Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts updated housing chapter and advances zoning changes that cap new guest‑house short‑term rentals
Summary
The Newport City Council approved a revised housing chapter to its comprehensive plan and advanced a package of zoning amendments that would prohibit new non‑owner occupied 'guest house' short‑term rentals in business districts while staff pursues enforcement and loophole fixes.
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Newport City Council on first reading approved an updated housing chapter intended to bring the city's comprehensive plan up to current population and housing data and to provide a framework for future zoning changes. The vote moves the chapter forward so councilors and staff can pursue follow‑on zoning actions to support housing production and preservation.
The council also debated and advanced a related set of zoning amendments that would bar new non‑owner‑occupied guest houses — a category of short‑term rental commonly used in Newport's business districts. Zoning officer Nick Armour told the council the change would make guest house use in the general business, limited business and waterfront business districts “not permitted” going forward; "existing, legally established guest houses would be allowed to remain," he said. Planning staff and several councilors framed the prohibition as a measure to "stop the bleeding" after years in which converted seasonal rentals have reduced year‑round housing stock.
Supporters, including Councillor Romley, argued the city has lost housing to short‑term rentals and that a cap on new guest houses is necessary to preserve long‑term housing supply. Romley said council action is needed because "we have bled more than 15% of our housing stock to guest houses." Opponents, including members of the Planning Board and some councilors, cautioned that the proposal could have unintended market effects, and they urged careful legal review of grandfathering and transferability rules; the solicitor cautioned that zoning applies to property and that permitted uses often run with the land.
Staff outlined enforcement tools they are developing in parallel: the city recently adopted GovOS software to identify and track short‑term rentals, plans to return enforcement officers to field inspections, is looking at daily fines for illegal advertising, and is exploring partnerships with municipal and Superior Court procedures to increase collection and civil remedies when warranted. Armour said staff will pursue "no tolerance" policies and consider Superior Court injunctive relief for the most egregious cases.
Councilors said the comp‑plan chapter itself does not change zoning immediately but creates a policy foundation for subsequent ordinance amendments. The package of zoning chapters (17.04, 17.14, 17.52, 17.56, 17.6, 17.78, 17.01 and 17.104) was advanced on first reading; second readings and additional public comment will follow before any final ordinance takes effect.
Next steps: staff will prepare required second‑reading materials, pursue the enforcement and loophole‑closing measures discussed in the hearing, and return the zoning amendments and any clarifying language on grandfathering and transferability to the council for final votes.
