Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025 02 14 Short-Term Rentals Staff Report for 2-19 PC mtg 1 JEFFERSON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brent A. Butler, AICP, Chief Strategy Officer DATE: February 14, 2025 (for February 19 Planning Commission meeting) SUBJECT: Answers to Planning Commission questions regarding proposed regulations governing Short-Term Rentals STATEMENT OF ISSUE: County staff received numerous questions about short-term rentals (STRs) and divided these into two categories. The first category of questions originated from the Planning Commission and are detailed below. The second category of questions were submitted to the Planning Commission from the public as part of written and/or oral testimony. Staff will provide answers to the Planning Commission’s unanswered questions at the February 19 meeting; staff will also include answers to other relevant questions submitted by the general public as part of its presentation to the Planning Commission. County staff determined that in order for the Board of County Commissioners (“Board” or “BoCC”) to adopt a new STR Ordinance prior to the moratorium’s expiration, the Planning Commission must forward a recommendation to the Board at the conclusion of Planning Commission deliberations on February 19. Alternatively, the Planning Commission could schedule one or more “special meetings” to meet this deadline, if county staff and Planning Commissioners are available. As stated above, staff compiled answers to questions most recently shared at the February 5, 2025 meeting. These questions include the following: 1) I would like to know what happens if the expiration of the moratorium happens before the BoCC is able to adopt a new ordinance? Moratorium are governed by the Revised Code of Washington 35A.63.220, as more fully set forth below https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35A.63.220. If the moratorium expires before a new ordinance is adopted, the regulations in existence prior to the moratorium remain in full force and effect, and any short-term rental applications shall be processed as they had been before the moratorium was in place. An option for the Board would be to extend the moratorium in order to adopt an ordinance prior to expiration. 2) What does grandfathering mean to someone who has a short term rental right now? Grandfathering refers to a provision in which a use is legally established in a given location prior to adoption of rules governing that type of use in that specific location. This term applies to uses, structures, and/or lots. Instead of grandfathering, the Jefferson County Code uses the term legal nonconforming as set forth in the Jefferson County Code (JCC) 18.20.260, among other sections: 2 JCC 18.20.260. A legal nonconforming use or structure is one that conformed to all applicable codes in effect on the date of its creation, but no longer complies due to subsequent changes in the code. Nonconformity is different than and is not to be confused with illegality (see the definitions of “nonconforming,” “nonconforming use,” and “illegal use” in Chapter 18.10 JCC). Legal nonconforming uses and structures are commonly referred to as “grandfathered.” See also, https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/planning/administration/nonconforming-uses. If you obtained an STR permit under regulations prior to the moratorium, you would (most likely) have a legal nonconforming use. If you have been continually operating an STR business since before there was a requirement in Jefferson County to obtain land use approval for STRs, you may be considered legal nonconforming as to sue. 3) Does grandfathering mean that the newly proposed 3-year validity rule applies to my permit? Yes, it means that if you obtained a permit and that permit is valid, e.g., hasn’t expired, you will not be subject to the 3-year limit unless specifically stated in the ordinance. The Planning Commission’s proposed ordinance specifically excludes existing permits that are valid and in place. Some governments codify that permits issued prior to a specific date must also comply with the newly adopted provisions, see Attachment B – Pacific County. Nonetheless, any provisions restricting an owner’s use would likely be subject to a three-part test established by the Supreme Court in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978) that evaluates whether STR restrictions constitute a regulatory taking. This includes considering the following: (1) Economic Impact on the Property Owner, (2) Interference with Investment-Backed Expectations, and (3) the Character of the Government Action. 4) What’s the trigger for Large Onsite Septic System? • The first underlined reference below shows that the local health officer may only permit OSS with design flows up to 3,500 gallons per day; • The second underlined reference below shows the minimum design flow requirement per bedroom being 120 gallons per day; • The third underlined reference below shows the minimum total design flow requirement being 240 gallons per day per residence. WAC 246-272A-0020 (Applicability) (1) The local health officer: (a) Shall apply this chapter to OSS treating sewage and dispersing effluent from residential sources with design flows up to three thousand five hundred gallons per day; WAC 246-272A-0230 (Design requirements – General) (1) On-site sewage systems may only be designed by professional engineers, licensed under chapter 18.43 RCW or on-site sewage treatment system designers, licensed under chapter 18.210 RCW, except: (a) If at the discretion of the local health officer, a resident owner of a single-family 3 residence not adjacent to a marine shoreline is allowed to design a system for that residence; or (b) If the local health officer performs the soil and site evaluation, the health officer is allowed to design a system. (2) The designer shall use the following criteria when developing a design for an OSS: (a) All sewage from the building served is directed to the OSS; (b) Sewage tanks have been reviewed and approved by the department; (c) Drainage from the surface, footing drains, roof drains, subsurface stormwater infiltration systems, and other nonsewage drains is prevented from entering the OSS, the area where the OSS is located, and the reserve