Carmel committee considers citywide cap on single‑family rentals after mixed public comment

Several Carmel residents and homeowner‑association representatives urged the committee to adopt ordinance D‑2770‑25, which would require owners of residential rental dwellings to register and obtain permits and would limit permitted rental dwellings to 10% per platted subdivision and 10% citywide.

In public comment, Lawrence McCormack said, “I rise in support of ordinance d 27 70 dash 25,” and described an influx of out‑of‑state corporate buyers and absentee landlords in his Northeast Carmel neighborhood. Rick Anderson and Ed Shaughnessy (reading a letter from Susan McClain) told the committee they supported a citywide cap because they said rental concentrations have harmed property upkeep and home values. Jason Beyer and other residents described turnover and difficulty for prospective buyers when homes are bought for rentals.

Several speakers opposed the ordinance. Tom Lazara, a longtime resident and property manager, said he opposed the measure “in almost every way, shape, and form” and urged enforcement of existing rules rather than new restrictions. Chris Pryor of the MiBoer Realtor Association told the committee he opposed the proposal on grounds it would restrict private property rights, interfere with the housing market and may not address an actual local problem; Pryor said MIBOR’s data showed just 72 properties in Carmel owned by institutional investors out of roughly 30,000 residential properties.

Ted Nolte, Council legal, outlined changes made to the draft ordinance since the committee last saw it. Key edits include: (1) clarifying that homes in legally defined rental unit communities and build‑to‑rent communities approved by the city are treated differently under state law and (2) adding language that homeowners associations (HOAs) and condominium associations may adopt more restrictive covenants that are not superseded by the ordinance. Nolte also explained the ordinance counts permitted rental dwellings by platted subdivision (a legal term) so the cap applies by subdivision even where an HOA does not exist.

Committee members asked staff for additional data before proceeding. Questions included how many platted subdivisions Carmel contains; how many subdivisions and neighborhoods are already at or above a 10% rental threshold; whether code‑enforcement complaints disproportionately involve rental properties; and whether the city’s existing information systems can reliably identify institutional owners (many use single‑property LLCs). Staff and several council members noted Fishers used third‑party software (described in testimony as a data‑collection tool) to compile detailed ownership and rental data and that obtaining comparable local data would require investment.

Nolte said the draft provides an exemption pathway: a property owner may apply to the Department of Community Services (DOCS) for a hardship or “life situation” exception if the owner needs to vacate and intends to rent temporarily. DOCS decisions would be appealable to Carmel City Court. Committee members asked staff to clarify that exception language (to explicitly include separation, domestic violence, financial hardship and similar circumstances) and to provide a proposed procedure and estimated staffing/technology costs for registration and enforcement.

The committee did not vote to forward the ordinance to full council. Members asked city staff to return with specific datasets (listed below), legal clarifications and outreach to neighborhood stakeholders before any next step.

Requested follow‑up and clarifications: city staff were asked to provide (1) the count of platted subdivisions in Carmel and a list by name; (2) the current count and percentage of residential rental dwellings by subdivision and citywide (using available parcel/GIS and homestead data); (3) code‑enforcement complaint data disaggregated by owner‑occupied versus rental property; (4) an estimate of the software and staffing costs to run a registration and monitoring program comparable to Fishers’ approach; and (5) a proposed DOCS process and appeal path for hardship exemptions.

Why this matters: supporters say concentrated rental ownership by absentee or out‑of‑state investors can reduce owner‑occupied supply, depress resale values and create nuisance/maintenance problems; opponents warned city regulation could interfere with property rights and harm rental supply. The committee’s next steps are to gather the requested data, refine exemption language and return for further debate.