||| BY MATTHEW GILBERT, theORCASONIAN OP-ED REPORTER |||
Five weeks after the County Council approved a moratorium on new vacation rental permits in activity centers, hamlets, and the Eastsound and Lopez UGAs, the Department of Community Development’s (DCD) Erika Shook gave a status report. In a memo to council members, she reiterated the original scope to develop permit caps for these areas, and then went through a list of discussion items that DCD staff were directed to explore, from safety and water issues to streamlining the permit revocation process. She invited council for additional comments.
Cindy Wolf asked about the difference between B&Bs and VRs, with Christine Minney adding that “having specific and standardized regulations would be welcome.” Shook responded that the differences were minimal but more pronounced between VRs and hotels. “I will bring back more information.”
Discussion then pivoted to how to improve the permit revocation process. Shook suggested an “abbreviated procedure,” while Wolf felt the overlay of an operating permit would give staff another enforcement tool to get around the protections of a land use permit. “We could revise the current code,” said Shook. “I would prefer to modify what we’ve already created rather than create a new thing.”
Jamie Stephens agreed, but Wolf pushed back. “We are granting a land use permit which is governed by other laws which require a separate enforcement process. (With this) you could have a land use permit but not a permit to operate.”
Agreement was more easily reached when it came to helping homeowner associations control impacts. “If an HOA doesn’t have such bylaws,” sad Shook, “we could add a simple regulatory fix.” Minney responded that “this would give residents an actual say. I strongly support this.”
Circling back to the issue of caps, Shook emphasized the role of land use designations.
“Do we need to change what’s allowed? Deer Harbor has requested that no VRs be allowed in ‘hamlet residential.’ There are a number of land use designations to review . . . . especially in Eastsound, where there’s a growing emphasis on the need for affordable housing.”
She suggested that the EPRC could help guide these decisions. Wolf added that the EPRC and the Vacation Rental Work Group (VRWG) could co-host a public hearing. Both Wolf and Minney supported such a “bottom-up” approach.
Adjusted Expectations
With the clock ticking on both the moratorium and the Comp Plan (CP) update, it soon became clear that doing anything more than focusing on the cap issue would not be realistic, and even that would stretch existing resources. When Minney wondered about the role of the Planning Commission (PC), Shook explained that, “The Planning Commission is about to get into some controversial topics and we’re trying to manage their exposure. We could direct them to focus on the moratorium and drop everything else, but this would have huge implications. We can make progress on a cap and land use issues, but this will still be time-consuming.
“The July 13 (moratorium) deadline may not be reasonable.”
“We need to focus on the caps,” said Stephens. “The CP update needs to move ahead. The PC feels they have already made their recommendations. To shift their focus back to the moratorium would be challenging. There is still a lot to do on the CP.”
Wolf emphasized that, “We need a cap before the moratorium expires. If not, how do we go forward? Are we amenable to extending it?”
“I will prioritize for the cap and add those policies to the CP,” said Shook. “The simpler the better. This will still take me away from other things.”
“This is exactly why I wanted a longer moratorium,” said Wolf. “These are big issues, especially on Orcas. If it expires before these issues are addressed, I don’t see how the GMA or the CP will protect our neighborhoods. The entire point of the GMA will be compromised.”
“Let’s have this conversation when we get closer to the moratorium deadline,” suggested Stephens.
“I am amenable to extending the moratorium if the time comes,” added Minney.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Thank you, Matthew Gilbert, for a very thorough “reality check” on the Vacation Rental Moratorium, and thank you, Commissioners, for your serious and knowledgeable attention to the complex and related issues on your (our) plates. I appreciate Erika Shook’s obvious experience and focus on process, prioritization and staff time availability. It feels to me as if we are going to see tangible progress toward the protection of our neighborhoods from these Commissioners before the Moratorium clock runs out!
Well-stated, Molly!
Individual homeowners associations and neighborhoods need to be able to set caps on the number of transient rentals within their respective domains. As I said in my County Council comments, some are amenable to these rentals, which are manifestly commercial activities, and others are definitely not.
While I appreciate the efforts of those involved with formulating additional regulation of VRs within activity centers and UGAs, I consider the CC’s decision to exclude rural lands from this moratorium to be unfortunate in the extreme.
VRs in the rural lands…bringing commercialization to the rural landscape without any meaningful restrictions or understanding of its implications…and enabling the hottest ticket real estate investment north of Seattle…will have, and perhaps is already having, a profound effect on the beloved rural character of the islands with which we have been entrusted.