Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dunes City council hears hours of testimony as short-term rental debate continues
Summary
More than 30 people spoke during a continued hearing on short-term rentals, with owners citing preservation and income, and neighbors alleging trespass, safety risks and permit violations; councilors signaled targeted enforcement and possible ordinance tweaks rather than an immediate ban.
The Dunes City Council devoted most of its Feb. 4 meeting to a continuation of a public hearing on short-term rental (STR) rules, hearing testimony from owners, managers and neighbors sharply divided over whether to retain, tighten or ban STRs.
Owners and managers told the council STRs help families afford and maintain long‑held properties and contribute revenue for city services. “Short term rentals have allowed us to maintain, update and refresh the house,” said a caller who read a submitted letter (speaker 25), noting that STR income paid for septic replacement. Former councilor Joe Giamona (speaker 19) said the ordinance cap (35 permits) and an annual permitting fee were designed to fund code enforcement and protect neighborhoods.
Opposing residents described localized impacts at specific addresses, including alleged trespass, noise, and disputed lake access. Neighbors repeatedly raised concerns about one property on Russell Drive, saying that it was advertised with higher occupancy than its finaled septic design allowed. “This has become a nuisance for us and nothing but a business opportunity for the owners and managers,” said a Russell Drive neighbor (speaker 33).
Councilors and staff acknowledged enforcement gaps and said the ordinance remains in place while the city refines enforcement tools. A council member (speaker 3) described the ordinance as a “living” document and urged focused fixes: better code-enforcement authority, clearer complaint validation, and attention to county permitting backlogs. The council did not vote on substantive changes; the meeting was continued to a later date to allow additional follow-up.
What happens next: councilors noted they will pursue targeted ordinance amendments and additional follow-up with Lane County on on-site wastewater authorizations cited by neighbors. The agenda was continued to the next meeting so members can consider revisions, legal advice, and enforcement options.
