Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rental topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board says ordinance prevents retroactive STR grandfathering after applicants cite delayed staff responses
Summary
Residents seeking retroactive grandfathering under Londonderry's earlier short-term rental rules told the board they tried repeatedly to get guidance; staff and the town attorney said email or phone contact did not meet the ordinance's application standard and the board declined to override that interpretation.
Residents who applied late for short-term rental (STR) status asked the Select Board on Tuesday to treat their earlier email correspondence as evidence of timely application and to be grandfathered under the earlier ordinance. The applicants said they contacted town staff repeatedly, waited for clarifications on the application (especially the designated-agent requirement), and submitted the full application as soon as they received answers.
Ken Lee, who identified himself during public comment as a resident and applicant, said he repeatedly sought guidance before the deadline and asked the board to take the communications into account. "I just think it's about fairness for the paper trail that shows good faith effort to comply," he said. The applicants said they believed a partial submission or acknowledged correspondence would be backdated in many municipal processes and asked the board to exercise discretion because delayed staff replies left them uncertain.
Town staff and the town attorney told the board the ordinance defines what constitutes an application and that the record did not show those communications met that threshold. The staff member who responded during the meeting reiterated that a mid-November letter to owners set a registration deadline of Nov. 27, 2024, and warned that failure to register could lead to tickets. The staff representative said that, after consulting the town attorney, the office concluded that email or phone exchanges did not, under the ordinance language, make someone an applicant eligible for grandfathering.
Board members said they were constrained by the attorney's legal interpretation and cautioned against setting precedent by making ad hoc exceptions. "At present there is not an appeals process in the ordinance," the chair said, noting the board's limited authority to contravene the ordinance's text. Several members recommended that the ordinance be revisited to add clearer procedures or an appeals pathway so similar cases can be handled differently in the future.
The applicants were told they can participate in the committee process to propose changes to the ordinance for next year. The board did not take a contrary formal action at the meeting; the staff interpretation and attorney advice remain the basis for administration of the current ordinance.
