CAPE ELIZABETH, Maine — The Town Council approved a long-awaited ordinance governing short-term home rentals Wednesday night, largely seen as a compromise between the interests of rental providers and residents who live near those properties.
The new ordinance, which was molded through more than 20 meetings over 14 months, is an effort to regulate nuisance rental properties in residential neighborhoods.
Although several residents continued to express concerns about the ordinance, saying it is too restrictive, doesn’t fully address subleasing problems and lacks clarity on a “three-strikes” protocol for habitual offenders, the council majority agreed to move forward with the new rules.
“My view is to get this in place and see how it works,” Councilor David Sherman said. “If there’s a rash of business short-term rentals that show up, then we can take another look at it.”
The ordinance requires rental property owners to adhere to several new regulations and go through a permitting process for leases of less than 30 days.
Permits will only be granted after an inspection by a town code officer determines the rental has adequate fire extinguishers, smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, proof of sanitary waste disposal, appropriate exits and evacuation plans.
It also restricts the number of tenants to no more than two per bedroom and does not allow more than eight tenants in one property at any time on lots smaller than 30,000 square feet.
Applicants will also have to provide a description of how parking will be provided at the property and include a detailed renter’s agreement that lists emergency contact information, maximum number of guests allowed and a copy of the town’s miscellaneous offenses ordinance.
The three-strikes rule gives the town the ability to revoke permits for a year if a rental property has more than three substantiated complaints reported to the police or the code enforcement officer in a three-year period. Property owners can obtain a new permit after the year of suspension.
Complaints to police will be substantiated by the code enforcement officer and can be appealed to the zoning board by the property owner.
Sandy Dunham, who owns a rental property on Becky’s Cove, said she still has some reservations about the ordinance, but overall, thinks it will improve the situation.
“I’m not too overly enthusiastic about filling out the forms and paying a fee, but I do support some changes to the ordinance on subletting,” she said. “Hopefully it will improve the issues and problems on Lawson Road,” referring to the neighborhood where many of the complaints originated.
The ordinance continued to be debated between councilors and the public at the meeting, but Council Chairwoman Sara Lennon, who was chairing her last meeting as a town councilor, pushed the discussion along, noting that the council was not going to redraft the ordinance at this stage.
“Not everyone is happy with this, which usually means it’s good,” Lennon said. The council voted 5-1 to approve the new rules, with Councilor Caitlin Jordan opposed and Councilor Kathy Ray absent.
“You can make as many phone calls as you want to complain about ordinances we already have,” Jordan said, noting one of her issues with the rules is the provision that only allows one tenant per seven-day period. “It’s an overreaching fix that we’re putting on the town right now. … It really is a restrictive thing on property rights.”
The ordinance will take effect Dec. 14 and the council will revisit the new rules in a year to assess their effectiveness.
Hopefully this will reinforce the effort currently under way in Bangor to bring some accountability to the slum lords that are plaguing this town.
More cloudy regulations and ordinances….tightening of the noose with more red tape restrictions and increased costs to kill off more people trying to do business in Maine communities…..Crazy…..
Crazy…until your neighbor is renting her place to some crazies.
If there are noise or behavior ordinances on the books that are not being enforced then that should be addressed…..just reading the article shows that they are not even sure these restrictions on the landlords will help or not…..sort of like the Pelosi philosophy…..let’s pass the thing without knowing so we can see what’s in it…..restricting business owners more and putting in regulations that hit them in the pocketbook is going to prove to be negative, IMHO…..
Student group homes are and have been a major problem in Brunswick, espec. since out of state developers moved into town to subdivide large, unsalable houses into group homes with shared facilities.
They are very profitable, but a nuisance to the neighbors—4-6 cars going in and out all night and day; garbage piling up, drinking litter, parties with underage drinking and drug use, excessive noise in residential neighborhoods, and gradual decay of a house already in need of structural repairs….and you get ‘new’ neighbors next year, and the next, and…..
The solution is annual inspections that include fire alarms in every room, bathrooms adequate to the number of tenants, leases on file with tenant’s names and legal guardians–many of these houses are rented to 18/19 year olds now, liability insurance, and restrictions against social clubs and other organized groups renting in one person’s name and ‘taking over the house’ for social events.
What happens is a bad house poisons the real estate market in the neighborhood—who wants to move in next to a ‘frat house’ headed by BLUTO?
We have one rather nice house that has been on the market for a long time; across the street is a group home full of Bowdoin Students.
The propaganda obscures the fact that these group homes are BUSINESSES, driven by a profit motive, often by out of state developers….and a long way from renting Grandma’s room over the garage to that nice student.
I’m not sure what kind of students are drinking litter… but, gross.
I have a great idea. how about holding the “rowdy tenants” responsible for their own behavior? Too tough for government? better to dun landlords who are surely not pleased with people breaking up their property.
Probably a money thing. asumedly landlords have more money to pay fines than do rowdy tenants.
A truly, snobbish , upper class community would make it a 2 strikes rule and your out rental ordinance.
yeah you young full of life kids…don’t you dare bother Dill’s beauty sleep.