Carmel committee advances ordinance to register single‑family rentals and cap permits at 10% in subdivisions

The Carmel Finance, Utilities, Rules & Safety Committee on May 28 voted to send ordinance D‑2770‑25 to the full City Council with recommended amendments to require registration and permitting of single‑family rental dwellings and to limit permitted rentals to 10% within an affected subdivision or defined neighborhood.

The ordinance’s sponsors are Councilors Austin, Taylor, Snyder and Ayers. Committee members debated exemptions, the timeline for implementation and appeals procedures after multiple residents and housing‑industry speakers urged changes. Councilors accepted a package of technical and procedural amendments and approved referral to full council by voice vote.

Why it matters: The measure would create a city registry and permit for residential rental dwellings and allow the city to deny, revoke or fine permits for repeat violations of city codes. Supporters said caps protect long‑term homeownership and neighborhood character; opponents said the measure would curtail property rights, could raise prices for existing rentals and questioned the scale of institutional ownership in Carmel.

Public commenters who addressed the committee included resident Greg Cooper, who said he was “terribly concerned about the hardship clause” and warned it could force owners into double mortgage payments if they must wait months to rent; Tracy Hutton, a 48‑year Carmel resident, homeowner and broker who said, “I have not seen anyone that's been able to give me rock solid data on, single family rental rates in Carmel”; Jason Engle, a longtime resident and licensed Indiana real estate broker who said he “respectfully oppose[d] ordinance d 2 7 7 0 2 5”; and Kaye Gaither, a resident who called the measure “a solution looking for a problem.” Real‑estate agents including Shelley Walters told the committee that institutional ownership in some neighborhoods is small and declining.

Administration and legal review: Sergey Grechukhin of the Office of Corporation Counsel and Adam Duarte, counsel to the sponsoring council, described numerous technical edits agreed in committee, including definitions for “beneficial owner,” exclusions for short‑term rentals and “rental communities,” and clarifications that homeowner‑association (HOA) covenants are not preempted. The administration warned the permitting phase imposes a substantial cross‑department implementation burden and suggested delaying the effective date for the permitting phase if state legislation addressing similar ordinances advances.

Key policy choices and enforcement: The ordinance as amended: limits permitted residential rental dwellings to 10% per platted subdivision or other defined neighborhood (the citywide cap language was removed); exempts build‑to‑rent communities and short‑term rentals; requires disclosure of beneficial owners; and allows the city to deny or revoke permits for repeated code violations. The committee discussed requiring a notarized affidavit to document “life situations” or other hardship exceptions (for example, relocation), and agreed to added due‑process steps: notice, a 15‑day period to request an appeal and an administrative appeal to the Board of Public Works and Safety (BPW) with an option to consider court review. Legal staff recommended appeals either go to a “court of competent jurisdiction” (including Hamilton County courts) or explicitly allow county court review because Carmel City Court lacks authority to issue injunctive relief.

Implementation questions: City attorneys and department directors told the committee that registration data collection and enforcement will involve multiple departments and software, and that implementation of the permitting phase will take time. The administration noted the ordinance allows time for registration through the end of the year, with caps enforced after a later implementation date (committee discussion suggested an administration‑set implementation date such as April or May 2026 for the permit phase). The committee asked staff to return with specifics on staffing, timeline and costs.

What remains unsettled: Committee members pressed for clarity about confidentiality for affidavits (medical or domestic‑violence situations), the precise appeals pathway, and whether life‑situation affidavits would become public records. Legal staff said BPW could hear confidential evidence in executive session and that release of records would follow public‑records law.

Next steps: The committee approved the amendments and voted to send the ordinance to the full City Council with a positive recommendation for further debate and possible refinement.

Ending note: Committee members agreed that whether or not this ordinance advances, the city needs to strengthen code enforcement tools and coordination with HOAs to address property maintenance and nuisance complaints.