“A” use given the primary use of the lot would be for single, two, or multi-family
residential dwellings.
Prior to engaging in additional discussion on the Permitted Use Table, Mr. Zenner
noted that he had engaged in discussion with the Building Department on their
thoughts regarding owner occupancy of a dwelling unit during any portion of its use
as an STR. Mr. Zenner stated that Building Regulation Supervisor’s opinion was that
such occupancy was not required of any single or two-family structure used for STR
purposes. He further read the definition of “dwelling” from the IRC emphasizing
that there was no reference to a requirement for owner-occupancy within single or
two-family dwellings when rented, leased, let, or hired out.
There was discussion on how this opinion appeared to conflict with prior
communications referencing “lodging house” that required an owner-occupant to
be present when five or fewer guest rooms were rented out to 10 or fewer guests.
Mr. Zenner noted that the opinion offered did not conflict with the prior
communications and that the Building Regulation Supervisor still agreed that a
structure permitted as a “lodging house” would require an owner-occupant for it to
legally be rented.
He noted that “lodging house” and STR were viewed as completely independent
uses and that a definition for STR would need to be established to ensure sufficient
zoning provisions were established to govern them. Mr. Zenner noted that this was
his understanding of why the Commission and staff were preparing the proposed
regulations. There was discussion on the desire to avoid creating multiple and
conflicting definitions between the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance.
As part of the ensuing discussion many topics were discussed and it was generally
concluded that the maximum bedroom and occupant provisions of the Building
Code relating to “lodging houses” could be used as the general parameters by
which an STR would be regulated. Mr. Zenner offered a simplistic definition of STR
and noted that within each category of STR (accessory or “Guest Accommodation”)
use-specific standards that did not conflict with the Building Code provisions for
“lodging house” could be created. The basic idea was that more restrictive
standards to limit STR impacts were permissible, but avoiding out-right conflicts
with what was regulated by the IRC (International Residential Code) should be
avoided at all costs. Anything containing more bedrooms or accommodating more
guests than the IRC provisions for “lodging house” would force such a structure to
comply with the more stringent requirements (i.e. sprinklers, emergency access,
etc) of the IBC (International Building Code).
Having addressed the issue of the opinion relating to owner-occupancy of single or
two-family dwellings, the Commission discussed the classifications (“P”, “C”, “A”)
for STRs in the “accessory” use section of the Permitted Use Table. There was
concern expressed that allowing such uses to occur without the presence of an
owner may not address negative impacts upon adjoining residential uses. There
was also concern expressed about the fact that the details associated with
maximum occupancy or bedroom use was not clearly defined. Without these
issues being fully vetted some Commissioners were uncomfortable in classifying
where an STR should be allowed as an accessory use to the principal single, two, or
multi-family dwelling.