A 90-day annual limit on short-term rentals drew concern from Planning Board members and rental operators alike at Tuesday’s board meeting. The cap is part of a City Council zoning petition meant to prevent abuse of existing regulations by some owners of Airbnb-style properties.
The proposed amendments would update operations and registration requirements, create a new category of rental called an “autonomous unit,” and introduce a limit of 90 days per year during which operators can rent out their units, among other changes. The new wording separates autonomous rentals, where owners rent out their entire residence, and owner-occupied ones, with only individual, rented bedrooms. Only rentals of autonomous, occupied and adjacent units (a property in the same building or on the same block as the owner’s primary residence) are allowed. That is meant to ensure only Cambridge residents can rent out units for short periods.
The petition was initially proposed based on “concerns over what are now being designated as autonomous units,” said Elliott Veloso, first assistant city solicitor for Cambridge. He said some properties were listed as primary residences by their owners, “but in fact, the residents weren’t living in the units and simply renting them out.” The amendments were intended to reduce abuses of the original ordinance.
Cap concerns
But some residents said the language was too broad.
“A 90-day limit on owner-adjacent short-term rentals will effectively outlaw them,” said Cambridge resident Daniel Pallin, who operates an owner-adjacent unit. “We live here in Cambridge. We’re not rich people who don’t need that income. We’re not running roach motels. This small number of us are going to lose the opportunity to do that.”
Pallin added that operating a short-term rental has “been a delightful experience, and a really positive part of our lives.”
Another resident, Rick Barry, said the 90-day limit would be “devastating” and in his case, “we’d have to figure out something else to do or move.”
There are currently an estimated 716 short-term rental units in Cambridge, according to a city report presented during the meeting. Around 500 of those units are unregistered. Another 216 are registered, a majority of which are owner-occupied rather than adjacent.
Quinn Charbonneau, a Cambridge resident who runs an owner-occupied rental, said restricting rentals will worsen housing access for those who rely on rental income and “disproportionately affect the honest AirBnBs hosts who chose to maintain legal AirBnBs and follow the law.”
Another resident, Shelly Evans, asked “If the goal of the cap is to return housing to the long-term market, will restricting these particular 216 rentals actually accomplish that?”
Better enforcement needed
Charbonneau and Evans urged the board, and the City Council, to target absentee, unregistered operators.
These changes have been long in the making. Cambridge first passed regulations to short-term rentals as a zoning ordinance in August 2017. A year ago, a petition came before the board asking for more regulation, which was strongly supported, but the City Council let the petition lapse. The council then voted to issue a new policy order asking for more recommendations.
Many members of the Planning Board also expressed concern about the rental limit.
“I don’t really see a need for any cap,” said board member Theodore Cohen. “If there was going to be any cap, the autonomous would be the only one I could support, but I think the 90 days is still too short.”
City officials from the law department clarified the council intended to use the 90-day figure as a “placeholder” for further consideration. Councillor Patty Nolan has also proposed keeping the cap only on autonomous units.
Board members also asked questions about how the proposed limit would affect families who rely on rental income, people who live part-time in Cambridge and hope to rent for more than 90 days, and university students or visiting professors looking for short-term housing.
Tom Sieniewicz, the chair of the Planning Board, said he is not sure that the proposed limit answers the central question, which is, “how does this affect housing supply?”
Cohen said the point was to give the city’s Inspectional Services Department the power to enforce rules and stop illegal rentals from the roughly 500 unregistered properties.
Vice Chair Mary Flynn agreed, saying that “the illegal units can be really problematic, and I think the amendments to the ordinance will help [ISD and the law department] enforce the regulations.”
“With those exceptions, I think the changes are very well suited.”
The board voted unanimously to make a positive recommendation to the City Council with comments about the 90-day limit and other minor changes.
Chloe Taft is reporting this summer for Cambridge Day as part of a partnership with the Georgetown University journalism program.
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.