By Stephen Appezzato
FAIR HAVEN – During its June 12 meeting, the Fair Haven Borough Council introduced an ordinance that would prohibit short-term rentals within residential districts. The ordinance targets temporary stays for periods under 95 days, slapping offenders with hefty fines.
Short-term rental sites like Airbnb and Vrbo remain popular for travelers booking temporary stays and it’s not a coincidence this ordinance was introduced at the beginning of the summer season – a time when flocks of out-of-town visitors book short-term rentals close to the Jersey Shore.
“Listen, we want to get rid of them, that’s our goal,” said Mayor Josh Halpern about short-term rentals.
The proposed ordinance is aimed at eliminating these rentals to “preserve residents’ quality of life within the borough.” The original draft outlined a $500 fine for “each and every day of the term of any rental that is non-compliant.”
Most towns in the Two River area have not prohibited short-term rentals, instead opting for mandates and licensing procedures to regulate these stays. Rentals can funnel tourism dollars into the local economy, especially during the summer season. However, Fair Haven is not the only borough to voice concern over this practice.
After fervent and lengthy debate, the Red Bank Borough Council passed a short-term rental ordinance in February which prohibited short-stay rentals in strictly resident areas. Rentals are still permitted in mixed-use zones throughout the borough. Although Mayor Billy Portman vetoed the ordinance passed by the council, citing the differential treatment that would be imposed on property owners across different zones, just weeks later the council overrode his veto.
In Fair Haven, the proposed ban in strictly residential zones would encompass “95%-plus of the town,” according to attorney Andrew Sobel, a partner of borough attorney Greg Cannon.
Previously, the idea of creating short-term rental licenses within the borough was considered, though council members were wary of the potential administrative and enforcement challenges that licensing could produce.
“By going for a straightforward zoning regulation, it gets rid of all of that,” said Sobel. “We would say that in residential zones… you are not able to have a short-term rental of less than 95 days.”
“It’s just more straightforward and simple, as opposed to licensing which could be questioned,” Sobel added.
Addressing the means of enforcing the ordinance, the borough council revisited the originally proposed $500 fine for infractions. Council member Andrew LaBarbera voiced concerns over the original penalty, saying he wanted “to have enough latitude to make sure that the financial fee is significant enough.”
LaBarbera noted one short-term rental in Fair Haven rakes in more than $2,000 each night per stay. He was concerned that if the enforcement fine was not great enough, rental hosts might not be deterred, opting to continue renting and just accept the fines.
“That resident’s charging $2,100 a night. Maybe they eat the $500 a day and say ‘You know what, I just made myself… 15-, 16-hundred (dollars),” council President Elizabeth Koch noted.
“I’m OK with just making it (the fine) $1,000,” Koch said. “It takes all the guesswork out.”
While in agreement, Halpern voiced concern for residents who might be unaware of the hefty fine. “I’m just worried about the one family that comes in, doesn’t realize we have the ordinance, throws something up on Airbnb or Vrbo… (and) we don’t realize it until day eight because we’re not on top of it, and now they owe $8,000. That’s my only concern,” he said.
The council ultimately supported increasing the fine to $1,000 for each infraction, as long as the public is aware of the penalty.
“That’s why you got to do your homework,” Halpern said.
The borough council introduced another ordinance that would target long-term stays – this time for animals deemed “non-domestic” and prohibited.
Previously, Fair Haven residents could apply for a waiver from the mayor and council to own “non-domestic prohibited” animals on their property. The process included notifying nearby property owners within 200 feet of the amount and species of the animal, followed by a public hearing and council review.
The proposed amendment would remove this application process, setting a universal ban on nondomestic and prohibited animals to “protect the health, safety and well-being of persons and property.”
The comprehensive list of such animals includes cattle, goats, chickens, bees, pigs, horses and even ocelots, and others “deemed to be dangerous to humans.”
A few borough residents who have owned chickens for years took issue with the ordinance, with support from others.
“I’ve had chickens for a couple of years now. There’s only one person of the 33 people in my neighborhood who has ever raised any complaint. So, the idea that it is offensive to others is a bit surprising,” said resident Gontran de Quillacq. “I’ve never heard of chickens being dangerous. Have you ever heard of anybody being mauled by a chicken?” he asked.
“I feel like this is an overreach by the government here, trying to determine which animals are domesticated or not,” said resident Mike Criscola. “Chickens aren’t necessarily a non-domesticated animal.”
The borough council unanimously approved the introduction of both ordinances, slating them for further review. There will be public hearings held for both before moving to final adoption votes.
The article originally appeared in the June 15 – 21, 2023 print edition of The Two River Times.
