SHAFTSBURY — Town officials are considering several zoning bylaws changes, the most controversial of which deal with short-term rentals.
Planning Commission Chair Tim Scoggins presented and discussed the proposed changes, with support from Zoning Administrator Carlyn Mickle, at Monday's Select Board meeting.
“This is just to inform the Select Board about where we're headed, and to get any feedback that you might have before you vote,” Scoggins said. “We have been working for last several months on a basket of bylaws changes, and these are mostly motivated by Carlyn, and things that she has either seen as a problem on the job as zoning administrator or anticipates things that we need to address before they do become problems.”
The Planning Commission will have one formal hearing on the package of bylaws, and then the Select Board is required by the state to have two formal hearings on them before it votes. The Planning Commission hearing had not yet been set, he said.
The first proposal is to require a demolition permit.
“The idea there is not that we're going to tell people whether or not they can demolish a building on their property,” he said. “We just would like it if they would come in and let us know that they're doing that, so that we can update their listers card and their taxes will be adjusted, presumably down, accordingly.”
It would be a simple form, “that asks who you are and what you're doing and making sure that you know some of the basics of the things you need to deal with, like dealing with asbestos,” he said.
As with the other proposals, this would bring people’s attention to state rules that apply. There will be no cost for the permit.
The next change is on the maximum height of buildings, going from 30 to 35 feet. "It came up that someone wanted to build essentially a three story house, and our current bylaws do not allow that, because there's a maximum height several places in the bylaws,” Scoggins said. "What that does is allow you to have a three story building of any kind, a three story house with a peaked roof."
Home occupations and short-term rentals would be separated in the revised bylaws.
“Imagining somebody who's at home knitting socks and they sell them online, that's the kind of person we're thinking of, the kind of thing that we're thinking of as a home occupation, and we want to make it simple and easy for them,” Scoggins said. “Thinking about the sock lady, she just goes in and fills out a permit with the zoning administrator. She doesn't have to schedule a hearing with the DRB (Development Review Board) to knit socks and sell them online.”
They also would like to create an online directory of people of people with home occupations in town. This bylaw would not include people working at home for outside businesses. Agriculture is separate and it is largely regulated by the state. The bylaw also does not apply to daycares, which also are state-regulated.
The permit would cost $50 if one wants to be on the list of business and $100 if they opt out. These amounts are a reduction from the currently required $275 fee. The bylaw requirements wouldn’t change, except for redefining the maximum square footage that can be used for home occupation. It would now be 30% of a home. Currently it is 1,500 square feet, except in the village zone, where it is set at 500 square feet.
“Retail sales are allowed for things that are made on the premises only, and parking has to conform with the parking regulations, and you're allowed one sign that fits our sign ordinance to advertise,” Scoggins said.
Select Board member Michael Cichanowski objected that the 30% rule could actually reduce the amount of space a resident would be able to use for their home occupation. “Vermont has a long history of making it very difficult for Vermonters to earn a living," he said. "This seems like kind of one more drop in the bucket of saying you can't make a living here in Vermont anymore, you know. I would oppose that particular piece.”
The short-term rental bylaw proposal drew the most discussion.
“We don't want to inhibit it in any way. It provides income for people. We just want to make sure that it's being done right,” Scoggins said. “Most of the (proposed) bylaw just draws people's attention to state regulations about short-term rentals, Airbnb-type rentals, of which there are plenty.”
The proposal includes instating a $150 a year fee due on March 1 for a Shaftsbury resident doing business with a short-term rental; $600 for non-resident owners.
“We've been pretty consistently getting feedback that we're really happy for Shaftsbury people to do this, but don't want all of our housing to get bought up by out-of-staters to put on Airbnb, so we're essentially discouraging that with (this) idea.”
The owner must submit a copy of the short-term rental safety, health, and financial obligations checklist, “a checklist that essentially someone who's doing a short-term rental has to go through and make sure they're doing all the right things.”
“Short term rentals are permitted in all zones except forest and recreation. All this can be handled by the zoning administrator, except we realize some people might want to rent out camps for short term rental,” he said.
Permits for camps require approval from the DRB due to wastewater considerations.
Other requirements are to have an owner or designated manager available and close by at all times when the building is being rented in case of problems. In addition, the owner is responsible for tenants respecting the noise ordinance.
“The vehicles have to be parked off the street, unless there's public parking available, which there's not that much in Shaftsbury, so essentially it has to be off the street,” he said.
Three or four owners of short-term rentals attended the meeting. One said she felt they were being singled out with rules compared to long-term rental properties, noting that long-term places near her have parties all the time. Mickle said she would be happy to meet with short-term rental owners to discuss the proposed concerns.
Another proposal is an ordinance regulating poultry in residential and village center districts, not rural areas.
“This came up because there have been some complaints about chickens in village areas running around loose and making noise and that sort of thing,” Scoggins said. “And so we looked at what other towns are doing.”