The Henderson City Commission voted down zoning ordinance changes regarding short-term rental properties, each saying they’d prefer there were less restrictions in place than what was in the proposal.
The commissioners voted after local attorney Curt Hamilton spoke to the group. He said the proposed ordinance changes attempt to curtail problems that don’t exist. Specifically, he said that there are currently only five short-term rental properties in town, of which he is one owner, and none had generated any noise complaints to police.
“Until it becomes a problem, it’s not a problem,” Hamilton said.
There was language in the proposed changes that ensures that a short-term rental property does not become a nuisance to other property owners in a neighborhood, specifically so that it doesn’t become a party house.
Some of the other amendments of the short-term rental property zoning proposal were that a guest can’t stay at the property for longer than 29 days; sufficient parking for both the host and guests must be available; the host is not able to serve food; the number of occupants shall not exceed double the number of sleeping rooms plus two; and a local responsible party must be available to respond to problems 24 hours a day.
In the proposal, this zoning would be allowable without a conditional use permit for a property zoned central business district, neighborhood business, general business, highway commercial and riverfront. Owners of properties zoned differently, such as residential which was a point of discussion in Tuesday’s meeting, would need to obtain a conditional use permit from the Henderson Board of Zoning Adjustment.
The amendments are largely the same as what the Henderson County Fiscal Court currently has in place, City Attorney Dawn Kelsey said.
At its April 2 meeting, the Henderson-Henderson County Joint Planning Commission voted 8-0 to recommend that the city approve these zoning amendments.
Additionally, the city commission gave preliminary approval by way of a 5-0 vote on the first reading of these changes to its zoning ordinance at its April 9 meeting.
But Hamilton made a compelling argument Tuesday with which the commissioners said they agreed, at least in part. He said unnecessary restrictions would create “a chilling effect on investment” and scare off others who may want to buy a second house in Henderson and use it as a short-term rental property.
Commissioner Robert Pruitt agreed, saying he doesn’t like to tell people what to do with their property and for years has been trying to erase a criticism of Henderson that it isn’t business friendly.
Commissioner Nick Whitt voiced some disagreement to Hamilton, saying that if nothing was imposed on short-term rental properties and then numerous problems followed as they started operating here, then changing zoning wouldn’t affect the rentals already in Henderson. If an ordinance were enacted after those short-term rentals started doing business, it still wouldn’t affect them because they would be grandfathered in under current regulations and the problems would remain, Whitt said.
Part of the push for the ordinance was as a mechanism to collect a 1% transient tax on any rented rooms which, by state law, goes to the state tourist commission for marketing tourism in the commonwealth.
Henderson Tourist Commissioner Abby Dixon agreed with much of Hamilton’s points, but also said she favors a holistic approach to local tourism that ensures residents support the industry as well, and keeping intact some conditional uses of the ordinance would make residents feel better about a short-term rental property opening next door.
In the end, all commissioners stated that some of the more restrictive measures of the proposed zoning ordinance needed to be deleted, and all except Pruitt said conditional uses for short-term rentals need to be in place in residential neighborhoods.
If the city commission wants to revisit short-term rental property regulations, a new draft of proposed changes would need to be drawn up and presented to the body.
