Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rental topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board denies rehearing and special-exception appeal for 86 Chapin Terrace short-term lodging
Summary
The Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment denied the Vessels’ rehearing and refused a special exception that would allow non–owner-occupied short-term lodging at 86 Chapin Terrace after neighbors described repeated disturbances and the board found the application did not meet community-character criteria.
Chair called the remand hearing for 86 Chapin Terrace on a special exception request for short-term lodging and asked the applicants’ counsel to present.
Attorney Kate Mahan, representing William and Andrea Vessels, told the board the applicants relied on prior city guidance and submitted affidavits showing they had twice sought confirmation from city staff that short-term rentals were permitted for the property. Mahan described a management plan she said would limit disruptions: leases that cap vehicles at four and guests at 10, express prohibitions on parties, required registration of guests, cameras to monitor compliance, and a commitment that the Vessels would be on site within an hour when contacted.
Several neighbors testified in opposition. Tim Gilligan, who lives next door at 94 Chapin Terrace, said he felt misled by the owners and described multiple incidents involving renters — including dogs on his deck, prolonged barking, and a loud crash — that occurred while the property was being rented. Gilligan and other residents reiterated a zoning requirement that an ‘‘owner-occupied’’ short-term lodging must meet a 150-day residency standard; they argued the Vessels do not live at the property long enough to qualify and that the owners had advertised the house for short-term rental before receiving authorization.
Other citizens, including John Hildreth and Heidi Preuss, cautioned the board that allowing non–owner-occupied short-term rentals in single-family RS zones could erode housing stock and neighborhood character. The city’s counsel, Laura Spector Morgan, reminded the public that the board must apply the Zoning Ordinance’s special-exception criteria, not popularity, and that the board’s decision must be based on whether the criteria are satisfied.
In board discussion, members referenced the ordinance tests for public welfare and community benefit. Several members said the experience reported by neighbors — multiple separate incidents tied to transient renters, continued advertising after a prior denial, and the applicant’s out-of-town residence — weighed against finding the exception satisfied. One member said the Vessels’ obligations under a lease would be useful but would not necessarily prevent harm to neighbors.
Board member Marsha Hayward moved to deny the application ZB2026004 for a special exception from Article 5 of the zoning code, finding criteria relating to hazards to health/safety and community benefit were not met; the motion was seconded and the board voted to deny. The chair announced the motion passed (3–2) and the board closed the matter.
The denial preserves enforcement options the city has described in the ordinance for ongoing violations; neighbors asked the city to pursue code enforcement if advertising or rentals continue.
