Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rental committee urges data collection and definition before drafting short‑term rental ordinances
Summary
Belgrade’s short‑term rentals committee reported it lacks empirical data on the size of the rental market and recommended a yearlong study to define terms, consider a registry or best practices, and weigh enforcement and resource impacts such as septic inspections and fire safety.
The select board heard an extended update from the ad hoc rental committee about short‑term rentals in Belgrade and possible next steps. The committee chair said there is no definitive count of properties listed on platforms such as Airbnb or Vrbo for the town alone and urged a deliberate, data‑driven approach before proposing regulations.
"We don't actually know how big of the market is for short‑term rentals down below," the rental committee chair told the board, and said the committee’s initial work has focused on defining what counts as a short‑term rental, brainstorming potential issues (septic, parking, noise, safety), and determining what additional data would be needed to measure the problem.
The committee outlined a menu of possible actions: do nothing; publish best practices; create a registry with a local contact; require permits or licensing; or adopt a detailed ordinance. Committee members and others at the meeting raised enforcement and resource concerns, noting that inspections and follow‑up require staffing and budget. One attendee described finding a long‑standing broken septic connection at a property used for short‑term rental, underscoring the environmental and public health concerns the committee cited.
Board members and participants emphasized that enforcement is constrained by available staff and by state law: for certain matters, the sheriff’s office enforces state law rather than local ordinances. Committee members said a registry could be a low‑burden first step to identify properties and provide a local contact, while more prescriptive inspections or certificates of occupancy would require a plan for who would perform inspections and how to pay for them.
The committee proposed roughly a one‑year timeline (alternating twice‑monthly, 1–1.5 hour meetings) to complete its study and asked the board whether it expects an ordinance draft or a research‑style report of pros and cons. The chair said the committee will bring back a proposed definition of the scope and suggested next steps at a future meeting to maintain momentum.
The board did not adopt new rules at the meeting; members asked the committee to continue and clarify the committee’s deliverable (research summary, draft ordinance, or recommended best practices) and to return with a clear definition and schedule.
