City Council grapples with Homestays, raises fines on short-term rental violations

Supporters of Homestays and short-term rentals wore red stickers at the crowded City Council meeting on Aug. 25. Photo by Virginia Daffron.

From real estate investors to neighborhood advocates to homeowners trying to make ends meet, just about everyone in Asheville has a dog in the ongoing fight over short-term vacation rentals. At the Tuesday, Aug. 25 Asheville City Council meeting, citizens representing a variety of viewpoints crowded City Hall. To accommodate the large number of attendees, city staff opened an overflow space with a live video feed of the action.

Over the course of the five-hour meeting, City Council heard 33 comments on proposed changes to the city’s Homestay ordinance and 12 comments on a proposed increase in fines for violations of the existing short-term rental ban. The fine would increase from $100 to $500 per day for each day the rental violation persists.

In the end, Council elected to defer a final decision on the Homestay ordinance changes to a future meeting, but voted to approve the fine increase, 5-2, with council members Cecil Bothwell and Chris Pelly opposed.


Mayor Esther Manheimer proclaims Aug. 25 the 75th anniversary of the Asheville Housing Authority. Photo by Virginia Daffron.
Mayor Esther Manheimer proclaims Aug. 25 the 75th anniversary of the Housing Authority of the City of Asheville. Photo by Virginia Daffron.

Like most meetings, this one didn’t begin with the main event. First off, Councilman Jan Davis proclaimed Sept. 18, the day on which a new time capsule will be placed in the Vance Monument, Asheville-Buncombe Time Capsule Day. The time capsule will be opened in 2115. Mayor Esther Manheimer proclaimed Aug. 25 the 75th Anniversary of the Housing Authority of the City of Asheville.

Council proceeded to approve its consent agenda, as well as the naming of the “Jan Davis Lobby” at the U.S. Cellular Center in honor of Councilman Davis, who will not seek reelection at the end of his term this year.

Mayor Manheimer briefly outlined a proposed redistribution of state tax proceeds under consideration by the state legislature. Council passed a resolution opposing the sales tax redistribution plan on the grounds that the plan is inequitable in its treatment of urban areas and would negatively impact Asheville.

Council also heard a report on Memorial Day celebrations organized by the Mayor’s Committee on Veteran’s Affairs.

Zoning Change Requests

The first item on the public hearing agenda was a request to rezone two parcels of property, 960 and 966 Tunnel Road. The former had been zoned for residential use, while the latter was zoned for offices. The properties’ owners asked to change the designation of both properties to CZ-1 commercial zoning, a request which had previously received approval from both the Technical Review and Planning and Zoning Committees. A neighbor, Allen Queen of Bull Mountain Road, asked for information about the intended appearance and use of the residential structure at 960 Tunnel. Julie Hasty of Mindspring, Inc., the occupant of 966 Tunnel, said that the building would be used as a Pilates studio in the immediate future and that the current red-brick residential facade would be renovated but otherwise unchanged in character.

Council approved the zoning request unanimously.

Another zoning change request related to 39 Elm St. for the construction of a five-story hotel with parking received a continuance to Nov. 10 at the request of the applicant.

Homestay ordinance changes

Manheimer prefaced the public comment period on proposed changes to the city’s Homestay ordinance with clarifications about the scope of the issue under consideration. “Short-term rentals are currently illegal, and they are not on the agenda tonight,” she said. Manheimer also pointed out that the city cannot increase fees for registering Homestay properties beyond the level needed to administer the program — and that the city cannot collect room taxes.

With those caveats, Manheimer gave the floor to city planner Shannon Tuch, who detailed specific changes to the ordinance, saying it has been legal to rent out a portion of a primary residence on a short-term basis since 2006.

Tuch said that city staff had drafted the proposed changes to the Homestay ordinance at the direction of City Council to clarify the distinction between Homestays and prohibited short-term rentals and to allow city residents the option to participate in the Homestay marketplace.

