CONWAY — A petitioned warrant article that would cap the number of days a property can be used as a short-term rental without meeting safety codes has been filed with the town by Sun Publisher Mark Guerringue.
The article would prohibit any one- and two-family homes in a residential neighborhood, new and existing, from being rented out more than 30 calendar days per year without meeting state safety code standards.
kAmxE H@F=5 ?@E AC@9:3:E D62D@?2= C6?E2=D @7 2E =62DE h_ 52JD :? 5FC2E:@?[ ?@C EC25:E:@?2= =@?8\E6C> C6?E2=D] xE 2=D@ 5@6D ?@E :?4=F56 >F=E:\72>:=J 9@>6D @C 4@?5@ 4@>A=6I6D[ >2?J @7 H9:49 2=C625J 92G6 E96:C @H? CF=6D 23@FE C6?E:?8]k^Am
kAm%96 2CE:4=6 H:== 86E 2 AF3=:4 962C:?8 :? 7C@?E @7 E96 A=2??:?8 3@2C5 @? y2?] ad] #6D:56?ED H:== E96? G@E6 @? :E :? pAC:=]k^Am
kAm%96 2CE:4=6 567:?6D 2 D9@CE\E6C> C6?E2= 2D 2?J AC@A6CEJ C6?E:?8 7@C >@C6 E92? b_ 52JD A6C J62C E92E :D?’E 2 =@?8\E6C> =62D6] u@C 6I2>A=6[ 2 AC@A6CEJ E92E C6?ED 7@C 7@FC D:?8=6 H66<D @C `d H66<6?5D 2 J62C H@F=5 ?@E 36 4@?D:56C65 2 D9@CE\E6C> C6?E2= 2?5 :D 2==@H65]k^Am
kAm%96 2CE:4=6 567:?6D 2 D9@CE\E6C> C6?E2=D 2D “2 C6D:56?E:2= D:?8=6\72>:=J @C EH@\72>:=J W5FA=6IX[ @C 2 >@3:=6 9@>6[ H9:49 :D C6?E65 @C =62D65 7@C >@C6 E92? b_ E@E2= ?:89ED :? 2 42=6?52C J62C[ 2?5 H96C6 2?J E6?2?E @C =6DD66 @7 E96 5H6==:?8 :D ?@E AC@E64E65 3J E96 AC@G:D:@?D @7 #$p dc_ WE6?2?E AC@E64E:@?DX[ E96 @44FA2?4J :D EC2?D:6?E :? ?2EFC6[ 2?5^@C H96C6 E96 E6C> @7 2?J =62D6 @C C6?E2= :D =6DD E92? b_ 52JD]”k^Am
kAm$9@CE\E6C> C6?E2=D >66E:?8 E92E 567:?:E:@? H@F=5 92G6 E@ 4@>A=J H:E9 G2C:@FD DE2E6 D276EJ 2?5 7:C6 4@56D] “x’> @7 E96 @A:?:@?[ 32D65 @? 9:D W|6:6C’DX 25G:46[ E92E 8C2?572E96C:?8 5@6D?’E 2AA=J E@ E96D6 DE2E6 D276EJ 4@56D[” D2:5 vF6CC:?8F6]k^Am
kAmp44@C5:?8 E@ vF6CC:?8F6[ :7 9:D 2CE:4=6 A2DD6D[ $%#D @G6C b_ 52JD H@F=5 36 C6BF:C65 E@ 92G6 =:76 D276EJ 762EFC6D DF49 2D 7:C6H2==D]k^Am
kAm“x E9:?< :E DEC:<6D 2 32=2?46 36EH66? AC@A6CEJ C:89ED[ 2==@H:?8 A6@A=6 E@ 4@?E:?F6 E@ @77D6E E96:C 6IA6?D6D 3J C6?E:?8 FA E@ b_ 52JD 2 J62C[ 3FE 2=D@ D=@HD 5@H? E96 $%# :?G6DE@C EC2:?[” vF6CC:?8F6 D2:5 %9FCD52J]k^Am
kAm“x? @E96C H@C5D[ 3J @?=J 2==@H:?8 b_ 52JD[ :E D9@F=5 5:D4@FC286 :?G6DE@CD 7C@> 3FJ:?8 9@>6D :? C6D:56?E:2= ?6:893@C9@@5D 7@C E96 D@=6 AFCA@D6 @7 32D:42==J EFC?:?8 E96> :?E@ 9@E6=D[” 96 D2:5]k^Am
kAm%96 :?5:C64E 36?67:E @7 E96 2CE:4=6 H@F=5 36 E@ 96=A D=@H 5@H? E96 :?4C62D6 :? AC@A6CEJ G2=F6D[ 2D :?G6DE@CD 92G6 4@?EC:3FE65 E@ @G6C\:?7=2E:?8 E96 G2=F6 @7 C6D:56?E:2= AC@A6CEJ[ D2:5 vF6CC:?8F6]k^Am
kAm“%9:D :D ?@E 2 >28:4 3F==6E[” 96 D2:5] “%9:D :D ;FDE @?6 A:646 @7 ECJ:?8 E@ :>AC@G6 E96 9@FD:?8 D:EF2E:@? :? E@H?]”k^Am
kAmvF6CC:?8F6 9:C65 2EE@C?6J r9C:D |6:6C @7 r@@A6C r2C8:== r92?E :? }@CE9 r@?H2J E@ HC:E6 E96 2CE:4=6 32D65 @? 4@?46AED vF6CC:?8F6 H2?E65 E@ :?4=F56]k^Am
kAm“x H2D 2D<65 E@ 5C27E 2 D9@CE\E6C> C6?E2= 4@>AC@>:D6 E92E H@F=5 9@=5 FA :? 4@FCE[” D2:5 |6:6C] “p?5 E92E’D H92E x 5:5]”k^Am
kAm|6:6C — H9@ :D 2=D@ E96 E@H? >@56C2E@C — D2:5 96 =:E:82E6D K@?:?8 =2H 7@C 2 =:G:?8] (9:=6 96 42?’E 8F2C2?E66 E96 2CE:4=6 H:== A2DD >FDE6C H:E9 E96 4@FCED[ 96 36=:6G6D :E H:==]k^Am
