Council adopts changes to rental‑permit rules to clarify "rents, leases, or lets"

West Chester Borough Council voted to adopt amendments to Chapter 66 of the property‑maintenance code that tighten the definition of “rents, leases, or lets” and clarify when a rental permit is required.

The ordinance change closes an enforcement gap that staff and council members said left ambiguous whether short‑term or informal arrangements (for example, family members or friends living in an owner’s house without a written lease) required a rental permit. The council and staff explained the intent: if a non‑owner occupies a property and is not on the deed, that occupancy will be treated as a rental that requires a permit and the associated tenant/landlord documentation so code staff can perform life‑safety inspections and track who resides at a property.

Why it matters: Councilmembers and staff said clearer language will improve safety and enforcement because the borough’s inspection and code enforcement processes rely on rental permits to identify occupants and ensure compliance with building and zoning rules. The change also formalizes the borough’s expectation that landlords attach a Chapter‑66 addendum to written leases and that even oral permission for occupancy be memorialized with a written document that identifies occupant obligations under the code.

Public comment: Anne Carroll, chairperson of CASE Civic Action Southeast, asked several clarifying questions, including whether the definition of “rooming unit” applied only to rooming houses and whether oral permissions require a written notification to the borough. Borough staff responded that the borough does not require a copy of every lease but does require landlords to submit the tenant/landlord form required by Article 10; if the owner grants oral permission, the owner must still provide occupants a written notification of their obligations and must obtain a rental permit so the borough has tenant information for enforcement.

Vote: The council approved the amendment with a roll‑call vote: Ms. Dorsey — yes; Mr. Flynn — yes; Ms. Vaccaro — yes; Mr. McGinnis — yes; Mr. Travis — yes; Ms. Shimoni — yes; Mr. McCoy — yes. The motion was made and seconded during the meeting; the mover is recorded in the transcript as making a motion to approve and the roll‑call recorded unanimous approval.

Next steps: The ordinance will take effect under the borough’s normal effective‑date rules unless council specifies a later date; staff said the change is intended to quickly improve the borough’s ability to identify occupants for safety inspections.

Ending: Council and staff framed the amendment as clarifying existing enforcement expectations rather than creating a new regulatory regime; staff emphasized the change is intended to improve life‑safety inspection coverage.