Select Board fines Near Beach Motel $25,000, grants conditional license with strict compliance terms

The Select Board voted 5–0 on Aug. 6 to grant a conditional annual lodging license to Near Beach Motel (owned by 7 Shree Bhagwati Hospitality LLC) at 395 Post Road, imposing a $25,000 fine and a package of compliance measures after the town presented evidence it said showed repeated failures to keep required guest registries and to limit guest stays under a 28‑day-in-40‑day rule.

Leah Rechin, speaking for the town’s code enforcement office, told the board the hearing was focused on two issues: whether Near Beach had “scrupulously follow[ed] the requirements for guest registries under state law and your own ordinance,” and whether guests had been allowed to occupy rooms “for a period of more than 28 days within any 40‑day period.” Rechin and code enforcement witness Jodine Adams pointed to printouts the town labeled Exhibit 10 and related exhibits that, they said, contained repeated discrepancies between arrival/departure calendar spans and the shorter “nights” figures the property’s system reported.

Adams said the town’s review showed multiple examples where the arrival and departure dates spanned weeks while the logs reported far fewer nights; she said the calendar visualization she prepared made clear that several guests exceeded the town’s 28‑in‑40 rule and did not appear to have the required 90‑day absence before reoccupying the property. "These registries shall reference every person renting or occupying any room or unit, including arrival and departure dates," Adams read aloud from the ordinance while explaining the town’s analysis. When asked whether Near Beach had “scrupulously” followed the registry requirement, Adams replied, "We did not."

Counsel for Near Beach questioned whether the town’s records proved the property deliberately violated the conditions. Attorney Orso argued the discrepancies could be artifacts of how the property-management software prints reservations (grouped by unit or by reservation number) and stressed the town relied largely on printouts and hearsay rather than on-site witness testimony that could be cross-examined. The property’s representatives said the system often combines stays or shows an extended reservation ID even when guests checked out and later returned, and that third‑party booking platforms sometimes omit complete occupant names.

Dave Rana, a property manager who works with multiple area properties, told the board the reservation reports are printed “by unit” and can appear as one continuous stay even when a guest left and returned; he said the net revenue figure often aligns better than the nights column for determining actual stay length. Bitu, the Near Beach on-site manager, acknowledged the property uses third‑party reservation feeds and said staff collect identifying information (including number of adults/children and license plates) at check‑in, but that printouts provided to the town were sometimes light or difficult to parse.

Board members pressed both sides on how the reservation system treats extensions versus new bookings, how staff document the number of occupants and whether the town’s chosen date ranges omitted days that could affect counts. Several members said the records they saw suggested some guests had stayed beyond 28 days and that the lack of consistent, clear registries posed a public‑safety risk in an emergency.

After deliberation the board adopted a motion to issue a conditional license and to require Near Beach to comply with an enumerated set of conditions within a 30‑day period. The board’s motion—approved 5–0—imposed a $25,000 fine, required Near Beach to pay legal and staff costs related to achieving compliance, set up an escrow account (the board referenced a $1,600 monitoring figure used previously), mandated weekly logs delivered to the code office until the facility’s seasonal closure, and required the property to resolve technology/recording issues so printed registries match actual stays. The board also directed that Near Beach close seasonally from Oct. 15 to April 15, prepare an as‑built/site plan within six months showing the closure, and submit a registrant signature form to the code officer for review and approval.

Select Board members framed the package as intended to protect public safety and to ensure the lodging license is not used to permit de facto long‑term residences. The motion passed unanimously; the chair announced the public hearing closed and the board moved on to other business.

The town referenced Chapter 150 of the town code and Section 150‑83 (guest registry requirements) as the legal basis for the registry obligation. The board left the record open only for the mechanical step of providing the compliance form to the code officer for review; no additional testimony beyond what was presented at the hearing was required for the board to complete its licensing decision.