# Short Term Rentals (less than 30 days) Such as Air BnB



## RFDACM02

We're struggling with a huge influx of Air BnB type units throughout our little tourist community. It looks to us as if the Life Safety Code is very clear when there's transient occupancy in multi-family, but in one and two family dwellings, it seems as if this industry has outpaces the Code. We're seeing large City's fight this, but anyone else doing this on a smaller community scale?

Right now we're drafting ordinances to require permitting and possible inspections, but again, this is mostly in one and two family dwellings, so that's been a real political nightmare, as it's viewed as regulating who does what in their house. This, even though we regulate in home businesses. The Air BnB and vacation rental crowd has some significant backing and networking to fight Code Officials nationwide.

Wondering how this is being handled outside of here?


----------



## mtlogcabin

What is an Air BnB?


----------



## Francis Vineyard

because it might violate some zoning ordinance with increase traffic in residential neighborhoods the city council recently passed a requirement for short term business permits to basically collect additional tax revenue. Not a building code issue here.


----------



## cda

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> What is an Air BnB?


Rental agent

https://www.airbnb.com/?af=27608046&c=A_TC%3Ddxwjzz3wec%26G_MT%3De%26G_CR%3D22111491256%26G_N%3Ds%26G_K%3Dair%20b%20n%20b%26G_P%3D&gclid=CPj55Zijk8cCFQ2OaQodzUsNgg&dclid=CPD2hZmjk8cCFap_MAodwf8GTQ


----------



## RFDACM02

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> What is an Air BnB?


Internet based way of renting rooms in your house or sub-letting an apartment. Basically allowing nightly rentals in residential occupancies, thereby letting the owner/renter make money but most often circumventing code requirements, licenses, occupancy classifications. On the positive side, it's a cheap way to go on vacation. We have a few people that rent apartments monthly just post them on Air BnB or VRBO (Vacation Rental By Owner) as nightly or weekly rentals. Problem is when you do this in a multi-family you turn it into Rooming and Lodging or Hotel. In one and two family dwellings it introduces transient accommodations to neighborhoods along with placing these people in houses that were not designed to protect transient occupants and rarely are fully compliant in the first place.


----------



## RFDACM02

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> because it might violate some zoning ordinance with increase traffic in residential neighborhoods the city council recently passed a requirement for short term business permits to basically collect additional tax revenue. Not a building code issue here.


Not really a building code issue here either, but it is a Life Safety Code issue. Sorry, maybe there's a better forum that address NFPA 101? I'm still a newb here.


----------



## cda

RFDACM02 said:
			
		

> Not really a building code issue here either, but it is a Life Safety Code issue. Sorry, maybe there's a better forum that address NFPA 101? I'm still a newb here.


Codes are codes

First your city needs to decide if they want to do anything with this business

Than decide what they want to do

And decide if they want to use any building/ 101 as part of the enforcement

It is and should not be a building / 101 issue only

And all this needs to be in writing by ordinance


----------



## mjesse

Our small community is quickly drafting regulations to prohibit them after one here drew attention to itself by hosting a large raucous party.

I would expect to see revised zoning laws within the next 2-3 months, if you want to check back with me then.


----------



## floydman

I delt with this in a previous jurisdiction follow this link to an ordinance we drafted to address the STR's

https://www.municode.com/library/nm/ruidoso/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=COOR_CH54LAUS_ARTIIZO_DIV3DIRE_S54-106SHRMREREOVZO


----------



## JCraver

What's the public interest in trying to regulate this?  Why worry about them at all?

It's a house.  If you have a house and you invite your parents to stay with you for a week, is that different than these str's?  How about if you go on vacation for 2 weeks and a friend and his wife house-sit for you?  Is that different?  How?  Should building, zoning, and/or life safety codes regulate whether your folks or your best buddy can stay in your house?  If not, then why does that change if you charge a stranger a few bucks to do the same thing?

