Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Short Term Rental Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning board denies use variance for short-term rental at 19 Hamilton Ave amid neighbor opposition

3646151 · April 28, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Zoning Board denied a use variance for 19 Hamilton Ave after residents voiced concerns about neighborhood character and the board found the applicant had not demonstrated a self-created hardship exception.

The Auburn Zoning Board of Appeals denied a request from Rachel Bailey to operate a short-term rental at 19 Hamilton Ave, citing the board’s finding that the applicant did not meet the legal standard for a use variance.

Bailey told the board she and her family own the home and use it part of the year while renting it other times; she said the property is near an R-2 zone, has parking and that many nearby properties are rentals. "We have owned the home for about 5 years and it's a home that we use," Bailey said, noting the house had sometimes hosted contractors or short-term occupants for community projects.

Several neighbors spoke against the variance during public comment, arguing that short-term rentals undermine residential neighborhoods. "The mini hotel is not an appropriate usage in a residential neighborhood," Jacqueline Gumtow said. Mike Pedegrass, another neighbor, said he opposed short-term rentals generally in that area and worried about neighborhood degradation.

The board first adopted a negative declaration on the submitted short environmental assessment form. After public comment and deliberation, a motion to grant the use variance failed on a roll call vote: Steigerwald voted yes; Bilecki, Miller, Tamberrino, Kilmer, Odessa and Martini voted no. The motion did not reach the four-vote majority needed, and the application was denied.

Board members who voted no cited a belief that the hardship claim was self-created and that the applicant had not demonstrated the inability to realize a reasonable return without a variance. The applicant was advised to consult the codes office about documentation and options.