SB 110 would limit the authority of Kentucky local governments to regulate short-term rentals through zoning and land-use ordinances. The bill defines a short-term rental broadly to include the rental of a dwelling unit, part of a dwelling unit, accessory dwelling units, or other sleeping space for less than 30 consecutive days.
Under the bill, cities, counties, and other planning units could not require a conditional use permit or similar permit before a property may be used as a short-term rental. Local governments would also be barred from imposing density-based restrictions, such as minimum spacing requirements between short-term rentals or caps based on the number or percentage of units in a building, zoning district, or other geographic area. The bill preserves local authority to enforce generally applicable health and safety rules, so long as those rules do not treat short-term rentals differently from other residential uses.
Impact
SB 110 would preempt local zoning and planning ordinances to the extent they single out short-term rentals for special permitting or density limits. It would affect Kentucky local governments engaged in planning and zoning under KRS Chapter 100 by restricting how they can regulate short-term rental use, while leaving intact generally applicable building, health, and safety standards that apply equally to all dwellings. The practical effect would be to make it easier for property owners to operate short-term rentals and to reduce local discretion over where and how many such rentals may be allowed.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment cannot be measured from debate history. The bill’s structure suggests a policy preference for limiting local regulatory barriers and expanding property-owner flexibility in the short-term rental market. In general, such measures tend to draw support from property owners, hosts, and tourism-related interests, while prompting concern from local governments and residents who favor stronger land-use controls.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between state-level preemption and local control. Supporters would favor removing permit requirements and density caps that they may view as burdensome or inconsistent across jurisdictions. Opponents, typically local governments and some neighborhood or housing advocates, may argue that cities and counties need these tools to manage neighborhood character, housing availability, and concentration impacts from short-term rentals. The bill does preserve health and safety regulation, but only if those rules are applied uniformly and do not treat short-term rentals differently, which may itself be a source of dispute over how much local tailoring remains permissible.