This isn't a typical home-based business, where you have issues with additional parking, traffic, customers, signs, lights, outdoor storage, noise, fumes, smoke, etc.  This is letting someone borrow your house for a few days.  If they have a party and disturb the neighbors, the cops will come and take care of it just as they would if you threw the party yourself.  The ambulance service and fire department will respond to the same address if there's a call for them, and do their jobs just like they would if it were you in the house, right?

I'm honestly asking here, because I guess I don't understand.  This sounds like a solution in search of a problem, to me.


----------



## cda

JCraver said:
			
		

> What's the public interest in trying to regulate this?  Why worry about them at all?It's a house.  If you have a house and you invite your parents to stay with you for a week, is that different than these str's?  How about if you go on vacation for 2 weeks and a friend and his wife house-sit for you?  Is that different?  How?  Should building, zoning, and/or life safety codes regulate whether your folks or your best buddy can stay in your house?  If not, then why does that change if you charge a stranger a few bucks to do the same thing?
> 
> This isn't a typical home-based business, where you have issues with additional parking, traffic, customers, signs, lights, outdoor storage, noise, fumes, smoke, etc.  This is letting someone borrow your house for a few days.  If they have a party and disturb the neighbors, the cops will come and take care of it just as they would if you threw the party yourself.  The ambulance service and fire department will respond to the same address if there's a call for them, and do their jobs just like they would if it were you in the house, right?
> 
> I'm honestly asking here, because I guess I don't understand.  This sounds like a solution in search of a problem, to me.


so no problem if your next door neighbor opens up a B&B in his house?

I do see you rpoint in away, especialy because there are rent houses everywhere, but normally they are not the short term one week or month or day rentals.

I think that is where the problem is the short termers.

TO me it is a zoning or other code issue, not so much a IBC or IRC issue.


----------



## mjesse

JCraver said:
			
		

> What's the public interest in trying to regulate this?  Why worry about them at all?It's a house.  If you have a house and you invite your parents to stay with you for a week, is that different than these str's?  How about if you go on vacation for 2 weeks and a friend and his wife house-sit for you?  Is that different?  How?  Should building, zoning, and/or life safety codes regulate whether your folks or your best buddy can stay in your house?  If not, then why does that change if you charge a stranger a few bucks to do the same thing?
> 
> This isn't a typical home-based business, where you have issues with additional parking, traffic, customers, signs, lights, outdoor storage, noise, fumes, smoke, etc.  This is letting someone borrow your house for a few days.  If they have a party and disturb the neighbors, the cops will come and take care of it just as they would if you threw the party yourself.  The ambulance service and fire department will respond to the same address if there's a call for them, and do their jobs just like they would if it were you in the house, right?
> 
> I'm honestly asking here, because I guess I don't understand.  This sounds like a solution in search of a problem, to me.


Some places are more appropriate than others. If you live in Myrtle Beach, SC, or Key West, FL I suppose this is all well and good.

In our suburban bedroom community of 20k s.f. lots, renting out your home to 250 people every weekend is frowned upon.

Although everyone likes to think they are free to do as they please in America, your rights end where your neighbors begin. Zoning regulations help level the playing field for everyone.

If you're renting out your house to 2-3 people for a week at a time, you can probably keep it going for quite a while. But once a big bash or two occurs, and neighbors come forth to voice complaints...new rules are made. One bad apple spoils the bunch, as they say.


----------



## cda

Or there is a problem like this:::

http://roadwarriorvoices.com/2015/05/19/woman-forced-to-pay-1700-to-get-rid-of-nightmare-airbnb-renters/

Or this::

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7232722


----------



## mtlogcabin

CDA

Your links are good at pointing out landlord tenant problems. Not anything building or zoning should be involved in.


----------



## markw

Its a problem if you have 9 bedrooms, some egressing through other bedrooms and 2- 8 person hot tubs on a 2 story deck built on 4x4's and 2x8's.  We deal with this everyday here in our little town and I have plenty of stories for ya.  We have ordinances for overnite rentals that include requirements of a yearly occupancy permit and yearly FD inspections. I have to look at every house, existing or new, and approve the permit. All new (construction) dwellings intended to be rented to transients are classified R1 and must meet all sprinkler/egress requirements. One development with about 70 of these structures (out in our county) went up in flames about 2 years ago. A lot of work for building/planning for sure.


