HomeMy WebLinkAboutCombined Committee Mintues 5-9-24
2
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 5-9-24
2. Docket No. PZ-2024-00041 OA: Non-Dwelling Short-Term Rental Standards UDO Amendment
The applicant seeks amend the Unified Development Ordinance to establish standards and definitions for Non-
Dwelling Short-Term Rentals. Filed by the Department of Community Services on behalf of the Carmel Plan
Commission
Petitioner: Adrienne Keeling on behalf of DOCS:
• Keeling provided an introductory summary of the intent of the ordinance which was to add a definition of
what a non-dwelling short-term rental is to the Unified Development Ordinance and to establish a Special
Exception approval process for them along with similar regulations that are currently in place for regular
Airbnb style short-term rentals.
• Keeling noted the proposed limitations that staff had provided within the draft ordinance including one-year
approvals that would be reapplied for annually, three maximum code enforcement citations before an
approval would be automatically revoked, that the permanent resident must be on the property for the
duration of the rental period, that the permanent resident must obtain $1,000,000 in liability insurance,
operation hours between 10 A.M and 8 P.M., and limitations on number of rental dates.
Department Report: None (covered in opening petitioner statement)
Committee Comments:
Minnaar requested clarification from legal counsel on the applicability of the proposed ordinance to Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs). Legal counsel Lynch-Mcgrath acknowledged the complexity of the matter and stated that
the underlying zoning of a PUD would be considered in determining the ordinances application. If it was for
example a primarily residential PUD it would be governed by the ordinance since the ordinance directly includes
residential zoning districts. The only thing that would trump that would be if the PUD had its own specific
language about non-dwelling short-term rentals, which no currently existing PUD within Carmel has. Minnaar
requested that language describing the applicability of the ordinance to PUDs be included into the language of t he
ordinance to provide additional clarity. Buckler and Zoccola concurred with Minnaar on this matter.
Campagna: Is the $1,000,000 liability insurance standard for that type of thing?
Lynch-Mcgrath: Yes
Zoccola: Is it $1,000,000 per occurrence or in the aggregate?
Lynch-Mcgrath: It is not specific.
Minnaar: I have a legal question about that [liability insurance] as well. I called my insurance agent to find out if
the insurance coverage on my swimming pool would be covered in an event like this. He said probably not and
that most insurance companies would not cover something like this.
Zoccola: You could add something that would show it is coverage for this type of rental use. Is there any way to
actually ensure there is coverage for this as opposed to just homeowners’ coverage which I don’t know if it would
cover it or not?
Further discussion ensued amongst the commissioners cumulating in a general concurrence that additional
specificity needed to be added to the language of the draft ordinance regarding the amount of insurance, type of
insurance, duration of the insurance, and proof of insurance required to be provided to staff.
Zoccola: In D-2 we have three citations, is that per year? What are you thinking about three citations before their
certificate is revoked?
Keeling: I think that since we are proposing that each approval is for a period of one year that that would be
subject to the same time period.
Westermeier: Then I would take that down to two, three seems like a lot, especially in a seasonal application.
Buckler: I agree, third strike you are out.
Lynch-Mcgrath: That was one I actually had some notes on. I would recommend that say two notices of
violation or citations. We don’t always issue citations right away. They might be given a notice of violation first.
Minnaar: Can we go back to section C. for just one second under required information for application? I know it
says motor vehicle registration, drivers license, voter registration, and tax documents. I know this is probably a
3
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 5-9-24
little nitpicky, but we know a lot of people own two homes and they may take a homestead credit and rent the
other house or vice versa and so like a utility bill you could be renting your house to someone, and you are paying
the utility bill. I mean I know it would go to the address where the owner is but…I don’t know I am just being
nitpicky, I’m sorry.
Zoccola: No, so you want owner occupied. You want proof that it is occupied by the owner.
Minnaar: Yes, whatever that might be. Do you feel these documents…I mean I know when I rented, I didn’t
have to pay my utility my water and sewer, the landlord paid it.
Keeling: I would need to check but I believe that the definition of permanent resident who would be qualified to
apply for these could be a renter. As long as they are the permanent resident whether they own it or rent it. I
would need to switch screens to look up that definition in the UDO but I believe that is the case.
Further discussion ensued amongst the commissioners that analyzed the renter vs owner occupying dynamic.
Some members of the commission thought a ban on renters’ ability to utilize the non-dwelling short-term rental
application might be wise while staff recommended against that, keeping things in line with how the current
short-term rental ordinance is written. The owner would have to provided sign off regardless. Staff did agree
clarification on who holds the required insurance policy (the renter or the owner) should be explored prior to
adoption of the ordinance but noted that regardless of who holds the policy it must be tied to protecting the
property.
