AN ACT relating to short-term rentals.
SB 112 would create a new section of Kentucky law governing short-term rentals and sharply limit the ability of local governments to regulate them through zoning or similar ordinances. The bill defines short-term rentals broadly to include dwelling units, accessory dwelling units, and other spaces rented for fewer than 30 consecutive days, and it bars local governments from requiring conditional use permits, imposing density caps or spacing rules, banning short-term rentals in residential zones, limiting rental frequency or seasonality, imposing residency or host-presence requirements, restricting rental platforms, or preventing tenants from operating short-term rentals with landlord permission.
At the same time, the bill allows local governments to use a narrow permitting system for each property used as a short-term rental. That system would be limited to one permit per property, with a capped initial fee of $150, a one-year permit term, and a requirement that permits be issued within 30 days if the application is complete. The bill also sets rules for updating application information, permit revocation after three or more citations in a year, and nontransferability of permits when a property is sold. It preserves generally applicable health and safety rules and does not disturb homeowners association or condominium association restrictions.
The bill would preempt local zoning and land-use ordinances to the extent they specifically target short-term rentals, making the state statute the controlling law over conflicting local regulations. It would amend Kentucky’s planning and zoning framework in KRS Chapter 100 by creating an exclusive statewide permitting structure for short-term rentals and by voiding contrary local ordinances. The measure would affect cities, counties, planning units, short-term rental operators, property owners, tenants with landlord permission, and short-term rental platforms, while preserving general building, health, and safety regulations that apply equally to all dwellings.
Based on the bill text and the limited legislative context available, the measure appears to reflect a generally pro-short-term-rental, pro-property-rights approach, favoring statewide uniformity over local control. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, so no formal debate outcome or bipartisan pattern can be identified. The bill’s structure suggests support for operators and property owners seeking predictable statewide rules, while also giving local governments a limited enforcement and permitting role.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s broad preemption of local authority. Local governments would lose the ability to use zoning tools such as density limits, spacing requirements, residential-zone bans, host-occupancy rules, and platform restrictions, which are common mechanisms used to address neighborhood impacts, housing availability, and enforcement concerns. Another likely area of dispute is whether the bill’s narrow permitting system gives municipalities enough oversight, especially given the fee cap, mandatory issuance timeline, and limits on what information may be required. Supporters would likely emphasize uniformity and property-use freedom, while opponents would likely focus on local control, neighborhood character, and housing-market effects.