Resident challenges short‑term rental violation; board offers follow‑up and clarifies ordinance window

A Rutland Town resident raised a public‑comment complaint about receiving a short‑term rental ordinance violation despite not having completed any rentals and asked for clarification and staff follow-up.

The resident identified himself as Mitro Bagman of 47 Lola Drive and said he believed the policy distinguishes rentals under 14 days as separate from the town's short‑term rental definition. He told the board he had advertised a unit but had not yet rented it and that he had tried multiple times to reach staff by phone and received no usable voicemail.

Town staff told Bagman they were willing to speak after the meeting and to follow up by phone or email; the chair also said the selectboard could be contacted if outstanding questions remained after the staff conversation.

Bagman questioned how the town issued a violation if the property had not yet hosted guests; he said advertising might occur before actual rentals and asked for clarity about the ordinance window (14 vs 30 days). Board members and staff offered to review the complaint with Bagman and to provide a clearer explanation of how advertising, listing and enforcement interact with the ordinance.

The exchange highlights ambiguity some residents feel about the ordinance's thresholds and the town's contact/notification processes; staff said they would follow up with Bagman directly and encouraged any resident with similar questions to contact the selectboard office for guidance.