Casco Township officials expect to pass rules to regulate short-term property renting next month.
Township supervisor Allan Overhiser said no board members opposed any major portions of a rental regulatory ordinance drafted by an informal committee in August.
“There’s no reason we can’t get this up for approval on Nov. 20,” he said at a special meeting of the township board Monday, Oct. 23. “I think everyone understands the need to move as fast as they can.”
Because the current zoning does not expressly permit short-term renting—despite longtime historical use—it is prohibited. A moratorium expired last week that had suspended that prohibition since February; it was put in place to give the township time to decide where and how much renting would be allowed and the manner in which the new rules would be enforced.
Overhiser said the regulation and enforcement structure was being created parallel with the township planning commission’s work to determine the land use rules for renting; those rules will be in a separate zoning ordinance.
Planning commission member and township board trustee Judy Graff said the zoning ordinance likely would not be completed within a month.
“I would say we’re not one meeting away from finishing our draft,” she said. The planning commission has been deliberating the complexities of the land-use rules for approximately nine months.
It meets next on Nov. 8.
Township board members said they would attempt to schedule a meeting to discuss the enforcement rules on Nov. 13, ideally with township legal counsel Ron Bultje on hand to answer questions. Board members will also be sending Bultje questions by email prior to the meeting.
Special committee
Last month, Graff objected to the formation of the committee that drafted the enforcement rules, otherwise known as a rental regulatory ordinance, saying it blindsided and supplanted the work of the planning commission.
In a Sept. 20 letter to planning commissioners, Graff said, “The Board’s decision (to accept the draft), to me, was disrespectful to the Planning Commission members, the Planning Commission efforts to date and its compliance to follow Casco’s long established zoning change process, a process heralded by the Board as standard procedure months ago. I also feel the Board’s decision was already made before the meeting started.”
Overhiser requested Bultje to respond to Graff’s concerns; the lawyer did so, saying the committee had not overstepped.
Bultje explained that because the ordinance being drafted was concerned only with enforcement and regulation, it was separate from the responsibility of the planning commission.
“The rental ordinance as proposed talks about occupancy limits, smoke detectors, inspections, insurance requirement, trash receptacles; those are not zoning issues. Those are regulation issues, which are appropriate to put in a regulatory ordinance,” he said.
Graff said Monday the fact that the enforcement rules included land-use definitions made it look a lot like land-use rules.
“When you interweave regulatory items with land-use items it confuses everybody,” she said.
Graff said ultimately she saw the distinction being made but remained concerned the planning commission was being sidelined by a proposed “harmonizing committee” being formed to look at both the regulations as well as the land-use rules and make sure they don’t conflict.
Bultje said, “The harmonizing committee’s report is just another report to be considered; the planning commission doesn’t operate in a vacuum; it gets to see what the township board is thinking (on enforcement).
“(The committee) has absolutely no authority over the planning commission.”
Overhiser said he recalled several planning commission discussions have run into regulatory questions.
“So, my thinking was, what’s the harm in putting out a sample regulatory ordinance in terms of what it could look like?” Overhiser said.
Graff said, “Talking to many people, the impression is the board handing that to selected members of the planning commission (says) ‘this is the way it’s going.’ I think we really need to have a clarity discussion. I don’t think it’s been consistently understood by all of the planning commission and members of the public.”
Reactions
Lois Schwartz of the Mt. Pleasant Lakeshore subdivision said the township board appeared to be headed toward allowing exactly the kinds of disruptive renting that concerns neighbors.
“When I look at everything being discussed, to me it seems this is a done deal,” Schwartz said.
Specifically, discussions around allowing rentals for a minimum three days was problematic.
“It ignores so much of what has been expressed publicly, because it is the three days that represents the frequent turnover,” she said.
She said those who rent for a week or longer typically don’t create the kinds of problems she said shorter-term renters do.
“People who come for three days in many cases are partying, and this is what causes the traffic and the noise and liquor and the lack of safety,” she said. “Three days is disastrous.”
Pacific Avenue resident Debbie Weaver said the data does not support that, noting the township’s dozen complaints over the past renting season did not constitute a big issue.
“I think the good neighbor policy made a huge difference,” Weaver said, noting she had managed 90 rentals over 12 seasons and hadn’t seen a connection with bad behavior with shorter rentals. She said the discussions over the past year had improved the rental process in the area, but the township shouldn’t severely limit the number of rentals possible each season.
“I don’t really think it’s fair for someone to say how much money I can make in a week,” Weaver said. “It’s my property, it’s my right, as long as I followed the ordinances. I think it would be horrible if I had people parking in the street, making noise—I agree, I wouldn’t do that.”
Several others voiced agreement, saying the economy appeared to be improving, if anything.
Highfield Beach resident Chris Barczyk was unconvinced and remained concerned about the saturation of the rentals. He said the board should look into options Bultje provided in August.
In an Aug. 16 memo to the township’s zoning enforcement agency, Bultje said, “...I suspect the township could require some geographical separation from one short-term rental to another to avoid saturation” similar to how adult foster care facilities are restricted.
Barczyk said, “How do you stop a commercial entity... with full intent to do shared development for short-term rentals? You can choose to limit it within districts or use overlay districts, none of which I’ve heard you discuss.
“Why aren’t we having a discussion about some limitations of districts or areas, how to address commercial concerns. The Weavers have one house, that’s one thing. How do we stop someone coming in and building 50?”
Weaver said the market would ultimately help.
“There’s not going to be 50 homes built and rented,” she said. “I think it will just naturally level off.”
In a separate interview, Overhiser said the township board was trying to balance competing interests.
“And also recognizing it appears to be a significant amount of local tourism activity,” he said. “It’s all coming in to play. There’s no clear road map for this. But our moratorium has expired and we need something in place for next season.
“Working on parallel paths with the planning commission made sense.”
Contact Ryan Lewis at rmlewis@allegannews.com or (269) 673-5534.
.