Greenville County ad hoc committee launches review of short-term rental rules

Greenville County’s short-term rental ad hoc committee voted to appoint Councilor Seaman as chair and opened a countywide review of possible regulations for short-term rentals, zoning overlaps and enforcement options.

Staff told the committee they had circulated City of Greenville materials as a starting point and provided a high-level draft ordinance for discussion. ‘‘I gave this copy to all of you…what is Greenville City doing? I think that should be just a baseline for where we start,’’ staff said, presenting the materials and a ‘‘50,000-foot’’ draft.

Some committee members urged caution about adopting the city’s approach wholesale. Mr. Schmidt said, ‘‘I think Greenville would be the worst place to look at for a baseline because they are hyper restrictive,’’ arguing that strict city rules could burden ‘‘mom-and-pop’’ operators in less-dense parts of the county. He recommended staff compile rules from other South Carolina counties — York, Charleston and Richland were mentioned — to compare approaches.

Committee members and staff agreed the policy should focus on short stays rather than midterm or long-term housing. The draft materials use 30 days as a threshold; members discussed options ranging from about two weeks to 30 days and otherwise agreed the goal is to target weekend and multi-night rentals rather than professionals staying for a month.

On enforcement, staff and members discussed a largely complaint-driven system coupled with a free county registration to locate rentals and provide contacts. As one member summarized the enforcement posture: ‘‘We’re not gonna go out there and actually look for it…We’ll address it when there’s a complaint,’’ and committee discussion included possible escalation for repeated violations, including penalties or license restrictions.

The committee also raised scope issues beyond houses: staff noted recent complaints about commercialized uses such as private pools rented through platforms like Swimply and warned that regulations might need to cover those nontraditional rentals as well. Members asked whether the rules should apply to entire parcels or to accessory dwelling units (ADUs); staff said ADUs are not currently allowed in unzoned areas and that different approaches may be needed for zoned versus unzoned property.

Staff reported preliminary work surveying all 46 counties in the state, finding that only a minority have affirmative regulatory programs beyond taxation or basic registration; Charleston, York and Beaufort Counties were cited as examples with more formal programs. Staff said they intend to finish a comparative spreadsheet for committee review.

Next steps: staff will compile county comparisons and circulate draft definitions and enforcement options to committee members. The group agreed to reconvene on March 9 to continue drafting possible ordinance language and other implementation details.

Action taken: the committee approved the appointment of Councilor Seaman as chair by voice vote during the meeting.