COOPERSTOWN _ A hearing in a state Supreme Court case challenging the city of Oneonta's summer-rental ordinance has been postponed from today to later this month.
Joseph and Jennifer Harkenreader filed an Article 78 civil claim against the city last month. The claim charges city government with using one standard to grant another property owner a permit, while using a second standard to deny their permit.
The hearing is now set for Sept. 26, and the Harkenreaders' attorney, Eric Jervis, said a ruling may be issued then.
At issue is whether the city acted within its bounds when it granted a summer-rental permit for the 2008 season to Kristen Sloth for her home at 57 Spruce St., but later denied one for the Harkenreaders at 20 Myrtle Ave.
The summer-rental ordinance, revised last September by the city, was intended to prevent rentals in that area of the city from being closer than 200 feet to each other. However, rentals deemed renewals by the city are exempt from density requirements.
The 20 Myrtle Ave. home owned by the Harkenreaders was a permitted summer rental in 2006. Sloth's home at 57 Spruce St. was a permitted summer rental in 2002, according to city records.
Oneonta City Clerk James Koury initially ruled that applications at 20 Myrtle Ave. and 57 Spruce St. for the 2008 season should be considered new applications. Under the new density rules, this would mean neither would be allowed.
But Sloth, who submitted her application several months before the Harkenreaders, appealed Koury's determination to the city Planning Commission, which had been granted oversight of new permits.
The commission was in favor of granting her a renewal permit. Commissioners cited Sloth's personal circumstances, which included an international adoption that she said kept her away from the summer-rental business.
Several months later, the Harkenreaders also appealed to the Planning Commission, but this time it ruled that their permit application was not considered a renewal.
Mayor John Nader had sent a memo to the commission that supported Koury's original determination that to be considered a renewal, a property must have been a permitted summer rental in the year immediately prior to the season being applied for.
The Harkenreaders are seeking a reversal of the city's decision that their permit was not a renewal; the issuance of a new permit for 2008; a declaration that the city's summer-rental ordinance is unconstitutional; a money judgement for an unspecified amount; and coverage of their legal costs.
The Common Council voted Tuesday to amend the ordinance to clarify that a property must have had a valid summer-rental permit in the year immediately prior to the current season in order for it to be considered a renewal.
The ordinance also shifted oversight from the appointed Planning Commission to the elected Common Council.
This change in definition would have forced the Harkenreaders' and Sloth's permit applications to have been treated as new applications.
In their claim against the city, the Harkenreaders contend that pressure from some community members was the reason their permit was denied.
The Article 78 is proceeding in state Supreme Court before Judge Michael Coccoma. On Thursday, Jervis declined to comment on the details of the case.
Nader also declined to comment on the case.
Renting weekly in the summer, especially to the families of baseball-camp attendees, has been a growing business within the last decade with the opening of Cooperstown All-Star Village, Cooperstown Baseball World and Cooperstown Dreams Park.
Those opposed to summer rentals have said they are concerned about traffic, noise and other quality-of-life issues during what is normally a quieter time in Oneonta.
However, property owners in the summer-rental business contend they are improving homes in Oneonta when they renovate them to rent to families in the summer, and that they provide service that bolsters Oneonta's tourism economy.
Print this story
E-mail this story
