We are in favor of the County Council passing Bill 1146 with amendments that the STR owner(s) be present at the hearing for their application and that the 1,000 foot measurement for notification of an STR application remain in place county-wide. These are reasonable requirements.
We have lived with an unwanted STR in our neighborhood for five years. We followed the County’s rules for monitoring and reporting after they approved the STR application in spite of neighborhood objections. We worked with the 190 revision process and urged REASONABLE limitations on the number of STRs and identifying the most appropriate places for them. (Please note the term reasonable limitations, not prohibition, as opposed to what a hyperbolic pro-STR writer recently asserted in a letter to the Star Dem). For five years, we have seen owners who shade the truth and a system that enables them. The 190 process did set up a Short Term Rental Board that was supposed to settle differences but gave them inadequate authority to do so, in spite of the valiant efforts of some on that Board to be fair to all parties. And now we find ourselves–in the middle of a pandemic with rising numbers of cases, hospitalizations and local deaths–with business interests trying to squash what few limitations there are on STRs in this County. Is it a coincidence that this County’s COVID numbers started to spike within weeks of re-opening STRs after the prudent County decision to temporarily close them was reversed?
Another recent Star Dem letter writer brought up a 2006 appeals court ruling on a case near Deep Creek Lake that called renting a residential use of a residential property, not a commercial use. Those that apply that outdated ruling to today’s hot STR market are splitting hairs at this point–obviously this market is totally different from that of 2006. Call them residential, call them commercial, call them whatever you wish. The point is that STRs are disruptive in residential neighborhoods, change the nature of those communities, and negatively impact the lives of residents around them.
The STR saga continues with minimal resolution
because resolving these problems is difficult. The STR “industry” has continued to grow, and the County Council majority has failed, so far, to provide adequate protections for its neighborhoods. We are not advocating for STR prohibition, but we do believe that they don’t belong anywhere and everywhere. Short term “fixes” to a long range problem are not resolving much of anything.
Bill and Donna Dudley
Easton, MD
Oren S. Stevens says
Agree 100% STR is not conducive to protecting our homes and community during a pandemic and increases uncertainty about the people living in our neighborhood.
Charles Barranco says
Well stated Dudleys! You are correct about Lowens v Bosley decided in 2006 and all the theatrics by real estate rental companies. The case is old law and addressed whether the restrictive covenants were ambiguous. Duh!
Obviously, They were not, but designating STRs as a business in that case touches on a vital issue that begs to be decided. The Court referred to STRs as a business in that case. Maybe they considered it a commercial business?!
If STRs are designated commercial, as a BnB which restricts another BnB from being within 500 feet, an STR Should have the same requirement. Puff goes the Haymaker for the STR rental leeches. They don’t care about neighborhoods as is the case on Riverside Terrace just outside the
Town of St Michaels.
Recently, an LLC which owns 40 properties on the EASTERN SHORE, among some of their holdings, and who purchased Eastern Shore Rentals, can’t imagine why, are looking for more properties as per their representative at the STR Board hearing for approval of an overbuilt 5 bedroom house with 2 parking places which shares a property line with a long standing BnB? This LLC is not a Mom and Pop operation! They have holdings in many states across the Country, including SC, CA, DE!
My question; How can there be TWO sets of Rules for identical properties that have the same use?
The use being renting to people for several nights, STR?
If the County Council votes against Bill 1446 and Against the recommendations of the Planing Commission, I believe their vote is suspect. It’s apparent they are Not influenced by residents who live in these communities!
Ironically, the Council Members live in Easton where STRs are Prohibited?!
Monica Otte says
I agree with Mr. and Mrs. Dudley’s thoughtful and well-reasoned letter. It doesn’t matter if STRs are considered “residential” or “commercial”. The County has authority to regulate both residential and commercial uses, and can and should impose reasonable limitations on STRs to protect neighborhoods.
Leslie Steen says
STRs can destroy the very fabric of our communities. As STRs take over we lose the long term rental and homeownership housing that house the families that go to our schools, the volunteers that support our fire departments, churches, PTAs, nonprofits that support the community, provide neighborly support for the elderly in need, vote, run for office, and pay income taxes. And, these citizens of Talbot County care about the future of the community rather than parachuting in and out. Non-STR residents provide every bit as much and more economic activity and support for the County.
I live on a street that has had one STR for years that has not caused noise and disturbance problems, just parking congestion from the mass of cars. This year there are now two STRs. As houses are selling like hotcakes, they are being purchased as STRs. Ask the real estate agents. Before next season within 1000 feet my block will have 4 STRs, purchases by non-resident investors. This is not healthy for a community. It won’t be long before housing will no longer be affordable for long term residents who send their children to our schools and support our community. What price should we pay to enrich these investors and diminish the communities of our County?
Willard T Engelskirchen says
I am repeating myself here but here is my suggestion. If you want to see the end game of what STR’s can bring you visit Cape May, NJ. Few people live there – all STR’s. This is not why we invested in our home near Bozman.
Charles Barranco says
Dudleys!
Let’s be clear, The County Council Members live in Easton where STRs are Prohibited.
Laura Price and Pet Lesher consistently vote to restrict the deluge of STRs.
Unfortunately, Messers Pack, Callahan and Divilio vote for their unrestricted presence in residential neighborhoods and refuse to rein them in so they will not destroy the harmony of communities.
Their continued vote in favor of STRs is suspect.
Keith Watts says
Thank you for sharing. It’s vital to have a well reasoned, thoughtful and logical discourse — and a command of and/or be well-versed on the facts.
Now, it may be all this newfangled technology — or COVID-19 — has addled one’s thought processes — but I’m having trouble finding Bill 1146, the Bill referenced in the title of this particular “Letter To The Editor.” For the life of me, it’s nowhere to be found on the Talbot County Council website — “Pending Legislation.”
As a commentator has suggested, that is “suspect . . . .”
May I ask the smallest of favors? When the authors of this LTE or any commentators have a moment, could you/they kindly provide a link to Bill 1146? I’d like to have the opportunity to compare it to any legislation currently before the Council.
Many thanks in advance for your help.
Stay Safe. Be well.
Wash Your Hands. Wear a Masque . . . . 😷🗽
https://youtu.be/ctF5aMV05kM