Setback Requirement for Short-Term Tourist Rentals in Focus at County Planning Commission Meeting

A meeting of the County Planning Commission on Wednesday, August 13, brought into key focus the one-hundred-foot setback requirement for short-term tourist rentals. This item came before the commission in response to a staff-led process inspired by the Board of Supervisors. When the BOS confronted difficulty in determining whether to apply the rule to a particular case or allow a variance, they convened a work session to discuss the finer points of how the one-hundred-foot requirement has historically been handled, and consequently directed staff to develop a potential text amendment that would feature three options: (1) eliminate the one-hundred-foot requirement, (2) keep the requirement and make it non-waivable, or (3) establish a fifty-foot requirement and make that non-waivable.

The County Planning Commission holds its regular monthly meeting on the evening of Wednesday, August 13. Royal Examiner Photo Credits: Brenden McHugh.

As this item featured a public hearing, the citizenry enjoyed the opportunity to express their concerns about the outcome of the issue at stake. Many spoke, and a broad spectrum of views was articulated. Some were in favor of preserving the one-hundred-foot requirement, although perspectives differed on whether it should be made non-waivable. A strict adherence to the requirement would prevent favoritism, while keeping the looser process that currently allows for variances would accommodate extraordinary cases. Some were in favor of elimination, as the requirement could be perceived as arbitrary. It could also be perceived as interfering with land use rights, especially in a case where an applicant fails by merely five feet. An advantage of the requirement is its regulation of noise. But if all other supplementary regulations are met, is the concern sizable? The fifty-foot option met with a tepid response from the public, being perceived largely as insufficient or equally arbitrary.

Planner Kelly Wahl.

Zoning Administrator Chase Lenz (L) and County Attorney Daniel Rose (R).

The consensus among the commissioners was clear: recommend denial of the amendments. Conservatism characterized Vice-Chairman Hugh Henry’s articulation of why that is necessary. The one-hundred-foot requirement is a tool, he explained, and allowing for variances accommodates situations in which strict adherence to the requirement does not make sense, like a situation in which both residences are short-term tourist rentals, or a situation in which the complaining neighbor has a rental of his own and the complaint is motivated more by competition than true concern. If a potential rental fails the requirement by merely five feet, he asserted, the BOS, should they deem that five-foot failure harmful, ought to deny the application. Thus, should they uphold the recommendation, the necessity of action is laid squarely on the board.

Click here to watch the Warren County Planning Commission Meeting of August 13, 2025.