Garland council reviews tougher short-term rental rules, compliance agreements and inspections proposed

A Garland resident and city staff urged council to tighten rules for short-term rentals as staff presented amendments that would focus enforcement on repeat problem properties and add inspection and fee changes.

Roxanne Seibert, a Garland resident and realtor who lives next door to a large STR on Ridgetale Drive, told council she and neighbors “are worried about the permitting” and described noise and privacy problems from a permitted STR next door: “I feel like there has to be a privacy fence.” She said her experience getting an STR permit in nearby Rowlett involved a $500 fee, inspection and required repairs — “I had to do like $3,000 worth of repairs before I could get my permit.” Seibert urged Garland to require more rigorous permitting and inspections.

City Attorney Brian England reviewed options in light of recent case law, saying city courts have reached divergent results on STR limits. He described a proposed enforcement approach that targets “problem properties” rather than applying a single new ban across the city. Under the draft, code enforcement could suspend a short-term rental permit after repeated prohibited-conduct violations (noise, parking, public disturbances); the owner would then have 10 days to appeal or enter a compliance agreement with the city to remain in operation. England said compliance agreements are a strong due-process tool because they document the owner’s acknowledgment of problems and set specific corrective obligations.

Staff proposed several specific elements for compliance agreements or the ordinance: requiring a minimum rental term (currently proposed as a 40-hour minimum), limiting occupancy on problem properties (proposed cap of 10 people for properties placed under a compliance agreement), restricting outdoor activity hours (a suggested 9 p.m.–9 a.m. quiet period), and requiring on-site or fence-line noise monitors on repeat-offender properties so property owners receive real-time alerts when decibel thresholds are exceeded. England noted courts in different Texas appeals courts have ruled differently on some of these measures and said placing the stricter elements in a compliance agreement reduces litigation risk.

Several council members pushed for additional steps now: increasing the annual STR permit fee (current fee cited in the meeting, $50), requiring annual interior inspections and floor-plan submittals at application, requiring proof of liability insurance, and making unpermitted interior conversions (new bedrooms/bathrooms not authorized by building permits) a clear ground for permit revocation. Councilmember Dutton called for more aggressive, up-front rules and cited other Texas cities that charge higher fees, require higher insurance limits and limit STRs by zone or cluster. Councilmember Moore urged enforcement of existing codes first and emphasized the difficulty and cost of litigation.

Staff and the city attorney agreed to return with draft language and permitting/inspection fee recommendations. Council indicated consensus on pursuing higher permit fees, annual inspections incorporated into the permit renewal, stronger compliance agreements for repeat problem properties, and exploring insurance and interior‑floor‑plan requirements. Several members asked staff to bring back specific draft ordinance language and a fee schedule for council review before final adoption.

The discussion did not include a formal vote; staff said the item remains scheduled for further drafting and that the updated ordinance would be brought back for council consideration.