Nantucket residents once more rejected a proposal to restrict short-term leases

New England Journey

Islanders voted 523-431 in opposition to the proposal.

Nantucket residents as soon as once more voted down a proposal to restrict short-term leases on the island throughout a particular city assembly on Tuesday night time.

Residents voted 523-431 in opposition to Article 1, a normal bylaw proposal that may finish future corporate-owned short-term leases (STRs), discourage commercial-only STRs by limiting high-season contracts, restrict future STR possession to at least one property per proprietor, and permit 9 rental agreements throughout excessive season (July and August) for householders who presently hire — or are “grandfathered”— and 4 for individuals who don’t. There could be no limits through the offseason.

The residents took no motion on Article 2, a zoning bylaw modification that may permit STRs in all zoning districts on Nantucket, as a result of it was linked to Article 1.

The proposals have been created by a short-term rental working group shaped final yr to check the state of affairs and make a suggestion throughout Tuesday’s assembly. Members of the group urged residents to vote sure on the articles in a letter to the editor within the Nantucket Present previous to the vote.

On an island dealing with a housing disaster and the place 80 to 85% of the lodging nights are supplied by short-term leases, residents have been divided over the problem of short-term leases for years. Residents voted down earlier proposed restrictions in Could, in addition to in 2022 and 2021.

Jim Sulzer, a member of the short-term rental workgroup, spoke earlier than the vote.

“The laws in Article 1 are a direct reflection of the values that guided our short-term rental workgroup,” Sulzer mentioned. “From respecting the custom of house rental on Nantucket to lowering the churn of frequent summer time turnovers. We’ve completed our perfect to discover a sustainable steadiness, supporting current property rights whereas making an attempt to protect the standard of life on our island. All of us acknowledge that the integrity of neighborhoods is threatened by investor-only STRs and company STRs. Thus, Article 1 bans new company STRs — they’re at lower than 4% proper now — and it discourages investor-only STRs by limiting new STRs to simply 4 contracts in excessive season. We expect that these Article 1 laws are a giant step in the correct route and are essential.”

David Iverson, a planning board member, mentioned “a no vote means nothing adjustments. A no vote means we’ll have far much less laws to control this enterprise. What which means is individuals can have as many STRs as they need.”

However a number of residents expressed considerations through the assembly.

Some expressed concern over being restricted from renting their property sooner or later just because they haven’t rented it up to now.

“I used to be disillusioned that Article 1 as introduced ahead basically grandfathered within the current corporate-owned residential STRs which are in residential neighborhoods, thereby form of rewarding these companies who’ve began to create this drawback for us by permitting them to maintain doing this in perpetuity whereas stopping others to take action,” mentioned Michael Kopko, a former Choose Board member. “So I feel on the finish of the day, this text as written is just too onerous and byzantine on property house owners and doesn’t do sufficient to get rid of the potential for company possession. So I urge you to vote this down and, clearly, Article 2 down and let’s come again with one thing actually easy.”

“We didn’t really feel legally we may ban the company STRs which are right here now,” mentioned Sulzer. “We didn’t have a authorized leg to face on. However it’s lower than 4 % of all STRS so let’s preserve that in thoughts and let’s understand that it’ll not develop.”

“I learn Article 1 completely and nonetheless discovered it very complicated,” mentioned a resident who has been renting her house each summer time for 35 years.

She mentioned she didn’t see how it might preserve business, investment-only STRs away and beneficial going “again to the drafting board.”