Tisbury Eyes Short-Term Rental Rules, Fees

As Tisbury continues to grapple with the licensing and revenue implications of short-term rentals, a draft of the town’s proposed rental regulations has been posted online. A public hearing continues.

As Tisbury continues to grapple with the licensing and revenue implications of short-term rentals, an updated copy of the town’s proposed rental regulations has been posted online. A public hearing on the draft rules, opened during Tuesday’s select board meeting, makes Tisbury the first Island town to begin codifying the short-term rental process.

Covering rentals of less than 30 consecutive days, the draft regulations do not include suggested fees for registering short-term rental properties and inspecting them for building, health and fire safety. At the hearing Tuesday, town counsel David Doneski said the short-term rental task force has proposed fees of $225 for registering a property, $150 per annual inspection and $75 for a followup inspection if one is required.

“But there was no vote on that by the [task force],” Mr. Doneski said. “Ultimately, the establishment of the fees is the province of the select board.”

Former fire chief John Schilling chaired the task force, which he originally proposed in 2017 to regulate and inspect high-turnover rental properties in Tisbury. A Massachusetts law, finalized in 2019, established a state tax for rentals of less than 31 days and requires local options to be approved by municipal legislation, which for Dukes County municipalities is the annual town meeting.

Task force member Christine Redfield said the group, which in addition to Chief Schilling included homeowners, lodging house operators and real estate agents, worked to adapt the proposed town rules to the state’s rules.

“We thought a lot about it,” she said. “A lot of the things that might seem harsh are Massachusetts state law, and we’re just getting in compliance with it.”

Flouting the town regulations would be subject to a $300 fine, according to the draft.

The public hearing will continue Jan. 26 at 5:30 p.m.

In another hearing Tuesday, shellfish farmer Noah Mayrand returned to the board with a new location for what is expected to be the town’s first aquaculture license.

After his initial proposed one-acre grant in Lake Tashmoo proved unworkable when divers from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries found eel grass in part of the site earlier this year, Mr. Mayrand chose a new spot in the Lagoon Pond.

Town shellfish constable Danielle Ewart dove the proposed grant and found no eel grass or shellfish, Mr. Mayrand said.

“There’s no viable natural resources there to disturb,” he said of the location in the southeastern arm of the lagoon. The public hearing on his application continues Jan. 12 at 6 p.m.

Also Tuesday, selectmen set the annual town meeting date for Saturday, May 1, following a discussion with officials including Mr. Doneski and town moderator Deborah Medders.

“Whether we hold it indoors or outdoors is a decision we certainly can wait on,” Ms. Medders said.

The single largest spending request on the warrant will be for the Tisbury School, Mr. Grande said. The most recent estimates for the project came in at more than $53 million.

In an update on the state reconstruction project on Beach Road, Mr. Grande said the contractor has completed a series of test digs to examine potential conflicts between existing and proposed infrastructure beneath the surface.

As a result of the testing, it is likely that the state will install a new water main at no cost to the town, he said. More information is expected in January, he said.

Also Tuesday, a crop of annual license renewals for restaurants and other businesses included two special requests from Vineyard Haven eateries.

Selectmen voted to allow Beach Road restaurant to add outdoor seating when it reopens next year, and granted the Black Dog Tavern permission to close Jan. 4 without relinquishing its year-round liquor license. Manager Chris LaPointe said he had contacted the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission about the proposed closure.

“The ABCC let me know that they have no problem,” said Mr. LaPointe. “We would reopen April 1.”

Meanwhile, he said, the company is planning to extend its winter hours at the Black Dog Bakery Café on State Road to a 7 p.m. closing time and to expand its dinner takeout menu.

Selectmen appointed Steven Araujo, a truck driver for John Keene Excavation, to the Steamship Authority’s noise and traffic working group. The board also appointed Larry Gomez, Nancy Gilfoy, Michael Loberg and Ben Robinson to the town’s newly-formed water resources committee.

