The broad outlines of a new short-term rentals (STR) ordinance seem to be taking shape, but plenty of the nitty-gritty details remain to be settled by the Putnam County Board of Commissioners, even with a fourth work session set to follow its usual first-Friday morning meeting.
(Note: each scheduled regular meeting starts at 10 a.m., not 9 a.m., as stated in last week’s article on STRs.)
The broad outlines – which still can be changed or tweaked – include such topics as:
Limits on capacity: But will it be two per bedroom? Plus 2? 12? 16? All were mentioned as possibilities at last week’s work session. “Occupancy has a lot to do with the disturbances,” District 3 Commissioner Alan Foster said. “It seems really obvious, but I guess a ‘reasonable limit’ is in the eyes of the beholder.”
The so-called ‘Masters’ Exemption’: A definition of a house “not regularly offered for rental,” would be one rented for not less than seven days nor more than 14 in a calendar year. No permit is required for such.
Overlays: The idea of allowing STRs only in certain zones did not gain much traction in earlier discussions, but now appears acceptable if properties in R-1R and probably R-1 are not under an overlay. STR permits for properties in these more sought-after rental zones would continue as non-conforming uses.
The thinking is that when the properties eventually change hands, the permit would disappear, and the number of these non-conforming STRs would gradually decline.
A cap on the total number of permits: There are about 300 permits now, either in hand or in process. The questions remain, should it be a cap on the total number of STRs or a percentage in each neighborhood? Or, none at all or take a gradualist approach?
No events that would draw crowds: No, not even wedding receptions.
Or cars parked willy-nilly up and down the street.
Or excess boats tied up to various neighborhood docks.
Enforceability: “It will only be effective if it is enforced,” Sheriff Howard Sills told the commissioners. “The existing ordinance, for all practical purposes, is unenforceable.”
As a constitutional officer, a county sheriff enforces state laws, Sills reminded them.
He voluntarily enforces county ordinances. But with the sheriff’s current manpower shortages, the county may turn to code enforcement officers who would work under the sheriff’s supervision with the power to issue citations but not to arrest people.
“Ninety percent of the complaints we receive involve disorderly conduct or public drunkenness, and those are covered under state law,” he said.
Sills also pushed for some discretion allowed for any enforcement officer.
“I am not interested in being heavy-handed, but we are not going to be lolly-gagging around either,” he said at one point.
Later, he would add, “There’s a difference between a guy running around buck naked and firing a gun and a drunk urinating in a neighbor’s yard.”
Penalties: Sills suggested leaving set penalties out of the ordinance and leaving citation violations up to state law and the county’s state court.
Other concerns: No recreational vehicles; no fireworks; on-premises parking; septic tank capacities; setting a minimum age for renters; renter’s access to common areas like playgrounds or pools.
In other words, no one should be surprised if the commissioners still can’t reach an agreement on all these concerns in an hour or two on Friday morning.