Park Township explores restricting short-term rentals to overlay districts, but residents are still unhappy

PARK TWP. — During an at-times-tense Park Township Planning Commission meeting last week, commissioners arrived at a potential solution for the short-term rental controversy that's "pitted neighbor against neighbor" for months.

'It's derogatory and it gets violent'

Commissioners listened to more than an hour of comments from residents and short-term rental owners and managers frustrated by the lack of township guidance.

"The actions of the township board and this commission have really implicitly and explicitly driven short-term rentals," one resident said. "The action to negate the existing ordinance and have the moratorium tacitly gave approval to that process."

More: Board faces enforcement dilemma as complaints roll in

More: Park Township planning commission to study short-term rentals

More: Lakeshore townships oppose short-term rental bill

The ordinance in question, written in the 1970s, lists specifically what uses are allowed in residential districts and says any unlisted uses are prohibited. Short-term rentals aren't mentioned.

In the past, according to rental owners and township staff, this ordinance was misinterpreted by township officials as "not expressly prohibiting" STRs. Over the past few years, STRs have grown significantly in the township, causing residents to complain about noise violations and other disturbances.

In response, the township opted for a hands-off approach, agreeing to research and potentially develop a new ordinance that would allow for the licensing and proper regulation of STRs, rather than shutting existing ones down.

But during the months-long process of crafting policy, residents say, they've been left in the lurch, as township board members placed their trust in the planning commission to come up with a reasonable plan to control rentals and quell concerns of those who live near them.

The planning commission has been working on the issue since March 2021.

During the meeting Thursday, July 28, several residents asked why the township doesn't simply enforce its ordinance as written — effectively eliminating all STRs operating within its borders. At least one speaker received a round of applause at this suggestion.

But STR owners felt equally unheard.

"There are some of us that do, I think, treat it very neighborly," one said. "We take it very seriously. I think, at the same time, we make sure we talk to our neighbors and ensure that our people are doing the right thing. It's not just people that are corporate-owned with multiple rentals."

Several STR owners complained about the "hostile environment" Park Township residents have created for themselves and their guests.

"The information that is being disseminated by owners who do not like vacation rentals is incorrect," one property manager said. "It's based on assumptions, it's derogatory and it gets violent.

"I'm speaking on (STR owners') behalf, that screaming 'f you' at owners, at guests, at harassing them, at being aggressive to them — I'm listening to everybody talk about how they want to have these neighborhoods where their families can be safe. How can you say that when you support this type of behavior to people who are coming to visit this community?"

"I'm disappointed — and I don't know who it is — but some people's behavior is out of line," Dave Kleinjans, chairperson of the commission, said before deliberations began.

Consideration of overlays

By the end of the five-hour-long meeting, a majority of commissioners voted in support of two potential overlay districts drawn up by township staff.

The first is a long, narrow band that stretches along the lakefront. The second includes further inland neighborhoods in four general regions that already have a hefty number of STRs, including Waukazoo Woods.

While conversations may continue over how far the second overlay should stretch, commissioners voted 4-1 to eliminate STRs in all areas outside the two districts. It's not clear whether existing STRs will be grandfathered into the final ordinance, which will have to go before township board for approval.

"None of my other commissioners have had prostitutes climb through a neighbor's window, at least I don't think you have," said commissioner Diana Garlinghouse, who took over chairmanship about halfway through deliberations. "(Then) in the same cottage, an 18-year-old throwing up on a Sunday morning after partying too hard and a bachelorette party.

"And this causes whoever is unlucky enough to live next door to them to be the police force. We personally have had someone at 2:30 in the morning peeing in our backyard. That's why we had to spend $2,000 on a fence."

Garlinghouse said grandfathering current STRs, or creating overlay districts in order to retain existing operations, isn't the commission's job.

"It is not our job to make somebody a dollar," she said. "That's not our responsibility. If they need to be shut down, that's irrelevant. We need to decide the density. Some rentals are going to be shut down."

Commissioners generally agreed that buffers will be set, requiring a certain distance between STRs, though a range wasn't determined. The general consensus was also to have a licensing, inspection and regulatory system, requiring STR owners to register with the township, participate in inspections and observe certain noise and parking restrictions.

Toward the end of the meeting, commissioners discussed a two-tier licensing system, with "personal" licenses and "business" licenses, depending on the number of days a property is rented out per year. Business licenses, with more rental days, would be subject to stricter inspections and oversight.

During a second public comment section following discussions, some remaining residents still had concerns.

"As a whole, it did seem a bit disappointing and there is a lot of focus on where the current short-term rentals are," one resident said. "It makes it seem as though you're still planning on some sort of grandfathering in considering where they are (when) they don't belong there to begin with."

The potential roadblock

The lengthy process in Park Township will prove moot if House Bill 4722, passed 55-48 by the Michigan House in November 2021, makes it through the Senate and is signed into law by the governor's office.

The legislation prevents local governments from banning short-term rentals through local zoning code and ties their hands with regard to other kinds of restrictions on rentals, such as caps on the total number of units that can be rented short-term.

The proposed law establishes short-term rentals as a residential use — not a commercial one, as some Michigan courts have characterized them — allowed by right in all residential neighborhoods.

Subscribe: Learn more about our latest subscription offers!

The bill says local governments may cap the total number of short-term rentals in their communities, but that the cap can be no less than 30 percent of all residential units — a ratio many Park Township residents would balk at.

The Park Township Board of Trustees held an emergency meeting in November, voting 6-0 to speak out against the bill, which remains stuck in place as officials negotiate an updated version.

The law, if passed, has the power to significantly change the character and makeup of neighborhoods along the lakeshore.

Meanwhile, Park Township forges on. The planning commission will have a special meeting Thursday, Aug. 4.

— Contact reporter Cassandra Lybrink at cassandra.lybrink@hollandsentinel.com. Follow her on Instagram @BizHolland.

This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: Park Township planning commission explores restricting short-term rentals to overlay districts