Council deadlocks on broad short‑term rental restrictions after hours of testimony

The Newport City Council spent the bulk of the meeting debating a package of ordinance changes aimed at limiting guest houses and other short‑term rental uses in commercial districts. Sponsor Councilor Marco Romley framed the change as a necessary step "to stop the bleeding" of housing stock and said the proposal would not revoke existing permitted rentals.

"When a when a patient is bleeding and we are bleeding our housing stock out, 1st thing you do is stop the bleeding," Councilor Marco Romley said, urging the council to act to preserve housing for year‑round residents. Romley emphasized the proposal would grandfather existing, legal short‑term rentals and prevent new permits in targeted districts.

Opponents included attorneys and owners who warned of legal vulnerability and economic harm. Michael Resnick, representing a group of waterfront short‑term rental owners, told the council he had submitted exhibits and argued the package conflicts with the city's comprehensive plan, saying the comp plan historically permits guest facilities in general commercial zones and that a zoning change could trigger administrative appeals.

Several owners and operators described the personal investment and local economic contribution of their businesses. "This business is my job," short‑term rental owner Jen Bradbury told the council, and multiple speakers urged the council to preserve legal, permitted operations or to put grandfathering into writing.

Councilors were sharply divided. Some members called for more time and further study of legal concerns; others pressed forward. The council took a sequence of votes on individual chapters and amendments (items 15–22). Several motions to alter permitted uses in specific districts failed by recorded votes while other technical amendments passed. The council also accepted oral and written exhibits from interested parties and recorded multiple public comments and legal pleadings into the record.

The transcript shows a sustained exchange between sponsor councilors, planning staff and the solicitor about whether the proposed ordinances comply with the comprehensive plan and about the role of planning board findings in council decision‑making. Staff said some elements are intended to save dwelling units from conversion; the planning board issued a negative recommendation on at least some proposals and the staff/planning officer provided data on registration and approvals.

Next steps: the transcript records that some items were continued or failed on second reading while other, narrower zoning technical changes proceeded; the council indicated the debate will continue at future meetings as staff and the council consider legal briefs and additional analyses.