The debate over the Town of Gardiner’s draft short term rental law continued at the March 2 Town Board meeting, and at some points became hostile.

Several community members called the proposed law a “ban” because they felt it was overwhelmingly restrictive on what dwellings were considered a short term rental. The draft legislation defines an STR as “a Primary Residence that is rented in whole or part, to any person or entity for a period of less than 30 consecutive nights, and is not regulated as a commercial or non-residential use under the Town of Gardiner Zoning Law.”

The language would eliminate a substantial amount of dwellings, they argued.

Brandon McKenzie, an attorney representing the Short Term Rental Association of Gardiner, agreed that the bill looks “akin to an outright ban” that might not stand up to judicial scrutiny. He elaborated on a point he brought up at the February hearing: that the board could exhaust all of its allotted fundings, compiled from tax payer dollars, defending itself in court if the community chose to file an Article 78 proceeding or challenge the legislation in any way.

“Is that a threat?” asked Town Supervisor Marybeth Majestic.

“Sure sounds like it,” agreed Councilman Warren Wiegand.

McKenzie assured the board he was not threatening legal action, but recommending the panel consider legal repercussions before finalizing the proposal.

Neighborhood resident Emily Wengert followed McKenzie to agree that the proposal is an “effect ban for anyone who is not a primary resident here.”

“I’m hoping this is still a safe place to disagree with this law. It’s feeling a little contentious,” Wengert started off before stating her belief the limitations were too strict. The bill would remove a number of homes who contribute to the local economy and encourage tourism, she argued. Wengert, a primary resident herself, raised alarm at the prospect that she’d lose the privilege of renting out her Gardiner home if she one day decided to move out of the town.

“I don’t believe the local government should have a constraint on a home that I have sweated over purchasing and have really worked hard to make a part of my life and my family’s life,” she said.

A community member who identified himself as Chris said the primary residence definition was just as concerning as another limitation included in the bill: that whole house rentals can operate for a maximum of 100 days in a calendar year.

He argued the restriction was likely the main reason people were calling the law a “ban,” because it, like the primary resident provision, would reduce the number of homes available for short term rentals. Eliminated options would reduce tourism, he pointed out, therefore impacting local small businesses that rely on the tourism market.

“It’s killing a fly with a shotgun at this point,” Chris said.

The overwhelming number of speakers opposed the draft plan, but some showed support for the restrictions. John Petry, does not rent out property but lives next to a home that does. He said that he suffers noise pollution as a result of “largely unregulated operations,” which he believes the Town Board’s legislation would fix.

“It’s not like you’re living next to a home, it’s like you’re living next to a hotel and I didn’t sign up to live next to a hotel. I signed up to live in a rural residential area that has the character that we all know and love in Gardiner,” Petry said. The neighbor in question, Iris Gillon, spoke at the tail end of the 90 minutes hearing and attempted to reject Petry’s claims, but Wiegand shut down the argument before it could erupt.

The Town Board closed the public hearing, but unanimously agreed there were too many open issues that require further research and discussion. The panel opted to schedule a special meeting on March 16 at 7 p.m. If the Town Board makes substantial changes to the bill, another public hearing may be warranted.