Port Clinton committee reviews proposed short-term rental rules, tentatively backs higher fee for non-owner units

Port Clinton’s Economic and Community Development Committee spent most of its Feb. 18 meeting continuing a review of proposed amendments to Chapter 735, the city’s short-term rental ordinance, debating fees, complaint tracking, inspections, zoning definitions and whether to limit the number or location of short-term rentals.

Chair Beth Gillman led a discussion that covered administrative capacity and enforcement as much as licensing rules. The committee reaffirmed a tentative fee proposal aimed at supporting enforcement and administration: an annual $100 registration fee for owner-occupied short-term rentals and $500 for non-owner-occupied properties, with renewal fees equal to the initial application fees.

The fee proposal was presented as a revenue source to sustain complaint tracking, inspections and other enforcement activities rather than as a finished ordinance; committee members said the structure remains subject to further review and verification of supporting data.

Law Director Dina Shenker told the committee she had "advised Ms. Gillman and Mr. Morgan that owner occupied short term rentals are not permitted in the city limits because they fall under the dwelling definition of permanent use." The committee cited the code’s definition of "dwelling," which states in part: "Dwelling means a building or portion thereof, designed, used and intended to be used exclusively for permanent residential occupancy ... Overnight rental and occupancy of a dwelling shall be prohibited."

Members debated whether owner occupancy changes how a unit should be classified. Gillman stressed the working distinction in the discussion: short-term stays are generally defined as 30 days or fewer, while permanent residential occupancy is 30 days or more. The committee did not adopt a formal change to zoning or the code at the meeting.

A key theme was enforcement transparency. The committee discussed resident complaints and whether police reports are automatically shared with the staff who manage registration and enforcement. Shenker said all but one complaint tied to a reviewed property were unsubstantiated, and noted that one disorderly conduct citation involving a contractor was later dismissed at the complainant’s request; she also said the property owner had accused a neighbor of stalking and harassment, which complicated enforcement determinations.

To address inconsistent complaint outcomes and public frustration, members reached broad agreement on the need for a centralized, address-based complaint-tracking system that records outcomes (including dismissals and pending court actions), helps identify properties with recurring issues and informs renewal decisions. The committee noted there is currently no automatic link between police reports and the city’s registration records unless residents forward materials to staff.

Committee members also raised administrative capacity concerns, saying current staff lack bandwidth to maintain property-level histories, create and update a public map of registered short-term rentals, and coordinate enforcement across departments. Members discussed creating a combined position that would handle short-term rental administration, zoning compliance, property maintenance duties (the office is currently vacant), and inspections; they noted that administration would need to request the position.

On inspections, the committee weighed requiring inspections at initial licensing and/or renewal, and who would perform them — city staff in a proposed combined role, the Fire Department, or an outside party. Members acknowledged limits of self-reporting for smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, egress documentation and photo verification, while also noting no inspection system is infallible.

The committee flagged the need for accurate reconciled data before setting any percentage-based cap on short-term rentals. Members discussed an approximate estimate that about 8% of the residential housing stock may be in short-term rental use and expressed concern about housing availability and affordability; Richard Morgan volunteered to obtain updated figures from the Ottawa County Auditor so the committee could reconcile conflicting data sources.

On location-based restrictions — such as buffers near schools, parks, churches or libraries — committee members reached consensus to exclude such prohibitions for now, citing the city’s density of parks and churches and the potential for unintended consequences, while leaving the option to revisit location restrictions later.

The committee agreed to continue refining proposed amendments to Chapter 735, obtain reconciled data from city and county sources, further evaluate the proposed inspection/registration position, and keep discussing the items raised at the meeting. Mr. Morgan moved to adjourn, Mr. Robinson seconded and all approved; Chair Gillman adjourned the meeting at 7:31 p.m.

Next steps identified by the committee include verified data from the Ottawa County Auditor and follow-up discussion on staffing, complaint tracking and inspection protocols before any ordinance change is recommended or adopted.