Summary
Several residents and staff discussed the draft’s differing parking formulas for owner‑occupied homes and short‑term rentals, how 'bedroom' is defined for parking counts, and whether existing properties will become nonconforming; county staff said nonconforming statuses and registration will be addressed prior to adoption.
Short‑term rental parking emerged as a concentrated topic during the town hall as neighbors and hosts described recurring safety and congestion problems on narrow streets.
Residents said the proposed ordinance would create inconsistent outcomes because it applies different parking standards to owner‑occupied homes versus short‑term rentals. Gretchen Nagles asked whether a five‑bedroom house currently limited to four parking spaces would automatically be allowed more spaces when rented as a short‑term rental under the new rules; county staff replied that short‑term rentals would be calculated at one space per bedroom, while a standard single‑family dwelling would have two spaces plus one per bedroom over four. Staff said existing nonconforming parcels and registrations would be inventoried and addressed before final adoption so that property owners are not automatically forced into immediate new requirements without a transition plan.
Residents also pressed for a clear, objective definition of 'bedroom' for parking calculations; county staff read the proposed definition from the code, which treats a bedroom as a private room intended for sleeping, with a door and ingress window, and with specific bathroom access criteria. The county noted that enforcement is already active on weekends for common STR complaints (noise, trash, parking), that licenses can be revoked for violations, and that staff will continue to refine transition and enforcement procedures.
Next steps: staff promised to take the specific parking questions back to the zoning team, to clarify the bedroom definition in posted materials, and to outline any grandfathering or compliance timeline before a final vote.
