A Letter to the Board on Pittsford's Short-Term Rentals

The Short Version

Carolina Torres writes in support of a petition to grandfather the Village's 14 existing short-term rentals.
She states the Board's study committee — one long-term rental owner, one STR owner, and four residents — reversed course after doing its research, with all but one member changing position.
She writes the committee found no recorded complaints against any of the 14, and that renters were largely families of Nazareth University students, Oak Hill golfers, and relatives visiting Village residents.
She says the committee recommended grandfathering the existing rentals, capping the total number, and registering and taxing them to generate Village revenue.
She argues the Board disregarded both those findings and the majority of public-hearing comment, and calls for decisions made on evidence rather than personal preference.
Pittsford Village Chat has provided the letter to the Mayor and Board of Trustees and invited a response, which will be published here in full.

Carolina Torres wrote to the Mayor and Board of Trustees in support of a petition to grandfather the Village's existing short-term rentals. She sent us a copy - here it is in full.

Background: The short-term rental law came before the Village of Pittsford Board of Trustees at its May 13, 2025 meeting, adding Article 29 to the Village Zoning Code. The law's preamble records that the Board appointed a committee to make recommendations on short-term rentals.

Letter from Carolina Torres, Resident

The following is a letter submitted to the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Pittsford by Carolina Torres.

Dear Mayor and Board of Trustees: I'm writing in support of the petition to grandfather the existing short-term rentals (STRs) in the Village of Pittsford. I believe this isn't just a policy question. It's a question of whether this Board makes decisions based on evidence and fairness, or on personal agendas. Before voting to ban short-term rentals, the Board formed a committee to study the issue. That committee included one long-term rental owner, one STR owner, and four residents, most of whom started the process already leaning toward restricting STRs. After doing the actual research, all but one member changed their mind. Their findings were clear: there were no recorded complaints against any of the 14 existing STRs. The bulk of renters were families of Nazareth University students, Oak Hill golfers, and extended family visiting Village residents, hardly the disruptive tourism the Board's rhetoric implied. Research on similarly sized villages showed that a limited number of STRs can enhance small communities, and that the crime and neighborhood deterioration sometimes associated with STRs happens in high-tourism cities, not places like Pittsford. The committee's recommendation was to grandfather the existing STRs, cap the total number allowed, and register and tax them, generating revenue that could ease the tax burden on residents. The Board ignored all of it. At public hearings, the majority of comments favored keeping the existing STRs. None of that mattered. What's become increasingly clear is that individual Board members were pursuing personal agendas rather than working collectively toward what's actually best for the Village. Decisions were shaped by private grievances and pet issues instead of the evidence in front of them, and 14 businesses were forced to shut down as a result. Pittsford already carries a reputation for being unwelcoming to business. This decision, made in spite of a committee's own research and a room full of residents saying otherwise, only confirms it. The Board owes the committee, and the residents who showed up to be heard, more than total disregard. It's discouraging to civic participation when people do the work of researching an issue in good faith and watch it get thrown out for reasons that have nothing to do with facts. Grandfathering the existing STRs doesn't ask the Board to reverse its position entirely. It asks for something more basic: that decisions affecting people's livelihoods be made on evidence, not personal bias, and that trustees not abuse their power by substituting personal preference for the collective judgment of the community they represent. Sincerely, Carolina Torres

An Invitation to the Board

Pittsford Village Chat reached out to the Mayor and Board of Trustees on August 4, 2026 and invited a response. Any response received will be published here in full, alongside the letter.

Disclosure: Adam Stetzer holds a newly appointed seat as an alternate member seat on the Village Planning and Zoning Board of Appeals.

Content ID: TDrLqbeV6ZcnCkUduPQe2p6x

See an error? Tell us.

Comments

Share with the Community

Keep Reading

Village of Pittsford: DPW Brush Pick-Up Schedule Shifts to Every Other Week

Solar Panels in Pittsford's Historic District: 4 Applications

Pizza Out, Pilates In: The Restaurant Approved for 5 South Main Street Isn't Coming