City Council - Regular Meeting

Any discussion of the proposed amendment which was just now prepared by staff One can we go longer than three years or is that as far as we can get three years is based on our our typical procedure for for for

What's the term I'm trying to think of? A statute of limitations. OK. All right.

Could I also ask you a question? What is the definition of the short-term rental? 30 days or less?

We have that in ordinance. I'm sorry.

It's in it's in the ordinance on the first page. 5 2, 1, 20 section number a letter a short terminal unit a residential or a unit principal or accessory that is written in whole or in part to guess for less than 30 consecutive days.

OK so they were there 30 days then it would not be a short term rental. That's the way that reads yes, because this is for less than 30 days. Thank you.

Any other discussion on the motion to strike and insert Amendment 4? Hearing none at this time, if you're in favor of striking and asserting, please raise your hand. It is unanimously amended. At this time, is there any discussion on Amendment 4 as amended? Hearing none, if you're in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimously adopted. Revised Amendment 4 negates the proposed Amendment 6, which had not been fully circulated, so there will be no consideration of Amendment 6.

Mr. Moving now to. The adoption of Amendment 4 also will need to result in striking Section 5- You want us to do that at this time? That's up to you. I just wanted to make sure that.

Give me the section number.

It's 5-2-127. 5-2-127. Section 1. Section B. That doesn't seem. Oh yeah, OK, yeah.

That's that's that's 2-127 Section B. Yes, this time I will welcome a motion to strike. 5-2-127 Section B from the proposed ordinance.

Do you want me to read that, Mayor? That'll be fine.

Hang on one second. Jimmy has made a motion. Is there a second? Go ahead, Ms. Dickerson.

Existing short-term rental units operating prior to the adoption of this article may qualify as lawful non-conforming uses only if the owner held a valid City of West Columbia business license. Their rental registration and the residential rental unit met the definition of a short-term rental unit prior to the effective date of this article. The owner shall provide documentation reasonably requested by the city to establish eligibility for lawful non-conforming status. Any short-term rental unit operating without The required registration or business license prior to the effective date of this article shall not acquire legal pre-existing non-conforming status. Any lawful non-conforming short-term rental unit shall be subject to the provisions governing non-conforming uses under the City of West Columbia zoning ordinance.

And that will be struck because it is no longer needed given the changes to Amendment 4.

Yes, sir. And then the ordinance will be renumbered appropriately.

Any further discussion? And this would allow for that to be struck and for the remaining provisions of the ordinance to be renumbered. Hearing no further discussion, please raise your hand if you're in favor. It is unanimously approved. Moving now to amendment five. If y'all would.

Mayor, this is the owner-occupied property exception, and this is where we would have to go into the make the zoning tax amendment for this. And we would ask that for this one, if you vote in favor of this, we would ask that the owner-occupied definition, we would add that to this ordinance, which is a dwelling unit that is lawfully classified as owner-occupied by Lexington County and is receiving the 4% special assessment ratio. And owner-occupied short-term rentals, they would remain subject to all other applicable licensing, permitting, and operational requirements.

So this is intended where if I own my house and I meet all the requirements for 4% taxation, but I want to go on vacation for a month, I can rent my house out as a short-term rental while I'm gone.

By definition, it needs to be less than a month.

Less than a month. That was what was asked to be considered or developed as an amendment.

I would like to put some requirement in that if there are multiple units on that same piece of property, that it can only be utilized for the unit that the primary residents, for the person's primary residence. If you got 123 A and B and they live in A, we're only talking about unit A. We're not talking about, oh, well, unit B is there and I can run a short-term rental out of it 365 days a year. Does that make sense?

We need to get this on the table and then we can do amendments. Can we get a second?

I think that, correct me if I'm wrong, Deputy Administrator Dickinson, but I think the only amendment that would be considered by council at this time would just be simply adding the owner-occupied definition. I don't know that there would be any issue if you were to hold Amendment 5 or take it up at another time after the Planning Commission had considered those thoughts you had about accessory dwelling units and using a short-term rental of a home while somebody is out on vacation.