Zoccola: We have got that the permanent resident must post a clearly printed sign of the location of fire safety
equipment…any fire extinguisher. Just questioning the word “any” if we should assume they are going to have
fire extinguishers. So strike “any.”
Lynch-Mcgrath: Was your question strike “any” or to require fire extinguishers?
Zoccola: Seems like we should require all necessary safety equipment to be on site so I think we would probably
require a fire extinguisher. Just reading “any fire extinguisher” leaves open the possibility there are none. So just
strike “any.”
Minnaar: What is a Registered Retail Merchant Certificate?
Keeling explained that the Certificate is the conduit through which the state collects sales tax on these rentals.
Having proof of one is a key component of the current short-term rental ordinance.
Lynch -Mcgrath clarified to the Commission the reason for 275 days of occupancy being included in the
ordinance is because 275 days of occupancy at a property is what the UDO defines as making a location a
permanent residence. She also suggested adding an additional clause to the text in section C. that would allow
staff to ask for, and the petitioner be required to provide, any additional documentation or information not outright
listed. The committee was supportive of such a clause.
Campagna: So, are we recommending proof of annual renewal, is that part of it? Yes? Then did we confirm
liability a million dollars per incident or…I don’t know if we came to a conclusion on that?
The committee concurred that it should be per incident/occurrence and legal counsel indicated that they had noted
that desire and would work on appropriate language for it.
Buckler: On the one year is it one year from the time the application is made, granted, is it a calendar year? The
reason I’m asking is well let’s say pool season is Memorial Day to Labor Day is prime time and the permit
expires and if it’s the date of when the permit is acquired and you acquired the permit July 5th you have got some
time before your permit expires to do things that might not be caught until the renewal process. So, I am curious
when the application begins. I mean when the clock starts ticking is what I’m asking.
Lynch-Mcgrath: Similar to the short-term rentals like the Airbnbs it would start the day it is granted, so not the
day it is applied for.
Commissioners Buckler and Minnaar suggested more precise restrictions such as a cut off date for applications or
an application window since this is a primarily seasonal activity and were concerned that a renewal would need to
happen again during the midst of the high season activity the following year. Director Hollibaugh indicated that
4
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 5-9-24
that is a valid concern but that it is up to the applicant to take responsibility to manage their application timeline
not Community Services staff.
Westermeier: Have we adequately thought of, or do we have language in their [the ordinance] that covers
everything? The pickleball courts, the tennis courts, you just said the firepit, there could be something that we
don’t even know coming along next that is a rental?
Hollibaugh: You mean like renting out for a dog park? Legal thinks our kennel ordinance for that one little thing
but you are right.
Director Hollibaugh gave way to Keeling who went on to highlight the next section of the ordinance that
addressed Commissioner Westermeier’s concerns. The separate second sub-section generically covered all other
non-dwelling short-term rentals like the examples she had listed off with separate regulations slightly differing
from the pool specific regulations preceding it.
There was some concern raised by Commissioners Westermeier and Zoccola that the language was still not
specific enough but Commissioner Campagna reassured them that it was of his opinion that the wording was
sufficient to “cover the gamut” of potential rentals.
Commissioner Buckler reiterated and clarified her concern she earlier expressed about the renewal date. She was
concerned that if they renewed mid pool season that they could “reset” their code enforcement strikes essentially
getting up to four strike chances instead of the intended two strikes. Two prior to renewal in the summer and two
after renewal in the summer. Director Hollibaugh attempted to alleviate that concern by reiterating that the
renewal is not automatic, and that prior code enforcement activity would be considered during the reapproval
process and that problematic properties were not guaranteed to receive renewal.
Zoccola: The number of non-dwelling short-term rentals shall not exceed x per x (day/week/month), I think you
guys are looking to us for thoughts on that one?
The commissioners discussed a variety of options ranging from once a week to once a month. They also desired
clarification on if any approval for any given day meant one event per day or if multiple events could take place
on an approved day. It was the general desire of the committee to limit it to one event. Many concerns about the
number of days/events allowed seemed to arise out of the fear of large parties. Director Hollibaugh suggested that
if there was a limitation on the number of people, ten for example, that could alleviate some of those concerns
about quantity of rentals while still allowing for these rentals to be used as a positive opportunity for smaller
groups. For example, a family with two kids might want to rent the pool for two days one week.
Jeff Worrell, Carmel City Councilor, a proponent of the proposed ordinance was invited to speak.
