Faced with rehearing, owners drop request for waiver from short-term rental ordinance

LACONIA — The owners of a South Down residence who received a special exception to rent out their house short-term have withdrawn the request after the Zoning Board voted to rehear the matter.

In March the Zoning Board of Adjustment voted that Jennifer and Olaf Butchma qualified for the special exception under the city’s new short-term rental ordinance, agreeing with the couple that not having the residence at 16 Birdie Way appear vacant was a benefit to the city.

But at the ZBA’s May meeting the board voted 4-0 to rehear the Butchmas’ application after the city’s attorney asked for a rehearing, arguing the couple’s rationale for the exception did not meet the spirit of the ordinance which was to significantly restrict short-term rentals in homes that were not owner-occupied.

“The applicant has withdrawn the application and will not ask for a special exception, and not pursue a permit” to run a short-term rental property, city Planning Director Dean Trefethen said Monday.

The board, however, did ask Trefethen to work with the city’s attorney to put together a memo the ZBA can use in the future when other special exception requests come before the board. Trefethen said he would be working with the city’s attorney to spell out the legal points the attorney would have made had the rehearing been held. He said he hoped to have the memo ready for the board’s July meeting.

The request for the rehearing was triggered when the City Council objected to the decision, arguing it was contrary to the intent of an amendment to the short-term rental ordinance which the council passed in January.

At issue is what criteria the ZBA should apply in determining when the benefit to the city exceeds the financial benefit to the applicant who wants to rent a home in a residential zone on a short-term basis.

The board granted an exception to the Butchmas to rent out their residence for short periods, agreeing at that time with the couple’s rationale that having the premises occupied rather than vacant was a community benefit.

In the letter formally requesting the rehearing, attorney Laura Spector-Morgan wrote, “If not having a house appear vacant is a public benefit, then every property owner in town could qualify for a special exception.” This, Spector-Morgan argued, would essentially make that part of the ordinance meaningless.