Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board forwards negative opinion to council on ban of new guest houses in business districts
Summary
After extended debate about housing supply, enforcement and tourism impacts, the planning board voted to forward a negative opinion to city council on a proposed amendment that would prohibit new non-owner‑occupied guest houses (short‑term rentals) in business districts. Board members cited enforcement concerns and potential unintended market effects.
The Planning Board voted to forward a negative opinion of consistency to City Council on a proposed zoning amendment that would remove guest‑house (short‑term rental) use from general and waterfront business districts.
Staff told the board the proposal implements City Council Resolution No. 2024‑77 directing staff to draft an ordinance that would, in staff's words, "ban all new short term rentals within the city." Staff said the draft would eliminate guest‑house use as an allowed use in general business and waterfront business districts while preserving existing permitted guest houses and home-occupation categories.
Board members split over whether the change would preserve housing or instead reduce supply and increase short‑term stay prices. Several members argued enforcement—not the zoning change—is the central problem; others warned that removing the use could ‘‘create an artificial limited supply’’ that benefits larger hotels. One board member said, "If you remove it by right out of there and then you don't apply for 2 years, you go in and to apply again, you lose that right to register your guest house, which, in my opinion, is a taking." Another member countered that registrations are administrative and can properly revert if not renewed.
The board also approved motions to add comp‑plan language supporting adaptive reuse and historic preservation (LU‑16 and HC‑13) to the staff report to emphasize that council should consider protections for existing small-scale operations and adaptive‑reuse projects. After discussion and the added goals, the board voted to forward a negative opinion of consistency with the comprehensive plan to City Council on the ban as drafted.
The recommendation and the board's suggested companion policies will be included in the packet the City Council receives when it considers the ordinance.
