After months of crafting the legislation, the Town of Marlborough Town Board unanimously passed a resolution Feb. 8 that would introduce its new and improved short term rental laws.

“I think it’s exactly what we want,” Town Supervisor Al Lanzetta declared just moments before the whole board agreed to make an amendment to the draft.

The Local Law redefined what would be recognized as a “short term rental” in the Town of Marlborough. Under the proposed legislation, all rentals that are part of a furnished, self-contained detached dwelling unit occupied by a tenant for 30 days or less and are owned by a person who is permanently in the unit or at a dwelling in the immediate vicinity would be deemed a short term rental.

The nine-page resolution included two additional amended sections to add a minor site plan review provision, as well as another that subjected bed and breakfasts, short term rentals and home occupants to the minor site plan review. Plans would be reviewed by Building Inspector Thomas Corocoran, who Lanzetta referred to as the “gatekeeper,” before being sent to the Planning Board. Corcoran, however, found fault within the section’s language.

“I didn’t love the idea of ‘to scale,’” said Corcoran, referring to the minor site plan review subsection that would require an application to submit “a site plan outlining the proposed design in clearly legible scale” showing a list of nine property-related items. The building inspector said the list itself was fine, but the specific language used in the proposal equates a survey, which could run a property owner $3,000. The language was inserted by Planning Board member James Garofalo, Corcoran said, who should have known that “to scale” is “survey by Planning Board definition.”

“‘To scale’ is irrelevant, especially when we’re talking about a property that is being used inside … Why do I have to have a survey of the property to know that my house is 20 feet from the property when I’m doing a bed and breakfast and working inside the house?” Corcoran offered as an example.

Councilman Scott Corcoran suggested the board strike out the language entirely. He made an amendment to alter the language to exclude “in a clearly legible scale.”

The resolution with the amendment was unanimously passed by the Town Board and a public hearing was set for Feb. 22 at 7 p.m.

Planning Board term limits
Also at the Monday meeting, the board passed another resolution pertaining to the Planning Board — to alter their term limits so that several of its members wouldn’t be up for reappointment or replacement at the same time.

To stagger the appointments more evenly, the board found a formula in which one board members’ term would conclude a year across five years. In the sixth and seventh years, two members’ terms would be up. In order to accomplish this, two current members were required to cut their terms short. The Town Board included the one-year waivers to board members Manny Cauchi, whose term will now end in December 2021, and Bob Tronchillito, whose term will end the following year.

Councilman Howard Baker was the only Town Board member to oppose the local law amendment. He advocated on behalf of the seven-person Planning Board, who preferred to increase their terms from five years to seven years. Following their formula, one board member would be up for reappointment each year, but the other councilmembers found that seven years was too many and opted to limit the service to just five year.
Despite Baker’s objection, the motion carried, but a public hearing is necessary before resolution is put into place. The hearing will also take place Feb. 22 at 7 p.m.