kAm“|2C< 76=E E92E E9:D H2D 2? :>A@CE2?E BF6DE:@? E92E E96 G@E6CD D9@F=5 36 564:5:?8 @?[” D2:5 |6:6C] “x 28C66 H:E9 9:> @? E92E]”k^Am
kAm|6:6C D2:5 3642FD6 E9:D 2CE:4=6 A6CE2:?D E@ K@?:?8[ :E 42??@E 36 >@5:7:65 2E 56=:36C2E:G6 D6DD:@? :? |2C49] !2DE AC24E:46 92D 366? ?@E E@ 92G6 5:D4FDD:@?D @? K@?:?8 2CE:4=6D 2E 56=:36C2E:G6 D6DD:@? 3642FD6 E96J 42??@E 36 >@5:7:65] w@H6G6C[ G@E6CD 42? 49@@D6 E@ @G6CCF=6 9:> 2?5 5:D4FDD[ 3FE ?@E >@5:7J E96 2CE:4=6[ :7 E96J H:D9]k^Am
kAmpD<65 9@H E96 E@H? 4@F=5 A@DD:3=J 6?7@C46 E9:D 2CE:4=6[ |6:6C D2:5i “%96C6’D 2 8C@H:?8 :?5FDECJ @7 @FE7:ED E92E >2:?E2:? 52E232D6D @7 D9@CE\E6C> C6?E2=D 2?5 EC24< E96> 7@C >F?:4:A2=:E:6D] $9@CE\E6C> C6?E2=D 2C6 2=D@ E2I23=6] $@ E96 E@H?’D 42? 2446DD E9@D6 52E232D6D E@ 56E6C>:?6 H92E AC@A6CE:6D 2C6 A2J:?8 D9@CE E6C> C6?E2= E2I 2?5 J@F 42? D66 w@H >2?J ?:89ED 2C6 C6?E65 32D65 FA@? E96 E2I A2:5]”k^Am
kAm%@H?D 42? 2=D@ =@@< 2E =:DE:?8D]k^Am
kAm|62?H9:=6 E96 E@H? :D AC@A@D:?8 :ED @H? H2CC2?E 2CE:4=6 E@ :?DA64E 2?5 46CE:7J =@?8 \2?5 D9@CE\E6C> C6?E2=D] xE 2=D@ H:== 36 G@E65 @? :? pAC:=]k^Am
kAm“%96J D9@F=5 5@G6E2:= AC6EEJ ?:46=J[” D2:5 |6:6C] “x7 E96J 3@E9 A2DD65[ :E H@F=5 2==@H E96 E@H? E@ 6?DFC6 E92E C6D:56?E:2= D9@CE\E6C> C6?E2=D >6E E96 2AAC@AC:2E6 =:76 D276EJ 4@56 7@C E96 EC2?D:6?E FD6 E92E D9@CE E6C> C6?E2=D 2C6]”k^Am
kAmp>@?8 E96 D:8?6CD @7 E96 2CE:4=6 2C6 A=2??:?8 3@2C5 492:C q6? r@=32E9 2?5 A=2??:?8 3@2C5 >6>36CD t=:K2 vC2?E 2?5 |2C< w@F?D6==] p=D@ D:8?:?8 H6C6 3F586E 4@>>:EE66 >6>36CD[ uC2?< y@DE[ !6E6C s@?@9@6[ q@3 sC:?<92==[ (:==:2> |2CG6=[ $E6G6 p?86CD[ s2G:5 y6?D6? 2?5 t==:? {6@?2C5]k^Am
kAm%96 $F? C624965 @FE E@ E96 |E] (2D9:?8E@? '2==6J pDD@4:2E:@? 7@C #6DA@?D:3=6 #6?E2=D[ 2 8C@FA @7 D9@CE\E6C> C6?E2= DFAA@CE6CD[ 7@C 4@>>6?E 2?5 C646:G65 @?6 @? %9FCD52J]k^Am
kAm“(6 2C6 A=62D65 E92E E9:D AC@A@D65 H2CC2?E 2CE:4=6 5@6D ?@E 7@4FD @? H2CC2?E=6DD :?DA64E:@?D @7 C6D:56?E:2= AC@A6CE:6D H9:49 E96 }]w] $FAC6>6 r@FCE 92D 2=C625J CF=65 2D :==682=[” D2:5 y6CCJ s6rC:DE@72C@[ AC6D:56?E @7 E96 2DD@4:2E:@?]k^Am
kAm“tG6CJ@?6 H2?ED 2== 9@>6D :? r@?H2J E@ 36 D276[ 3FE E96 E@H?’D 2?5 vF6CC:?8F6’D AC@A@D65 H2CC2?E 2CE:4=6D 2C6 F?6?7@C4623=6 2?5 :>AC24E:42=[” 96 D2:5]k^Am
kAm“%9:D $%# K@?:?8 H2CC2?E 2CE:4=6 WvF6CC:?8F6’DX :D >F49 >@C6 DEC2:89E7@CH2C5] %96C6 2C6 D@>6 BF6DE:@?D H6 92G6[ DF49 2D H9J 2C6 D@>6 C6D:56?E:2= ?6:893@C9@@5D 6I4=F565 7C@> E96 32?[ :?4=F5:?8 2== 4@?5@D] qFE D:?46 2== 6I:DE:?8 c__\A=FD\@C\>F?FD $%#D :? r@?H2J H@F=5 36 8C2?572E96C65[ :E H:== ?@E 27764E @FC >6>36CD9:A[” 96 D2:5]k^Am
kAm“#682C5:?8 y6CCJ’D @A:?:@? @? 8C2?572E96C:?8[ @3G:@FD=J H6 5:D28C66[” D2:5 vF6CC:?8F6]k^Am

(4) comments
Inspections are fine. But, why would an inspection cost $375? Let's say some noble Fire Official spends 2 hours at $50 an hour....and a town clerk spends 1 hour at $50 per hour. (Both of those salary estimates are exorbitant). We are up to $150 total. But the town wants to charge more that twice that inflated amount. The entire inspection-farce is just another money grab.....dressed in nanny-sheep clothing. Another burdensome tax on the citizens.
