PUTNAM COUNTY
The Putnam Board of Commissioners’ second town hall-type hearing to consider short-term rentals (STRs) on the county’s two large lakes drew a crowd Tuesday morning almost as large as the first a couple of weeks ago.
About 30 people, some for the second time, came forward to offer three-minute summations of horror stories and economic benefits, as well as some suggested solutions. While the discourse was marked by civility and abided by the commission’s time rules, the contest between two very different views of property rights was real and provided the connecting thread.
While a moratorium on issuing a rising number of permit applications for short-term rentals under the present ordinance could come as early as the commission’s April 18 mid-month meeting, any quick decisions on longer-term changes appear off in the future.
“There is no schedule. There is no deadline,” Commission Chairman Bill Sharp said after the meeting. “It will take at least two or three weeks just to get all the data together. At least 40 people gave us written statements, and then there is the film of those who didn’t. ”One possibility is a work session for the commissioners to hammer out approaches and details, but that has not yet been decided. “That will be a decision for the (full) commission,” Sharp said. “Yeah, I have a vote, but the chair does not decide (such moves).”
As for his leanings toward a solution, Sharp, the former commissioner representing District 3’s Lake Oconee area, said he had made no decisions.
“I have to respect all the people who spoke here today. And I personally know half of them,” he said. Current District 3 Commissioner Alan Foster observed, “It seems that a relatively small number of subdivisions have had the most negative effects from STRs.”
The current ordinance allows, without a permit, rentals of 30 days or more, plus two weeks at any time.
It is the recent surge of investment properties aimed at continuous flows of weekend visitors, whose numbers and behavior can sometimes work at cross purposes to those nearby who purchased for peace and quiet, that seems to create a problem.
Property rights and related expectations may have served as the connecting thread in most speakers’ comments and recommendations, but their specific issues – pardon the pun – covered the waterfront: the beauty of the lakes as an attraction; the employment visitors support; the commission channeling hotel-motel taxes to the Chamber of Commerce to promote more tourism; the opening of zoning protections to attack; cars blocking access to residents’ homes; sewage pumps designed as “residential grade” becoming overtaxed and overflowing; the role of homeowners associations; a permit moratorium; visitors finding they have no access to a subdivision’s amenities; low fines for violations; enforcement of any ordinance; the lack of real control by owners/managers; the role of neighborhoods in permit applications; a requirement for high, but returnable, security deposits; grandparents giving birthday parties for grandchildren but running up against a numbers limit; and so on … When it comes time for commissioners (and the county attorney) to negotiate that minefield, no doubt they will have their hands full.