The proposed definition of a Homestay is:

Homestay means a private, resident-occupied dwelling, with up to three guest
rooms, where overnight lodging accommodations are provided to transients for
compensation and where the use is subordinate and incidental to the main
residential use of the building. A homestay is considered a “Lodging” use under
this UDO.

A complete listing of the changes under consideration can be found here.

Tuch pointed out that the proposed changes are the result of a long process of public engagement and input which began in 2014.

Manheimer and Vice Mayor Marc Hunt requested clarification about the requirement that a Homestay be operated by an “on-site” resident manager. Tuch responded that the manager must be someone whose primary residence is the Homestay property, but that there is no specific direction in the proposed language about whether the manager must be present overnight when guests are staying in the home.

Also, Tuch said, state law does not allow the city to discriminate against tenants as operators of Homestays. As long as a long-term tenant complies with all regulations concerning registration and insurance coverage, the city is not allowed to treat them any differently than a resident owner of a property. City Attorney Robin Currin agreed with these rights.

Although Homestay guest quarters can be comprised of a separate suite or basement area, Tuch explained, these areas cannot contain a full kitchen. The presence of a kitchen within a separate area of a home is one of several features which reclassify the area as a separate living unit which would be ineligible for Homestay use.

Bothwell asked what would happen if a separate guest area contained a stove. Tuch responded that the stove would have to be removed to comply with the ordinance and to pass the required inspection. Currin added, “Having a kitchen makes the unit an independent living situation. The Homestay is a different use in which you rent part of your own home.”

Bothwell followed up with a question about costs: “What is the Homestay inspection program going to cost? Will it support itself?” Tuch said that the city is only allowed to charge fees to cover its costs in administering the program. The projected cost of administration and enforcement is the salary of one new full-time staff member to run the program.

Manheimer began calling the names of citizens who had requested an opportunity to comment. Some of the viewpoints expressed are summarized below.

Barber Melton, chairwoman of the Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods, said that her organization is opposed to short-term rentals but gives its qualified support to Homestays. Melton believes an owner-occupant is crucial, and she also disagrees with the removal of off-street parking and spacing requirements in the proposed ordinance. She concluded by saying that “neighbors shouldn’t have to be the police for these issues,” referring to the city’s current complaint-based approach to enforcement.

Dave Nutter, a Montford resident and Historic Resources Committee member, said he supports the proposed changes to both the Homestay ordinance and the fee increase for short-term rental violations.

A resident expresses his belief that government should not control how people use private property. Photo by Virginia Daffron.
A resident expresses his belief that government should not control how people use private property. Photo by Virginia Daffron.

Architect and Albemarle Park resident Jane Mathews said she is opposed to the Homestay changes. Even before the ordinance has passed, she said, her neighbors are being pursued by investors who want to purchase homes to use as Homestays. “Let the legal B&Bs provide the historic home experience,” urged Mathews. “Build Asheville first for the people who live here.”

Hillside Street resident Alice Helms thinks the Homestay ordinance is a good compromise, but she agrees with Melton that off-street parking and spacing requirements should be put back in the rules. Helms also favors reducing the maximum number of guest bedrooms from three to two. She concluded by saying she hopes Council will stand firm in the face of pressure exerted by big companies like AirBnB to allow short-term rentals.

Montford AirBnB Homestay operator Jeff Johnson said the income from renting to guests allows him to maintain his historic property. Johnson, who is no longer able to work as a classical musician because he has Parkinson’s Disease, said he depends on paying guests to stay in his home.

Sue Sweikart, president of the Five Points Neighborhood Association, commented that there is a lack of consensus in her neighborhood on this issue. She is concerned about parking, saying that increasing the number of cars on the congested streets of Five Points could obstruct access for emergency vehicles.

Patricia Lord said renting out a detached apartment had allowed her partner to be a stay-at-home parent. Without that income, she is worried she might lose her house. She is in favor of the Homestay rules, but thinks accessory structures should be allowed in the Homestay category.

