HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0739.087 2016-2018From:
Bittenbring Charles
To:
Council Testimony
Subject:
Bill 108
Date:
Friday, June 01, 2018 8:24:30 AM
Attachments:
Bill 108 Comments.pdf
ATT00001.txt
An ordinance addressing short term vacation rentals is definitely needed and the draft bill 108 is a start. But it
seems lacking in some respects. Please consider the comments in the attached documents.
o C"?
CIO G O
�-- 2: C'—
C3
T9'
CD
mm. No. 1 �
al ' g-1
Ref. To: F 1 pL
Ref. Date JUN 0 5 2018
Comments on Bill 108
Section 1. Findings and Purpose
3) providing an avenue for an existing use deemed to be improper by
this ordinance, to apply for a nonconforming use certificate that
would allow them to continue to operate in a non -permitted district.
I appreciate there may be some need to work with property owners
who have invested capital to own and operate short-term vacation
rentals in areas where they are not allowed under the new ordinance.
It seems, however, that this should not include a simple perfunctory
application for a non -conforming use permit that appears to be
automatically granted. There should be a process and timeline to
phase out these non -conforming uses.
(4) Upon change of ownership, the registration shall automatically
continue subiect to termination by the new owner.
It is unclear to me whether this applies to both conforming and non-
conforming uses. In either case, but especially for non -conforming
uses, a new registration and/or application for a non -conforming use
permit should be required upon change of ownership. The county
should want to assure that the new owners are in full compliance with
the ordinance, which automatically continuing the registration or non-
conforming use permit does not do.
Section 25-4- .1 Short-term vacation rental non -conforming use
rPrtifirntP
This section seems to grant by right, through a simple application
process, the operation of short-term vacation rentals in other wise
non -permitted zoning districts. There does not appear to be anything
in the ordinance that would dictate that the application include input
and/or approval from residents of the development, neighborhood, or
neighbors of the vacation rental that would be impacted by the
business. If the zoning district does not allow for vacation rentals,
there should be a requirement to show good cause for granting an
exception and there should at least be a public hearing for neighbors
to comment on the application, for both existing and new
applications. There should be a process to address existing
operations that are incompatible with or opposed by the neighbors to
be phased out in relatively short order.
Note also that the current zoning district uses do not allow for short-
term vacation rentals in agricultural districts. Why then is that not
being enforced and why make it so easy to get a non -conforming use
certificate when it is already not allowed?
In our development in an agricultural district, there is a vacation rental
that also rents vehicles. How is this addressed?
(e) Good neighbor policy.
(1) Quiet hours shall be from 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.
This should be 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Many people are early risers by
necessity or choice and may retire before 9:00 p.m. In addition, it is
unrealistic to expect noise to stop abruptly precisely at a designated
time. Using 8:00 p.m. provides for those who retire early and also
permits a bit of cushion on the cut-off time.
(f) Annual renewal. Non -conforming use certificates must be renewed
every year on or before the expiration date indicated on the
certificate. At the time of renewal the applicate shall pay a renewal
fee of $500 to the director of finance.
Two items here: 1) Nowhere in the draft ordinance is a fee required
for the initial non -conforming use certificate. There should be one. 2)
A flat fee seems unreasonable. The fee should start at $500 but
should also take into account the gross receipts of the business,
increasing as gross receipts increase.