The Chattanooga City Council on Tuesday brought up the topic of owner-occupied versus non-owner occupied Short Term Vacation Rentals (STVRs).during their 2:00 strategic planning meeting.
“I just want to bring it forward to get some clarification in how you’re moving forward in making those decisions when considering owner vs non-owner occupied,” Councilman Erskine Oglesby said. “In District 7, we’ve had quite a few come up, and looking at the schedule, we’ve had some more coming up.”
He said he wanted the city attorney to provide clarification about how people should move forward on the topic of owner vs non-owner occupied.
Chairman Chip Henderson asked if he wanted to address non-occupied multi-unit STVRs, or just single-family units. Councilman Oglesby said he was speaking about all manner of STVRs.
“I want us to get to a point where it’s not subjective, where we have a legitimate legal reason when we vote or recommend for someone not to have a STVR as a way to gain income, as many who have come before us say this is a way to supplement income,” Councilman Oglesby said.
He told the council he wanted there to be an open discussion, and said what has made him want to bring this up is the proliferation of non-owner occupied STVRs.
Councilman Anthony Byrd said he keeps seeing that each community has a different response to STVRS. “Some communities are like cool, we love it,” Councilman Byrd said. “And others say no. So depending on where people put the STVRs, they can get a yes or a no, but there’s no structure behind it or saying why they’re being told yes or no. The only reason is because you have people on the other side of the phone telling you to say no, and you work for your constituents.”
He said he believed the Council is setting themselves up for legal trouble if they don’t do anything but go by what each individual community wants. Councilman Byrd said there may need to be reasons besides the will of the community.
City Attorney Phil Noblett said there is a provision that says a person may not have more than two STVR certificates for a non-owner occupied multi-family building. He did say that doesn’t stop multiple people from having STVRs within that same building.
“We have a district that we’ve defined within the city as a STVR district, but if you are going to establish amounts that can be done in certain districts or communities, you need to think about that as a ratio of owner occupied and non-owner occupied in areas,” attorney Noblett said. “I don’t know if you do that based on streets or community boundaries, which are usually loose.”
He continued by saying that he believed some sort of ratio basis was the best way to proceed, rather than saying the community is or is not against it. That could be considered a “capricious” argument. He said someone from planning would need to have some sort of density cap. Chairman Henderson said the Regional Planning Agency would need to come up with that figure. Councilman Oglesby said he was fine with RPA coming up with figures.
“I think STVRs are a great idea, and many people like the idea,” Councilman Oglesby said. “But from what I’m hearing, there are some caps that need to be put in place so the market doesn’t become oversaturated. We want to make sure that we don’t have whole streets or neighborhoods that are all STVRs. We need to have a reason we refuse or reject an application.”
Chairman Henderson said the council needs to come up with a resolution to present to the RPA to recommend or do or study.