----------



## RFDACM02

cda said:
			
		

> It is and should not be a building / 101 issue only
> 
> And all this needs to be in writing by ordinance


This is exactly what we're doing. I'm looking to see how others may have worked through the ordinance process and if/how they related building or Life Safety Codes into the decision.


----------



## RFDACM02

JCraver said:
			
		

> What's the public interest in trying to regulate this?  Why worry about them at all?It's a house.  If you have a house and you invite your parents to stay with you for a week, is that different than these str's?  How about if you go on vacation for 2 weeks and a friend and his wife house-sit for you?  Is that different?  How?  Should building, zoning, and/or life safety codes regulate whether your folks or your best buddy can stay in your house?  If not, then why does that change if you charge a stranger a few bucks to do the same thing?
> 
> This isn't a typical home-based business, where you have issues with additional parking, traffic, customers, signs, lights, outdoor storage, noise, fumes, smoke, etc.  This is letting someone borrow your house for a few days.  If they have a party and disturb the neighbors, the cops will come and take care of it just as they would if you threw the party yourself.  The ambulance service and fire department will respond to the same address if there's a call for them, and do their jobs just like they would if it were you in the house, right?
> 
> I'm honestly asking here, because I guess I don't understand.  This sounds like a solution in search of a problem, to me.


A few things come to mind: First, it is a zoning issue with an in home business per our City Ordinances and currently not allowed, but there is a push to amend the ordinances to allow this use. On the zoning side, there are parking issues with numbers of spaces. People in some neighborhoods are not accustomed to a transient facility where they don't know their neighbors as they change on  a much more frequent basis. In many cases, every night is a Friday night to the renter while adjacent homeowners attempt to sleep for work and/or school the next day.

The Code side, is more clear in my eyes. The Life Safety Code very clearly details a greater threat to the occupants when their is transient accommodations, hence hotels are far more restrictive than apartment buildings. The issue is it doesn't appear anyone considered transient use of one and two family dwellings. Renting to a family and more than three outsiders clearly pushes you out of Chapter 24 and into Rooming and Lodging at the minimum. Even if the home remains within Chapter 24, we do not enforce NFPA 101 in existing 1 and 2 family dwellings as the "king of your own Castle" idea prevails. But, in this case you are now taken money from strangers who should have a right to expect minimum safety rules have been followed, in our case those being NFPA 101. Being that we're in the Northeast, most of these homes cannot meet NFPA 101 with regard to meeting stair requirements or in many cases, secondary means of escape.


----------



## RFDACM02

Another issue we're learning of is that most of these homes are not being properly insured as a business which the insurance industry considers them (you use the home to make income of any sort). This could lead to non-coverage of claims leaving renters who suffer injuries or losses to use litigation to recoup any losses, hopefully not worse!

Lastly, we're also seeing multi-family buildings being offered for these accommodations, clearly addressed in NFPA 101 as Rooming and Lodging or even hotel! As a small oceanside community with a significant tourist swell this issue came out of the blue a year or so ago and now we can see over 170 units being offered on Air BnB alone, 10-12 of which are in licensed B&B's the rest whom have begun "under the radar".


----------



## jar546

I see this as nearly impossible to address/control.


----------



## cda

RFDACM02 said:
			
		

> Another issue we're learning of is that most of these homes are not being properly insured as a business which the insurance industry considers them (you use the home to make income of any sort). This could lead to non-coverage of claims leaving renters who suffer injuries or losses to use litigation to recoup any losses, hopefully not worse! Lastly, we're also seeing multi-family buildings being offered for these accommodations, clearly addressed in NFPA 101 as Rooming and Lodging or even hotel! As a small oceanside community with a significant tourist swell this issue came out of the blue a year or so ago and now we can see over 170 units being offered on Air BnB alone, 10-12 of which are in licensed B&B's the rest whom have begun "under the radar".


