During Tuesday night's City Council meeting, the Council passed the amended motion to permit homestays nearly City wide in the ordinance regarding Short-term Rentals.
Ward 5 Council member Steven Dixon announced that he would recuse himself from the vote as he owns a short-term rental.
“I have a short-term rental, I have a very strong bias, which is why I am recusing myself,” Dixon said. “Not only that, but the ethics commission ruled that if I vote on short term rentals while having a short-term rental and somebody complains to the ethics commission, I would be under investigation. I will not take that risk for myself or my family. Voting on short term rentals is not worth the fine or time in prison.”
Dixon expressed his wish to represent the entirety of his Ward in an equal, non-biased way. He is willing to comply with the decision arrived at regarding short-term rentals.
As Anders opened the public hearing, a number of residents expressed their opinions ranging from outright support to opposition of the motion prohibiting short-term rentals in certain zones.
“There are a lot of professors that commute and there are a lot of times where they need to stay a couple of nights a week…” said University professor and resident Kimberly Shackelford. “I just want to say I’m fully in favor of keeping the short-term rentals because I don’t even know if I could continue to do that work without that possibility.”
Some residents spoke in opposition of commercial activity in neighborhoods.
“You shouldn’t be allowed to have a hotel," said resident Bill Casky. "It is a commercial activity, so I ask that you please vote for the protection of the many and not the profits of the few... It is disappointing that the Council member for Ward 5 has an illegal Airbnb and can't represent his constituency.”
Ward 3 Council member Beth Witten proposed an amendment to the motion, making homestays city-wide, enhancing restrictions of short-term renters from three strikes to two for regulation disobedience, limiting the maximum number of days for homestay owners to be absent from 120 to 90 and limiting short-term nonprimary rentals to be used only for lodging, prohibiting private and commercial event use.
Ward 6 Council member Bob Parsons expressed his confusion about how Witten proposed the amendment.
“I don’t even know where to start with the questions,” Parsons said. “For example, I can see Beth Witten smiling gloriously here, from where do you get the basis to supply us with this? I would like to know that.”
Parsons said that data from the Mayor-appointed Short-Term Rental Taskforce did not reflect a desire from City residents for Witten’s amendments. Parsons recalled that 96% of the residents' requests to the Council and the Planning Commission supported the regulations. He also stated that he was not told about the proposed amendments before the meeting.
Witten explained that it is her right as a member of the Council to make amendments and she believed she is reflecting the public’s interest.
“First of all, it is my right as a council member to make an amendment based on the conversations I have had with my constituents,” Witten said. “Based off of your math, Bob, your numbers are less than one percent of our population in this City, so to me, less than one percent doesn’t move the needle...”
Witten said her amendment was one of equality as it would further restrict the short-term rentals in ways while maintaining restrictions on short-term non-primary rentals in NC zones. It would allow City residents as taxpayers to benefit from the homestay industry. She said that her amendment guarantees equity to all neighborhood zone definitions by not labelling the Neighborhood Conservation district as more important than the others that were included.
Parsons addressed Witten’s past election on the topic of voter numbers.
“If you are speaking about numbers directly and dismissing 500 people in our City, may I remind you that 260 people voted for you back in your first and only election,” Parsons said. “260 makes less than one percent of our population as well.”
Parsons recalled the warnings of former Planning Director Forrest Cotten to move with caution in regards to any form of short-term rentals because “closing the barn doors” once opened is more challenging.
“Neighborhood conservation doesn’t say neighborhood incremental commercialization, it says neighborhood conservation…” Parsons said. “The idea that you are talking to a specific set of constituents that nobody else is, when I am one of the members of the Short-Term Rental Task Force... I have been open to all conversations and I am not hearing the conversations that you’re hearing.”
“Thankfully you’re not, Bob," Witten said. "And Bob, this is not about you and me. I would recommend that we keep this conversation to what’s in front of us and not our personal feelings about each other.”
Parsons continued, saying he does not want to deviate from the task force's research.
“I just don’t see a basis for change given all that has transpired in the research of these proposed ordinances…” Parsons said. “This has been a very all-consuming type of activity for me. I have taken the job seriously. I hope you can acknowledge my shock at the changes without even a heads-up.”
Witten said the changes were previously discussed.
“First of all, the changes came from multiple conversations,” Witten said. “You were one person on the task force, not the only person on the task force.”
Witten clarified her amendment, saying it does not allow investment properties for short-term non-primary rentals in NC zones but it does permit homestays. She concluded that the amendment was in line with the requests of her constituents and that her explanation was interrupted by Parsons.
“Where are your constituents?” Parsons said. “Here are my constituents, 518 of them. Where are they?”
Witten requested that the issue be called if the debate continues.
Ward 7 Council member Jay Hovey expressed that he was also not in support of the original motion and he appreciated the compromise proposed by Witten. Ward 4 Council member Brett Smith agreed.
