Short Term Rentals info shared by Susan Smith

THE ISSUES SURROUNDING SHORT TERM RENTALS (STRs)

AND DEDICATED STRs IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD

THIS ADDITION TO THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN LUMO (LAND USE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE) WILL BE VOTED ON AT THE JUNE 16, 2021 TOWN COUNCIL MEETING. PLEASE READ ON AND LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD.

(The email below also appears in The Local Reporter (our town’s online newspaper) May 30th edition.

---

On May 20th, I submitted the following letter to mayor and council, after listening to their deliberations on Wednesday evening last week, May 19th. Part of their meeting included the opportunity for the public to weigh in. Many people spoke for two minutes and the meeting stretched on into the night past 11:30 PM. I wrote my response to mayor and council the next day because the public hearing time was extended for 24 hours after their deliberations. Mayor and Council will be giving feedback to Anya Grayn, town planner, and possibly approving this LUMO recommendation during their June 16th meeting. Now is the time to spread the word about this upcoming legislation and contact our mayor and council members.

My email below responded to some of the considerations requested of Mayor and Council at the May 19th meeting. For a full report, go to the town website and listen to the planner’s presentation, public comments, and further deliberations by mayor and council near the end of the May 19th video. My email to them focuses on 1) the percentage of time that owners of residential properties must live in their residences, 2) allowing simultaneous rentals to occur on the same property, both inside the owner’s house as well as in their dedicated spaces for these rentals, 3) the effectiveness of enforcement largely by neighbors who register a complaint with the town and 4) lowering the town’s minimum rental age from 21 to 18. But there are other issues, parking for example, that are also important.

To: Mayor Hemminger, Allen Buansi, Jessica Anderson, Amy Ryan, Hongbin Gu, Karen Stegman, Tai Huynh, and Michael Parker,

Money, Money, Money .... Mon- NEY. Remember that song? Please don’t let this become the rudder steering town council decisions. I hope that you will do your level best to think independently with conscience. How else will you catch the fair winds of equity to navigate these stormy waters? Many important decisions aren’t easy, but it seems that opposition is necessary to make our values clear and take a stand on them.

1. Re 60% residency: Will residential even retain its meaning when STRs and ESPECIALLY dedicated STRs financed by developers are allowed to move in and turn residential living into an opportunity for financial gain? I don’t think so, do you? Really? And if you do amend the LUMO, 60% residency is not nearly enough. That’s barely over half the time. To keep our neighborhoods residential places, this percentage needs to be 80% - 85% or even higher.

If you don’t want STRs happening in your neighborhood, will you vote to allow it in others? Will this practice of dedicated STRs begin and occur more frequently in poorer neighborhoods? In apartment complexes? How will white privilege factor into this business venture?

STRs should especially be kept out of all our historic districts, otherwise larger and larger additions and over-sized garages topped by apartments to these historic homes will be created for rental purposes and not for residential reasons. (Note: The Italicized phrase was added to my email when it was submitted to The Local Reporter for publication.)

Neighborhoods thrive on the safety built around neighbors who know and care for each other and their properties. We need your support to keep it that way. It helps our police force.

2. Simultaneous rentals? NO THANK YOU, for obvious reasons, and especially when neighbors are the ones who have to call out infractions. We don’t go away. We have to continue to live next to the ones we blow the whistle on.... so the whistle often doesn’t get blown. And that’s already happening when it comes to over-parking in our historic districts.

3. Minimum age: 21 DEFINITELY. Remember the adage, 40 is the new 30? Yes, giving responsibility for STRs to 18 year olds is not a high enough bar to set. Who is more likely to be responsible? Other-centeredness tends to increase with age, doesn’t it? And in a college town, with sports events a primary reason for partying, why open that door wider by lowering the age to 18?

CONSIDER THE QUALITY OF OUR COLLECTIVE LIVES AND STRENGTHEN RATHER THAN WEAKEN THIS AMENDMENT, if you decide to accept it.

Better yet, say NO to STRs, and ABSOLUTELY NO TO DEDICATED STRs.

A pilot program may sound reasonable, but it will just allow developers to get their foot in the door, making it much harder to reverse this pattern a year from now when even more investments have been made. Not a practical idea and who will enforce the change in policy?

I hope my comments lead to insights in your deliberations. This is such a big issue for our town! I hope it continues to be discussed and next time given priority by being placed earlier in the agenda.

Thank you for your service,

Susan Smith, MLA, M.Ed.

Dear Neighbors: If you share my concerns, please consider emailing the town well before its June 16th meeting when they will revisit this agenda item and likely vote on it. On the 19th of May, mayor and council voted to continue the public hearing until that time. Use the direct mayorandcouncil@townofchapelhill.org email address because that email inbox is available to the public to view. I'm not sure where messages sent using a form used on the town website end up. While major and council members are not required to read all these emails, it may be different case because they voted to keep the public hearing open. And if there is enough “noise,” local reporters will take notice and that might stimulate our town officials to sit up and take notice.

Also discussion on the large development AURA, at the intersection of MLK and Estes Drive is being deliberated during upcoming town meetings. During the last meeting on Wednesday, May 26, the town experienced technical difficulties during the public hearing portion of that item and members of the public were kicked off the Zoom platform. Council members were able to log into a chat room, and they continued the meeting, even though many from the public were unable to join. I’m not sure whether this means that the public will have additional time to present their views at the upcoming meetings in June.