Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission reviews short-term rental regulation options; Tennessee disorderly-conduct law cited
Summary
Staff presented two draft regulatory approaches for short-term rentals — one modeled on the city of Gallatin and one on Wilson County — and noted neighbors and sheriffs already can use Tennessee Code Annotated 39-17-305 (disorderly conduct) to seek enforcement in noise or other disruptive situations.
Sumner County planning staff presented two prototype short-term rental (STR) regulatory frameworks during the study session: one paralleling the City of Gallatin’s rules, and another based on Wilson County’s county-wide STR ordinance.
Staff said the Gallatin-style draft is more prescriptive and inspection-intensive, with annual reinspections and stricter operational requirements. The Wilson County-based draft treats STRs similarly to bed-and-breakfast homestays, requires Board of Zoning Appeals approval for STRs in the county, sets a minimum lot size (staff noted Wilson County’s threshold is 2 acres) and requires an onsite caretaker living on the premises or within 10 miles to be on-call for incidents. Staff said Wilson County also files contact information with the sheriff’s office, the zoning office and emergency management and maintains a renewal process that can use accumulated complaints to deny permit renewal.
Staff reiterated that current state law protects existing short-term rentals (grandfathering), and that private restrictions such as homeowner association covenants remain an enforcement avenue. Staff also highlighted that neighbors and law enforcement have existing criminal options. Planning staff cited Tennessee Code Annotated 39-17-305 (disorderly conduct), which includes a provision making “unreasonable noise that prevents others from carrying on lawful activities” an offense; staff said that statute has been used to obtain sheriff responses and, after warning, may lead to arrest in cases of persistent disturbance.
Commissioners raised capacity and cost concerns: staff said stricter rules modeled on Gallatin would require substantial ongoing code-office resources for inspections and enforcement, and that the county’s lean staffing would create a fiscal and operational burden if the county adopted similar, inspection-heavy rules. Commissioners discussed alternatives — relying on statutory criminal enforcement, encouraging HOAs to adopt private restrictions, and designing an STR permit program with fees to offset inspection costs. Staff noted Wilson County charges a special-exception application fee (example cited: $500 initial, $300 renewal every two years in their model) and that receipts typically go to the general fund.
Staff said both draft approaches are preliminary; they will refine language with direction from commissioners and follow up with cost and staffing implications before taking a recommendation to the planning commission and County Commission.
