Bel Air commissioners debate allowing short‑term rentals in residential areas; owner‑on‑site, ADUs and enforcement are central

Commissioner Rutledge introduced a draft short‑term rental working paper at the May 13 work session and asked the board for feedback on allowing a narrowly limited STR presence in residential districts and a more permissive approach in business districts.

“The limitation on square feet coincides directly with the, the owner being on‑site,” Rutledge said, explaining the draft’s proposed 500‑square‑foot cap for rented space. The intent, she said, is to make owner presence verifiable and reduce the risk that an entire house would be used as a commercial rental while the owner is absent.

Why it matters: the board is weighing whether to allow some STRs in residential (R) districts and how to write performance standards so that the use remains compatible with neighborhood character. Commissioners stressed the town’s limited enforcement tools and the need to define licensing, revocation criteria and acceptable safety reviews before any ordinance is adopted.

Key issues raised

- Owner on site vs. primary residence. Commissioners discussed language requiring the owner to be “on‑site while the short term rental is occupied” and debated whether the ordinance should require the property to be the owner’s primary residence (driver’s license, voter registration) or simply require the owner to be physically present during rentals. Rutledge said she preferred the clearer, on‑site language to avoid loopholes.

- Square‑foot cap and ADUs. Rutledge explained the draft’s 500‑square‑foot limit as a practical measure tied to the on‑site requirement. Commissioners asked whether accessory dwelling units (ADUs) — which the town’s code limits to extended‑family or caregiver uses — could be used as STRs. Staff noted that ADUs in current code are designed for family‑related occupancy and might be revised to explicitly prohibit STR use; the board discussed using the special‑exception process to review each STR and catch efforts to segregate an ADU for commercial use.

- Enforcement and licensing. Commissioners and staff agreed enforcement is difficult. Staff said the town can inspect properties when a building permit or other improvement triggers an inspection, and they track complaints (for example, neighbors noticing many cars at a residence). The board asked for a written revocation procedure: what standards, how many violations before revocation, and how to ensure due process. Staff said they would provide draft license‑revocation guidelines and show how those standards align with existing licensing due‑process rules in the code.

- Registration and data collection. Commissioners discussed whether STRs should follow Chapter 252 registration rules used for hotels and boarding houses — for example, collecting occupant names and addresses or requiring identification at check‑in — and whether commercial platforms (Airbnb, VRBO) already collect enough information to meet safety needs.

Next steps: commissioners asked staff to refine language — including adding a clear “owner on‑site while use is in operation” phrase — and to circulate license revocation procedures, a list of registration requirements (Chapter 252) and examples from other towns. The board also agreed to solicit feedback from the planning commission and the town’s Economic & Community Development Commission (ECDC) before advancing legislation to public hearing.

Ending: No ordinance was adopted; staff will return with revised draft language, a licensing and revocation framework and input from the planning commission and ECDC.