Are short-term rentals allowed in Lanesborough? Only if you don’t get caught – The Berkshire Eagle: Future Trajectories and Essential Next Steps for Resolution

The regulatory status of short-term rentals (STRs) within the picturesque borders of Lanesborough, Massachusetts, as of February 9, 2026, is not defined by a clear “yes” or “no,” but rather by a tense, legally precarious middle ground. The situation is one of profound local governance friction, where the absence of explicit local zoning for transient occupancy coexists—and clashes—with both state-level taxation mandates and the growing demand from property owners to generate tourism revenue. The stark reality for many operators is captured by a recent, high-stakes decision: legality, for the moment, appears contingent upon avoiding municipal enforcement action, a posture that town leadership and community advocates agree is entirely unsustainable.

This environment of legal uncertainty has been dramatically underscored by the recent action of the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). On February 5, 2026, the ZBA voted 2-1 to uphold a cease-and-desist order against a local property, asserting that because the town lacks specific bylaw regulations, short-term rentals are, in effect, impermissible under the current zoning framework. This determination, rooted in the Building Inspector’s interpretation, sent shockwaves through the community, simultaneously frustrating property owners and validating the concerns of long-term residents who have long called for definitive local control over property usage. This volatile period demands a pivot from reactive dispute resolution to proactive legislative clarity, a path forward that is now the singular focus for all stakeholders invested in Lanesborough’s future character.

The Current Regulatory Landscape: Ambiguity and Enforcement

The core of the Lanesborough conundrum lies in the gap between what the state permits and what local zoning allows, creating a climate where the letter of the law is subject to dramatic, case-by-case interpretation. This tension defines the operational reality for any property owner listing a dwelling for stays of less than 30 days.

The ZBA’s Defining Stance (Early February 2026)

The Zoning Board of Appeals’ decision on February 5, 2026, concerning Second Drop Farm, serves as the most current authoritative indicator of the town’s administrative posture. By upholding the cease-and-desist order, the board affirmed the Building Inspector’s finding: in the strict interpretation of existing zoning codes—which often predate the rise of platforms like Airbnb—short-term rentals are considered a non-conforming or prohibited commercial use within residential districts when no specific bylaw authorizes them. This ruling suggests that, as of early February 2026, any operation proceeding without a specific, explicit local approval is vulnerable to official action. The division on the board, however—with one member voting to dismiss the order based on the explicit lack of a prohibitory bylaw—perfectly illustrates the deep division on this point within town governance itself.

The Counter-Argument: Absence as Permissiveness

Conversely, the argument made by those opposing the enforcement action hinges on a fundamental principle of zoning: that which is not explicitly prohibited is implicitly allowed. An alternate board member articulated this position, stating, “The bylaw doesn’t exist. So until the bylaw exists, it’s an absence of a bylaw,” suggesting that the responsibility for the current legal ambiguity rests with the town leadership for failing to pass restrictive legislation sooner. This perspective views the existing definition of a “SHORT-TERM RENTAL” in the town’s general bylaws—which generally separates STRs from hotels and tenancies at will—as insufficient to *prohibit* an activity for which no modern regulation has been formally codified. This dynamic forces operators into a precarious position, leading to the widely held, if cynical, local perception that the only way to operate legally is to successfully avoid detection by municipal authorities.

State Tax Framework vs. Local Zoning

Adding a layer of mandatory compliance to this local zoning uncertainty are the statewide financial obligations. Following the June 2024 town meeting, Lanesborough voters affirmed the collection of local taxes specific to transient occupancy. These include a local excise tax of up to 6 percent on the total rent and a separate 3 percent community impact fee on “professionally managed” STRs. While property owners must register with the state’s Department of Revenue and the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development to comply with these taxes, this financial requirement does not automatically grant zoning approval to operate in a specific residential zone. The state framework addresses taxation and safety registration, but it explicitly leaves local land use and neighborhood character control to individual municipalities, which is precisely where Lanesborough’s current impasse lies.

