WOODSTOCK — Voters delivered a split decision on a short-term rental ordinance during two Special Town Meetings on Tuesday.

Village residents voted to uphold a new ordinance that, in part, would cap the number of short-term rentals, while town residents voted to repeal it.

“It was complicated before,” Woodstock Village Trustees Chairwoman Seton McIlroy said in a Wednesday phone interview. “It’s even more complicated now.”

Because of how the question was warned, a “yes” vote meant the ordinance would be overturned, while a “no” vote meant it would be upheld.

There were 316 town voters who voted yes to overturn it while 284 voted to keep it in place, according to results of Tuesday’s Australian ballot voting provided by Woodstock Town Clerk Charles Degener. In the Village floor vote, there were 36 yes votes versus 68 no votes.

There are 2,868 registered voters in the town of Woodstock and 883 in the Village.

“For a Special Meeting not held in conjunction with anything else, I think the turnout was good,” Degener wrote in an email.

Tuesday’s votes came after a group of Woodstock residents petitioned the town and Village for two Special Town Meetings to overturn identical short-term rental ordinances, which the Woodstock Selectboard and Village Board of Trustees passed in May. The ordinances, in part, sought to streamline the way the two governing bodies approach short-term rentals.

The ordinance established a cap on the number of short-term rentals permitted in the town as a whole, broken down between owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied dwellings. The boards also passed a separate fee structure for the permitting process. Town officials also have cited concerns about the loss of long-term housing options to short-term rentals.

Up until the new ordinance was passed, short-term rentals were regulated through different zoning regulations and ordinances that applied separately to town and Village residents.  

“I'm disappointed that we’re back into a gray area with two different rules for the same type of people,” Woodstock Municipal Manager Eric Duffy said in a Wednesday phone interview. “It's going to make things much more difficult on our end.”

Tuesday’s split vote means that town officials may be in the position of enforcing two different ordinances. Technically, the new ordinance should go into effect Aug. 1 in the Village, but that is now currently up in the air.

“We will not be enforcing any particular ordinance until we have more guidance from our attorneys,” Duffy said. “Once we get more guidance from our attorneys, we will publicly state in any way we can what the rules and regulations everyone will be expected to follow going forward.”

The Selectboard could choose to pass another ordinance regulating short-term rentals in the town, Duffy said. The results of Tuesday’s vote only mean that this particular ordinance was repealed.

Duffy said it is different enforcing two separate short-term rental ordinances than enforcing the separate cannabis ordinances — the town allows cannabis sales while the Village does not — because the short-term rental ordinances are much more complex and require more staff time.

Woodstock Village resident Derek DeMas, who has long-term rentals in the Village and a short-term rental in the town, said he was not surprised by the split vote results. DeMas is a member of the Vermont Short-Term Rental Alliance and has been outspoken about his disapproval of the new ordinances.

“Every short-term rental owner and short-term rental property is unique, so to find a simple solution that covers everyone was a complicated task from the start,” DeMas wrote in an email. “Honestly, I think this is the perfect opportunity to figure out how many (short-term rentals) Woodstock has and why people voted the way they did to create short-term rental regulations that are in the best interest of the entire community as a whole.”

Roger Logan, of Woodstock Village, supported both ordinances, voting “no” in both Australian balloting and the floor meeting. While he is disappointed the ordinance was not upheld in the town, he is pleased that Village residents supported it.

“I thought that they created a common sense set of legislation to try and address the potential impact of short-term rentals on the housing stock,” Logan said in a phone interview.

Liz Sauchelli can be reached at esauchelli@vnews.com or 603-727-3221.