OCEAN CITY – Resort officials this week approved the second reading of an ordinance on non-accessory workforce housing, but not before a lengthy discussion on length of stay and off-street parking requirements.
On Monday, the Mayor and Council had before them the second reading of an ordinance amending the town’s zoning code to allow for non-accessory workforce housing. After a lengthy discussion, officials voted to approve the code amendment, but to set a rental period of more than 30 days.
“The reason staff is recommending that is because we believe it’s the most enforceable,” said City Solicitor Heather Stansbury. “What we don’t want to do is pass ordinances where we are concerned about enforcement.”
Since last year, resort officials have been working on a proposed code amendment that could help address a shortage of workforce housing in Ocean City. As it currently exists, the town code defines employee housing as accessory use, or living quarters with a portion of a main building or an accessory building located on the same site to be used by individuals employed on the premises. But officials are looking to include employee housing as non-accessory use.
Simply put, tier one projects are those with 16 or fewer residents, while tier two projects are those with 17 to 60 residents and tier three projects are those with more than 60 residents.
The amendment also sets restrictions for zoning districts. Employee housing would be prohibited in the MH and R-1 districts. In the R-2, R-2a and R-2a districts, tier one projects would be permitted, tier two projects would be allowed by conditional use and tier three projects would be prohibited. In the R-3 district, tier one projects would be permitted and tier two and tier three projects would be allowed by conditional use. And in all other districts, tier one and tier two projects would be permitted and tier three projects would be allowed by conditional use.
In a meeting earlier this month, the council agreed to forward the code amendment to a second reading, but directed staff to come back with options that would address the minimum duration of rental or lease agreements for non-accessory workforce housing.
Back on the agenda for discussion Monday, Stansbury presented the council with three options, one that set a minimum duration of more than 30 days, one that set a duration of at least 90 days, and one that set a duration of at least four days and one month. She said the first option was the one staff was recommending to council.
“When we look at the other two options, in order for those two options to be most enforced, we would be requiring the owner to submit its leases because we want to show the 90 days or the four months and one day,” she said. “Like all things, once you ask for something and come in possession of it, then it is incumbent on you to make sure it’s occurring.”
Stansbury noted the second option was most favorable to workers with J-1 visas, as they typically stayed for a period of 90 days. It also met the threshold for collecting room tax. The third option, she said, would preclude the collection of room tax, but could incentivize landlords to charge J-1 students an additional month.
Ultimately, staff presented the 30-day minimum as the favored option.
“By making it for at least 30 days, you are likely eliminating a lot of folks who are trying to undercut the intent of this ordinance while keeping it to more than 30 days,” she said.
Council Secretary Tony DeLuca then made a motion to approve the ordinance on second reading and to require a minimum rental of more than 30 days. Councilman John Gehrig, however, questioned staff’s arguments. He noted each of the proposed options required written agreements or leases that would need to be enforced.
“It doesn’t matter if it’s 31, 90 or 121 [days] because there needs to be a lease and you need to enforce it no matter what the timeframe is …,” he said. “So what’s the difference?”
Stansbury agreed with Gehrig’s point, but argued the town did not want to become involved in landlord-tenant disputes.
“We thought the longer the lease is, the more we could potentially be involved in the landlord-tenant arrangement,” she replied.
City Manager Terry McGean agreed.
“If we set the minimum lease length too long, are we just creating violators,” he said. “So if we set lease period at transient housing, which is defined in the International Building Code, the thought is we will have better compliance.”
Councilman Peter Buas said he supported the first option but did not want it directly tied to the building code or definitions for transient housing. The motion was then amended to eliminate references to transient housing.
“I’d rather just state in there ‘no less than 30 days,’” he said.
Mayor Rick Meehan also took issue with the parking requirements. He said the ordinance was not only meant to address housing for J-1 students, but for all types of employees.
“Those individuals are going to bring their cars,” he said.
Gehrig said that also brought up the issue of employment. He noted the ordinance required those utilizing workforce housing to be employed within town limits. He questioned how that would be enforced.
“If we’re not going to enforce it, we have to assume a percentage will not be working in town limits throughout the year, which means they are going to have a car,” he said.
Buas said the council had discussed parking requirements at length during a previous meeting. He said the intent of the current parking requirements – which requires one space per sleeping room for the first two sleeping rooms, and half a space for every room thereafter – was to make it less cumbersome on developers.
“I like the product on the table,” he said. “I don’t think it’s 100% but we’re pretty darn close. But we have something that’s enforceable and usable.”
After a lengthy discussion, DeLuca revised his motion again to set parking requirements to two spaces per three sleeping rooms or suites, or one space per five persons rated capacity, whichever is greater. Buas then presented a subordinate motion that did not change the parking requirements.
“If we change the parking, there’s no reason to do this at all,” he said. “It won’t be used.”
McGean noted the parking requirements currently set in the ordinance would require nine parking spaces for 16 rooms and 64 beds. DeLuca’s motion, he noted, would require 13 parking spaces.
DeLuca’s motion failed, with DeLuca and Gehrig the only two councilmembers in favor. Buas’ motion then passed in a 6-1 vote, with DeLuca opposed.
