Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Charles County council tables short‑term rental ordinance after wide public comment
Summary
After more than an hour of public testimony and council debate about scope, penalties and grandfathering, the St. Charles County Council voted to table Bill 5490 — an ordinance regulating short‑term rentals in unincorporated county — while staff and councilmembers work on revisions.
The St. Charles County Council voted May 22 to table Bill 5490, the county’s proposed short‑term rental ordinance, after extended public comment from owners and neighbors and concerns from councilmembers about unintended consequences.
Supporters of short‑term rentals, including Doug and Ashley Carey, told the council they rehabilitate dilapidated houses and provide local economic benefits. “We buy the properties with the worst on the street,” one of the Careys said, adding they rely on good reviews and local contractors to maintain properties. Opponents warned the draft ordinance is written too broadly. Former state representative Tony Lavasco said the bill could cover homeowners who rent a room occasionally and pointed to potential penalties: “You can be imprisoned up to 30 days per day,” he said, calling that outcome “drastic.”
The proposed ordinance includes a $200 county licensing fee, a 600‑foot density buffer and explicit inspection and enforcement provisions. Critics told the council the text, as drafted, does not clearly exempt no‑impact, owner‑occupied home‑based rentals and could force longstanding local operators out of business by denying grandfathering.
Council members raised similar concerns in debate. Councilman Brazil (Mr. Brazell) acknowledged the ordinance’s intent to rein in nuisance properties but said the language had “unintended consequences” and moved to table the bill to allow re‑drafting and at least one more work session. Several councilmembers urged adding an appeal or grandfathering clause for existing operators and clarifying the relationship between city and county fees. A motion to table carried.
What’s next: Councilmembers asked staff to circulate suggested edits and to schedule another work session so co‑sponsors and affected residents can review proposed changes before the ordinance returns to the council.
Ending: The council tabled Bill 5490 for further revision and possible future hearings; no final vote on the ordinance was taken at the May 22 meeting.