Worrell: So I think what Mr. Hollibaugh was trying to say was if maybe we talk about the ten first that will help
us with cadence, but we have to talk about length of rental. I am thinking five hours because I could if I have lots
of money rent it for twenty-four, forty-eight, or seventy-two hours. The weekly [rental allowance] is dangerous
because it is every Saturday that I lose my backyard because that’s the day everyone wants to rent the pool, so
weekly does not work in my opinion. Then if we just say six in the approval period that could also mean every
Saturday. So I knew you guys were much smarter than me so I love the dialogue, but I think we have to talk about
not setting up a system that allows every Saturday unless we are willing to cap the number of people. Ten people
as we kind of suggested that takes a lot of this away. Someone can still have ten people over and have a loud party
but, its not…I don’t know…its just not as…they might go somewhere else to do that.
The only other thing I was just going to mention is I have not received one single comment, suggestion, or request
from anyone who has wanted to do this. There is another news story running tonight on Fox 59, it’s not like no
one knows this is going on. So, I would also say we need to err on the side of people who are being harmed by
this and not on the side of people who might have good intentions we don’t know about because they haven’t
spoken up. Then I don’t know if it’s possible, if the good intended people speak up and do want to tell us we
made a mistake we could always go back and fix something. Right now I am worried about every Saturday, more
than five hours, and whatever that bulk amount is.
The committee was generally amenable with Councilor Worrell’s suggestions and were agreeable with including
5
Combined Residential & Commercial Committee 5-9-24
language limiting rentals to a maximum five-hour period between the hours of 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. with a
maximum of ten attendees at any rental time. Commissioner Campagna provided an additional suggestion of
limiting the rental to once a month, of which the committee was also amenable.
Lynch-Mcgrath: I do have one suggestion. I would suggest no more than ten individuals but that one of those
individuals had to be an adult or legal guardian.
The committee was in full agreement to include the proposed revision from legal counsel. Per recommendation of
the committee the adult would have to be at minimum 21, not the standard age of majority 18. Commissioner
Buckler also recommending adding language to exclude adults with a criminal background as well.
Buckler: I am really not being facetious about the criminal record part. If I am going to apply for a permit I think
it would be helpful to know that a background check is going to be required. How ever that is incorporated, it
doesn’t have to be in this section, but when I am applying for an exclusion to this prohibition by virtue of asking
for a permit I think it would be helpful if the form would say background checks will be conducted, or however
you normally do things.
Westermeier: But the person doesn’t fill out each time? If I am going to do it on Saturday May 11th and its going
to be Joe Blows ten people…I mean once you have the permit each time you don’t…the city doesn’t know…
Zoccola: So, Adrianne how do you handle most other rentals regarding that piece of it? Is that you typically don’t
check? Or is it part of the normal application process? How does that work?
Keeling: No, that is not typically part of the application process but to continue on the conversation that started
this permit approval is for a one-year period, but in order to do so they are agreeing to these limitations. They are
not coming to us for each event they are having in May or June or July. This is a blanket approval for them to
operate under these conditions and limitations for a one-year period. I am not aware of any applications or
anything we have had in our office that has involved background checks.
Campagna: I would imagine the insurance approval process is pretty stringent on that.
Commissioner Buckler went on to reiterate her objective was just an attempt to thwart bad things happening in the
future and noted how other programs and events involving children can require background checks. Councilman
Worrell was invited back up to the podium to speak and thanked Buckler for her concerns but told her that the
Council had similar conversations and ultimately thought that the scope needed to remain limited in order to ward
off legal challenges and to allow people to still have freedom in managing their own private property as they
deem fit to a reasonable degree.
A brief conversation ensued regarding addition of setback requirements to the ordinance. The committee was in
general agreement no such requirements should be added to the text at the time. Director Hollibaugh indicated he
was ok with the lack of setback requirements due to the other limitations on size of the party and duration of the
rentals that had already been put into the draft ordinance.
Commissioner Minnaar inquired about what would be required for a citation to be issued. Keeling explained that
a call alone would not be enough and that code enforcement or police would have to verify the complaint first to
issue a notice of violation. Keeling went on to confirm with the committee that the intent was that limitations
placed on pool rentals would be reflected exactly for all other non-dwelling short-term rentals.
Lynch-Mcgrath suggested the deletion of the word “potential” in the whereas statement at the beginning of the
ordinance when referring to negative effects because negative effects have already been confirmed. The
committee agreed with this suggestion.
Motion by Zoccola and seconded by Minnaar to send the ordinance as amended back to the full Plan Commission
with a favorable recommendation.
APPROVED 5-0 absent Coleman, Hill, & Kirsh
_______________________________ _____________________________________
Bric Butler – Recording Secretary Sue Westermeier - Committee Co-Chair