See RENTALS

from Pine Barrens Tribune December,11 2021-December 17, 2021

by Pine Barrens Tribune

Worship Guide

Photo Provided

A “lakefront charming log cabin” in Medford Lakes listed for short-term rent on Airbnb, Inc.’s website.

RENTALS

(Continued from Page 1)

Just how much of an economic blow this would present to such local renters, however, could not be immediately ascertained by this newspaper, as either contact information was unavailable or they declined to comment for this story.

The Pine Barrens Tribune reported in March 2017 that several borough residents had come forward to speak out against the increasing number of Airbnbs or bed and breakfast guest houses cropping up in the community.

Cited in their complaints at the time was noise, lack of fire safety, lack of “hotel guest” insurance, property damage and decreasing property values in neighborhoods where these short-term lodging rentals are allowed to exist.

Heinold, at the time, advised that council must be “smart and level-headed” before passing any ordinance(s) banning Airbnbs because any litigation could be cost prohibitive to the borough. He pointed out that cities like New York and San Francisco are tied up in litigation with the Airbnb Corporation, and that if such big cities that have vast resources are not able to come up with successful ways to regulate Airbnbs, small towns like Medford Lakes would not have a chance.

Joe Aromando, an outspoken borough resident, who often participates in borough council meetings and was a one-time borough councilman, raised the issue of short-term rentals during borough council meetings in June and August of this year, however, wanting to know “where things stand.”

“This is not a good thing,” said Aromando of short-term rentals. “I don’t want to see these people renting these houses short-term until the town fathers say this is what we want. I don’t want to be around something like that; if I did, I would have moved to the shore.”

Heinold, in response, maintained that he was “doing research to see what the developments of the law has been over the last year and-a-half to two years.”

While the borough council members did not reply to Aromando’s remarks, in September of this year, Heinold requested that the governing body convene a closed session so that he can discuss with it “recent issues regarding short-term rentals.”

What followed was the Oct. 13 introduction of the short-term rentals’ prohibition.

And although Aromando had been the only one to make public remarks about the matter during recent borough council meetings, Borough Clerk Mark J. McIntosh told this newspaper on Dec. 6 that “it wasn’t so much Aromando” who had forced the issue, but rather the borough has been receiving complaints from the owners of properties which neighbor short-term rentals.

The complaints, the borough clerk noted, have been “two-fold,” some raising “noise issues, people coming and going and stuff like that,” while others have pointed to the listings for available short-term rentals in the borough mentioning that there are nearby beaches and lakes available for swimming, as well as the dwellings being within walking distance of Camp Ockanickon (now known as YMCA of the Pines).

In elaborating on why the statements contained in some the rental advertisements are of a concern to some, McIntosh said that all recreational areas within the borough are owned and operated by the Medford Lakes Colony Club, with use open to members and their guests only, with any guest having to be accompanied at all times by a member. The camp, he pointed out, is private property.

Heinold, in noting that there was at one time “a lot of concern over the authority and legality” of regulating short-term rentals maintained during Oct. 13 council meeting remarks that now “that has kind of” dissipated and “towns have been able to enforce their ordinances and not face litigation.”

“I can’t assure you that you won’t (be challenged),” replied Heinold when asked by Councilman William Fields about the possibility of “civil lawsuits” from existing renters who might claim they are “grandfathered.”

The borough solicitor added in response to the councilman that he “also can’t assure you that if challenged, there will not be issues that you won’t have to defend.”

“But I think you have a good precedent at this point for the authorities to regulate uses, and in particular, the authority to regulate short-term rentals, primarily because of the negative impacts that are associated with temporary use and high turnover,” maintained Heinold to the council.

The borough solicitor noted that he “knows that there have been resident complaints” about short-term rentals in the municipality and that “we reference our own experience with that as a basis for the authority to act in this instance,” calling that “important” to do in passing the ordinance.

The ordinance, obtained by this newspaper, states that “the borough’s experience, as well as common experiences” have resulted in a “conclusion” that “short term rentals frequently result in a public nuisance, noise complaints, sanitation issues, overcrowding and illegal parking within the residential neighborhoods of the borough.”

Short-term rentals, the new law states, are “frequently associated” with “overcrowding, excessive noise, unruly behavior, obscene language, littering, parking of vehicles on lawns, blocking of rights-of-way, public urination, sanitation issues, poor maintenance of property and grounds, and violation of trash collection ordinances.”

The measure goes on to describe that such rentals are comparable to “illegal, defacto hotels, motels, boarding houses and other commercial enterprises,” noting that those aforementioned uses are “in violation” of the borough’s zoning ordinance and other codes.

“And it is also based not just in our zoning authority, but in our police power authority, because of the negative implications associated with short term rentals,” maintained Heinold of any claims that are made about existing rentals being grandfathered. “We are not relying just on zoning, but also relying on police power, and police power typically doesn’t grandfather anything … you’re making the activity quasi-criminal, subject to a municipal court violation.”

In calling the new borough law a “pretty straight-forward ordinance,” Heinold said it was “essentially an amalgamation of what I thought were the best examples from towns north of us.”

He explained that New York City “took aggressive action” against Airbnbs, prompting individuals to turn to surrounding jurisdictions, including in North Jersey, which resulted in “pressure” that led to those communities “banning short-term rentals of varying degrees.” Some jurisdictions in North Jersey, he pointed out, consider when a dwelling unit is only rented for “60-days” or less to be a “short-term rental.” “Some towns have gotten more aggressive with that number,” Heinold pointed out. “But I think if somebody is spending more than a month in a house, they are kind of living there, and would want to get along with people, and are probably not heading See RENTALS/ Page 13