Inspections sound fine, except for one problem. The inspector can't "unsee" anything they see. So if they go poking around your house and the find some obscure violation of "any" law (not just what they are inspecting for), then you are on the hook with whatever the administrative state decides to tell you you must do. You would have to pay thousands in legal fees or comply. It is easy for the Town to say "then just stop renting." But that is their ultimate goal, evidently, isn't it?
Stop worrying about inspections. Inspections protect the public. Inspections are only as good as the inspector who performs them.
As a tradesmen, i welcome inspections. Property owners have for far to long hidden dangers from tbe public.
Call your selectmen and your senators and your congressment tell them to pass laqs for the homestead act.
Tell them to pass laws allowing the room tax on all rentals, hotels, houses, trailers, condos, no exceptions.
Tell them to pass laws to allow the highest level of taxes be assessed on out of state property owners, and investment properties.
Tell them to pass laws allowing municipalities to charge a higher rate on commercial properties, and seperate it from residential property taxes.
You want to lower taxes, and have properties be fairly valued and taxed. You want your childeren to be able to live here.
Get active people ! Make those phone calls ! Write and send letters !
I am amazed that people are so upset that their property values have dramatically increased. Isn't this a good problem to have? Would they rather their homes be worth half as much?
That the town did a revaluation and residential taxes went up dramatically is more about our property tax system and how it improperly shares the burden of taxation across different property types. The reval did not increase overall taxation one cent.
The Sun publisher is wrong to back singling out vacation rentals for inspections. If single-family, duplex, and trailer homes (but not condos?) require life-safety inspections because there are known deficiencies (even though I haven't heard of any issues in the past several years), then the provision should follow state law, and it should allow for all homes to be inspected. How about having the inspections occur when a home is sold so existing homeowners aren't inconvenienced? Oh wait, most buyers already hire a professional home inspector. Maybe the town could ask this group to check for life-safety concerns when doing their inspections?
You know, people walking around town could have a hidden health condition. This includes tourists who may come from places with poor healthcare systems. How about the town have random, mandatory checks of people's blood pressure, glucose levels, weight, and maybe a colonoscopy if they visit North Conway? Think how many more lives this would save?
Or we could let adults who buy and own property be responsible for their own safety. What a novel concept.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.