The County Council will vote soon on an updated version of County code. Significant issues remain. Recently, a noise task force recommended DOUBLING the legal level of noise from 7 am to 10 pm in the ENTIRE County, in theory to benefit a small number of businesses. It is not clear exactly how this would be beneficial to businesses, but the impact of it will negatively affect more residents than it might help. Despite this mismatch, three Council members support making the County noisier. Surely there are more appropriate and less damaging ways for County government to assist small businesses. Please leave the legal noise limit where it is. Details on noise effects at different levels can be found on the Citizens for Sustainable Communities Facebook page.
Short term vacation rentals (STRs) were included in the code update. If you have not yet been subjected to an unsupervised “mini-hotel” opening for business next door, your good luck may not last. Although you may be notified of an STR license application and offered an opportunity to object, it’s a done deal by then. The deck continues to be stacked in favor of the STR owner, who is often a non-resident and sometimes an LLC. Code revision includes more enforcement, but neighbors are still burdened with monitoring and reporting. We have explained in letters and in testimony how STRs can exploit and disrupt neighborhoods, and we have detailed problems with renters, including physical threats. There are currently no substantive, protective limitations on the spread of STRs ANYWHERE in the County. Community covenants or bylaws will not prevent the County from issuing an STR license in your neighborhood. Although a new Short Term Rental Review Board is proposed as an arbiter of STR problems, we fear that the same people who packed the noise task force will be making appointments to the new Board. Our suggestions for reasonable STR limitations are opposed by those with financial interests in unlimited STRs. Despite claims to the contrary, STRs are commercial businesses—owners expect to make money from them. This should not happen in residential zones. STRs remain an issue, like the noise issue, in which the self-interested demands of the few have so far taken precedence over the peace and quiet of the many.
Taken together, these two issues constitute on assault on the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods. Two members of the Council—Mr. Bartlett and Ms. Price—have taken a step in the right direction by introducing amendments that would at least slow down the unlimited proliferation of these businesses. They deserve consideration, discussion, and a fair vote. However, it is also time to give this thorny, unresolved issue the careful analytic study it needs. We urge the County to place a moratorium on STRs until it develops an STR plan that protects residential neighborhoods from these increasingly problematic businesses.
If you are concerned about these issues, now is the time to contact County Council members to express your views. If the Council majority approves code revision with an unpopular, unnecessary increase in noise levels and enables the unlimited STR assault on our residential neighborhoods to continue, consider voting for at least three new County Council members in November. Our quality of life is at stake.
“The liberty of one citizen ends where the liberty of another citizen begins” Alexis deTocqueville
Donna and Bill Dudley
Holly and Paul Fine
Easton
David Lloyd says
Agree 1000%!
Dr. Jay R. Shotel says
Another point of view from the Bay Hundred:
A clear majority of bay hundred residents are comfortable with the state standard for noise levels of 65db being applied to amplified music in the county and see no reason for having a more limited standard than the one established for the rest of the state. We also believe that the population at large in Talbot County has similar feelings with regard to this issue however the minority opinion of primarily a senior population across the county has been quite visible in recent discussions with the County Council. On Tilghman Island the position is clear across all age levels.
In discussions with my nephew who is an acoustic engineer by training with more than 20 years of professional experience in the field, the following is the current status of the research in this area.
60 to 70 db is considered as average in normal conversation.
The intensity of noise diminishes with distance. Outdoors, and in the absence of any close reflecting surface, the effective decibel level diminishes at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling in distance. For example, a sound measuring 65 dB at 15 feet would be 59 dB at 30 feet (approximately the same as normal conversation), 53 dB at 60 feet, and 47 db at 120 feet.
The issue of a close reflecting surface is an important distinction to make. (e.g. A tent enclosure for a wedding event or a physical structure such as a building would cut the decibel level by as much as 50% outside of the area of the reflective surface.
Despite the general quote in the Star Democrat attributed to Council member Price (“levels higher than 55 db have found that higher levels are injurious to people”) according to recent studies by NIH-NICHD, sounds of less than 75 decibels, even after long exposure, are unlikely to cause hearing loss. However, long or repeated exposure to sounds at or above 85 decibels can cause hearing loss. The louder the sound, the shorter the amount of time it takes for noise induced hearing loss to occur.
Further the addition of a directional speaker system can reduce the sound to levels that can primarily be heard only by the intended audience .
We hope that the County Council will make an appropriate decision on this matter based upon current research and the majority position of people in the county and not be swayed by a few very vocal but with a limited scientific basis for their position
In conclusion, it is clear that the majority of Bay Hundred residents see our new and continuing service establishments on Tilghman island as supporting both the goals and achievements of the county as well as our island and that they should be given the opportunity to show the residents of the island and the county that they can be good neighbors who are invested in our future. In the last few months we have seen a substantial rise in tourism, additional interest in real estate, expanded job possibilities and consistent increases in the local business and tourist related activities on the Bay Hundred.
Brad Hopkins says
… for what it’s worth.
Leave the year-round homeowner to decide whether to rent (any portion) their home for commercial gain; whether it’s for a night or a season. Subjecting homeowners to any form of licensure or regulation is a bad idea and one which will surely please the hoteliers while putting Talbot County even further “behind the times”. Urban millennials and other young professionals want “AirBnbStr”; not Hampton Inn. Let them have it. With no strings attached. Encourage them to come to our locale often and spend lots of their money. Maybe they’ll move here and demand better schools, traffic engineering, broadband, long-term housing and local government.
On the flip side, let’s all agree that encouraging non-resident, commercial interests to buy a place and turn it into a “hotel” is a bad idea and one which should come with a lot of licensure and regulatory requirements. If we allow this at all, we should be putting lots of their dollars in our local coffers. Make it hurt, so as to discourage it.
Cmon people. Wake up. Airbnb (and all of the str derivatives) is a horse that’s already out of the barn and across the meadow. Trying to contain it for true homeowners is little more than the same old anti-growth, “I’ve got mine but you can’t get yours”, identity politics masquerading as a safety and neighborhood protection piece.
Alan Boisvert says
I’m not sure anyone would notice a little extra noise given the number of unnecessarily loud trucks on the roads at all
hours. Why not restrict that form of noise pollution which is far more intrusive. Not to mention the unmitigated noise
generated by the Easton airport which has a runway perfectly lined up with the town. Brilliant planning folks.
Mike Huffstetler says
I totally and completely disagree with your absurd comments about STR’s. I live full time in Talbot County and have a separate house in Talbot County that is only 10 minutes away and that I rent out year round, bringing new people and money into the area on a year round basis. The current STR licensing requirements require that there be a person within the County who can take care of the rental property and/or complaints related thereto. I do not run a commercial business. I have had zero complaints from neighbors. I pay the County and the State 10% of my income in rental taxes. How do you propose to make up for all of the lost rental tax and dining, recreational and other revenue that the County will lose by a proposal that will dramatically reduce revenue to the County. Bed & Breakfast STR’s are far closer to being commercial businesses than single family residences that are rented out on a year round basis, not to mention the fact that most people visiting a new area want to have their privacy, just like you and me. Let’s stop the NIMBY nonsense that has run this County for far too long, and let real property owners, not their neighbors, decide what is the best use of their property!