EAST HAVEN

On July 16, the East Haven Town Council decided to close the public hearing regarding the issue of short-term rentals (STR) and will now workshop its draft ordinance which has generated strong opinions in the aftermath of its only hearing on June 4.

Numerous town residents arrived at the East Haven Senior Center on the evening of July 16 to voice their opinions for the second round of public testimony. Pink paper signs reading, “We support strict STR regulations” and “Protect residents and neighborhoods” were being passed around at the center.

Town Attorney Michael Luzzi spoke on behalf of the Town Council, informing residents that the town’s legislative body decided to close the hearing on the draft ordinance and schedule a workshop which will be open for the public to attend. Chair Joe Deko told The Courier that the workshop will be held in the “near future” and will likely not be a part of a regular council meeting.

Since the June 4 hearing, the council has heard a wide range of opinions on the ordinance via email, with views spanning from people who are in favor of allowing rentals with no restrictions to outright banning them.

As expressed in the past, an outright ban on rentals is not optimal given the expected legal battles the town may face as a result, according to Deko.

In light of this, Luzzi told residents that the Town Council will look to “add, subtract, amend, change the ordinance” in consideration of the varying opinions, adding that the revised document “will be posted” on the town’s website. A public hearing will then be held on the revised ordinance.

Provisions in the draft ordinance regarding occupancy, ownership, and respecting the overall well-being of the public were laid out in a June 13 article published in The Courier.

The draft ordinance contains limitations and caps regarding the renting out of a property to occupants. Owners are restricted to renting out their properties for a total of 105 days out of the year, and a maximum of six occupants must rent the property for a minimum 14-day period. The required two-week rental period is to ensure there is not a revolving door of unfamiliar faces in areas in town which are heavy in short-term property, such as the Cosey Beach area.

General standards of the ordinance read that “short-term residential rentals shall only be used for lodging-type purposes,” and prohibits activities such as “parties, weddings, prom and graduation celebrations, receptions, fundraisers, filming, photo shoots, corporate retreats.”

These and other regulations may be subject to change in a Town Council workshop.

The issue remains divisive among both residents and short-term rental owners. At the June 4 hearing, the Town Council heard testimony from Billie Rascati, who said she has “not had any issues” with her Airbnb property on Foxon Boulevard and does not agree with some of the language in the ordinance.

Margaret Perricone, who lives in the Cosey Beach area, told The Courier that short-term rentals have not proven to be a nuisance for her.

“They don’t bother me because they’re not even close to me,” said Perricone.

Many other residents, including some in the same area, feel very differently. Cynthia Sparago told The Courier that “residents are united” in wanting stricter regulations. Sparago said she knocked on 205 doors in the coastal area of town from Morgan Point to Cosey Beach, receiving 194 signatures on a petition “asking for stricter regulations on short-term rentals.”

“Specifically, that it be the owner’s primary residence,” she said.

The draft regulations do not specify any obligations for a short-term rental property being its owner’s primary residents, stating, “the Owner(s) of a property has/have the option of residing at the property while renting his/her/their/its property on a short-term basis.” If not residing at their property, the owner is obligated during a rental period to provide “his/her/their/its contact information to the Renter(s) or Occupant(s) as well as to the Town on the permit application and any updates.”

An owner’s agent must be identified in the case of an emergency which occurs if the owner is unable to be in the area. According to the draft regulations, “Failure to provide sufficient contact information of either the Owner(s) or the Owner’s(s’) agent while the Owner(s) is/are offsite may result in the revocation of the Short-Term Rental Residential Permit.”

However, the notions of stricter regulations and an owner’s primary residence clause remain a strong point for a total of now approximately 300 signatures on the petition as a way to prevent properties from being claimed by outside investors.

To visually support the survey, a large printed map was presented in front of the council, highlighting properties in the coastal area in red with a header reading, “94% of these homes support primary residence or owner occupied” and text at the bottom reading, “Since August 2023 1 of every 3 homes sold here is now an STR.”

“I can’t tell you the number of people that thanked us,” said Sparago. “The desire is there. The residents want it. They want to stop all the outside investors scooping up these properties...It has to be your primary residence. You need to live there for more than 183 days a year, and then you can use it as a short-term rental.”

On the collected data, Deko told The Courier that he will take it “into consideration with a grain of salt” and that he and his colleagues on the council will also consider their own research which also involves speaking with residents.

Ultimately, Deko is of the view that “we need some sort of regulation” on rentals and feels appreciative of the “many people that are so passionate about each aspect of this ordinance.”