Despite committee decision, Franklin residents think short-term rental issue remains unresolved

FRANKLIN — Residents had a chance to voice their opinions and concerns at a community forum regarding short-term rentals in the city on March 10. A working group formed by former City Manager Judie Milner aimed to address the short-term rental issue, particularly those located near Webster Lake in the Lake Protection District.

Residents have made repeated complaints about disorderly conduct, illegal parking and trash. With the protection district zoned residential, residents have asked for short-term rentals to relocate, or else get a variance.

The working group includes Planning and Zoning Director David Chunn, Fire Chief Mike Foss, Police Chief Daniel Poirier, Captain of the Code Enforcement Division Tom Hegener and Municipal Services Director Justin Hanscom. Milner was also in the group before resigning her position in February. The forum was moderated by Stephanie Wolff of Franklin Partners in Prevention.

Chunn began the forum by giving an update on what the group had accomplished.

“For the last three months, we talked to nine different cities, we looked at 12 different city ordinances. We talked exhaustively to every planning department and lawyer we could find, and we came up with some best solutions,” he said.

Two options were presented: Take an aggressive stance and increase regulations on short-term rentals, or enforce current ordinances. The group, taking advice from counsel, went with option No. 2.

Ordinances currently in place already deal with disorderly renters, illegal outside fires and enforcement of zoning laws.

Chunn believes there is no good precedent for how Franklin should handle the short-term rental issue. He referenced a New Hampshire Supreme Court case about Portsmouth in 2019, where the court ruled a short-term rental property could not operate in a residential zone, due to city zoning regulations. He also cited a NH Supreme Court case in 2023, where the court sided with a short-term rental property owner over the town of Conway, allowing them to operate in residential districts. Chunn believes cases like these make Franklin’s decision difficult.

“Another issue came up before the state Supreme Court, and they completely reversed the precedent they set in the 2019, ruling that cities and local governments did not have the authority to regulate short-term rentals,” he said. “That kind of has been where we are now.”

Bruce Marshall, a lawyer, owns a home on Webster Lake, and has been an active voice on the issue. He disagreed with Chunn’s assessment of the Portsmouth and Conway cases. He claims Conway does not cancel out the Portsmouth decision, as the two municipalities have different ordinances.

“In Conway, they promoted short-term rentals in certain areas, and that case was about the fact that they were trying to prevent them from an area that they didn't specify in the ordinance that the short-term rentals couldn't go,” he said. “Completely different set of facts than Portsmouth.”

Chunn supported his decision by comparing Franklin — which has an estimated 40 to 50 short-term rentals — to places like Laconia, which has almost 100 registered short-term rentals, and Gilford, with an estimated over 400 total. He said municipalities which rely more on tourism and short-term rentals, like Laconia and Gilford, are more willing to take risks on regulations.

“They have been pretty much the forefront, and pretty aggressive about regulating it. Because it benefits them, and because it's become sort of a large community issue for them,” he said.

Meredith has also been battling issues with short-term rentals. Residents voted at Town Meeting for a new ordinance which defines the difference between short-term rentals of owner-occupied properties, and those not occupied by the owner, and creates rules regarding the number of days such a property can be rented out. Short-term rentals in owner-occupied dwellings can still be rented out 120 days a year, but owner-not-occupied dwellings can only be listed as short-term rentals for 90 days each year.

Part of the issue in Franklin is whether short-term rentals count as businesses.

Another speaker at the forum, Erica Bruce, a Realtor in the area, suggested short-term rentals are considered businesses if there are four or more units which are not owner-occupied. But she also advocated for short-term rentals more broadly.

“Personally, myself, I do own property in Franklin. This is also an opportunity for property owners who just want to stay in their lake house twice a year to get more income,” Bruce said. “People are more willing to pay more taxes if they should get more income.”

Some residents think the decision by the group pushes the discussion no farther than before. While at face value the decision sounds good, Lake Protection District resident Janet Flagg believes the city has been inactive in its pursuit of regulating rules for short-term rentals.

“We've been hearing for two years that we're going to manage this through ordinances, and then in the next breath, I hear, ‘But we don't know how we can enforce these ordinances,’” she said.

Lakeside residents, including Marshall and Flagg, say this needs to be fixed urgently, as they claim the short-term rental listings near their homes also have too many people living there at once, often more than what is advertised. Linda Holstein Stronge thinks this is a problem, as a failing septic system could potentially pollute the lake.

“The Webster Lake Association is doing lots of things to keep our lake healthy. This is something we wouldn't have control over if a septic tank was overloaded by 20 kids,” she said.

The forum was held for the short-term rental group to receive feedback and continue to work toward a solution. Chunn thinks the city is stuck in between a rock and a hard place if they put in place aggressive regulation.

“We would probably be challenged on it as the city, and based on how it's gone for everyone else, we would probably lose,” he said. “The city would end up having to extend an enormous amount of money and staff time fighting a legal battle that, most likely, will not win.”