Planning board hosts workshop to discuss STR draft proposal

On Monday, the Town of Highlands planning board met to discuss a draft proposal given to them by the town’s attorney and the working group tasked with finding a solution to the short-term rental situation the town is facing.

The draft, prepared by a working group of town attorney Jay Coward, attorney Craig Justice, commissioner Amy Patterson and commissioner Brian Stiehler contained changes to definitions in the UDO, added the wording for a transient dwelling unit and whole house short term rental, amended use tables to classify overnight accommodations, and added a subsection regarding commercial uses of whole house short term rentals that allows vesting or grandfathering of existing STRs.

The meeting began with planning board chair Brad Armstrong asking the board members’ opinions of the draft.

“I think we look at this meeting as a chance to react to that draft and look at it more closely,” Armstrong said. “We’ve all talked to people and there are a few things I want to go over as a framework, but I thought we should start out with asking the board members if there are any general comments or reactions to the draft.”

Board member Wendall Willard started off by saying he thinks there will be a continued use of short-term rentals in the town but it comes down to how will the town set up boundaries.

“We don’t have any boundaries now,” Willard said. “I think there are several people in town that own property with the expectation that they were going to have a home and stay there two or three months out of the year and then rent it out the rest of the time. That is what’s grown exponentially over the last three years. I think a lot of the things we need to address regarding land use law in North Carolina is what we can and cannot do. What we should do is talk as a planning board and see what we would like to see happen. Then we should produce a document, which would then be given to the board of commissioners.”

Helene Siegel said she had several logistical questions concerning the draft proposal.

“Do vesting rights apply to tourist homes in R-2?” Siegel said. “For vesting, what determines historical usage? One year, five years? What percentage of that year would the house have to be rented for it to be vested? Can property be rented 50 percent of the time over 30 days and then 50 percent of the time under seven days and still be able to have the right to rent out their house? Who determines vesting? One person or a committee? Without clear guidelines, a person or committee could be subjected to questions about their motives and decisions. How will STR’s be enforced? How will violations be detected? Trash, noise and parking are more obvious, however, many people in a house or if someone has exceeded the 175 day requirement in R-2 and B-4 are not as obvious. Are they going to look at sales records, neighbors’ complaints or documents?”

Board member Chris Wilkes said the planning board has taken on a box of nightmares.

“Everything is complaint driven,” Wilkes said. “So, you’re going to set up some committee to look at this, then there are eight bazillion questions on there and we can barely enforce parking. I don’t think we as a planning board need to get into the nuts and bolts of this. It’s just a nightmare we shouldn’t get into. Having said that, I feel like the proper thing that never got discussed is that there have been rentals forever as far back as, I moved here in 1982 and the first five houses we lived in were rentals. I think what we are looking for is responsibility. We should be looking at people who use their property as a rental and make sure they are not abusing the process. I have had talks with a lot of people who run rentals as a business and everything in each contract has everything that every complaint has ever said. Everything about trash, everything about noise ordinances. We have those as a city. Everything seems to break down to enforcement and what we are willing to do to ensure that the people are being responsible. I think the enforcement is something we really need to look at but to try and write up something like, ‘There are no rentals in R-1,’ I just have a lot of questions like Helene.”

Board member Nick McCall brought up what he called “The Golden Goose,” concerning vesting rights.

“We are getting to the point where you have to say either they are gone or you allow them because of the golden goose thing,” McCall said. “If you let the ones that are already here stay, now you have created a golden goose. Now you have a property that is substancially more valuable than any other property. With vesting properties, they usually sunset in two years, so how would we address that?”

The long-range plan is what board member Darren Whatley said he is focused on.

“How would this all impact the long-range plan?” Whatley said. “Ten  years down the road, are we creating more of a nightmare? I think as a group, we need to take that into consideration instead of making that immediate decision. I know there is an immediate want to fix this problem, but at the same time, I don’t want to react with something that is temporary.”

Going forward with the meeting, Armstrong advised the board not to make any decisions that had to do with vesting.

“I would like to shift our focus from addressing words in the code that were proposed in that document and think more about the concepts of what we want to get done,” Armstrong said. “I think the language should follow the concepts. One way to do it is to focus on what I’m calling the ‘Go forward scenario,’ meaning on a going forward basis, what do we want allowed in all of the zones. Frankly we should set aside the properties that are already operating as short-term rentals. Our charge as a zoning board is to deal with land use issues. To me the issue of vesting is a discussion around legality and risk mitigation. From discussions with people, and I’ve talked to the Save Highlands group and the Neighborhood Coalition, and I can tell you that there are people out there with their hearts in the right place, very smart people that are looking at the same data and coming to very different conclusions. All questions about vesting, I suggest, should go to the town council and their legal representatives.”

After much conversation, the board started voting on whether transient dwelling units should be allowed in the different zones. A transient dwelling unit is a dwelling unit where a paying guest or guests stays for a period of less than seven consecutive days.

Wendell started by making a motion to recommend the Town Board of Commissioners to not allow transient dwelling units in R-1, going forward.

The vote passed 5-2 with Chris Wilkes and Nick McCall voting against.

The board then looked at transient dwelling units in R-2, which in the original draft proposal was not allowed.

Siegel made a motion to recommend the Town Board of Commissioners to allow transient dwelling units in R-2 with a special use permit.

The vote passed 6-1 with Willard opposing.

For transient dwelling units in R-3, the board voted unanimously to recommend the board of commissioners to allow them.

In all commercial businesses, the board unanimously voted to recommend allowing all transient dwelling units.

The board then looked at tourist homes in all zones. A tourist home is a building or part therof, not including a motel, hotel or whole house short term rental, where sleeping accommodations or lodging of not more than four rooms are provided to guests paying compensation, where the owner, operator or manager also stays on the same parcel during any period of guest occupancy. This term includes bed and breakfast homes, inns, rooming or boarding houses or homestays.

For tourist homes in R-1, Armstrong made a motion that they recommend to the board of commissioners that they be allowed with a limited use permit.

The vote passed 5-2, with Willard and McCall voting against.

In R-2, the same motion was brought up, with the vote passing 6-1, with Willard opposing.

The board unanimously voted to recommend allowing tourist homes in R-3 without limitations and allow them in B-1 through B-4.

After two votes failing on whole house short term rentals not being allowed in R-1, the board a motion was made to allow whole house short term rentals, but only allowing them to be rented for 14 days.

A whole house short term rental is the use of a detached dwelling unit for lodging in return for compensation whereby the entire dwelling unit is rented or occupied by a paying guest for a period of less than thirty consecutive days but no less than a minimum duration of seven days.

The vote passed 5-2, with Armstrong and Willard opposed.

In R-2, the same motion was brought up, with the vote passing 6-1, with Wendell opposing.

Whole house short term rentals were already allowed in commercial districts, except B-4, but the board voted to recommend allowing them in B-4 with no limitations.

Moving forward, Armstrong said their recommendations will be turned into a document, which will then be read over again by the planning board before it is turned over to the Town Board of Commissioners.

- By Christopher Lugo