Langley shies away from short-term rental zoning revision

LANGLEY — The city’s not likely to revise its zoning code anytime soon to allow shorter rental periods in residential neighborhoods, Langley Planning Director Larry Cort said this week.

“It’s fairly standard for most communities I’ve worked with,” Cort said. “It’s seen as incompatible with neighborhoods to have rapid turnover rates. That’s too much change in residential zones.”

Or, as City Councilman Robert Gilman said at the most recent city council meeting: “This one’s a can of worms.”

At issue is the city zoning regulation that says properties are not permitted to be rented short-term for more than 29 days. Anything beyond that is considered a regular rental period.

But the city for years also has interpreted the regulation to mean that renting a property for fewer than 29 days is appropriate only in the commercial area downtown.

The only exception for “transient accommodation” in a residential area, Cort said, would be a bed-and-breakfast, where a manager is on-site and standards for upkeep, noise, parking and other neighborly considerations are maintained.

Cort said requests to change the zoning regulation appear from time to time from people who want to rent their vacation houses to tourists for short periods.

The latest request is from Harve Harrison, a former Edmonds mayor and city councilman, who owns a vacation house in Langley.

In a letter to the city council, Harrison urged that the time period in the zoning code be shortened from 29 days to six, so he could rent his vacation house by the week.

Harrison said that Langley, a tourist town, should do all it can to boost tourism.

He said there would be a big demand in the area for weekly rentals, while monthly rentals would be rare, and that a rental house would suit most vacationing families better and cheaper than a hotel or a bed-and-breakfast.

Harrison said many owners of vacation houses on the island are being forced to rent them out because of the current economic situation.

“We don’t want to rent our home for a long term because we like to use it occasionally, and, also, we want to make sure the property is kept up,” he wrote.

“I can see no negative effect from adopting this amendment,” he added.

Asked if Harrison’s request should be passed along to the city’s planning advisory board, the city council decided to put the issue aside instead.

Councilwoman Rene Neff said city planners have plenty to do already, updating the comprehensive plan and dealing with issues such as a building moratorium.

“I think we should wait,” Neff said. “Let’s clear our plate.”

Cort was instructed to notify Harrison that there would be no immediate action by the city council on his request.

“We got what we needed from the council,” Cort said.