This issue has pitted neighbors against one another, said Greg Meade. He believes that affordable housing starts with pay, and hotels don’t pay a living wage. Homestay operators will make more money and, in his opinion, parking will not be a problem.

After a short break while Council met in closed session about another matter, the comment period began again. A North Asheville property owner and short-term rental operator urged Council to think of visitors with special needs, such as mental illness or allergies, that make staying in hotels difficult or impossible. Detached units are the best and possibly only option for these individuals.

Haw Creek resident Bob Pearse said he is generally opposed to rentals in residential areas. He fears investors will “descend on this area like locusts” if rules are relaxed. He asked Council to hold off on making a decision.

David Rogers said Asheville shouldn’t use its limited supply of housing on tourists. “If you bought a house in a residential area, you shouldn’t have to see your neighborhood fill up with mini-hotels,” he concluded.

“AirBnB Homestays put a new roof on my house,” said Pamela O’Connor of West Asheville. She would be in favor of including mother-in-law or similar units in Homestay rules.

Ron Carlson, owner of the 1900 Inn on Montford, was in favor of Homestays until the requirement for the homeowner to be present overnight was removed. “If you are going to rent a Homestay,” he said, “you must stay home.”

Council considers comments

Once all the voices had been heard, Council tried to make sense of the wide range of viewpoints expressed. Vice Mayor Hunt stated the obvious but important conclusion that the testimony inspired: There are compelling arguments on all sides of this issue. Hunt said that even decisions about large, controversial development projects were “nothing” compared to this question.

Nonetheless, continued Hunt, he totally disagrees with those who think the city should back off and not enforce rules governing this activity. “It’s important to step cautiously,” said Hunt, going on to suggest that Council defer its decision until further study had been done.

Davis quipped that Council should delay its decision until January, when Davis’ role on Council expires.

Manheimer said there’s a great need to balance concerns of property owners’ rights with the overall goals of zoning. She is concerned about the impact of all kinds of short-term rental activity on neighborhoods. Asheville, Manheimer told Council and the audience, has hundreds more online listings for vacation rentals than any other place in North Carolina. “We have got to get it right,” she said, because the consequences of making the wrong decision could mean a very different Asheville 10 years down the road.

Councilwoman Gwen Wisler agreed, saying she favors a “go-slow” approach.

And Councilman Gordon Smith said it was clear from the public’s comments that “reasonable, well-intentioned people can disagree on this.” The renter’s voice, he continued, was one not heard at the meeting. “It is incumbent on Council to consider those who rent,” he said.

Council agreed that the outstanding questions were too numerous to settle the issue, and unanimously voted to defer the final decision until a future date.

Short-term rental violation fee increase

Planner Tuch returned to the podium to explain the reasoning behind the proposed fee increase for violations of the prohibition on short-term rentals. Tuch said the existing fee of $100 per day has proven ineffective as a deterrent, since rentals can go for $500 per night or more.

Albemarle Park resident Arwyn Hawes, who rents a garage apartment to short-term guests, asked Council to consider the economic impact of this “cottage industry,” saying she paid a cleaning person $7,500 last year for services to support the rental.

Brandee Boggs said that increasing the fine for violations would stoke tensions between neighbors, and urged Council to delay a decision on the proposal.

Paul Heathman opposed the $500 fine, saying the problem was one of enforcement rather than dollars.

Jane Mathews supported the fine increase. “Ignorance of the law is no reason to allow violations,” she said.

The Council asked Tuch to clarify the way fines are currently imposed. Tuch reported that violators receive notice and a 30-day period in which to correct the problem. It is only after 30 days have passed without a satisfactory resolution that the daily fine is imposed.

Hunt said the purpose of the increased fines is to serve as a deterrent, not to raise revenue.

After expressing his confidence that Council can take on big issues and make effective decisions, Smith moved to approve the proposal to increase the fine for short-term rental violations to $500 per day. Council passed the motion 5-2, with Bothwell and Pelly opposed.

