By a unanimous vote Tuesday, the Halifax County Planning Commission endorsed a proposed ordinance amendment to regulate short-term rental housing in the county. The planners’ recommendation now heads to the Halifax County Board of Supervisors for a final vote, possibly in September.
Planners and supervisors met for a joint public hearing Tuesday, with the issue of short-term rentals the sole item on the agenda.
The proposed definition of short-term rentals defines such housing as “accessory or secondary use of a residential dwelling unit” to provide a room or space “for short term transient rental purposes in exchange for a charge for the occupancy.”
Under the recommended ordinance, no short-term rental for any person shall exceed 29 consecutive calendar days per stay. After some discussion, planners also approved 18 rental requirements, stipulating, for example, that occupancy be limited to a maximum of two people per bedroom, and that a fire extinguisher be made available on each floor.
The ordinance also requires parking for rental properties to be located in driveways and other designated areas. Property boundaries must be clearly marked at all times, with signs identifying the rental property address clearly visible from the roadway.
Planners considered a clause that would have required a 1,000-foot setback from adjoining properties, unless a short-term rental was granted a conditional use permit, but later reduced that setback requirement to 500 feet.
County Administrator Scott Simpson noted that a public hearing was previously held in May on the issue of short-term rentals, but the board did not have a quorum at that meeting. Due to questions and concerns, the commission voted to have two of its members attend the next meeting of the Board of Supervisors’ ordinance committee meeting to look into the matter further.
Planners and supervisors heard from concerned residents at Tuesday’s public hearing on the ordinance changes.
Nathalie resident Rebecca Bushway voiced her support. “Requiring [short-term rentals] that are within 1,000 feet of neighbors is one way to protect neighborhoods and communities. Every neighborhood is different, and a one-size-fits-all is not appropriate for stamp of approval is not appropriate for all situations.”
She described issues with a neighbor who started renting on the AirBnB platform in September 2022, claiming the operation violates current Halifax County ordinances as a tourist cabin. She also claimed the neighbor allowed renters to hunt on his 10 acres of land without checking if they had valid hunting licenses.
“While one person benefits financially by turning shared property into a business, all other neighbors are at risk. Lack of necessary information and clearly marked boundaries places neighbors at risk of injury, property damage, trespassing, and additional liability,” said Bushway. “Our individual rights as property owners shouldn’t be impeded on by one person who wants to run a business in an area where businesses are not allowed.”
Another Nathalie resident, Tim Baine, who lives in the same neighborhood as Bushway, felt that previous short-term rental issues had not been addressed by the county. “The lack of [enforcement by the county of] its current ordinances is a disservice to the community. It displays a total disregard to its citizens. Other property owners in this close proximity also have property rights. Our private community is not a park for everyone to enjoy, it’s our home,” he said.
William Bushway shared similar concerns. “This ordinance implements a process in which neighbors have a say in whether or not a permit is granted through the condition use permit process. It also ensures that people participating in a short-term rental mark their land to eliminate trespassing of renters on adjoining lots or properties. These unregulated short-term rentals are a legal and safety hazard to neighbors wherever they currently operate. The rights of the entire neighborhood should not be marginalized for the benefit of one person.”
Renters in his area have ignored laws that do not permit hunting within 300 feet of a roadway, Bushway continued.
Also speaking was Ken Cantrell, who identified himself as the neighbor being referred to by other speakers. Cantrell said he spoke to two lawyers who advised him that only the county could prevent him operating as he does currently. He also said a 1,000 foot setback requirement would be a problem. “I am most baffled by the [part] of this code, the 1,000 feet between neighbors’ houses. You must know that most of the short-term rentals are within the 1,000 feet rules. 90 percent of all the rentals are within that 1,000 feet.”
ED-8 supervisor William Bryant Claiborne asked Cantrell if he had posted any notices about hunting restrictions for his rental guests. Cantrell said that he had not put up anything other than only during hunting season.
During discussion, planning commission member James Watts read a letter from chair Mattie Cowan, who was absent from the meeting. She agreed with most of the changes except for three: a requirement for renters/owners to have a local phone number, maximum occupancy of two people per bedroom, and the 1,000-foot distance requirement between properties.
Pete Riddle added that he had an issue with another proposed change in the ordinance, mandating that short-term rental property owners carry $1 million liability insurance. “That’s absurdly high,” he said.
Planner Will Reese pointed out that proof of insurance isn’t required for other types of conditional use permits, and said the county’s lodging tax should be taken into consideration. “Even if you have a neighbor less than 1,000 feet [away], I still think you have to register and pay your registration fee and lodging taxes.”
Simpson noted that many short-term rental owners have not paid lodging taxes because they were unaware they are required to do so.
“The owner of the facility is supposed to [submit] lodging taxes to the county, which is one of the reasons for registration.” Simpson explained, “Currently there’s very few short-term rentals in the county who are. The lodging tax is only for transient lodging which is 29 days,” he explained.
Simpson said a lack of enforcement and knowledge explains why this issue came about. Responsibility for enforcing the lodging tax lies not with county administration but of the Commissioner of Revenue, he added.
Eventually planners agreed to remove the following requirements: maximum of two people per bedroom, each bedroom having an egress-sized window which meets building code requirements, proof of general liability insurance minimum coverage of $1,000,000, and short-term rentals providing an active connection to local phone service.
Planners also removed a statement saying, “There shall be no visible evidence of the conduct of such Short-Term Rental on the outside appearance of the property.” The modified clause now states only that signage identifying the address of the short-tern rental shall be visible from the roadway.
Reese also recommended striking the 1,000-foot setback from the ordinance, and planners agreed to change the distance to 500 feet, excluding common property ownership.
Watts brought up issues about hunting on 10 acres of land. “I’ve hunted all my life, and a small acreage is no place for hunting. That’s a dangerous situation.”
Simpson suggested an outline of designated hunting areas, and planners agreed to add that, along with lines marking the area, as a part of requirement 13 in the ordinance.
Riddle made a motion to approve the proposed ordinance, with amendments, and sent the matter to the Board of Supervisors for a final decision. His motion carried unanimously.
The next joint meeting of the planning commission and the Board of Supervisors will take place on Tuesday, Sept. 19 at 6:30 p.m.
