Planning Board debates short-term rental rules, lowers proposed setbacks and circulates solar draft

The Washington Planning Board on Jan. 6 reviewed a package of proposed amendments to the town’s Land Use Ordinance that would change rules for short-term rentals (STRs), rename the construction compliance permit, raise the threshold for required building permits, and reduce residential setbacks.

Chair Martin opened the discussion after Peter Mellen’s presentation of a separate subdivision application. Planner Piatt and Planning Board member Cashorali outlined the draft amendments: classify “hosted” STRs as Minor Home Businesses allowed by right and treat “non-hosted” STRs as a Business Use requiring a business permit; rename the Land Use Compliance for Construction permit to a Land Use Building Permit and require a permit for structures over 200 square feet while exempting temporary structures up to 180 days and certain non-permanent storage structures; and reduce standard setbacks to front 30 feet, side 15 feet and rear 15 feet (with smaller allowances for detached structures under 100 sq. ft.). A draft solar ordinance and several new definitions were circulated for public review.

Residents and board members focused first on the residency test proposed for hosted STRs. Under the draft, hosted STRs would be allowed by right if the owner “resides” within 20 miles of the rental unit. Opponents argued the threshold was arbitrary and urged a stricter test. G. Revane said, “hosted should mean you live on the property,” and other commenters and board members urged using a town-residency standard or the town tax-bill address to determine ownership and enforceability. Proponents including Cashorali said the 20-mile figure was a practical compromise and that non-hosted STRs would face business-permit requirements.

Piatt read the proposed building-permit language, noting the 200-square-foot threshold mirrors practice in neighboring towns. He said the draft also exempts temporary structures (defined as those in place for 180 days) and creates a category for non-permanent storage structures that must still respect setbacks and building-coverage limits.

Setbacks drew sustained comment. The board proposed cutting typical setbacks to 30 feet front, 15 feet side and 15 feet rear; for small detached accessory structures under 100 sq. ft. the draft would allow a zero front setback (outside the right-of-way) and 5 feet side and rear. Residents from lake and small-lot neighborhoods said smaller setbacks could increase development pressure, reduce neighbors’ privacy, and increase impervious surface. Michael Carter and other commenters asked the board for documentation or examples showing how the current setback regime leads to repeat Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) variance requests. Board members said they had heard concerns about the time and cost of seeking variances for minor shortfalls and framed the change as a way to reduce burdens for modest projects.

After extended public comment, the board took a formal vote on setbacks. Piatt moved and Cashorali seconded a motion to keep the setbacks as proposed; the motion passed 4–1 with Schwartz voting no.

Nan Schwartz, the Planning Board’s recording member, said the solar ordinance included in the packet was for discussion only and invited written comments.

What happens next: the board closed the public hearing and will accept written comments on the LUO draft language and the solar ordinance. The draft permits, definitions and setback language will be revised as the board compiles public input and returns the matter for further hearings or a warrant article as required by town procedures.

The board’s action on setbacks is procedural, not an adoption of the entire LUO package; further formal steps and public hearings remain before any ordinance changes become effective.