Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manteno board debates short-term rental reporting, occupancy limits; attorney guidance requested
Summary
Trustees discussed whether the proposed short-term rental ordinance should require operators to submit records proactively or only upon request, and whether existing R-1 occupancy rules (eight unrelated people) can be changed without violating fair housing rules. The board asked the attorney to clarify several sections before revising the draft.
Unidentified Speaker 1 raised concerns about how the proposed short-term rental rules would fit with existing residential occupancy regulations, asking whether the draft obliges rentals to follow the same limits as typical residential properties. Unidentified Speaker 3 replied that under current R-1 zoning "they would not be allowed to have more than 8 unrelated people sleep in that house overnight," and said the draft would permit up to eight people in a group home unless the R-1 ordinance is changed.
The conversation turned to recordkeeping requirements in the draft ordinance. Unidentified Speaker 5 read aloud the draft language referencing sections 3-25-8 and 3-25-7 and said, "No operator shall fail to keep, keep maintaining, deliver to the village copies of records required by section 3-25-7." Several trustees expressed concern that the ordinance as written might be interpreted to require filing full records on application rather than retaining them and producing them only on request. Unidentified Speaker 3 noted the draft states that "full and complete records for any reporting month shall be delivered to the village 5 days after demand," which board members said suggests records are retained locally and produced only upon demand.
Unidentified Speaker 4 warned that imposing occupancy limits by square footage could trigger Fair Housing Act concerns, saying, "the problem we run into is Fair Housing Act laws'that you'd view that as discriminatory." The board repeatedly said they were waiting for guidance from the attorney on whether they could lawfully reduce the R-1 unrelated-person threshold below eight.
Several trustees discussed operational options to reduce the village's administrative burden. One proposal under consideration was to collect only basic application information (owner or manager contact, location, management company) while keeping full operational records with the operator unless the village requests them. Joe (staff/legal counsel referenced by the board) and staff said they could draft a separate acknowledgement page for permit applicants making clear operators are responsible for keeping records and will provide them upon request.
The board asked staff to "clean up" the draft ordinance, remove items the board agreed were unnecessary, and bring a revised version to a future planning commission or committee meeting for further review. The meeting did not adopt the ordinance; the board deferred substantive changes until they receive the attorney's written guidance and a redlined draft.
The board also discussed enforcement challenges, noting overcrowding codes tied to bedroom/house size exist but are difficult to prove in practice. No formal change to the R-1 occupancy limit was made during the meeting.