Is there a motion to table Amendment 5? Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Hearing none, at this time, if you're in favor of table and amendment five, please raise your hand.

We will bring back the findings from the planning commission to council for consideration.

Does anyone have any interest in changing the definition of short-term rental from less than 30 days to possibly two weeks? I do not have interest in that. Okay. The only reason why I ask it is we've had several people who have raised concerns about times such as when people are looking for replacement housing due to fires or other catastrophic type events. I don't know if it would be problematic to make that change or not, but just wanted to see if anybody had any interest in doing it.

So this would then change what we're considering to only cover a period that's less than two weeks and not more than two weeks?

After the two weeks, it would be considered a long-term rental.

Staff, do you all have any concern with that?

i'm there i looked at other i just i came up with the 30 days i've moved around at other i think i i think that's the date count that we discussed so i just i looked at what other jurisdictions did around us that was the typical definition for short term if it was problematic we could certainly revisit it another time yes if somebody wants to make a motion we can entertain it if not we can leave it at 30 days floor is open for any motion

I think if somebody has a fire or whatever, it's going to be longer than two weeks. I mean, if we're going to do it for short-term rentals, I think less than 30 days would be— Okay, that's fine. I mean, I hear you. I mean, do you have some thoughts on that, Jimmy?

No.

It may help out some of the situations that we've discussed tonight. That's my only thoughts on it, that a 14-day may help with nursing. If they bring in somebody like that, it may help with people from the hospital that need three or four weeks that now can't do it, that aren't going to cause any issues. Like I said, that's my only thought, but I think we can revisit that at a later time if it becomes an issue.

would be I would say yeah let's leave can we leave it at 30 later on if we if we have anything we can we can look at it again I mean yeah

my question is this I think we've got a pretty good ordinance pretty good thing intact one thing we couldn't do we couldn't cover all situations we just couldn't do it there's always gonna be somebody that feels like we couldn't cover their situation or however it is no matter how hard we try what from a staff standpoint Is there an appeal process? Is there any, if somebody comes in and there's a hardship, will there be an appeal process to go through staff? Will it come to council? How would that work?

we just saying there is no appeal process there's nothing you know how does that work ordinance will be enforced as it is written if there is an appeal regarding the business license decision it will go through our established business license procedures for appeals any any matters taken up by the planning commission as far as an amendment to the zoning ordinance text if those are approved by council then a decision

based on the zoning ordinance would go as all appeals due to the zoning board of appeals and then it's like a court but i guess with these if somebody wanted to go to and i was probably wrong we talked about this yesterday when we met with everybody but if somebody would have to actually ask for a zoning change on their property before it would go to the zoning board of appeals correct

Well, if somebody asked for a zoning change on their property, they would go to the Planning Commission for that. And there are guidelines that are established to prevent spot zoning.

So let's say somebody has an issue with not being able to do their short-term rental right now. And they come to the city and we deny it. Wouldn't they be able to go through the business license?

procedures like like I have the hearing with our hearing officer and have the hearing with City Council or however we're caught whatever we're calling that process would that basically be what would have to be done if it was denied because of a zoning standard okay it would go to the Zoning Board of Appeal okay that's for the zoning approval okay if they play if the business license was denied then that would go through the appeal process which involves counsel thank you Mayor, I do want to point out that the ordinance you have in front of you for second reading has had some changes to it from first reading based on the structure of the ordinance, cleaning up some language. some of the numbering things of that nature. So when you adopt, if you adopt the ordinance upon second reading, would ask that you adopt it not only as amended. As revised. But as revised. Yes, sir, thank you.

Any further discussion?

So I do have a question about, you know, we can have 100 grand and not keep up with everything that goes on in the city as far as ordinance goes. but um i feel i'm sorry i can't hear you um did you speak into the mic i feel fairly confident that there are plenty out there that are under the radar that are running their airbnbs and their short-term rentals um i mean would we have anything moving forward that we're going to be able to police this

Yes, we are not simply relying on the staff that we have now, but we will be engaging services to help us identify short-term rentals that have so far flown under the radar. Once that happens, we will develop a process with staff to address those short-term rentals.

Gotcha.

