Public speakers urge both caution and opening for short‑term rentals; council moves ordinance to third reading

Mentor City Council on Oct. 7 heard extended public comment on Ordinance 25‑O‑088, a proposed repeal and replacement of the city’s short‑term rental chapter, and voted to place the ordinance on third reading two weeks later.

Why it matters: The ordinance would replace the city’s short‑term rental ban with a regulatory approach that backers say balances property rights and neighborhood protections. Supporters emphasized a cap and local inspections; opponents emphasized parking, safety and preserving neighborhood character. The state’s potential action on short‑term rental regulation was discussed as an unresolved constraint.

What supporters said

Brian Epps, a lifelong resident who identified himself as living on Jackson Street, urged council to approve the ordinance, calling it “balanced common sense regulation.” Epps said the city has roughly 23 short‑term rentals in a housing stock he described as more than 20,000 homes and urged a cap of 32 citywide (8 per ward). He told council the ordinance would add annual inspections, owner accountability, definitions in Chapter 7‑52 and a 3% lodging tax for city coffers and a 5% county allocation for lakeshore improvements. He cited a unanimous planning commission recommendation (Aug. 14) and described the ordinance as building on existing nuisance, noise and parking codes.

What concerns were raised

Martina Matthews, a resident of Willowbrook, told council she was attending for the first time and said her street is narrow with limited on‑street parking. Matthews said two recently sold houses on her street operate as short‑term rentals and asked for clarification on the ordinance’s definitions (short, medium, long‑term rentals), parking effects and how the city would prevent a “party town” scenario. Planning staff offered to provide her a copy of the ordinance and to answer follow‑up questions.

Council discussion and state preemption question

During the vote to move the ordinance to third reading, a council member asked whether adopting local rules now could result in those rules being grandfathered if the state later issues its own regulations. Law Director Joe said that is uncertain: the state might preempt local control, permit local regulation under state statute, or take other approaches; the interplay with Ohio’s Home Rule provision is unknown pending any state action. Councilors who spoke said they preferred to have a local regulatory framework prepared rather than wait for state guidance.

Action taken

A motion to place Ordinance 25‑O‑088 on third reading carried; the ordinance was scheduled to return in two weeks for a third reading and possible final action. No final adoption occurred at this meeting.

Provenance

Public comment and ordinance discussion are recorded in the meeting transcript between roughly 979 and 1616 seconds; Brian Epps’ remarks begin at about 1005 seconds and Martina Matthews’ comments occur near 1284 seconds. The law director’s comments about state preemption appear in the council discussion later in the item.

What remains unresolved

The council did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting. Several details raised by speakers—parking impacts on narrow streets, the exact definitions and enforcement mechanics—were not resolved on the record and were referred to planning staff for clarification. The ultimate authority of a local ordinance could be affected by future state statute or regulation; the meeting transcript records that outcome as unknown.