By QUINTON SMITH/YachatsNews
After more than a year of legal wrangling, some decisions may be coming this summer on the legality of Lincoln County’s short-term rental regulations in unincorporated areas.
A Lincoln County circuit judge has scheduled two days of hearings next week to hear oral arguments by attorneys for 20 vacation rental owners who filed suit against the county last fall objecting to a new ordinance restricting their use.
The lawsuit, which consolidated and amended some previous filings, has been the subject of responses and motions by attorneys since last November. Lawyers for the rental owners and the county have been fighting in court and before the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals since late 2021.
The county has been trying to get a handle on the burgeoning number of vacation rentals in unincorporated areas since 2019. They once numbered just over 600, but now there are 507 because of a two-year-long moratorium on issuing new licenses. Under the new regulations, they are supposed to eventually drop to less than 200 in areas outside of the seven cities, most of which have their own limits on licenses.
After two years of hearings, wrangling and study, commissioners approved a number of changes to an existing ordinance on Oct. 27, 2021 — just days before a citizen-inspired ballot measure that phased out short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods was approved by voters.
A coalition of property owners appealed both the ballot measure and the updated county ordinance to LUBA, contending both were land-use measures. But the quasi-judicial body said the county’s revised ordinance was not a land-use issue and that it had no jurisdiction over it.
It did retain jurisdiction over the ballot measure, and ruled last August that it conflicted with Oregon land-use law and declared it invalid.
That put the focus back on the county’s ordinance – and threw the issue back into the courtroom of pro-tem judge Joseph Allison, who after months of motions and written arguments scheduled hearings Wednesday and Thursday, Aug. 16-17.
The 20 plaintiffs own vacation rentals outright or operate them through trusts and limited liability companies starting as long as 20 years ago. They argue the county’s new restrictions decrease their property values, impact the right to earn a livelihood from the property, that the county failed to provide proper notice to individual licensees of commission hearings, that the ordnance invalidates homeowner association rules allowing short-term rentals, and that septic requirements are more stringent than required by the state.
The plaintiffs also object to commissioners repeatedly extending a moratorium on issuing new licenses after the November 2021 election and several more times in 2022. Their attorneys also contend the county’s ordinance remains a land-use issue and therefore invalid under LUBA’s ruling last year.
County rebuttal
The county has been represented by outside attorneys since the initial lawsuit to defend itself and the ordinance.
In their latest response to the lawsuit, the attorneys repeatedly say the county’s ordinance is a licensing issue that is clearly within commissioners’ jurisdiction and is not a land-use issue – as LUBA has already decided.
“… none of the ordinances, resolutions or orders are land use regulations because they are not ordinances that relate to the county comprehensive plan, land use regulations or zoning,” their rebuttal says. “As a result, the land-use laws plaintiffs rely on to argue the short-term rental regulations are invalid simply do not apply.”
The county’s attorneys also asked to be awarded fees – the county has spent $246,000 so far on outside legal help — from the vacation rental owners “because plaintiffs unreasonably brought claims in circuit court that have already been raised and decided previously at LUBA.”
The current rules
County commissioners made major adjustments to the ordinance in February, creating seven areas of the county – five west of U.S. Highway 101 and two east of it – where they will stop issuing new licenses as current owners sell their properties. That is expected to take years, but eventually drop the number from the current 500 to 181 licenses outside of cities.
Other new regulations include:
- Occupancy is reduced from three per bedroom plus two per household to two per bedroom plus two per household. Occupancy applies to all hours of the day, not just overnight, to prevent holding events.
- Vacation rental owners whose properties are on a septic system must have it inspected by a state-certified technician and present that report to the county by Dec. 31. Vacation rental owners are not required to obtain a new inspection if they have a report from within the past three years. Any deficiencies noted in the report must be corrected within 120 days, and if the capacity of the system is found to be less than the two-per-bedroom occupancy, that becomes the new occupancy limit
- License holders have 30 days after their license expires each year to apply for renewal or it will be revoked.
- Complaints and violations will be decided in an administrative hearing process. Previously, the county’s only recourse for enforcing compliance was through circuit court, meaning code enforcement officers essentially had to witness violations. Now, complaints will be heard before a hearings officer employed by the sheriff’s office who will determine whether a violation occurred and what sanction it should carry.
Commissioners also delegated authority to the county counsel’s office to adopt report requirements, fees, hearing procedures and notice, evidentiary requirements, standard of review and decision, and enforcement options for the administrative hearings.