Comments

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/30/2020 - 13:20

Permalink

Thomas Edgartown

This is nothing more than a money grab by the Town of Tisbury! Shame on you! Let the market weed out bad properties. $150 for a YEARLY inspection?!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/30/2020 - 16:16

Permalink

Mark Edgartown

Pure government overreach and money grab. Town should focus on real issues like reducing bloated expenses and more efficiently serving the tax base.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/30/2020 - 16:20

Permalink

John Wesst Tisbury

Some fees and regulations seem reasonable to me. These high turnover places are making a profit, using town services, and are basically using residential properties for commercial use. The current year 'round rental market is strong enough to provide a fair return on housing investment. If owners want to go for the big bucks in short term market, they should be regulated and taxed, the same way commercial lodging is.

Mark Edgartown

The owners already pay property taxes and taxes on the rental income (see law enacted last season) to the towns...maybe a surcharge on those that don't pay property taxes so they contribute to the tax base and island infrastructure?

B.L. Tisbury

What “town services” are renters using that someone there long term or living there wouldn’t be using? Some people don’t want to move out of their house all year but do it in the summer to help them afford to live here. We are already taxed, the same as hotels, 11.7% in tisbury (and OB and WT). Tax is also paid on any income, just like any commercial property. For many of us, the margins are not that big, and in the end it just hurts everyone here to drive up the cost so much that tourists go somewhere else.

John W Tisbury

It seems reasonable to me that properties used for short term rentals should be taxed, inspected and regulated in the same way as other lodging businesses are, no more, no less. Since they have high turn over, and "guests" that will not be familiar with the housing, it might be good to assure they have smoke detectors, safe egress and the like. If the proposed taxes and inspections for short term rentals are greater than those for inns, B&Bs, and the like, I agree that that is not fair.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/30/2020 - 16:25

Permalink

Skate Sharpener Smith Hollow

Its about time Tisbury got something right. Steven Araujo is a great appointee. Finally someone with Island bloodlines.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/30/2020 - 19:10

Permalink

fact checker edg

It just shows prospective seasonal homeowners WHY they would be a fool to buy in Tisbury. They already charge more in taxes if you don't live there year-round, now they want to ding you more. What's next? Rent control? Come to Edgartown and buy a house. You will be welcome and treated fairly... and pay about 1/3 of the taxes

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 12/30/2020 - 19:20

Permalink

mike Somewhere

Wait a minute. Aren't the short term rentals already taxed. What's that money going for? Oh, now I get it - Tisbury and any that follow will need to appoint/hire inspectors - raising taxes to pay for them. Ouching us even more. You're right - looks like a money grab.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/31/2020 - 01:49

Permalink

Ken Edg.

Well our state Rep. Dylan Fernandez was all for this and he ran un opposed. Im glad I dont rent anymore. It was a maintenance headache and loaded my septic system every year. Short term rentals should have been hands off, the season is short.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/31/2020 - 08:31

Permalink

Matt O.B.

Here's a thought. Why not use some of the money you get from the new taxes you are charging all rental property owners??? You might actually get some good will from owners if you could actually show them what the taxes are being used for instead of the money grab that it actually is at this point. So good for you Tisbury for wanting to keep track of these properties and make sure they are safe. Now go use the money you are currently collecting for no reason and get to work.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/31/2020 - 10:18

Permalink

Missing what here Vineyard

This is a state mandate to collect the the tax. Sounds like the town is just capitalizing on the raking in the tax but making sure they know who's beating the system by having inspections and not allowing people to be tax scofflaws. I don't see a money grab here and further more if you're renting your house you're passing this small fee of inspection and registration on to the person renting your house. Nothing to look at here except a smart move by communities on creating some more money to offset their taxes.

mike Somewhere

Missing what here - Apparently quite a bit. Your taxes will go up to cover the extra orchestration of added bureaucracy. This is an added tax to something already taxed- flat-out obvious.

