was rendered, and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this Local Law or its application to other persons or circumstances. The Town of Roxbury Board hereby declares that it would have passed this Local Law, or the remainder thereof, had such invalid application or provision been apparent. All ordinances, Local Laws, regulations, and parts thereof inconsistent with this Local Law are hereby repealed.
Section 13: Effective Date
This Local Law shall become effective immediately upon filing with the office of the Secretary of State of New York in accordance with Section 27 of the Municipal Home Rule Law.
read more