Reflecting on the night’s work

Xpress reached out to Hunt and Bothwell on Thursday, Aug. 27 to hear their thoughts on the still-undecided issues. Manheimer, Pelly and Smith could not be reached in time to include their comments.

Hunt says he was struck by how passionate people were on both sides of the issue, and that he agrees with Smith’s comments during the meeting: It is Council’s job to consider the full cross-section of city residents, including those who may not have had an immediate and compelling reason to speak on Tuesday night.

Hunt says his direction to city staff to take another look at seven specific components of the Homestay ordinance was in response to concerns articulated not only at the meeting, but also by email and over the phone. Over the next two to three months, he says, “We need to be more analytical. We need to do some disciplined research to look at what other cities are doing and to learn from their experiences.”

Bothwell interprets Hunt’s desire to delay a vote differently. “Marc Hunt does not want this to come to a vote before the primaries or the election. It’s a hot potato,” Bothwell says.

Political maneuvering aside, Bothwell agrees with Hunt that this is a very difficult issue: “People are evenly divided.”  Though he didn’t hear much that was new at Tuesday’s meeting, hearing personal stories of those who depend on Homestays for their income was “much more touching.”

“These issues are part of a new form of the economy. They are changing the way we do commerce. The only way to limit the impact is to create effective rules,” Bothwell says. “Prohibition has never worked when there is money to be made on something people want.”

The next meeting of City Council will be Tuesday, Sept. 8 at 5 p.m.


Thanks for reading through to the end…

We share your inclination to get the whole story. For the past 25 years, Xpress has been committed to in-depth, balanced reporting about the greater Asheville area. We want everyone to have access to our stories. That’s a big part of why we've never charged for the paper or put up a paywall.

We’re pretty sure that you know journalism faces big challenges these days. Advertising no longer pays the whole cost. Media outlets around the country are asking their readers to chip in. Xpress needs help, too. We hope you’ll consider signing up to be a member of Xpress. For as little as $5 a month — the cost of a craft beer or kombucha — you can help keep local journalism strong. It only takes a moment.

About Virginia Daffron
Managing editor, lover of mountains, native of WNC. Follow me @virginiadaffron

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

7 thoughts on “City Council grapples with Homestays, raises fines on short-term rental violations

  1. Marc Hunt (Vice-Mayor of Asheville)

    Anyone who watched the Council session Tuesday night could see that my position is very clear – That while arguments for enhanced visitor experiences and shared economy are compelling, the arguments for maintaining the livability of neighborhoods and the affordability of housing stock are even more compelling. Accordingly, I am firmly opposed to allowing of short term rental of entire dwelling units (i.e, host not present), and I think we need firmer provisions than the staff had proposed on Tuesday for home stay regulations (host is present). We must make sure that home stays allow Asheville residents the opportunity to supplement their income, but do not become investor-driven enterprises that hollow out our neighborhoods and consume our housing stock. The fine-tuning of our ordinance language is simply not there yet, and I clearly laid out the areas where it needs to be tightened (questions about # of rooms, parking provisions, separation of home stays, etc.). I cannot see how I could have been more clear about all that on Tuesday, nor how anyone who watched would be confused about my stance. It was also clear that at least 4 members of Council solidly agree with me. For Councilman Bothwell to suggest I am kicking the can down the road or being unclear about any of this is a distortion. It also adds nothing constructive to the important discussion the community is having on this topic. Anyone interested in learning more about my stance and the positions of others on Council can review the video of the meeting beginning at 2:58 –

    • Huh?

      So you’re saying it’s alright for YOU to PERSONALLY make money via the river and USEproperty tax money too but it’s not OK for me to find ways to use my property to make money to pay for YOUR property tax increases? So you’re saying I have to make sacrifices and spend less but YOU can’t? By golly you mean YOUR friends down at the river can RENT out tubes so TOURIST can float down the river that I PAY to provide roads and infrastructure for but if I decide to USE my property to make money, I’m a criminal and need to be fined? But If you can make money and be in government too, isn’t there a conflict of interest here especially since more and more of it is being funneled to the RAD now??? Specifically property taxes that are being mismanaged and then “FEES” added on to make up for the real crime being perpetuated here. And that’s simply those who are well connected being able to not on purchase land in the RAD, but also having the ability to make money off if it and also having the infrastructure being improved without they themselves actually having to contribute to the bulk of it?

