Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
Editor's Pick

Lake Ozark Wants Vacation Rentals, But Residents Say No Way

  • Updated
  • 4 min to read
Lake Ozark Waterfront Homes - City Considers Allowing Vacation Rentals

LAKE OZARK, Mo. — Vacation rentals — a major driver of the Lake of the Ozarks economy — are prohibited by city ordinance in Lake Ozark, but city leaders had hoped to change that... until Wednesday. The attempt to open short-term rentals in R-1 and R-2 residential zoning districts was met with fervent opposition from many city residents during the city's Wednesday, Nov. 1 Planning and Zoning meeting.

"I’m here tonight to express my unequivocal and absolute objection to the concept of short-term rentals. There’s absolutely nothing positive to be gained for the people living in these neighborhoods," said Scott Barns, a 20-year resident of Lake Ozark, whose comments elicited applause from the audience. 

While short-term rentals are permitted within R-3 zoning (typically condos) in the city, the newly proposed ordinance would have allowed short-term rentals (rentals that take place for a period of less than 30 days) to tourists and other transient guests in R-1 and R-2 zones as well: essentially expanding short-term rentals to single-family homes and duplexes. Lake Ozark Mayor Dennis Newberry explained the expansion of vacation rentals would help fund road improvement and other city projects through the increase in tax revenue.

It was standing-room-only in Lake Ozark City Hall during the meeting, and opposition to the ordinance was nearly unanimous. Only one man spoke in support of it. 

During the meeting's public comment section, many residents told tales of noise, parking issues and other problems that they have experienced from illegal rentals in their area, expressing concerns that legalizing short-term rentals would only proliferate these problems.

“I was taking a walk, and the rental house has ten bras hanging nailed to the top of the door, a beer can tree, a condom pile and trash all over the yard. It was there for two weeks. And I have a sneaky feeling that some of the kind neighbors of Oak Harbor that lived across the street cleaned it up. But the property owner didn’t, because they live in Florida,” said Lake Ozark resident, Betty Coleman.

“A neighbor across the street had four couples come down from Omaha and took over the neighbor’s property and took over my parking area. They could give a damn less about the neighbors. They’ll be there for a couple days and then gone,” said Ron Humford, a former member of the planning and zoning board.

Others stated that the burden short-term rentals would put on law enforcement would require more police and negate the possible tax benefit, possibly affecting the police department’s ability to respond to more serious crimes.

“And if you think, 'This isn’t going to concern me, it’s not going to bug me, so big deal.' But think of this when you need the police to come and assist you and they can’t because they’re babysitting these rentals. Think about it,” Coleman said. 

Several people also stated that if this ordinance went into effect, they would leave Lake of the Ozarks. 

“I know if my street becomes a street where there is nothing but short-term rental, I won’t stay. I came here because I like it like this. We have places with short-term rental, this isn’t a revenue stream for the city, this is a revenue stream for individuals,” said Leslie Marfisi, who has lived at the Lake full-time for six years. 

Public comment went on for nearly an hour and, despite attempts from the board to wrap-up the public comment time, citizens insisted on being heard. When told that the board could only hear one more comment, one man replied: “No, we need to talk until we all talk.”

When the period for public comment ended, the members of the planning and zoning meeting were to make statements about the proposed ordinance. Mayor Newberry fielded questions from residents and attempted to clarify the reasons for the ordinance. 

“I realize that, to some degree, that this seems to be solely on me. But this wasn’t an initiative because I’m a real estate broker but it was made up of a committee of people that I barely know, but was made up of folks just like you,” Newberry said. “This committee has vetted and vetted and vetted every possibility for revenue.”

Newberry also spoke about the possible unconstitutionality of the existing ban. 

“I don’t believe in government overreach and I believe this ordinance is government overreach,” Newberry said. “I took a deep dive and spoke with our attorney, but every court case that’s been challenged in recent history on the basis of our ordinance or a similar ordinance has gone in the direction of property owners who have sued.”

A man in the crowd called out during discussion: “We had no constitutional issues for years until we decided we needed tax money, and now there’s a big constitutional issue? There’s been no talk about this since the day it was passed.”

Newberry answered that it was still unconstitutional in 2013 when the ordinance first passed, but with the proliferation of AirBnb and the growth of short-term rentals, it’s now more pressing that the ordinance be resolved. 

“I’m just concerned we’re going to be challenged and someone will eventually come after us,” Newberry said. “You just have to take a deep breath and look at the constitutionality of it.”

Alderman Matt Wright was the first of the committee to speak about the ordinance, and the only to speak in support: “The nice thing about a short-term rental, you get a bad apple, they’re there for a short-term,” he said. That comment was booed by the crowd.

The rest of the board spoke either against the ordinance or cited concerns they had about the details of the ordinance including questions of how to manage building safety, how to collect revenue from these rentals and coordinating with the fire department. 

Board member Mike Kolar spoke out with some of the strongest opposition. 

“I’ve been here 19 years and I’ve had two houses within 500 feet of my house that were short-term rentals and one out of ten people that rent it are decent. I’ve seen a house made for 6 people have 15 football players in it, and you talk about destruction, they came over to swim on my dock and I had to chase them off with a gun. With these two- or three-day rentals, I’ve had nothing but trouble and I’m definitely against this.”

Chairwoman Margaret Davis also spoke out with concerns about who will be accountable for the rentals.

“You can’t expect the city to come out and patrol them,” Davis said. “The city doesn’t have money, they’re trying to build and repave roads. You can’t depend on the Airbnb or the homeowner in another state, who’s going to patrol this home with trash and all that stuff? They just walk away,”

“There’s a lot more questions than answers,” said Ken Albers before he proposed tabling the measure. His motion was seconded by Rick Hasty. 

Members of the committee also stated that they did not feel comfortable voting on this ordinance since they only been aware of it for a short time and had not had enough time to research and make a decision. 

The ordinance will likely be revisited by the Planning and Zoning Commission in the future, and the next meeting is scheduled for December 7, 2022. However, with the complexity of the issue, it's unclear if the board will vote on a recommendation one way or the other before the end of the year.


1
0
0
0
0

(0 Ratings)