Insurance is not the cities problem

Multi family your city should already address what an apartment is versus what a motel is. They just need to enforce it


----------



## cda

RFDACM02 said:
			
		

> A few things come to mind: First, it is a zoning issue with an in home business per our City Ordinances and currently not allowed, but there is a push to amend the ordinances to allow this use. On the zoning side, there are parking issues with numbers of spaces. People in some neighborhoods are not accustomed to a transient facility where they don't know their neighbors as they change on  a much more frequent basis. In many cases, every night is a Friday night to the renter while adjacent homeowners attempt to sleep for work and/or school the next day. The Code side, is more clear in my eyes. The Life Safety Code very clearly details a greater threat to the occupants when their is transient accommodations, hence hotels are far more restrictive than apartment buildings. The issue is it doesn't appear anyone considered transient use of one and two family dwellings. Renting to a family and more than three outsiders clearly pushes you out of Chapter 24 and into Rooming and Lodging at the minimum. Even if the home remains within Chapter 24, we do not enforce NFPA 101 in existing 1 and 2 family dwellings as the "king of your own Castle" idea prevails. But, in this case you are now taken money from strangers who should have a right to expect minimum safety rules have been followed, in our case those being NFPA 101. Being that we're in the Northeast, most of these homes cannot meet NFPA 101 with regard to meeting stair requirements or in many cases, secondary means of escape.


The city needs to d code first if they are going to regulate this.

Yearly permit or whatever

Than decide what rules they are going to adopt

Parking, noise, length of stay , etc

And decide what building code issues they are going to enforce

For me I am thinking windows in bedrooms and smoke alarms everywhere, and leave it at that.

If a true B&B maybe fire sprinkler and alarm


----------



## RFDACM02

cda said:
			
		

> Insurance is not the cities problem Multi family your city should already address what an apartment is versus what a motel is. They just need to enforce it


Thanks for continually pointing out our ineptness. I posted here to see how others have addressed this issue, and have gotten some feedback that is actually constructive.


----------



## RFDACM02

cda said:
			
		

> The city needs to d code first if they are going to regulate this.Yearly permit or whatever
> 
> Than decide what rules they are going to adopt
> 
> Parking, noise, length of stay , etc
> 
> And decide what building code issues they are going to enforce
> 
> For me I am thinking windows in bedrooms and smoke alarms everywhere, and leave it at that.
> 
> If a true B&B maybe fire sprinkler and alarm


So you'd ignore the Life Safety Code? How do you selectively enforce sections of an adopted code? In a B&B there is no question, they meet Chapter 26 of the LSC, completely. The issue we're dealing with is that while we have adopted the LSC and the Sate has adopted it as well, chapter 24 doesn't provide the same life safety "tools" that all other occupancies that have transient accommodations provide.


----------



## cda

RFDACM02 said:
			
		

> So you'd ignore the Life Safety Code? How do you selectively enforce sections of an adopted code? In a B&B there is no question, they meet Chapter 26 of the LSC, completely. The issue we're dealing with is that while we have adopted the LSC and the Sate has adopted it as well, chapter 24 doesn't provide the same life safety "tools" that all other occupancies that have transient accommodations provide.


Because it can be done

All I am saying is that the city decides to enforce some type of oversight for these.

As part of that ordinance, specify what or all building codes to follow.

If the city wants to sprinkle every house used for rental, because te code says so, than that is what they do.

I think applying the entire code to a plain house either rented out entirely or just one room, is overkill


----------



## cda

RFDACM02 said:
			
		

> Thanks for continually pointing out our ineptness. I posted here to see how others have addressed this issue, and have gotten some feedback that is actually constructive.


Just saying there should be laws in place already, enforce those.

If additional are needed adopt them


----------



## cda

To me the city needs to decide what to do with them, and than look at what building or fire code issues to enforce


----------



## cda

RFDACM02 said:
			
		

> Thanks for continually pointing out our ineptness. I posted here to see how others have addressed this issue, and have gotten some feedback that is actually constructive.


