Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate proposed short-term rental rules; public comment and commissioners favor existing legal remedies
Summary
Planning staff presented a draft short-term rental resolution that would require annual renewals, an on-call caretaker, a 2-acre minimum lot size and notification to neighbors; commissioners and residents raised enforcement and cost concerns.
A staff-drafted short-term rental resolution modeled on another county's ordinance drew extended comment at the planning commission study session on Oct. 5, 2025. The draft would establish a permitting and renewal process for STRs, require a caretaker to live on-site or within 10 miles, a 24-hour contact, a 2-acre minimum lot size for rental properties in unincorporated areas, certified notice to adjacent property owners, and enforcement/renewal by the county's Board of Zoning Appeals. Staff characterized many draft provisions as adopted language borrowed from other counties.
Why this matters: commissioners and multiple members of the public said they were concerned about noise, parties and disruptive behavior connected to some STR operations; speakers requested a clear local contact and faster enforcement. Opponents of the draft said the proposed rules would impose heavy administrative costs and represent government overreach into unincorporated property rights.
What was said: - Staff framing: the presenter said the draft is based on another county's rules and would create an administrative renewal process; staff warned substantial staffing would be required to administer the program. - Public comment: several residents described recurring problems in subdivisions near new housing developments, including loud parties, drug activity and blockages on local roads. One public speaker said residents lack a local contact for problem properties and requested a reliable local contact to be maintained by STR operators. Another public speaker asked the county to confirm whether sheriff's office remedies would be sufficient; the sheriff's office (represented by Sheriff Craddock in discussion) indicated state disorderly conduct statutes can be used for noise and disruptive activity. - Legal and practical concerns: Commissioner Mansfield and others spoke strongly against county-wide STR regulation in unincorporated areas, arguing homeowners chose unincorporated life to avoid certain city-style restrictions and that other remedies exist (HOAs, annexation, sheriff enforcement, state law). Mansfield cited Tennessee Code Annotated provisions on disorderly conduct as an existing enforcement avenue and said the sheriff's office should be trained to use that statute where appropriate.
Staff response and next steps: commissioners indicated limited appetite to move forward with the comprehensive regulatory model. Staff said one option would be to remove the county's existing regulatory condition (a restriction recorded on a property limiting rentals) and to simplify accessory dwelling unit (ADU) rules to reduce administrative burden, or alternatively to return with narrower targeted language. No formal votes were taken. Staff said they would bring revised language back if directed.
Ending: The planning commission took comments and discussed alternatives but did not adopt new STR regulations at the study session. Several commissioners asked staff to pursue options that reduce administrative burden rather than create a new regulatory program for all unincorporated properties.
