New Franklin council debates conduct-focused short-term rental ordinance; no final vote

New Franklin City Council spent a large portion of its June 15 meeting debating a proposed ordinance to regulate short-term rental operations (Ordinance 25-0004). The ordinance, as presented, removes distance-based location limits and instead targets guest conduct, safety and accountability measures, while establishing an annual permit and penalties for violations. Council did not adopt the ordinance and directed additional edits and legal review.

The ordinance’s sponsor said the draft shifts focus from where short-term rentals are located to how they operate. Councilmember Stiles said the proposal eliminates “location rules” because those would prohibit lawful uses on private property when a neighbor’s lawful use happens to be nearby. He described the ordinance as aimed at “safety, noise, parking, responsiveness of the city” and said enforcement would rely on conduct standards such as quiet-hours, occupancy limits, trash removal and a requirement for smoke and carbon monoxide alarms and clear egress.

Supporters of the conduct-first approach told council the measure includes an annual permit, insurance requirements, a 24/7 local contact telephone number and an escalating penalty schedule that can lead to fines or permit revocation for repeat or severe violations. The draft also ties parking to the property’s site plan and bars visible recreational vehicles, buses or trailers “in conjunction with STR use.”

Residents urged stronger location controls and more direct public review. Resident Wilson, speaking during public comment, said the draft effectively allows a hotel-like use to appear inside residential neighborhoods and argued that the ordinance “subjects our neighborhoods to the loss of property value, character and enjoyment” when short-term rentals operate next door. Wilson urged council to prohibit STRs in high-density neighborhoods instead of leaving denial decisions to a zoning administrator.

Other residents pressed for specific technical and enforcement changes. Resident Hoffman and others asked the city to adopt established definitions and safety standards (for example, using the FHA or Ohio building-code definitions of “bedroom” and placing smoke detectors per residential code requirements). Several speakers sought clearer language on parking limits, asking that guest vehicles be required to park only in the property’s attached driveway or garage and not on neighboring yards.

Two provisions drew repeated questions: a requirement that hosts provide the telephone number of a local person “within 10 miles” of the property, and language that makes certain permit denials subject to the zoning administrator’s discretionary finding that an STR would “substantially and adversely affect the character, value, and enjoyment of the residential properties in the immediate area.” Councilmember Powell and several residents said a 10-mile radius could be restrictive in some locations and argued that a time-to-arrival standard (for example, 30–45 minutes) might better reflect the city’s enforcement expectations. Resident critics also noted that the draft does not explicitly require the local contact to physically respond to calls; it only requires a phone number and leaves it to the zoning administrator to weigh whether corrective actions were taken when assessing penalties.

Several speakers recommended procedural safeguards to give neighbors more notice and more chance for input: suggested changes included requiring certified mail notifications to proximate owners and allowing conditional permits to go before a board (for example, the Board of Zoning Appeals) rather than be decided solely by an administrative official. A resident asked for a public-notice process beyond the posted 14-day sign described in the draft.

Councilmembers asked staff and the law director for clarifications. At least one councilmember said he would seek an opinion from the law director on whether an outright ban on short-term rentals in residential areas would be legally defensible. Councilmember Schaefer and others noted several technical edits needed (smoke/carbon monoxide detector placement, precise parking/site-plan language). The zoning administrator’s role in enforcement and the subjective standard in section 6(h) were focal points for concern about fairness and predictability.

No vote was taken on Ordinance 25-0004. Council directed staff and the law director to return with clarifications and recommended edits; the council also discussed inviting the law director to prepare a written legal opinion on the liability and litigation risks of a full ban versus a regulatory approach. Additional technical changes (detector placement, parking/site-plan consistency, clearer obligations for local contacts) were requested before the next reading.

The discussion included prolonged public comment and detailed line-by-line questions from council, signaling that the ordinance will return for further committee review before any final council action.