I point out to my boss short comings,

Some times it helps


----------



## cda

http://www.fodors.com/news/airbnb-ruled-illegal-in-new-york-city-6798.html

Austin, cant get any crazier than there::

http://austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Code_Compliance/STRs/STR_FAQ_Packet_2-20-2015.pdf

http://austintexas.gov/str

Not much of an inspection required

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-Airbnb-rules-would-pull-short-term-rentals-5402598.php


----------



## linnrg

Even if R-1 by Exception "congregate Living" (where shared facilities exist - such as in a home) takes you out to R-3.  So I sure hope my tourist community does not get wind of this.  The tourist funding/marketing people who get their funds from bed taxes would love to hear about this activity.  I agree that the homes who participate should be maybe inspected or forced to have basic elements in good working order (would be a good idea) but would not support additional retrofit to LSC or other "commercially applied" things like full sprinklers or rebuilding of stairs.

I do not ever want to be a zoning inspector


----------



## cda

RFDACM02

Scroll down to

"Your city regulations". And there are a list of different city's requirements

https://www.airbnb.com/help/responsible-hosting


----------



## MASSDRIVER

It's not so much that there is a problem with people staying at your house. The problem is that you are _making some money_ from people staying at your house.

Now really,that's not even a problem, except governments, bureaucrats, and authorities HATE IT when you make some money, and they can't get their greasy little rat paws on some of it. Or most of it. Or all of it. Or even better, all of it plus some fees or fines. That's the finest kind.

_That's_ the problem.

Brent.


----------



## cda

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> It's not so much that there is a problem with people staying at your house. The problem is that you are _making some money_ from people staying at your house. Now really,that's not even a problem, except governments, bureaucrats, and authorities HATE IT when you make some money, and they can't get their greasy little rat paws on some of it. Or most of it. Or all of it. Or even better, all of it plus some fees or fines. That's the finest kind.
> 
> _That's_ the problem.
> 
> Brent.


""""" As of February of 2015, the city had, in preceding months, sent out 240 letters demanding that Airbnb hosts pay taxes for renting out their rooms or homes. In addition, Passons told Mashable that the permits cost $5,000 to $10,000."""

"""Rachel Smith, who lists her home in San Diego's Burlingame neighborhood on home-sharing website Airbnb, is now being fined $25,000 for her failure to obtain a conditional use permit""

http://mashable.com/2015/08/12/san-diego-airbnb-fine/


----------



## MASSDRIVER

cda said:
			
		

> """"" As of February of 2015, the city had, in preceding months, sent out 240 letters demanding that Airbnb hosts pay taxes for renting out their rooms or homes. In addition, Passons told Mashable that the permits cost $5,000 to $10,000.""""""Rachel Smith, who lists her home in San Diego's Burlingame neighborhood on home-sharing website Airbnb, is now being fined $25,000 for her failure to obtain a conditional use permit""
> 
> http://mashable.com/2015/08/12/san-diego-airbnb-fine/


How did I know? How could I effing know? It's not even a challenge anymore.

Brent.


----------



## ICE

Ya there is a problem if my neighbors start renting rooms/houses by the day, week or month.  There is a place for that and residential neighborhoods is not it.  How about the businesses that own hotels and motels?  It's similar to Uber.  A necessary enterprise suffers from an onslaught of unregulated, backdoor competition that has an advantage.  Is that fair?


----------



## MASSDRIVER

ICE said:
			
		

> Ya there is a problem if my neighbors start renting rooms/houses by the day, week or month.  There is a place for that and residential neighborhoods is not it.  How about the businesses that own hotels and motels?  It's similar to Uber.  A necessary enterprise suffers from an onslaught of unregulated, backdoor competition that has an advantage.  Is that fair?


It depends. Does the municipality have to use the nuclear option? Or maybe there is a reasonable solution and minor regulation process to keep it to a low roar.

