St. Charles County staff unveils short‑term rental licensing and inspection ordinance

The county presented a draft short‑term rental (STR) ordinance that would create a licensing and inspection program for dwellings rented for fewer than 30 consecutive days in unincorporated St. Charles County. The measure, presented by the county presenter, would add a new chapter (proposed Chapter 660) to the county code to license STR operators and set safety, occupancy and operational standards.

The presenter said the ordinance would cover units rented "for fewer than 30 consecutive days" and exclude hotels, motels and bed‑and‑breakfasts already regulated under Chapter 234. Applicants would list the owner (as shown on property tax records), an operator if different, and designate a local contact "available within 45 minutes" to respond to complaints or incidents, the presenter said. The license would be valid for two years and must be reported if ownership, management or contact information changes within 10 days.

Staff outlined application requirements including evidence of compliant bedroom counts, on‑site parking and a posted set of house rules for guests covering occupancy, parking, trash and noise. "The director may issue a standard template for compliance with this house rule," the presenter said, describing how the rules would steer guests to the local contact rather than calling county staff for routine issues.

The draft includes a proposed 600‑foot density limitation measured property line to property line; licenses would be issued on a first‑come, first‑served basis to prevent overconcentration in residential subdivisions. Staff also proposed occupancy limits of a maximum of two people per lawful bedroom (excluding infants under 1) and an explicit ban on using STRs as party houses or event venues.

Inspections would be required before issuance, focused on health and safety (working smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, safe egress for basement bedrooms, obvious safety hazards). After licensing, inspections would generally be complaint‑ or renewal‑driven, staff said; repeated problems could trigger additional inspections or administrative action. Fees would be set to recover administrative and inspection costs, not to be a new tax or profit center for the county.

For enforcement, staff said the director could immediately suspend a license for public safety concerns and initiate a revocation process that includes written notice and an opportunity for hearing; appeals would be available to the director of administration and to the courts. Violations could be prosecuted in municipal court with fines "up to $500 and up to 30 days imprisonment," and each day a violation continues would constitute a separate offense.

Staff presented two maps: one showing roughly 46 STRs identified from advertising and tax records across the unincorporated county, and an Agricultural Tourism (AT) overlay map with a one‑mile buffer that would exclude about 12 identified STRs associated with wineries and agri‑tourism from the new licensing rules. The presenter emphasized the ordinance "will not address in real time the problems that you're probably hearing" such as noise or parties — those remain immediate police matters and the county's enforcement path is a notice‑and‑remedy process that may take days or go to court.

Council members asked clarifying questions about inspection frequency, the first‑come licensing process and how the county would learn of problems if guests complain only to owners. Staff acknowledged those operational details remain to be refined and that the draft leaves some specifics open for council discussion; the county invited revisions and said it may target a May 11 introduction if remaining blanks are filled.

Next steps: staff said the draft can be refined and returned for introduction; if passed, the ordinance would have a delayed effective date (six months after adoption) to allow the department to create administrative processes, forms and templates.