“There is a reasonable compromise here,” Smith said. “It is a passionate subject, but there is a reasonable compromise where we can provide something as a City that doesn’t just say ‘we are going to throw everything away’ but we can make a better day and we can provide a better opportunity for all of our citizens.”
Ward 2 Council member Kelley Griswold disagreed with the notion that the amendment is a compromise.
“I heard someone say that they thought this proposal from Councilwoman Witten was a compromise,” Griswold said. “I think it is anything but a compromise. I think it’s a complete slap in the face to the majority of people who have expressed their opinion on the issue.”
He stated that feedback the Council had received clearly stated that residents wanted “No short-term rentals in Neighborhood Conservation zones,” a zone that was newly added to the list of those allowing short-term rentals.
“In this proposed amendment, you might as well throw out two to three years’ worth of work…” Griswold said. “If we allow this to go on City-wide as Councilwoman Witten’s amendment, then frankly, we just turn our back on the citizens of Auburn.”
Ward 8 Council member Tommy Dawson spoke against the words used towards Witten.
“I think that the way Ms. Witten has been treated because of what she believes in is totally unacceptable, and this is a very cruel way for a Councilperson to behave, shouting at Mrs. Witten like we were doing,” Dawson said. “Now, I just can’t allow that to go on. I am opposed to that. I don’t think it’s right."
Dawson stated his disagreement with the amendment proposed but believed that the Council should handle the situation professionally.
“I don’t think she’s ‘slapping anybody in the face’ by doing it, I think she really believes in her amendment and it was a good reason doing what she’s doing…” Dawson said. “We have just got to get a grip as a Council and we can’t behave this way. How do you think this looks to the people looking at Auburn tonight? This is a sad night in Auburn when a Councilperson gets treated like Mrs. Witten’s been treated here tonight."
Mayor Anders spoke up to apologize and advocate for Witten.
“I personally apologize to you, Mrs. Witten, that you had to endure what you had to endure a short while ago,” Anders said. “And, we all need to search ourselves. We are all professionals and we need to act like it. If you don’t agree with it, then let your vote express that and let your constituents ask you about that.”
Anders said the proposed amendments reflect a support of the various economic industries in Auburn as well as homeowners.
“I have been consistent that I believe homestays are worth investigating and they are worth trying,” Anders said. “I believe that the people that have the responsibility that own that home and have to face their neighbor at the mailbox and at the driveway every day are going to do the right thing. And we aren’t going to give them the leverage to do the wrong thing.”
Parson moved to amend Witten’s amendment permitting short-term rentals in Neighborhood Conservation Districts. His request was for the exclusion of NC districts from zones permitting short-term rentals in the new ordinance.
Griswold expressed his “wholehearted” support to Parsons' amendment to the proposed amendment.
The amendment to the amendment did not pass with a 3-5 vote. Griswold, Parsons and Ward 1 Council member Taylor voted yes.
The Council proceeded with Witten’s original amendment. The amendment permitting homestays in additional zones was approved by a 5-3 vote with Dawson, Griswold, and Parsons voting no.
The Council is required by law to re-advertise the amended ordinance and hold a public hearing for City residents. The Council voted to postpone voting on the new ordinance with a 6-2 vote, with Griswold and Parsons voting no.
When discussing a 33,000 square foot development next to the Publix at Hamilton Place, many residents expressed their concern and disproval regarding the request for a public road access. The proposal was for an office and community shopping center development and would require a form of street access.
This new road proposal again sparked a number of concerns from the public regarding issues of traffic, safety and the potential impact on home values. A development at the same location was denied in November because of similar concerns.
“Come out here and try and pull out [of our neighborhood] a couple of times and think about yourself as a teenager pulling out and think about all the extra traffic coming in there,” said resident Mark Massey. “I am not against growth… but it has to be smart growth, and this is not what this is here until that road gets fixed…. [The development] is something replacing a single-family home that was rarely used, and not much traffic coming out of it. With any traffic, it’s going to be bad.”
Project representative Brett Basquin spoke out to shed light on the access proposal’s difficulties and purpose.
“The fall back on this is, if we can’t get this approved with a public street here, how do you expect us to access this property?” Basquin said. “If we can’t get anything approved to access it through the shared curb cut through on the public shopping center property and we can’t put a street to meet City requirements to align with the Bent Brook driveway… where are our rights to access and develop our property?”
Beth Witten disagreed with the changes that occurred between the first and this second application.
“I would see this as a greater concern as a parent versus what the previous application was, and for that reason, I cannot support this application,” Witten said.
The motion was a denied with an 8-1 vote. Smith voted yes.
Do you like this story? The Plainsman doesn't accept money from tuition or student fees, and we don't charge a subscription fee. But you can donate to support The Plainsman.
