“Santa Cruz County to again weigh vacation rental ordinance” plus 1 more |
| Santa Cruz County to again weigh vacation rental ordinance Posted: 22 Feb 2011 08:40 PM PST A decade in the making, Santa Cruz County embarks Thursday on what may be the beginning of the end for unregulated vacation rentals throughout the county. For neighbors around popular beachfront locations such as Pleasure Point and the harbor, the new rules promise some comfort after years of being jarred awake by parties that one modest resident would only describe as something that a 9-year-old shouldn't see. "They're just on a different schedule than I am," sighed another, Robert Murillo, who has seen the numbers of vacation rentals bloom around his 30-year harbor-area home in recent years. He says there are now six on his block, when there didn't used to be any. Santa Cruz County's surf and sand has long been a draw for travelers from around the world, helping spread the county's reputation as a vacation playground, with families or groups of twentysomethings packed into beachfront bungalows for a few days in the sun. Thursday at the Planning Commission, the county will - once again - try to establish a few playground rules. "Our means of redress will be when the license comes up for renewal," Murillo said of the new law, which would license vacation homes for the first time. "That would be very, very helpful, because it will be an incentive for vacation rental owners to manage their properties well." In 2009, tourists help pump $650 million into the local economy, creating more than 8,000 jobs, according to the California Travel & Tourism Commission. Many of those visitors stay in beach rentals, and attempts to regulate them have been resisted by owners who argue that they are being punished for the actions of a few bad seeds.Vacation rentals in the Live Oak area between Capitola and Santa Cruz - two cities with existing vacation rental rules - would also be capped at no more than 15 percent of the neighborhood homes, and no more than 20 percent on any one block. The rules would also limit the number of people in vacation rentals and require homeowners to give neighbors a local contact, in case problems arise. The source of some prior objections, included over caps on the number of times per week an owner could rent a home, have been removed. It is not the first time the county has taken up the issue, as the Planning Commission has been tinkering with the law since last summer. Similar rules were floated in 2001, but homeowners pledged to regulate themselves, Santa Cruz County Supervisor John Leopold said. "That didn't work out so well," said Leopold, who predicted the ordinance would eventually pass. If the Planning Commission approves, the law could go to the Board of Supervisors next month. Leopold said the Internet has helped homeowners who want to rent their homes to vacations. About 570 homes pay the county's transit occupancy tax as vacation rentals. It is possible there are more vacation properties, with neighbors reporting a spike in the last few years. Bill Tysseling, executive director of the Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce, said his group hasn't taken a position on the law, but said existing laws should be enough to handle problem properties. But there isn't enough money, he added. "The core of this is our inability to afford appropriate law enforcement to manage our neighborhoods," Tysseling said. Despite the rancor, the county estimates there were just 28 law enforcement calls to vacation homes during 2009 and 2010, an average of just more than one a month. One of those came from Murillo's wife, he said. The problem with rentals, he added, is not knowing who your neighbors are at any given time. "Somebody could be burglarizing that house," Murillo said. "And as a homeowner, I wouldn't know whether it's the vacationer back there making noise, or the burglar back there making noise. You never know." The ordinance would not cut back on the number of vacation homes, but could prevent more from being set up in Live Oak. "We just don't want the density to get any further," said Karen Mallory, another harbor-area resident. "This does give us the right to challenge current vacation rentals. The one's that aren't run well, it gives us a chance to document that and challenge their renewal." IF YOU GO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WHAT: Vacation Rental Ordinance Where: County Governmental Center, 701 Ocean St., 5th floor WHEN: 9 a.m. Thursday This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| Board holds off vote on vacation rentals Posted: 23 Feb 2011 09:31 AM PST The Whitefish City-County Planning Board on Feb. 17 postponed a vote on a plan to increase the number of short-term rental units in Whitefish so more information can be gathered. As explained by Eric Mulcahy, representing Courtland Chelmo, who brought the proposed zoning-text amendment to the planning office, the opportunity to offer short-term rentals inside residential areas could be increased by a three-step method: • Approve a text amendment that establishes the process and protective measures for neighbors. That requires approval by the city council. • Create 10-acre zoning overlays with multiple contiguous properties where short-term rentals would be allowed. That would require approval by 65 percent of the property owners in the area. • Require that any home used for short-term rentals be registered with the city. Planning staff recommended instead that each rental unit have an administrative conditional-use permit, which would require notifying adjacent neighbors. Among the protective measures offered were limiting dwelling-unit density to less than what already is allowed for the neighborhood; requiring three off-street parking spaces per unit, a state accommodation license, a sign-off from the fire marshal, an inspection by the planning office, a city business license and posted owner contact information; and not allowing signage advertising. An enforcement measure attached to the plan would address the large number of suspected illegal short-term rental units. Lacking manpower to track down illegal units, city planners recommended instead making it illegal to advertise a short-term rental in an area where it's not allowed. City planning director David Taylor described the plan's pros and cons. While increasing the number of short-term rentals could increase resort- and bed-tax revenues, expand options for tourists, improve property values and spur development in some subdivisions, it could also impact traditional neighborhoods with strangers, traffic, noise and reduced parking, increase competition with other lodging, and shrink the pool of available homes for long-term rentals and affordable housing. Five people addressed the planning board. Jill Evans, who lives in the same neighborhood as the applicant, asked the board to reject the proposal. She cited all the past efforts that went into zoning Whitefish and areas already set aside for short-term rentals. "Is Whitefish a town or a resort?" she asked, predicting a future lawsuit if the plan was implemented. Jill Zignego, of Five Star Rental, disagreed, "We're a great town and a great resort," she said. Zignego described the demand for short-term house rentals versus bed-and-breakfasts and hotels but said she didn't expect many applications would make it through the process. She also pointed out that in 15 years of handling short-term rentals, she had only received three complaints. Jeff Raper, a Realtor, said Whitefish has an "extreme shortage" of short-term rentals. Whitefish has grown and changed a lot since it was zoned, he said, and the city didn't establish enough resort-residential zoning areas. Donna Emerson, who lives at Wildwood Condominiums on Wisconsin Avenue, described how the owners there had offered short-term rentals illegally in the past without knowing it, but without any problems. She said the 10-acre minimum could pose a problem for getting Wildwood to qualify. John Gladder said he paid a premium for resort-residential property on Colorado Avenue and was concerned the proposal would lessen his property's value. Following an hour-long discussion, planning board members agreed they needed more information on the economic impact of the plan on the community. They wanted to know the number of potential 10-acre overlays, the number of short-term rentals that currently exist and how often they're rented out, and how many illegal rentals potentially exist. Diane Smith said increasing the supply of short-term rentals without increasing the demand could drive down prices. She also noted that the enforcement section could be implemented separately from the rest of the plan. Several board members said they believe Whitefish has a shortage of short-term rentals, but Karen Reeves wanted to know how the plan would affect the city's carrying capacity for traffic and police in summer. Chris Kelsey proposed allowing areas smaller than 10 acres where multi-family zoning exists as a way to address Wildwood's dilemma. The board will discuss the proposal again on March 17 and take comments from lodge owners and others. The plan will go to the Whitefish City Council on March 21. This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service — if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read our FAQ page at fivefilters.org/content-only/faq.php |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Vacation Rentals - Yahoo! News Search Results To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 comments:
Post a Comment