---

Confirmation that an alternative proposed short term rental ordinance can move forward could result in a year long stay on the municipal law introduced on Oct. 11.

In reading from a prepared statement, Deputy City Clerk Melody Hartsgrove informed those gathered at Wednesday’s City Council meeting that enough signatures were garnered to move the short term rental ordinance submitted by homeowner Jon Biondo [at right] and a list of 250 petitioners forward.

“Following the review performed by my office, we have determined that the initiative petition submitted satisfies the requirements set forth by law,” Hartsgrove said. “Therefore, the petition and the proposed ordinance are herewith being forwarded to the Mayor and City Council for their consideration.”

That consideration is now slated for Nov. 8, the same date the municipal proposed short term rental ordinance is slated for a final vote.

But Biondo, in citing case law, said the State Supreme Court Redd v Bowman case called on the municipality to withdraw their pending legislation.

“The court, in that case, effectively ruled that once an initiative petition on a certain topic has been certified, the Council should not confuse the voters by changing the law that the petition was intended to amend.”

Municipal proposed changes to the law allow short term rental [defined as 30 days or less] at owner occupied properties, thereby prohibiting Biondo, a lawyer who runs the humanitarian Youth of  Malawi nonprofit, from the practice at his refurbished a two family Victorian home [at right]. The home boasts nine bedrooms, two kitchens and 5½ baths and can sleep up to 18. Over the summer, there was a required four night stay minimum with a nightly rate ranging from $1,000 to $1,800. 

In making an assertion that the City would be ‘contravening’ the Faulkner Act [the municipal governance], Biondo said the proposed law is ‘obviously’ inconsistent with the current circumstances.

“The ordinance I propose might no longer be supported by all of the citizens who backed it with their signatures, and it could not meaningfully be evaluated by the voters,” he said. “Make no mistake, this is the case law in our State’s highest court and it prevents you from passing your law.”

If Biondo’s reading of the law is correct, it would mean a year long stay on the proposed municipal law should the City Council vote down his proposed legislation on Nov 8.

Hartsgrove said if the governing body fails to pass Biondo’s petitioned ordinance it would come before the voters as a ballot question during the November 2018 general election.

But such a stay would adversely affect some homeowners, like Brett Lowell of Bridge Avenue, who owns an owner occupied two family home. Under the current law, Lowell is prohibited from obtaining the existing summer short term rental allowance.

“I share with the City Council their concerns about maintaining the socioeconomic diversity of town,” Lowell said. “I also share the homeowner concerns of how I am able to use my property.”

Lowell said the current municipal law does not work for anyone, setting himself and others in a period of limbo until the matter is resolved.

“If the current law is postponed, to be voted on a year from now, it’s going to be another year and half, and it’s going to be very difficult to provide clarity to the homeowner on how we can use our homes.”

City Attorney Fred Raffetto said the City’s current short term rental law has not been repealed and remains in effect.

“Depending upon what actions are taken by the Council as we move forward, that ordinance may be repealed but that will depend on what transpires,” he said. “The current ordinance that the City has introduced would allow the renting out of an additional unit in a two family home where the owner occupies the other unit. We will have more clarity after Nov. 8.”

City Council members, who learned of the petitioner certification on Wednesday, said they have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter. City Attorney Raffetto was not available for further comment at the time of posting.

Biondo said if the City passes its proposed ordinance he will move forward with the veto process, requiring him to obtain the requisite 321 signatures.

“I will seek a judicial injunction as your law violates the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the US Constitutions and the related provisions of the NJ Constitution,” he said. “There is no urgency to change the law…I call on you to stop causing confusion, additional paperwork, new forms, discrimination and favoritism. Your law is unconstitutional, ageist and racist, but most importantly it is dumb.”

[Short Term Rental Photos Courtesy of Jon Biondo]

———————————————————————————————————

Follow the Asbury Park Sun on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

The Asbury Park Sun is affiliated with the triCityNews newspaper.

---