While some Matthews residents would never want to live near a short-term rental home, the lodging option is here to stay. As long as new rules are followed.
On Monday, the Matthews Supervisory Board unanimously decided? has approved a list of definitions, regulations and violation conditions regarding how short-term rentals will operate.
The regulations come into effect in 30 days and operators have 90 days to comply.
Parties, parking and persistent problems
With a quick search on AirBNB and VRBO, there are approximately 60 short-term rental listings in Matthews.
For some residents, living next to these buildings is a persistent nuisance.
“We’ve had another eventful weekend,” Joseph Martin said during Monday’s public comments, where residents could speak on any topic. “A party with sometimes 15 to 16 people. I think we counted up to 10 cars at a time. One car left the driveway and drove through our yard… It is very disturbing that we are still doing this.”
This isn’t the first time Martin has expressed concerns about the adjacent short-term rental property. He, his wife Dana and his mother-in-law Pat Robinson spoke at a public hearing in July, when commissioners first began discussing proposed regulations.
And they weren’t the only ones.
More than half of July’s speakers said problems range from day-and-night parties to excessive cars on the roads, all of which they say amounts to a continued lack of respect for their neighborhood.
In February, Robinson created a petition asking commissioners to ban short-term rentals in single-family neighborhoods.
But planning director Jay Camp previously said an outright ban cannot happen because it is considered a use or benefit to the property owner. In Matthews, short-term rentals were an unregulated practice, but a practice nonetheless.
New rental definitions and regulations
To regulate short-term rentals, commissioners had to update the city’s zoning code or Unified Development Ordinance. That includes adding definitions, rules and violation terms. Camp said many of the rules mentioned are modeled after Raleigh’s policy.
For starters, there are now two types of short-term rentals: a homestay or a full-home rental.
A homestay means that the property owner rents some of his available bedrooms. They must use the property as their primary residence and must be on site when the rental is in use.
Renting an entire home is exactly that. An owner rents some or all of the available bedrooms for 30 days or less. Both options can be located in an outbuilding.
Owners must apply annually for a zoning permit that initially costs $250. The fees are posted on the city’s annual fee schedule and are subject to adjustment.
The manager or operator of the rental property must be located in or adjacent to Mecklenburg County.
Rentals must be 800 feet apart, no more than two guests per bedroom, and no parties are allowed, which is already a rule for Airbnbs.
There are also destination restrictions. Host families can stay in most zoning districts, including single-family homes. Whole house rentals can only occur in multi-family or mixed-use neighborhoods.
As for violations, permits are revoked if there is a violation of criminal laws on the premises, such as underage drinking or prostitution, and if three “verified violations” have occurred.
A verified violation is committed by a police officer, a judge, or a code enforcement officer. Those violations would be failure to comply with regulations, such as parties.
Once a permit is revoked, it cannot be issued or reinstated for 365 days.
Will this solve the problem?
During Monday’s hearing, Camp said the planning department will have to work with law enforcement to ensure the rules are followed.
He added that some rules may not have retroactive effect. It is unclear what will apply to existing activities.
But these rules are essentially all the city can do under state law, and those laws are not strict. The only ban is that municipalities cannot require short-term rental owners to register their properties, according to a 2022 ruling by the North Carolina Court of Appeals against the city of Wilmington.
A couple sued Wilmington over the regulations, including registration and a 400-foot distance from other operations. Ultimately, Wilmington ended up paying $500,000 in taxpayer money in legal fees.
That ruling led to the dropping of regulatory calls in Charlotte and fears of similar lawsuits. However, according to that same ruling, local governments can regulate where these rentals go and how they operate.
That’s what Matthews did.
