INTRODUCTION
As part of the ever-evolving dichotomy of short-term rental laws in Metro-Nashville & Davidson County (“Metro”), Burkley Allen, Council Member at Large, and Rollin Horton, District 20 Council Member introduced BL2024-478 on July 30, 2024, for the express purpose of granting the Metro Zoning Examiner and the Metro Short Term Rental Inspector (collectively “Metro Codes”) substantially more discretion and autonomy in the review, approval, and/or denial of an application for a new Owner-Occupied Short Term Rental Permit (an “OOSTR Permit”), in addition to, the revocation, termination, and/or voiding of previously issued and existing OOSTR Permit pursuant to Metro Codes’ determination that a real property for which a respective OOSTR Permit was issued has undergone a change in ownership.
If passed, BL2024-478 will revise the language of Section 6.28 of the Code of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee (the “Code”) as it relates to address various aspects of OOSTR Permit applications and the documentation requirements therefore, the continued, ongoing operation and advertisement of real property as a short term rental, and the impact of the change in ownership of real property in Davidson County, Tennessee, that was previously issued an STR Permit.
THE PROPOSED CHANGES OF BL2024-478
BL2024-478, as amended, revises or otherwise clarifies the following requirements, currently delineated in the Code, related to the approval and issuance of an OOSTR Permit:
- Ensures that only natural persons, not limited liability entities, unincorporated entities, partnerships, joint ventures, or trusts, can apply for an OOSTR Permit.
- Grants the Metro Zoning Administrator and/or the Metro Short Term Rental Inspector the discretion to deny OOSTR Permit applications if there is evidence that the owner does not permanently reside on the property, including, but expressly not limited to:
- Statements from the OOSTR Permit applicant that the respective real property will cease to be the applicant’s primary residence during the period for which the OOSTR Permit is valid
- Affidavits from neighbors that expressly affirm and state that the OOSTR Permit applicant does not occupy the respective real property for which the OOSTR Permit was issued as their primary residence.
- Revises OOSTR Permit Applications to now require a total of four documents – two documents from both Group A and Group B (outlined below) – to evidence, support, and prove residency for a respective OOSTR Permit applicant:
| Group A | Group B |
| Tennessee Driver’s License | Valid Automobile Insurance Policy* |
| Other Valid Tennessee State Issued Identification | Valid Life Insurance Policy* |
| Davidson County Voter Registration Cared | Valid Homeowners’ Insurance Policy* |
| W-2 and/or 1099 for IRS Tax Returns | Paycheck and/or Check Stub |
| Valid Motor Vehicle Registration and/or Title | Bank Statement |
| Executed Employer Address Verification+ |
* Wallet Cards Not Accepted
+ Not Applicable to Self-Employed Applicants
- Grants Metro Codes the discretion to revoke or otherwise void existing OOSTR Permits in the event Metro Codes, in its’ sole discretion, determines: (i) an applicant for a OOSTR Permit does not permanently reside at the respective real property for which Metro Codes subsequently issued OOSTR Permit therefore or (ii) as a result of a transfer of ownership of a respective property for which Metro Codes issued a OOSTR Permit, the original applicant no longer claims said real property as their primary residence.
NEIGHBORS STILL SUPPORTING NEIGHBORS?
It is important to note, that despite the general stigma of Metro residents and their vehement opposition to short-term rentals, whether owner-occupied or non-owner occupied in form, after BL2024-478 was advertised for public hearing on October 1, 2024, a Metro resident, who is not a short term rental owner and/or operator, presented express opposition to BL2024-478 and cited in support that the provisions therein are in contravention to public policy given the ability of a neighboring property owner – if passed – to assert a property owner and holder of a OOSTRP for a respective property that said property owner asserts to be their primary residence, as supported by documentary proof, is, in fact, not the property owner’s primary residence.
Despite the fact the Metro resident in opposition to BL2024-478 does not have a proverbial ‘dog in the fight’, one could glean said opposition underscores the need for balance between regulatory oversight and Metro property owner’s lawfully vested property rights. Stated differently, calls into question whether BL2024-478 grants Metro officials, what could reasonably be deemed as, unfettered latitude and discretion in the approval and or denial of permitting applications, short-term rental or otherwise.
CONCLUSION
Halloween may be over and the holiday season quickly approaching, but let there be no doubt, BL2024-478 on its’ face is all tricks and no treats. While patently on its’ face, proposed BL2024-478 may speak to OOSTR Permit applications, one could (very much) reasonably glean the impetus of the instant-proposed ordinance to be a smoke-and-mirrors act and attempt from Metro to further stimy the short term rental industry in Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee.
Stay tuned. More updates, including in-depth legal analysis from NASTRA business partners to follow.
A huge thanks to Seth N. Cline and his Law Firm for this blog