      Why you can you go to the river and have a kick off rally for your campaign and yet not realize that it’s residents who are providing you with the ability to do so while you penalize and criminalize them is funny. Especially considering your stance on the amount of housing available and the impact of long term rentals. From them being occupied by several people merely to afford the rent that actually takes up more space, contribute more garbage to the landfill, and this is especially true of UNCA students who move out and leave a ton of it behind from furniture to electronics, and overall leave a bigger footprint behind rather than short term tenants that will be bringing suitcases instead of moving trucks.

    • North Asheville

      Thank you, Mr. Hunt, for supporting neighborhoods. I haven’t been aware of your positions, but your letter helps me understand who to vote in upcoming elections. You just got my vote.

      • NFB

        I second the gratitude of above. Thank you Vice Mayor Hunt for taking a stand with neighborhoods and protecting existing housing from being tuned into hotels for tourists rather than housing for residents and thus driving up housing costs further.

  2. Native and local

    Mr. Hunt, I am glad to hear your clear stance on it, that decides my vote is not for you this go around. Every meeting about STRs/homestays/VR, etc, your constituents turn out in droves opposing your opinions. You are not serving the majority in your views and I believe you will not be receiving the majority of the votes…you were chosen to represent the masses, not your personal politics. I know it is a tough job, but sometimes you just need to listen to the people ( and not just Gordon ). Thanks for serving your term, I hope you enjoyed it.

  3. Jane

    Mr. Hunt has been informed of a property in West Asheville that has been cited TWICE by the Development Division for short-term rental violations but, despite mounds of evidence that the property is still not in compliance, nothing further has been done by the Development Division or by Mr. Hunt. Any talk of strengthening short-term rental regulations and increasing fine is utter smoke and mirrors because Development cannot enforce the ordinance as it stands now. They have no ability to force Airbnb or any other website to release rental histories and without rental histories, they have no proof of violations and cannot accurately pursue fines or stop illegal rentals. The West Asheville property has been renting out multiple rooms short-term for years, despite signing an affidavit months ago that they would comply with local short-term rental laws. There is also known prostitution and illegal drug use and sales going on on the same property, which is located in a family neighborhood, but nothing is being done about that either. Mr. Hunt’s insistence that he’s concerned about the quality of life in our neighborhoods is as fraudulent as him trying to convince the public that the city can do a damn thing about short-term rental violators.

  4. James L. (Larry) Smith

    In September of 2016, I had a conversation with Shannon Morgan, who is paid a fat salary by the taxpayers to stop illegal motels in Asheville family neighborhoods… and issue fines. I reported one in particular which is a nuisance in my neighborhood on Aurora Drive. This street is populated by families and lots of children. He said he would get on the internet and search for her ad.

    On 10 October 2016, Mr. Morgan called me and reported that he had searched and searched and could not find Martha Grist’s ad. I don’t believe him.

    The city may tell you they will issue those $500 fines. But they don’t really want them. Their words speak louder than their actions.

    I spent all of ten minutes searching ads at AirBNB and found her ad by using the search terms, “Asheville AirBNB” and then inserting “Aurora Drive” into AirBNB’s search window. The ad, which shows on the map as $67 (Kenilworth Rd.), popped right up. She has a separate furnished basement apartment with full kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, and other amenities. This “no-tell motel” has been booming all summer, and let me tell you: she has rented to some real riffraff, although her AirBNB messages only show nice couples. Back in the summer she dumped a filthy mattress onto the property of Star Lanes Bowling Center, after the eyesore lay in her yard for weeks. Now she may quickly have her ad erased, but not before I made hard copies of all this arrogant scofflaw’s pages and her 9 photos. More at

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.