County Council hears more on VRs while propane tank approval questioned again

— by Matthew Gilbert, Orcas Issues reporter —

More than 100 people packed the Eastsound Firehall on a cold and snowy Tuesday to attend the County Council’s (CC) regularly scheduled “road show” meeting on Orcas. Most in attendance were there to voice their opinions on the impacts of vacation rentals (VR) and the wisdom (or not) of a moratorium on VR permits. And while the Vacation Rental Work Group (VRWG) certainly drove some of the attendance, the appearance of the Council on Orcas created a more level playing field for those on both sides of issue – though it was pointed out that the morning-midday timing dampened the attendance of “working folks,” many of whom have direct experience with housing issues impacted in part by VRs.

[Note: A handful of attendees were not there to address VRs but to comment on other issues or to make formal presentations (e.g., recycling). One issue that seemed to get everyone’s attention, though, dramatically presented by Orcas resident Rick Fant, was the 2018 approval of a 30,000-gallon propane tank on Aeroview Lane near the airport. His statement raised enough disturbing allegations in how that approval came about that OI is considering a follow-up article.]

Back at the main event, Charles Toxey got things going with a report from the Eastsound Planning Review Commission (EPRC). “The county’s compliance efforts are a good first step,” he said, “but they still fall short, such as controlling the total number of VRs.” He said the EPRC proposes two tiers of VR ownership:

1. Home stay/share (the property owner lives on site)
2. Off-site ownership (the owner doesn’t live on site)

He then shared some specific regulatory goals:

• Limiting neighborhood densities of VRs.
• Requiring new construction to wait 10 years before applying for a VR permit.
• Allowing only one permit per parcel and one permit per off-site owner.
• All permits expire upon the sale of a property.

He then noted a loophole in the current regulations that seem to allow multiple rentals (e.g., tents, boats) on parcels with a single permit because those units are not actively investigated.

The public comments that followed, the vast majority of which supported a moratorium, addressed different issues surrounding the proliferation of VRs. Most of the 30+ speakers are featured below, though a few names are missing or possibly misspelled. Importantly, the county has neither a video nor audio recording of the meeting since it was held off-site and the minutes will only list those who spoke, not what was said. So Orcas Issues will be the “paper of record” for what took place.

Favoring a Moratorium

Naomi Aldort: “Stop prioritizing the economy over quality of life. A moratorium doesn’t stop everything; it’s a pause. We need a conversation.”

Toby Cooper: “The VRWG petition now has 2,500 signatures. A moratorium will stop the bleeding, bring everyone to the table, and be a convincing demonstration that the Council is seriously taking on this issue.”

Lynette Wood: “We may have operating regulations but nothing that addresses ‘cumulative impacts’ over two decades. We’re in danger of losing our sense of community. Have we already ‘tipped’? How about a lottery for new permits, like for ADUs?”

Janet Alderton: “I have friends who now share a water system with multiple VRs and there is a clear danger of saltwater intrusion . . . which could lead to a county lawsuit.”

Joe Symons: “I still don’t understand the council’s resistance to a moratorium. Why is it not in the public interest? Give us reasons to trust you.”

Mary P(?): “I have not heard much about the potential devaluation of properties contiguous to VRs, only about how a VR permit increases a home’s value. And how does a private road suddenly become a commercial road to service a VR that is essentially a commercial activity?”

Bob Gamble: “The town of Long Beach, which has 460,000 people, limits VRs to 1,000. That’s fewer than we have here!”

Judy Scott: “We need a moratorium to take the time to come up with good, sustainable solutions, such as restricting the number of permits or having them run with the owner, not the property.”

Mark Mayer: “VRsshould be subject to an annual renewable business license.”

Ann Marie Shanks: “Deer Harbor has already asked for a moratorium. Our inns are closing. We aren’t opposed to VRs per se. What we want are young people with families to join our community. We want small businesses. We want sustainable community.”

Woman (sorry!): “Why aren’t we taking a closer look at the environmental impacts of VRs on water use, waste, etc.?”

Laura Graham: “Maybe VRs are great for the economy, but not for us. I have a small family, we want to raise our kids here, but we are living in a 100-sq.-ft. house without plumbing.”

Michael Johnson: “I would like to see a regular county liaison with the VRWG.”

Andrea Cohen: “Many communities have been struggling with these issues and come up with innovative solutions. Can we?”

Sadie Bailey: “Many VRs are near shorelines and critical areas. And I still don’t understand all the fuss against a moratorium. We’ve had one for water and marijuana.”

Brad Brown: “Lawsuits are common in the case of VR controls. The Council has done good work; we don’t need to get litigious. The Change.org petition has 2,500 signatures, but who are they? A short-term moratorium could work, though.

Rural or Resort?

Kim Secunda: “What kind of a community are we? Rural? A resort? The new transportation plan raises some troubling issues regarding where county money is going to be spent.”

Stephen Shrader: “We are both a resort and rural. Can they be reconciled? More importantly, what is our carrying capacity? And what about using tax incentives to help locals innovate long-term rental options?”

Bruce Halabisky: “(From a letter from Mike Miller and wife): “Off-island investors are hurting our neighborhood. We did not plan on living in a neighborhood of hotels, which is essentially what a VR is. Can’t we be pro-tourism and pro-community? Use a moratorium to figure this out.”

Against a Moratorium

Bob Phalan: “The county’s VR problems are not the responsibility of homeowners to solve. There are bigger economic problems. It’s a community issue.”

Gulliver Rankin: “We live in a resort town. VRs can be leveraged to our advantage. Many are not rentable locally. More younger people are moving here, and they are the ones being employed by the tourist economy.”

Linda Bannerman: “I support the efforts of the Council on this issue via compliance. Otherwise, there is a danger of legal action. I don’t think the current ‘conversations’ have been fair; they seem tilted toward anti-VR. And the data feels biased. Let’s be more representative. “

The Council Responds

Orcas Commissioner Rick Hughes, speaking for the council, began by noting that, “We need to finish the Comp Plan, and hopefully it will incorporate some VR issues, but a moratorium will take up staff time. We are also still evaluating 2018-19 compliance data; half of that data has been entered, and of that, one-third of the permits are ‘inactive,’ 80/450 2018 permit holders have declined to renew, and we’ve uncovered 50 that are illegal.”

Hughes added that the Council is working on adding a VR fee, considering both a total cap (1,500 – 2,000) and an annual cap (e.g., based on a percentage of . . . something), and preventing a transfer 90 days after the sale of a permitted parcel. “The original ordinance reflected the conditions of the time,” he said. “We now have more information. We are also willing to re-discuss the issue with the EPRC and Deer Harbor, but only as it relates to land use language in the Comp Plan.

“A formal report will be written up to revise the current ordinance – this is the first line in the sand – based on our January 29 retreat. We have not come to a conclusion on a moratorium but are moving forward on many other fronts. This is an evolving scenario but we are listening to what the community is telling us and how to incorporate changes into our current action plan with limited resources.”

****************

To be clear, a moratorium should not necessarily be conflated with adding more specific regulations for controlling VR growth and its impacts. Part of the discussion is whether a moratorium is needed to push that process and, as noted above, “stop the bleeding.” The commissioners have finally started paying attention, but they don’t seem enthusiastic about adding to the planning department’s already lengthy to-do list, and there has been no discussion on how long such a regulatory process will take. A follow-up email to Hughes and Erika Shook of the DCD asking for timetable scenarios on how and when proposed new regulations would be selected and enacted will hopefully spark such a conversation.