Follow-Up: Proposed Law Also Reaches Waterfront Docks
Dear Mayor Citrin, Trustees, Village Clerk, and Village Attorney:
I am writing to add a fact that further demonstrates the reach of the proposed local law.
The Hickey Freeman fashion photoshoot that prompted this proposal took place entirely on the dock at my boathouse. I did not use the boathouse interior. No lodging, overnight occupancy, rental of living space, or surrender of possession occurred.
The August 19 draft expressly includes a “dock” within its definition of an accessory building. Its potential application therefore is not limited to separately assessed boathouses or even to properties that have boathouses. By its terms, the proposal may affect every waterfront property owner with a dock on Tuxedo Lake, Wee Wah Lake, and Pond No. 3, as well as the Village Boat Club and any other property or facility with a covered dock.
This materially expands the class of affected residents. The Board should publicly identify whether the proposed law applies to all waterfront docks and explain what ordinary, owner-supervised activities may occur on them. Residents should not have to infer the law’s actual reach from technical definitions that conflict with the Mayor’s repeated description of the proposal as a prohibition on renting accessory structures to the public.
This also affects the integrity of the public-hearing record. Any resident who submits a letter or speaks at a hearing merely to oppose “boathouse rentals” or overnight accommodations may be responding to a misunderstanding created by the Village’s public messaging—not to the operative language of the August 19 draft. Existing Chapter 100 provisions, certificate-of-occupancy requirements, and applicable building-code requirements already prevent boathouses without authorization for residential occupancy from being used as Airbnb accommodations or other overnight lodging.
Such comments should not be treated as informed support for the proposed law’s broader restrictions unless the commenter has been given the actual draft and understands that it potentially regulates docks, guests, gifts, services, independent daytime uses, owner-supervised photography, separately assessed waterfront parcels, and other activity involving no lodging or rental.
I therefore respectfully request that the Board:
- Publicly clarify that the August 19 proposal is not limited to overnight rentals or Airbnb-style use;
- State whether its definition of “accessory building” causes the proposal to apply to every waterfront dock on all three Village lakes, including the Village Boat Club;
- Correct the Mayor’s newsletter before relying on public comments generated by its narrower and potentially misleading description;
- Distinguish comments opposing unlawful overnight lodging from comments addressing the proposal’s actual operative provisions; and
- Include this email in the legislative and public-hearing record.
The Board should evaluate public comment based on an accurate explanation of the law residents are actually being asked to support or oppose. Opposition to overnight boathouse rentals cannot fairly be treated as approval of a much broader law affecting docks and ordinary private-property activity throughout the Village.
Please confirm receipt and distribution to the Mayor, Trustees, Village Attorney, and Village Clerk.