Colonial Bob Vineyard Haven

There is no local mandate to collect rental tax. The State mandates and collects 5.7%. Each town has the OPTION to collect an additional 6%. Get your facts correct. There is no requirement to impose a local rental tax. If Tisbury wants to regulate short term rentals they will need to hire personnel to monitor inspections etc.. The Town already has collected a large windfall from the rental tax. I would like to see the accounting on how much was collected and where those funds are and what they have been earmarked for. Without full transparency from the Town and selectman I see this as just another greedy money grab. More nonsense from our "leaders".

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/31/2020 - 16:48

Permalink

Mr. B Chilmark

I find it interesting that, so far, no one has weighed in on the safety factor in all of this. Irrespective of who pays, it seems to me that being sure that these short-term rentals have functioning and sufficient smoke/carbon monoxide detectors, sufficient toilet facilities per rented room, are properly wired, have clear fire evacuation plans (especially as regards second/third floors), are neither mold nor rodent-infested--and I am sure there are other safety issues as well. Support for that second floor deck? And how about a minimum of liability insurance?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 12/31/2020 - 16:50

Permalink

MV Renter VH

Why can't the fee be less? Who will be inspecting the properties and what will they be looking for? Perhaps all housing should be inspected for health and safety violations - smoke detectors, septic, # of residents and every property owner should pay for that. I would think that it is not only rentals that are potentially unsafe but also potentially unsafe properties are those where people have many guests, lots of family, etc. - all those people who pack their houses with relatives and friends in non-pandemic times. I do think that VH is always looking for ways to increase their budget and they are not smart about expenditures. Every town vehicle is new; the boat fiasco cost a lot of money, strange repaving projects happen often, etc. What about all the costs to deal with whatever is going on in the police department? The person who implied earlier in these comments that buying in another town makes sense for people who are not permanent residents really makes sense. Even someone buying who is going to be a full time resident should consider another town. There are lots of nice areas in VH but its really just not worth the extra $ and hassle.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 01/01/2021 - 07:41

Permalink

CJ- Edgartown

What they should do is inspect all rental properties- short and long term. If the main issue is safety, then these dumpy houses that are long term rentals should be inspected for fire infractions too.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 01/01/2021 - 10:53

Permalink

Steve Tisbury

This is solving a problem that doesn’t exist, and the registration and inspection program is lipstick on a pig. How come you care about safety if someone rents for eight 1-week stays but not if they rent for one 8-week stay? I could understand this if it applied to year round rental properties, which are businesses for their owners. As such, they are in a similar category to hotels. Summer rentals often allow owners who have off-Island lives that prevent them from spending the whole summer on-Island to defray some cost and afford the high cost of a home. They also give families a cost effective place too stay. It’s actually a pretty good deal for the town and it’s year rounders - full taxes paid but no school use and minimal incremental cost to the town. Let’s stop being so one-sided about this. The town effectively keeps seasonal residents from having a voice in this process - that should change.

Mark Edgartown

I’ve never understood why seasonal home owners don’t get a vote on local issues, they pay full taxes just like everyone else except they don’t use the infrastructure year round.

mike Somewhere

It's called 'Taxes Without Representation'. Seasonal owners have been saying this for years. Many seasonal homes are taxed at the maximum premium compared to comparable homes right next door too, really not fair. Absolutely rentals should meet safety and health guidelines without question. All residences and buildings should be if they are legally habitable.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 01/02/2021 - 09:19

Permalink

Liz Vineyard Haven

Inspect short term rentals....the town can’t even keep up with properly ensuring safe construction sites during CV-19.
My husband & I were out for a walk about 2 weeks ago in VH. We went past a recently sold house that had a flurry of construction workers going in & out of the house. There were the solar panel guys & the regular renovation guys, I’m talking at least 8 people going in & out of the house (to the bin getting rid of material). All the time passing the posted CV-19 rules for working there & guess what? Not ONE of them had a mask on. I kid you not..... As we passed, I asked my husband if he noticed that & he just shook his head in disbelief.
Now the town wants to keep short-term housing safe? Enforcing safety doesn’t seem to be their strong suit.

Add new comment

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.