I'm sure there is a way to make work. As for an enterprise suffering, I'm guessing most people will still use the standard system, especially if you're like me. I hate staying in peoples houses I know, much less a stranger's house. Something like this is already there through property management, but this is just a new, shorter term phenomenon that has yet to be worked out.

Besides, I'm sure your house looks like the one Edward Scissorhands lived in on the hill, so your ICE no-go radius is probably a few thousand feet at least.

Brent.


----------



## ICE

cda said:
			
		

> """"" As of February of 2015, the city had, in preceding months, sent out 240 letters demanding that Airbnb hosts pay taxes for renting out their rooms or homes. In addition, Passons told Mashable that the permits cost $5,000 to $10,000.""""""Rachel Smith, who lists her home in San Diego's Burlingame neighborhood on home-sharing website Airbnb, is now being fined $25,000 for her failure to obtain a conditional use permit""
> 
> http://mashable.com/2015/08/12/san-diego-airbnb-fine/


When the government does stupid stuff like a $10,000 license fee or a $25,000 fine they look like idiots.  The smart move would be to outlaw the activity.  That's what they are trying to do without the balls to just do it.  Everybody sees this as dishonest.  I don't want a government that's populated by inept, dishonest dummies.


----------



## ICE

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> It depends. Does the municipality have to use the nuclear option? Or maybe there is a reasonable solution and minor regulation process to keep it to a low roar.I'm sure there is a way to make work. As for an enterprise suffering, I'm guessing most people will still use the standard system, especially if you're like me. I hate staying in peoples houses I know, much less a stranger's house. Something like this is already there through property management, but this is just a new, shorter term phenomenon that has yet to be worked out.
> 
> Besides, I'm sure your house looks like the one Edward Scissorhands lived in on the hill, so your ICE no-go radius is probably a few thousand feet at least.
> 
> Brent.


I'll agree that staying in some stranger's house is not for me either.  So there you have it; some weirdo is renting rooms to other weirdos.

As far as the unfair competition, this isn't likely to happen where we live but it is a real issue in a lot of popular tourist destinations like San Francisco.   We'll talk about your weirdos.  I get it now.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

They aren't trying to figure out how to outlaw it. They are trying to make money off it.

Brent.


----------



## MASSDRIVER

It's funny you mention the SF thing. I bid a job for someone ( the son of an unnamed keyboard inventor who is trying to live forever) and part of the work was installing a murphy bed and a very interesting hideaway kitchen, reason being they could transform her art studio into an airb&b space in about 5 min. Found out later through my covert sources they had their contractor friend do the job using my bid,because he had no idea how to price it.

I hate people.

Anyway, My first inclination is to not have a problem with the practice, especially in a place like San Francisco, because the hotel and motel industry is going mach 2 all the time anyway, and I would guess the impact on the official hospitality business is just about zero. Try and find a room on short notice and you will see what I mean.

Really, I don't have a strong opinion about it anyway, and I don't see a touristy inrush to Esparto anytime soon, so for me, for now, it's live and let live.

Brent.


----------



## RFDACM02

MASSDRIVER said:
			
		

> They aren't trying to figure out how to outlaw it. They are trying to make money off it.Brent.


That very well may be the case in some places, but I can tell you that's not our story. First, due to previous ordinances detailing in-home businesses, this is prohibited in our community. Our Code Office faced an onslaught of "illegally" used dwellings and sought policy to address this vs. just prohibit the use. In that research we found numerous regulation based in legally adopted code.

Our state and municipality have adopted the Life Safety Code, thus we have an obligation to follow the Life Safety Code, which is fairly clear in its intent with regard to transient accommodations, but does not extend those regulations into one and two family dwellings very clearly. Is this "on purpose" or by omission as it was an unforeseen industry. Either way, we have to set up a system that allows us to permit this industry, yet ensures the safety of the occupants. In this case, we're merely suggesting the dwelling meet the one and two family dwelling code, but alas, being an "old" northeastern community, many (most) hoes cannot meet the stair issues in the LSC. Our City Council is trying to legalize the use, but address the LSC and ensure that the playing field is somewhat level among those providing overnight accommodations. The latter being almost an afterthought or minimal concern. As the Fire Chief responsible for advising the Council on policy decisions with regard to the Life Safety Code, I'm trying ot find where some of the gray areas may have been defined or better addressed. I suspect the 2018 LSC will have to address this is some manner?


