Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
 City of Rye
 1051 Boston Post Road
 Rye, NY 10580

Re: Request to Amend Leaf Blower Enforcement Provisions to Avoid Automatic Homeowner Liability

Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:

I am writing as a homeowner in the City of Rye to respectfully request that you amend Chapter 122 of the City Code (“Leaf Blowers”) so that homeowners are not automatically held liable for violations committed by independent landscaping contractors.

Under current law, City Code § 122-7(A) provides that, for any violation involving gas leaf blowers, three categories of parties are deemed to have committed a violation: the operator, the party who employs the operator, and “the party who owns, rents or otherwise controls the property where the violation occurs.” In practice, this means that even when a homeowner has no direct control over the timing, number of blowers used, or precise work practices of an independent contractor, the homeowner can still be cited and fined.

I fully support the City’s goals in Chapter 122: reducing noise, emissions, and environmental impacts from gas-powered leaf blowers while encouraging quieter, cleaner technologies. The “Purpose” section of § 122-1 clearly articulates the legitimate public interests the City seeks to advance, namely controlling noise and pollution and ultimately phasing out gas-powered blowers as better alternatives become available. My concern is not with those goals, but with the fairness and practicality of the enforcement mechanism as applied to homeowners.

1. The Current Enforcement Structure Imposes Strict Liability on Homeowners
As written, § 122-7(A) does not distinguish between:

the professional landscaper who decides which equipment to bring and how to deploy it,

the employer (the landscaping business) that profits from those decisions, and

the homeowner, who may have hired a contractor in good faith and instructed them to follow City law but is not in a realistic position to supervise their every action.

This effectively creates a form of strict liability for property owners, regardless of whether they took reasonable steps to ensure compliance. A homeowner can:

hire a properly licensed landscaper pursuant to Westchester County law (which already regulates landscaping contractors and their equipment),

explicitly instruct that landscapers must comply with Rye’s leaf blower regulations, and

be inside the home, at work, or even out of town when the violation occurs,

yet still be cited simply because the violation took place on their property.

This approach is particularly harsh on elderly residents, residents with disabilities, and those who rely on third-party landscaping services precisely because they cannot physically perform or closely supervise the work themselves.

2. Existing Law Already Targets the Appropriate Responsible Parties
The City has already wisely identified the primary actors who are best positioned to comply with and internalize the costs of the regulations:

§ 122-7(A)(1): the party operating the gas leaf blower;

§ 122-7(A)(2): the party who employed that operator; and

§ 122-7(C): commercial landscapers who fail to comply with Westchester County Law §§ 863.312–863.330 (including licensing and vehicle identification requirements) are also in violation of Chapter 122.

These provisions already recognize that landscapers are a professional, licensed industry regulated by Westchester County, and that enforcement directed at landscapers and their employers is both possible and appropriate. Homeowners do not have independent access to County enforcement mechanisms, nor the same level of knowledge about changing City and County rules.

By comparison, automatically penalizing homeowners dilutes the responsibility of those professional actors and may even reduce landscapers’ incentive to invest in compliance (for example, by using quieter electric blowers, training crews, or adjusting schedules) if the financial and legal risk can be shared with or shifted to the homeowner.

3. Practical Enforcement, Due Process, and Burden on Law-Abiding Residents
From a practical standpoint, the City’s own public communications acknowledge that enforcing the leaf blower law is challenging: many violators are “gone on arrival,” and officers often cannot identify the specific operator or the employer by the time enforcement arrives. In response, § 122-7(A) effectively uses the homeowner as the enforcement fallback—treating the property owner as a default violator whenever there is a problem, regardless of fault.

This structure raises due process concerns. A homeowner may have explicitly instructed their contractor to comply with the law, hired a County-licensed landscaper as required under Westchester County Law §§ 863.312–863.330, and lacked any knowledge that a prohibited gas blower was being used. They may not even be home when the violation occurs. Yet the code as written provides no mechanism for homeowners to demonstrate reasonable preventive steps or to be excused when they neither directed, consented to, nor were aware of the violation.

Compounding this, the requirement to physically appear in court imposes a substantial burden on busy professionals and families who have made every reasonable effort to follow the law. Many residents are working full-time, caring for young children, or commuting long hours. Being compelled to appear in court—sometimes during normal work hours—carries real costs: lost wages, missed client meetings, childcare expenses, canceled medical appointments, and other tangible disruptions. These burdens fall hardest on those who have acted responsibly and in good faith, but are swept into the enforcement system because an independent contractor chose to disregard City rules. A process that forces conscientious, law-abiding homeowners into court for actions outside their control is not only inefficient; it is inherently inequitable.

In light of these due process and fairness concerns, enforcement should focus on those who make operational decisions—the contractor and employer—not on homeowners who lack the ability to supervise each moment of landscaping work performed by third parties.

4. Proposed Reforms
I respectfully request that the Council consider amending § 122-7 to align enforcement more closely with responsibility and control. Specifically, I suggest:

Remove automatic homeowner liability
 Amend § 122-7(A) to eliminate subparagraph (3) (“The party who owns, rents or otherwise controls the property where the violation occurs”) as a default violator, at least for violations committed by independent contractors.

Create a “reasonable efforts” safe harbor
 Alternatively, retain homeowner liability but add a safe harbor: a property owner should not be fined if they can show they:

hired a County-licensed landscaper (per Westchester County Law §§ 863.312–863.330),

provided written notice or contract language requiring compliance with Chapter 122, and

were not present or did not direct or knowingly permit the violation.

Clarify liability only where there is direction or knowing consent
 Modify § 122-7 so that homeowners are only liable where there is evidence that they directed, requested, or knowingly permitted the contractor to violate the law (for example, by insisting on gas blowers during the prohibited season or outside allowed hours).

Strengthen landscaper-focused enforcement and education

Coordinate with Westchester County licensing authorities to ensure that repeated violators face meaningful consequences at the County level (e.g., licensing review).

Require that landscapers working in Rye receive and acknowledge, in writing, current City leaf blower regulations as a condition of operating within City limits.

These changes would better reflect the City’s stated purpose in § 122-1—addressing the noise and environmental impact of gas leaf blowers—while ensuring that enforcement targets those who control the equipment and make the operational decisions.

5. Conclusion
I appreciate the Council’s efforts to improve quality of life in Rye and to respond to residents’ concerns about noise, health, and the environment. I respectfully ask that, as you continue to refine Chapter 122, you also address the fairness of automatic homeowner liability for independent contractors’ violations.

Thank you for your attention to this issue and for your service to our community. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these concerns further or to participate in any future public hearing on amendments to Chapter 122.

Respectfully submitted,