area; (d) The OSS is designed to treat and disperse the sewage volume as follows: (i) For single-family residences: (A) The operating capacity is based on 45 gpd per capita with two people per bedroom. (B) The minimum design flow per bedroom per day is the operating capacity of ninety gallons multiplied by 1.33. This results in a minimum design flow of one hundred twenty gallons per bedroom per day. (C) A factor greater than 0.33 to account for surge capacity may be required by the local health officer. (D) The local health officer may require an increase of the design flow for dwellings with anticipated greater flows, such as larger dwellings. (E) The minimum design flow is two hundred forty gallons per day. 5) Grandfathering – say anything permitted to 2018 or 2015 will be grandfathered in? Could grandfathering include other structures that don’t meet current code but with minor adjustments could? Yes, if a use was permitted in 2018 or 2015, and remained operational and valid until a change in regulations no longer permits it, the use generally would be considered a legal nonconforming use, or as is frequently stated, “grandfathered.” While clauses permitting legal nonconforming uses frequently called ‘grandfather clauses’ allow existing uses to continue even if they don't meet new regulations, it typically does not apply to situations where the use poses a significant safety risk to the public health and welfare. This means, if a use is deemed unsafe, it must be brought up to current safety standards, regardless of its previous legal status. That’s why Jefferson County requires smoke, CO detectors, and bedroom egress, among other requirements for legal nonconforming uses. Nonconformities (grandfathering) specific to lots, structures or uses means, for short-term rentals, if the STR use was in compliance with the past codes or, alternatively, if there were no regulations, a permit would be sufficient to establish evidence of compliance with past codes or, in the absence of regulations, proof of advertising of the short-term rental. For example, county staff identified that an inn located on Marrowstone Island advertised cabins as far back as the 1950s. So, in the context of this inn, the use would need to protect the safety of new occupants by adding smoke and CO-detectors, minor changes, that enable the use to continue as nonconforming. 4 6) Our attempt was to keep professionals or businesses from purchasing 10 units for use as short-term rentals. Is there a possibility of having an owner who has one property where he, she or they are onsite and one offsite? As a point of clarification, I assume that you are referring to a property owner that has two or more properties in Jefferson County, and lives on one of the properties. If this is the case, staff believes that the Planning Commission could recommend adjusting this proposed ordinance to authorize a landlord to rent one or more properties for less than 30-days if that landlord resides in Jefferson County to establish, as a condition for permitting those short-term rentals. 7) Could we have one onsite and one offsite as a limit to get to the heart of this issue? Paraphrasing this question, can the ordinance require that a landlord has one onsite short-term rental and one offsite short-term rental as a limit? For example, a landlord has a property in Port Townsend and another in Brinnon either in his name or that of a limited liability company, staff believes that the Planning Commission could lawfully recommend establishing this as a limit to the number of short-term rentals. 8) If we have 450 STRs, what percentage of the current housing stock does this number represent? What percentage of the current housing stock – we said that there’s a 3% limit of the current housing stock County staff is researching the number and will report out to you at the Planning Commission meeting during the February 19 meeting. 9) How many STR won’t be grandfathered? This is a very difficult question which is answered by subtracting the sum of legally issued STR permits (76) and legal nonconforming STRs from the known total STRs. While Granicus indicates that there are roughly 450 STRs, staff believes that they failed to properly distinguish STRs between the city and county. Additionally, county staff does not know exactly how many legal nonconforming STRs exist within the county but will try to provide a reasonable estimate at the Planning Commission’s February 19 meeting. 10) How many STRs won’t be able to get included in a grandfathering provision. This is unknown currently, but staff will try to calculate this from known information. 11) Attached is a small excel table I put together using US Census housing unit numbers for our area (the ones I could find) in order to calculate and estimate the total numbers of housing units for the county and each sub area, as it relates to what 3% of that number is. Can you present at the next meeting a similar table so we can look at the numbers and how they breakdown in the county? 5 Staff has asked one of the team to work on this, and will have an answer at the Planning Commission’s February 19 meeting. 12) If my calculations, based on my incomplete numbers are close to correct, I see only around 150-200 STR units allowed in the county. If there are 75 units already permitted that are likely to be grandfathered, this would leave only around 80+ STR units left to be allowed permitting in the whole county. This seems like such a small number, especially given the county suspects upwards of 400+ un-permitted STRs at the moment. Please provide a similar table (feel free to use this if it’s right) to illustrate to the PC the breakdown of the numbers as it relates to the 3% being the STR limit. Also, I question the impact this will have on our housing shortage, along with the ability to enforce and require the permitting of STRs. Staff will incorporate this question into a brief presentation on February 19. RECOMMENDATION: After a brief presentation, staff recommends that the Chair of the Planning Commission continue deliberations and finalize a recommendation in the form of a letter to the BoCC that includes specific development code amendments regarding the regulation of short-term rentals. This could be accomplished by recommending approval of the ordinance, as amended.