We had public hearings. We gave suggestions (and) those suggestions were supposed to be put in. It’s not in this, none of it. So that’s why I’m confused. I’ll tell you right now, I’d vote ‘No’ on this. I don’t know if this is ready for a public hearing.”

Tiverton Town Council president Denise deMedeiros

This is a different ordinance, there’s no question about it. But it came from the planning board and they have a right to propose something — you don’t have to adopt it. If you don’t like the underlying ordinance, that’s fine and you can deal with it.”

Town solicitor Michael Marcello

A proposed ordinance that among other things would require the owners of Short Term Rentals to live in the house they rent out is headed back to the planning board, after council members on Monday rejected the board’s recent proposal as a “non-starter.”

“I don’t agree with this,” council president Denise deMedeiros said before she and three of her fellow councilors voted against bringing the proposed regs to a public hearing and vote in three weeks.

“I think there should be restrictions in certain areas in town that shouldn’t have them,” she said. “But I don’t agree” that owners would have to be present in the properties they rent out.

While STRs like those rented out through websites like Air BnB are technically illegal in Tiverton, that prohibition has never been enforced and for several years town officials, like their counterparts in Little Compton and Westport, have been working on regulations that would regulate the practice.

Councilor Mike Burk, who worked with the planning board to draft the current proposal, said planning board members had many concerns that ultimately ended up in document, including the owner occupancy restriction and others, including those that address impacts on the town’s infrastructure and where STRs should be allowed, and where they should not.

“They are concerned about the definition of ‘owner occupied’ and more clearly defining what that means,” Burk said. “It limits STRs to only owner occupied units; the intent being where the owner is living in that same building. Another piece is the potential prohibition on hosting events” and the question of how to codify how many guests can stay in any unit, based on the number of bedrooms.

But the planning board’s recent proposal, which would have gone to a public hearing if approved by the council Monday, differs widely from what councilors suggested when they previously discussed what they want to see in the regulations.

“I don’t want this to go to a public hearing if the majority of us don’t agree with it,” deMedeiros said. “We had public hearings. We gave suggestions (and) those suggestions were supposed to be put in. It’s not in this, none of it. So that’s why I’m confused. I’ll tell you right now, I’d vote ‘No’ on this. I don’t know if this is ready for a public hearing.”

“This is a different ordinance, there’s no question about it,” town solicitor Mike Marcello said. “But it came from the planning board and they have a right to propose something — you don’t have to adopt it. If you don’t like the underlying ordinance, that’s fine and you can deal with it.”

With the rejection of the motion to schedule a public hearing, the proposed ordinance will head back to the planning board for more work.