Accessory Units Prevail

To the Editor,

Many of you might not be aware, but the State has vetoed our town meeting vote which restricted the way we would rent accessory dwelling units (ADU’s). I could not be any happier because a six-month minimum rental restriction basically means you could only rent them on an annual basis.
The State will not allow towns to place unreasonable limits on the development of ADU’s, which are for the most part, simply apartment renovations.
Our town, all too casually, felt they had the right to tell people what they can do on their property, with no clear benefit to the town at all. People liked the idea of year-round residents versus seasonal or temporary tenants, but thinking an idea is charming should not translate to limiting people’s land use.
As with unnecessary taxes, so should we rest unnecessary land use regulations, which is what this zoning bylaw would have been. The proposed restrictive zoning bylaw would adversely affect property owners who would certainly benefit from more reasonable and flexible rental options for a rental unit they are spending money on to build, while not affecting others who do not need or want an ADU at all.
What disturbs me most is a failure of governance. The Planning Board should have educated our town as to what our current laws are regarding rentals. Failing that, the town manager should have stepped in and made the point that anyone, anywhere in town, can rent their house or apartment, for a week, or a month, or several months, or for years at a time. It is their right, their property, their money and there is no benefit to the town to restrict this. When we have true and severe needs for rental units, small condos, big condos and housing of all kinds, if someone wants to rent for less than one week, they simply need to register their building and get a short-term rental permit.
Unfortunately, this vote was taken in the absence of knowledge of our rights. Our town counsel or town planner could have stepped up and educated us before the vote was taken, but they did not. As I stated at town meeting, only a few people are going to want any rental units on their property. It could simply be an annoyance. If they do build what is commonly just an interior renovation to create an apartment, they are the ones spending their own money. They should have the right to rent to summer guests, or to family members for short, or even long term, or rent to schoolteachers, DPW workers, policemen, young couples or old retirees.
We need to stop making laws that tell people what to do on their own property unless there are clear benefits to our quaint little New England village. To some extent, it is human nature to want others to do what we think is right, but these desires need to be kept in check as to what real, actual benefit they provide the town. They should be made with all the facts at hand, soberly, fairly, and wisely. This vote was not that and we can do better than this.
Gary Gilbert
Manchester