The Volatile Era of Transient Occupancy

The debate is rarely purely academic; it is fueled by tangible, day-to-day impacts on the quality of life for long-term residents and the potential strain on Lanesborough’s infrastructure. The years leading up to 2026 have seen these local impacts move from hypothetical concerns to documented points of contention.

The “Party House” Phenomenon

A primary catalyst for stricter local regulation across the Commonwealth, and acutely felt in Lanesborough, is the threat posed by the “party house” scenario. This is not merely about rental income; it centers on social disruption that far exceeds the typical disturbances of a long-term tenancy. Such issues manifest as excessive noise extending past quiet hours, parking overflow onto neighborhood streets, and potential property damage. For residents, the worry is not about responsible, quiet travelers, but about the potential for unchecked commercial activity to fundamentally alter the residential character of their neighborhoods.

The Pre-Internet Definition Dilemma

The current legal ambiguity is exacerbated by the age of the existing municipal code. Lanesborough’s established definition of a “SHORT-TERM RENTAL” was drafted in an era before online booking platforms homogenized the short-term market, leading to confusion over whether an STR constitutes a commercial enterprise or a permissible accessory use to a principal residence. Legal precedent in similar cases has often held that operating an STR is a commercial enterprise, which, absent explicit zoning allowance, is impermissible in zones designated for single-family residential use. This historical dissonance requires a legislative overhaul, not just an enforcement memo.

Enforcement as a Reactive Strain

Relying on the current structure forces the town administration into a purely reactive posture. Issuing cease-and-desist orders and defending them before the ZBA—as seen in the February 2026 hearing—is a resource-intensive process that drains municipal time, budget, and staff capacity. Furthermore, this approach breeds instability; property owners invest based on perceived opportunity, only to face sudden prohibition, leading to costly appeals and further fracturing of community trust. The path forward requires abandoning this reactive cycle in favor of establishing a predictable, structured system that accommodates regulation from a position of municipal strength.

Future Trajectories and Essential Next Steps for Resolution

The consensus among concerned parties—from town officials to advocacy groups—is that the current state of flux, where legality is perpetually tethered to the avoidance of enforcement, must conclude. The resolution demands a comprehensive community dialogue culminating in legislative action, a process that must be dramatically accelerated into the present moment of 2026.

Focusing Advocacy on Measurable Community Impacts

For residents and property owners alike who seek a specific regulatory outcome—be it strong restriction or careful allowance—the most productive strategy involves a fundamental shift in advocacy focus. Generalized opposition or support is less effective than targeted data presentation. Advocacy efforts must pivot toward quantifiable metrics that demonstrate actual community impact. This requires gathering and presenting data on:

• Documented increases in noise complaints or parking saturation in specific zones.
• Quantifiable reductions in the available long-term rental housing stock within the town.
• Verifiable strain on specific public services, such as police response calls or waste management demands related to transient occupancy.

Lobbying for the establishment of clear regulatory frameworks, such as defining specific overlay districts where STRs might operate under tight parameters, offers a far more constructive and defensible path forward than lobbying for vague enforcement predicated on codes deemed inadequate for the modern challenge.

The Necessity of Definitive Bylaw Adoption

Ultimately, the only mechanism capable of dismantling the current climate of uncertainty is the formal adoption of new, unambiguous local bylaws. The mandate falls squarely upon the town leadership to facilitate this critical process without delay, gathering robust input from all stakeholders: property owners who rely on the income, long-term residents concerned with neighborhood character, and local businesses potentially benefiting from tourism traffic.

This necessary legislative act—which must be codified through a successful vote at a Town Meeting or equivalent local legislative body—will be the definitive mechanism to replace the current, volatile era of transient occupancy with a stable, predictable framework for all parties involved. Only when these rules are explicitly written into the town’s charter, detailing precisely how, where, and under what conditions short-term rentals may operate—or if they are prohibited entirely—can Lanesborough move past the shadow of “not getting caught” and establish a sustainable legal foundation for its residential and economic future.