WILLIAMSTOWN, Mass. — For the second straight year, the owners of the Sweetwood senior living facility have backed off a plan to ask the town's permission to convert some of its units to multifamily housing.

 

On Tuesday, the Planning Board, which had scheduled a public hearing to vet the proposal, learned that the landowner had withdrawn its request to petition May's annual town meeting to create an overlay district for the Cold Spring Road (Route 7) property.

 

For a couple of years, New Jersey-based CareOne, through its local representatives, have told town officials that Sweetwood's current model, which does not offer more advanced care for seniors as they age, is not sustainable.

 

The Sweetwood complex, which is adjacent to the grounds of the Mount Greylock Regional School, was built on a special permit that allows "assisted living" facilities on the property.

 

CareOne has been asking for zoning changes that would allow multifamily housing — i.e. regular apartments — at the site, a use that is prohibited in that zoning district.

 

Property owners are allowed to take zoning requests directly to town meeting, but the process still mandates that the Planning Board hold a public hearing on such requests prior to the May meeting.

 

"As we saw in a message this morning, the landowner has withdrawn their petition," Planning Board Chair Peter Beck said at the outset of Tuesday's meeting. "So we'll have nothing to act on. … We'll stay posted and see what comes next."

 

That message from CareOne's local attorney, Jeffrey Grandchamp, did not give a reason for the withdrawal.

 

Earlier this month, Beck reported that in a recent vote of current Sweet residents, 26 of 36 residents expressing a preference were against the idea of allowing multifamily housing at the property.

 

Without a public hearing to conduct, the four members who attended Tuesday's meeting used the time to discuss refinements to the short-term rental bylaw that the board itself is bringing to town meeting.

 

The regulation, which is intended to keep homes in residential neighborhoods from being converted to full-time "Airbnbs" would set a limit of 90 days in any calendar year for the use of a principal dwelling unit on any property in the town's residential districts.

 

Accessory dwelling units, if the property owner resides on the property, could be used as short-term rentals on an unlimited basis, and, likewise, the principal dwelling unit would have no limit on the number of short-term rental days if the owner lives in an ADU on the property.

 

The bylaw amendment as drafted sets no limit on the number of days an individual bedroom in a home can be offered as a short-term rental, again, if the home itself is owner-occupied.

 

On Tuesday, Planning Board members Kenneth Kuttner, Samantha Page and Roger Lawrence reported the feedback they received in a recent community engagement event at the Milne Public Library.

 

Kuttner said just four or five residents attended the event, but the small group was actively engaged on the topic.

 

"One issue that came up was a scenario we had not thought of," Kuttner said. "[An attendee said] he knew someone who was in the military and out of the country for extended periods of time but retained his house as his principal residence.

 

"The question was could someone do short-term rentals for more than 90 days while on sabbatical or in Germany or whatever. Is our intention to prevent that."

 

The planners agreed that the bylaw should and likely could make an allowance for military personnel.

 

"I think the military is actually a separate case because there's a public service component in that," Lawrence said. "All kinds of laws have military waivers. There's an option for us to do that."

 

In fact, the state law that establishes an excise tax on short-term rentals specifically exempts property owners who are "traveling on official United States military orders" from paying the excise tax on revenue earned during the period of their deployment.

 

The board members were less sympathetic to the idea of carving out an exception for owner-occupants who are going to be out of town on sabbatical, saying that the better use of that home would be to rent it on a long-term basis.

 

"I would not have thought to do [short-term rentals] because, as [Town Planner Andrew Groff] said, it's a pain to manage that from a distance," said Kuttner, a professor himself who might be in the position of taking an extended sabbatical out of town.

 

"What seems more common is to rent your house to someone coming into the area for a short term — an assistant coach, a visiting scholar," Groff said.

 

Kuttner said that preventing a resident from putting their home in the short-term rental market for a year while on sabbatical may be a feature, rather than a bug, of the proposed bylaw.

 

"We're seeing a lot of rental issues," Groff said, referring to a recent meeting of the Board of Health. "And a lot of it is related to the lack of available units. The vacancy rate in this community is really, really low, which allows for some of the behavior we've seen."

 

Page said the planners at the library session heard that short-term rentals are a more lucrative option for homeowners who are going to be out of town for an extended period. But Beck argued that there still is money to be made from long-term rentals.

 

"I'm happy to look into whether we can put a service member relief provision in," Beck said. "One reason I'm interested in it is, even with a sabbatical or a year abroad, you're choosing to do that. It may be advantageous to your career … but you made that choice. And you have options for the home you're leaving.

 

"With the service member, it's not the same level of ‘voluntariness' for the time they're asked to spend away from their home."

 

The Planning Board will hold one more feedback session on the short-term rental bylaw proposal this month, at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 19, at Images Cinema. The statutory public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for Tuesday, April 8, at 7 p.m. at Town Hall.