- Quinton Smith is the editor of YachatsNews.com and can be reached at YachatsNews@gmail.com
What a mess. Lawyers get too involved and the citizens are left to pay the bills. 🙏 for compromise.
I pray for a county victory because of the incredibly destructive influence short-term rentals have had on our county, denying adequate housing for people who work here, increasing homelessness, disrupting neighborhoods with noise, illegal parking and overburdened septic systems, and draining the economy of money due to parasitic out of county owners
Well said.
Please don’t include homelessness in this article. Those unfortunately can not afford to live here any way…STR’s or not. The homeless go where the support is and their presence is tolerated in the streets, either from gov’ment or private.
Nothing stopped either the county or the property owners from suggesting that they try mediation before litigation. Since the property owners initiated litigation, it would seem they preferred litigation to mediation or any other form of trying to reach an agreement w/out hiring an attorney(s). As for “citizens” being left to pay the bills: (1) who says each & every STR owner is a citizen of the US or county taxpayer is a citizen of the US? It’s not a requirement for owning property in the US, and there are employees of international corporations who spend years working in the US (and paying taxes) who may also buy a home or other property while they’re living in the US. (2) if you read the entire article, you’ll notice that the attorneys representing the county have requested award of attorney fees if they prevail, that would be to save local taxpayers money or the loss of any services due to the hit to the county budget.
Those of us who live north of the bridge and west of Highway 101 know how often the use limitations are violated. We see an average of up to seven cars, sometimes RVs parked at short-term rentals, especially from May to September. There is little to no enforcement here. Those who abide by septic regulations are being victimized by STR owners who fail to monitor occupancy limitations. Failing septic systems will end up impacting our beautiful area in negative ways, especially health. Wouldn’t it be sensible to require STR owners to have more frequent septic inspections and penalize violations? Property “rights” also come with an equally important component – that being property “responsibilities”.
(1) Short Term Rentals (STR) still lack enforcement. Even in an HOA Neighborhood like Bayshore. (2) Recently added more material to speed humps due to excessive STR traffic, RVs, Trailers, Boats. (3) Excessive vehicles not staying within their rental parking property. (4) Excessive garage game rooms creating disturbance, even drunk behavior, loud noises that carry (5) fireworks with no enforcement. (6) Septic systems have a life expectancy with normal use; time bomb waiting to happen. (7) Recently Bayshore hotel presented with a Rehab purchase offer – STR owners concerned their $$$ will be effected. Yet, no support from these STR individuals because they don’t live here and their transient tenants bring their own food in coolers. (8) Bayshore homeowners pay HOA dues, STR individual spoke at that special HOA meeting for the rehab to pay more in HOA Dues, yet, no additional STR Business HOA Due has been implemented due to STR use of the pool, park, roads, dog poop, trespassing on private property or trash left on the beach or streets. (9) When will there be a reduction region STR plan put in place, haven’t seen one STR owner retire in their rental.
I purchased my home in Bayshore over 18 years ago in hopes that when the time came if I wanted to use it for an STR I could, that was a huge decision in me purchasing my home in Bayshore. Since then the HOA has changed drastically and STR’s in this area have reduced. I don’t agree with the reduction of HOA’s. We have extremely limited facilities for visitors as it is and it’s unfair in my opinion that depending upon when you received your license can impact whether you can ever use your home for an STR. Since the changes have been made to the HOA with boats sitting in yards and on the side of homes I do believe it has affected our home values. The speed bumps that have been installed are also an over kill, I believe there are better options. I am not sure where all the wild parties are that people are complaining about. I live across the street from STR and I know of several in my neighborhood and I don’t experience any problems at all with them and haven’t since I have lived here. I think I should be able to do whatever I want with my property since when I purchased my property the STR was never an issue. Homelessness and high rent is everywhere, it has very little to do with STR. When I travel to Portland, Eugene, WA, Bend, ID. there are homeless people lining the streets and rent is outrageous. It is extremely sad. The problem isn’t just here in Waldport and Yachats it is everywhere! I don’t know how anyone can afford to live and survive anywhere and very challenging here.
I agree 100%. I bought my home in Bayshore with the intent to leave it to my kids some day for a source of income for them. Right now we use it as a second home but I feel my property rights have been stripped away. My house is also near several short term rentals and there have been zero problems with them. Also, this argument that people can’t find affordable housing is ridiculous in Bayshore. The home prices are way to high for low income affordable housing anyway. It’s a resort community.