Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nahant ZBA denies appeal, upholds cease-and-desist for 47 Little Nahant Road short-term rental
Summary
The Nahant Zoning Board of Appeals on March 31 denied an appeal by the owners of 47 Little Nahant Road, finding the applicants did not prove any beneficial owner lives at the property as a principal residence; the board upheld the building inspectors cease-and-desist and advised the owners to reapply if one owner establishes primary residency.
The Nahant Zoning Board of Appeals on March 31, 2026 voted to deny an appeal from the owners of 47 Little Nahant Road and upheld a town-issued cease-and-desist order that halted use of the property as a short-term rental.
Attorney David Claude, representing Cal Properties LLC, told the board the town has offered no consistent definition of "principal residence" for properties owned by entities, and that the bylaw fails to say how to determine a principal residence when the owner is an LLC. "The town has not provided a single consistent definition of how it's interpreting the principal residency requirement under the short-term rental bylaw," Claude said, and requested that the cease-and-desist be lifted until the town issues clear standards and guidance.
The boards members pressed for documentary proof of residency and asked the applicants to provide the LLC operating agreement showing beneficial owners. Board member David Walsh said the applicants had effectively admitted that none of the three listed owners live at the property permanently. "None of the three live there permanently," Walsh said during deliberations, noting the boards understanding of the bylaw's intent when it was adopted.
Neighbors who testified in opposition described frequent turnover and out-of-state visitors at the house. Joseph Schultz, who said he lives at 45 Little Nahant Road, told the board he had seen the house occupied only "a handful of nights" since the owners acquired it and said the property clearly behaved like a non-owner-occupied short-term rental.
After discussion the board agreed with the building inspector's determination that the applicants had not met the burden of proving the property is an owner's principal residence. The board voted, by roll call, to deny the appeal and sustain the cease-and-desist. Chair Jocelyn Campbell said the panel will draft and file a written decision within two weeks and that, if one of the owners later establishes the property as a primary residence, the family may reapply for a license.
The board's decision enforces the towns short-term rental bylaw as written; the panel and several public commenters also said the bylaw language leaves open questions about entity ownership and urged town staff or the select board to issue clearer enforcement guidance for LLC-owned short-term rentals.
The decision was recorded as a formal denial; the plaintiffs have the statutory period to pursue any administrative appeal.
What happens next: the board will file a written decision within two weeks; the owners may reapply if one of the beneficial owners documents a change in residency status that satisfies the town's requirements.
