Adjustments could soon be made to guidelines that limit how close two tourist homes can be to each other as discussions about the future of the county for residents occurs at meetings of the local planning and zoning boards.
The Brown County Board of Zoning Appeals held a work session on Feb. 28 to review the board’s rules of procedure tourist home guidelines pertaining to distance requirements. The board decided to look closer at these guidelines after receiving feedback from the public about distance requirements for tourist rentals to be approved with a special exception.
As it stands, the required minimum distance from a tourist home to another tourist home is 1,320 feet (one quarter of a mile). The required minimum distance from a tourist home to a residential home is 250 feet.
The topic was also discussed at the Brown County Area Planning Commission meeting on Feb. 22. Planning and zoning director Christine Ritzmann said that the idea behind the guidelines was the effect that the density of tourist homes would have on a given neighborhood.
BZA President John Dillberger said many who have given feedback about those requirements have come away with the feeling that the distance between two tourist homes could be reduced if there were adequate buffering — like a wooded area or ravine — between the two.
“That separation is there to minimize the impact of the business uses on any single neighborhood or residential area,” he said. “Buffering between tourist homes has no impact on how multiple businesses in a given area or residential area affect that whole residential area.”
Each tourist home must go before the BZA for review before it is allowed.
Guideline discussions
Dillberger brought forth a draft of changes to be made to the guidelines following discussion at the February BZA meeting.
Resident Lori Warford was among those who attended the regular BZA meeting on Feb. 23 and expressed support for the board to revise the current distance guidelines.
Warford said she and her husband Randy own 60 acres of property with two cabins. One is empty most of the year as it’s their second home and the other they had renters in until the tenants moved.
They planned on turning that home into a guest rental, but their request was denied by the BZA last summer. Another tourist home was located within approximately 432 feet of the proposed tourist rental. Under the current guidelines, a tourist home should be no closer than 1,320 feet from another existing tourist rental, but the Warfords said they thought the wooded buffer with a ravine was sufficient enough.
Resident and local realtor Erika Bryenton also attended the Feb. 23 BZA meeting. She co-owns a tourist rental with the maximum guest number of 10 people.
When talking about the impact tourist homes have on residential areas, Bryenton said that the surrounding neighbors are a “hindrance” to the guests, like by shooting guns on nearby properties.
“Our guests are less intrusive than the people who live here,” she told the BZA. “We need to keep that in mind too.”
At the Feb. 23 BZA meeting Dillberger said Ritzmann and APC and BZA attorney Dave Schilling suggested the board look at the distance requirements in the tourist home guidelines.
“I believe that was intended for mainly the house to the tourist home. That is my recollection of that. The primary purpose of the quarter mile separation is to protect the character of the area, but it also creates a buffer that would apply to noise and other aspects of that tourist home,” Schilling said.
Schilling said at the Feb. 23 meeting that the board could alter guidelines and change rules at any time since they are not officially part of the ordinance. The county zoning ordinance allows for the BZA to develop guidelines to be used in deliberations about special exceptions, like tourist homes.
While there is not a term for “buffer zone” in the zoning ordinance, “buffering” is defined within the distance requirement as it stands in the resolution establishing the tourist home guidelines.
The guidelines state that “where circumstances do not allow such separation (with 250 feet or 1,320 feet), the foregoing distance may be reduced if buffers such as terrain or woods will sufficiently reduce the impact of the proposed tourist home on the nearby residences and/or tourist homes.” What determines a sufficient buffer zone is not clear.
The Warfords said their home was denied despite their being a sufficient buffer zone between the two tourist home rentals.
Schilling had pointed out the guidelines have wording that involves keeping the commercial uses from being too dense in the district.
The resolution for the guidelines was passed in 1997 and amended in 2007.
“‘Guideline’ is basically just that it is a guide for the board to consider, go by, look at and review to make determinations and decisions,” BZA member Randy Jones said on Feb. 23.
Dillberger added that guidelines are also for the public to view and understand how a petition might be dealt with by the board.
“The way it is written now is leaving people uncertain. I don’t like guidelines that leave people uncertain,” he said on Feb. 23.
Warford said that there was no confusion about the guidelines, but that most residents do not agree with them as they stand now.
“They don’t agree with the guidelines and the distances. If you start talking to the constituents in the county they don’t agree with them. I am talking about longtime members of this community who have been born and bred and raised their kids here. We have eight children here and part of them, I am sure, will stay in this community and will have to deal with these variances and guidelines for the rest of their lives,” she said.
A motion was made and carried at the Feb. 28 work session for BZA member Darla Brown to draft tourist home guidelines as they exist in the rules and procedures in the form of an article. They will plan to use that draft at a future work session looking at possibly revising the guidelines.
Finding the balance
Changes to the guidelines were last proposed by the Area Plan Commission in 2018.
In 2018 the APC sought public comment about the proposed changes and whether or not tourist homes should be reined in more than they were and whether the proliferation of tourist homes has a negative effect on the housing market for full-time residents.
At the time, the APC considered making the “buffer zone” between two tourist homes, or between a tourist home and its nearest neighbor, wider than it is. Ultimately no changes were made.
At the APC meeting in 2018, member Jane Gore was concerned about having more than 300 approved tourist rentals and that she believed that to be a reason for lack of housing for permanent residents.
A change to the guidance of distance requirements was not proposed at the meeting on Feb. 28.
The proposed change that was drafted by Dillberger for the Feb. 28 work session did not include change to distances or requirements, but rather was a separation of verbiage buffers for residential and tourist homes.
“The difference is that by separating them, you make clear that buffering only applies to the nearest residence, not to the nearest tourist home,” he said.
“That’s the problem with having these two in the same paragraph, they’re for two completely different purposes. The idea of the setback from the nearest residence is to protect that residence from the direct impact of that tourist home. The setback for another tourist home is to reduce impact of tourist use businesses on any single neighborhood or residential area.”
At the BZA and APC meetings statements were made about the future of the county and if focus would remain on bringing tourists here more than providing housing for residents here.
BZA and APC member Andy Voils said on Feb. 23 that there is concern from some that if there are not certain requirements for rentals there may no longer be more homes for residents.
Gore said the county has the potential of turning into purely a tourist destination, like Pigeon Forge in Tennessee.
“We have the potential of becoming that if we’re not careful, is what I think” Gore said about tourist home density during the APC meeting on Feb. 22. “We have way too many (tourist rentals) per population.”
At the BZA meeting the next evening, Warford said that residential homes will continue to be built despite the number of tourist homes.
“There have been more houses that have gone up in this county and there will continue being more people who come in with money and put more houses up in this county,” she said.
Bryenton added that homes used for tourist rentals are not “affordable housing.”
Although there is a concern tourist homes could reduce housing options for residents, Voils said tourism is the county’s only industry and tourist homes are spots for visitors to stay.
“We’re lucky people like to come here,” he said. “How do you find that balance?”