Brian, do you think you could put that as a separate category in the monthly report, maybe? Could that be a different one on code enforcement or something?

If it's acceptable, what I'd like to do is just provide a separate report regarding that. I don't necessarily see that something that long-term would continue to stay in the monthly report.

I think just a year.

Any other discussion? Hearing no further discussion, I will welcome a motion. I guess we've already moved, but hearing no further discussion at this time, please raise your hand if you are in favor of adopting the proposed ordinance as revised and amended. It is unanimously adopted. Thank y'all for your work on this. I know y'all put a lot of work in it.

Mayor, I do want to say that Deputy City Administrator Michelle Dickerson and Assistant City Administrator Alexis Kaiser both are very hard on this ordinance, and Michelle doing the vast majority of the work in bringing to you something that could be considered by council. I've seen firsthand how much effort went into it, and I do appreciate those comments.

This is something that we have worked on for numerous years, and I know that the last couple months has taken up a lot of time, but I thank you all for your hard work on it.

Tim, I would like to thank you for keeping track of where we are in this whole thing and managing all those amendments and everything. Great job.

Thank you. Moving down to section nine, new business will take up item 9.1, which is first reading consideration of a text amendment to add a definition of the term short-term rentals and add it as a permitted use in zoning districts R1, R2, C1, C2, and C3. Is there a motion?

So moved.

Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Hearing none at this time, if you're in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimously adopted. Moving down to item 9.2, we'll take up first reading consideration of the Planning Commission's recommendation to approve the establishment of the zoning of C2 General Commercial for one partial totaling 0.28 acres at 2858 Sunset Boulevard, tax map number 004597-09-040. Is there a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Any discussion?

This is the one that we just took in? No.

It's the dentist office. Right.

It's that dentist office that's there right beside, I guess, kind of where, what's it, Charter, Three Rivers, whatever it's called now. It's been in the city. I got you.

Any other discussion? You need any clarification from Carol?

Is that right? I'd say it right.

Did not normally would be the next month that came to the planning commission, but that just didn't happen. So this is catching this property up to and it's the same zoning. This is the interim zoning that council put in there in March. It's the same zoning.

Any further discussion? Thank you, Carol. This time, if you're in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimously approved. Moving down to item 9.3, we'll take up consideration of a resolution adopting a redevelopment plan for the development area located on Mohawk Drive and Ontario Drive. Is there a motion?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Any discussion?

Hearing, go ahead. Can Ms. Kaiser clarify this? Oh, yeah. I think. Yeah, brief description.

Yep. So this is related to the Riverbank Sioux property and their bridge the wild project. This is saying that Council believes that it is in conformance with the plan of the laid out in the city of West Columbia redevelopment plan for this area.

Did you like the movie you watched earlier?

I got it. Okay. I'm a little slow once in a while. Got it now. Thank you.

I'm going to ask a question on behalf of the people who were here earlier that left. Yes. They live right up there on Ontario. And they were just curious that where it goes behind John Long's house, the Zubas, and then over towards Campbellville. that's gonna be our parking lot, or if there's any, if we even know.

I don't know specifically. Yep, I don't know specifically. I'm happy to look into it and follow up and confirm with Riverbank Zoo and LCK on their specific site plan. I will say that this item will be going to Planning Commission for the three zoning later this month.

So at this point. yeah at this point we're just saying yes we we agree that this plan is is in spirit in conformance with whatever but if there's any issues with like potential like i don't know buffers for parking lots or whatever it is that goes through planning commission is subject to that's correct and still um planning and zoning review to make sure it's in conformance with their approved plan y'all got that i heard it okay it goes through planning and reviewing yeah yeah

it was a beautiful presentation free range tigers red panda if you're in favor please raise your hand it is unanimously approved moving down to item 9.4 we'll take up consideration of a resolution of the city of West Columbia authorizing a lease purchase financing in an amount not exceeding $1,090,000. Is there a motion? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Any discussion? Hearing none at this time, if you're in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimously approved. I thank you all. At this time, I welcome a motion to adjourn. So moved. increase is there a second any discussion hearing none at this time if you're in favor please raise your hand we are we are unanimously adjourned