The city of Bend received nine vacation home rental applications in June. The next month, the number was 11 and, in August, there was a small jump to 19. But as debate over the density and placement of rentals heated up this fall, the city has seen a spike in applications.

September brought in 65, while as of last week, October had already seen 26 filed with the city. Assistant City Manager Jon Skidmore attributes part of the rush to “the prohibition effect,” a feeling among applicants that they must act now or possibly lose out on the chance.

In all of 2013, 110 applications were submitted, while this year, the number is already approaching 200. Skidmore cautioned that not all of these applications represent new rentals, as 51 applications have been received since the start of September in response to a city program to encourage rentals operating without land use approval to apply.

During recent City Council meetings, homeowners concerned about the impact from a crush of new rentals have called for an immediate stop to the approval of applications. The argument has been made that rentals are destroying the character of neighborhoods, and vacationers are often loud and disruptive. While councilors have expressed sympathy and a desire to act, Assistant City Attorney Gary Firestone said the imposition of such a limitation would possibly be illegal.

“Restrictions on vacation home rentals are land use regulations, and the state has specific rules for adjusting land use,” he said. “Unless this qualifies as a moratorium, we have an adopted land use procedure that allows vacation home rentals. We can’t just tell them to stop.”

Firestone noted any moratorium attempted by the city would be vulnerable to a legal challenge. State law allows moratoriums on construction and land development but doesn’t specify that one can be placed on a particular land use on an existing property, such as turning a standing home into a rental.

In the face of such limitations on immediate action, the city is charting a longer term course to address the issue through changes to city code and the creation of a program to protect neighbors from noisy vacationers.

“This is definitely something the staff is encouraging the city do right,” Skidmore said. “To do that, it’s going to take some time.”

Earlier this month, the City Council accepted a timeline that gives the city until March to fully study and address the issue. Next week, the council will be tasked with approving a budget for the project. So far, city staff suggested $200,000 be used to create teams to study vacation home rentals, better fund enforcement of existing regulations, create a hotline for complaints and possibly pay for a staff position to manage vacation rentals.

“We need to set up a team so we have the ability to look at what other municipalities have done and to work with the community to see what makes the most sense here,” Skidmore said.

Skidmore said the city will look at ideas such as making rentals a conditional use that must be deemed “compatible” with the surrounding neighborhood. A limit on the density of rentals in a particular area, or citywide, could also come into play. According to the proposed timeline, public input would begin this fall and continue through the winter.

Qualifying for vacation rental approval is fairly easy. An occupancy limit is set on two people per bedroom plus two additional guests, there must be at least one off-street parking space per bedroom and no travel trailer or tent can be used on the site. Additionally, all rentals must be registered with the city, keep a logbook of guests, pay an application fee and contribute taxes.

Changing this process will be another discussion, as Skidmore said inspections could become required, and noise complaints could carry a penalty.

“These rentals obviously wouldn’t be popular if there wasn’t a market demand,” Skidmore said. “But as with other new things, there’s been some growing pains. We need the time to do the public outreach process and to make sure any changes to codes or permitting are done well. This is a basic private property rights issue, and if tweak anything here, we need to be deliberate.”

— Reporter: 541-633-2160, tleeds@bendbulletin.com