Council tables short-term rental ordinance after extended debate over scope, fees and grandfathering

The St. Charles County Council voted to table Bill 5490, an ordinance that would create licensing and spacing rules for short-term rentals in unincorporated parts of the county, after extended public comment and council debate on May 22.

Supporters of short-term rentals, including Doug and Ashley Carey, told the council their businesses rehabilitate dilapidated homes and boost local commerce. "We fix up the houses… Nine times out of 10, our properties are literally the nicest homes on the street," Doug Carey said, asking whether the proposed $200 county fee would be in addition to city fees for properties inside city limits.

Opponents and wary residents pressed a series of legal and fairness concerns. Tony Lavasco, identifying himself as a former state representative, said the bill as drafted could sweep in ordinary homeowners and home-based activity. "If you live in the house and you're renting out a bedroom… that's a no-impact business according to state law," Lavasco said, urging changes to avoid criminal penalties and to align with state statute 71.990. James Pludrey, a candidate for County Council, argued the ordinance grants an exemption to properties in the agricultural-tourism winery corridor that would be unfair to other neighborhoods.

Council discussion focused on several technical and policy points: whether existing short-term rentals would be grandfathered if they predate the ordinance; how a 600-foot density buffer would be applied in practice and whether it could unintentionally force longstanding operators out of business; whether the $200 county licensing fee would stack with municipal fees; and the severity of penalties in the draft. Councilman Brazil acknowledged the intent to address nuisance properties but supported further refinement. Multiple councilmembers said they would schedule an additional work session to consider legal advice and suggested creating an appeals or grandfathering pathway for preexisting operators.

The motion to table carried; sponsors said they will return with redrafted language addressing grandfathering, fee structure and exemptions and with legal analysis on whether the proposal conflicts with state law. No final vote on ordinance text occurred; the item will return to the council for further committee or work-session discussion.

What’s next: Councilmembers asked staff to circulate the sponsor’s proposed amendments and legal notes to the full council and to schedule another work session that includes Councilwoman York, a co-sponsor of the bill.