----------



## cda

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article140820053.html


----------



## FM William Burns

Once they collect financial compensation, the 1-2 single family dwelling becomes a boarding house and should meet minimum code/standards to protect all parties involved and the applicable jurisdictions where these occur.  With respect to existing structures and egress limitations, reasonable alternatives could be explored with abilities for approvals creating a win/win for operators, transient occupants and jurisdictions.


----------



## Francis Vineyard

Virginia permits 1 & 2 family dwellings to be boarding houses as prescribed for R-5 (amended out the sprinkler provisions  )

*310.3 Residential Group R-1. *Residential occupancies containing sleeping units where the occupants are primarily transient in nature, including:
Boarding houses (transient) with more than 10 occupants Congregate living facilities (transient) with more than 10 occupants
Hotels (transient)
Motels (transient)
*Exceptions:*

1. Nonproprietor occupied bed and breakfast and other transient boarding facilities not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a maximum of 10 occupants total are permitted to be classified as either Group R-3 or R-5 provided that smoke alarms are installed in compliance with Section 907.2.11.2 for Group R-3 or Section R314 of the IRC for Group R-5.

2. Proprietor occupied bed and breakfast and other transient boarding facilities not more than three stories above grade plane in height, that are also occupied as the residence of the proprietor, with a maximum of five guest room sleeping units provided for the transient occupants are permitted to be classified as either Group R-3 or R-5 provided that smoke alarms are installed in compliance with Section 907.2.11.2 for Group R-3 or Section R314 of the IRC for Group R-5.


----------



## mtlogcabin

We just adopted an ordinance to address these. A $75.00 annual permit, annual fire inspection testing smoke and CO detectors, fire extinguishers up to date, egress windows are operational.   Parties are a police matter. We are not a weekend resort area, typically people come for a week or more since it is not an easy place to get to


----------



## fatboy

We continue to discuss it in our jurisdiction, considering a similar approach as mt..........just try to get a handle on them, attempt to keep them safe.

Reading this, where the heck has Brent, aka massdriver, been? His profile says 9 weeks, no show.................


----------



## steveray

fatboy said:


> We continue to discuss it in our jurisdiction, considering a similar approach as mt..........just try to get a handle on them, attempt to keep them safe.
> 
> Reading this, where the heck has Brent, aka massdriver, been? His profile says 9 weeks, no show.................



Arrested for strangling an incompetent inspector? LOL...


----------



## ADAguy

Ok all, renters come from out of town and other countries, often unaware of local custom or decency. Naked sunbathing, parking on narrow streets as in the Hollywood Hills, ADA compliance dodged by claiming it doesn't apply to SF's but the SF is being used year-round as a BnB. Trash collection after partities and many other unintended results that upset the neighbors.
And, lost revenue to local governments from failure to license BnB's as a business.


----------



## Codeman4

FM William Burns said:


> Once they collect financial compensation, the 1-2 single family dwelling becomes a boarding house and should meet minimum code/standards to protect all parties involved and the applicable jurisdictions where these occur.  With respect to existing structures and egress limitations, reasonable alternatives could be explored with abilities for approvals creating a win/win for operators, transient occupants and jurisdictions.


I'm glad to see someone here understands the fire and building codes.


----------



## ADAguy

mtlogcabin said:


> What is an Air BnB?



"You" need to ask?


----------



## ADAguy

RFDACM02 said:


> Thanks for continually pointing out our ineptness. I posted here to see how others have addressed this issue, and have gotten some feedback that is actually constructive.



Pardon our cynicism but we have seen more than most.


----------

