Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission discusses possible short-term rental rules; law director urges caution while state law remains unsettled
Summary
The commission reviewed two draft ordinances on short-term rentals, heard data from the law director that officials identified 19 operating units by tax data, and took no formal vote, with the law director advising no action until pending state legislation in Columbus is resolved.
The Mentor Planning Commission spent more than an hour on June 12 discussing draft city ordinances to regulate short-term rentals, but the commission took no formal action and asked staff to return with additional data.
Tom Zeman, the city’s law director, presented two draft ordinance approaches — one prepared by the law department and another by administration — and said the administration’s draft proposes limiting short-term rentals to specific zoning districts (R-2, R-3 and R-4) and capping capacity using a formula tied to population and ward allocation. “My recommendation is that no action be taken until the dust settles in Columbus and we see exactly what may come out of there,” Zeman told commissioners, referring to pending state legislation under review by the General Assembly.
Why it matters: Zeman said the city has identified known short-term rental operations through tax data and that adopting local rules now could be complicated by possible statewide legislation that may change municipalities’ authority. Commissioners discussed whether a permit process or conditional use permit (CUP) route would be preferable and raised concerns about public notice, neighbor input and enforcement.
Key details and discussion: Zeman reported that tax data indicates “a total of 19 operating in the city,” and he provided a ward breakdown from those tax-identified cases: “6 in Ward 1, 3 in Ward 2, 4 are in Ward 3, 6 are in Ward 4,” noting that off-the-books activity could be larger. He said the proposed administrative approach would use a permit application handled by city staff, while the alternative would require a conditional use permit and public hearings; commissioners noted the CUP approach gives neighbors a formal voice.
Commissioner Rossetti asked whether the commission was being asked to select between the two drafts; law director Zeman said the drafts were examples intended to prompt policy discussion. Commissioners raised questions about enforcement and impacts: Commissioner Varga asked staff to provide data on police calls for service linked to identified short-term rentals, and Commissioner Crocker said he expected the activity would continue regardless of prohibition and favored establishing regulations to manage it. Several commissioners suggested giving priority to city residents on any permit or quota lists and urged transparency if the commission proceeds with permit limits by ward.
Outcome: No ordinance was adopted. The commission asked staff to gather additional data — including calls-for-service reports and more precise lists of known operators — and to return for further discussion at a future meeting. Zeman recommended delaying final action until the state legislature’s activity in Columbus is clearer.
What’s next: Staff committed to attempt to provide additional call-report data and the commission will revisit the issue once the commission has more information and after state-level developments are clearer. Commissioners discussed the merits of an administrative permit versus a conditional use process and emphasized clarifying objectives (e.g., whether to preserve historic properties, limit impacts on neighborhoods, or capture modest revenue).
