The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Looking to open it up to all permanent residents
By Mark Reaman
Not everyone living in town was on board with the Town Council’s latest attempt to simplify the short-term rental restrictions in Crested Butte through a cap-and zone regulation—so the council again changed its direction and will now look at a revised proposal in May.
That proposal will keep a cap on the percentage of STRs allowed in Crested Butte but also permit any “permanent resident” of Crested Butte to short-term rent their property in any zone. The latest shift seemed to be a way to provide some latitude to people living full-time in Crested Butte to make some extra money.
After hearing from nine members of the public at the March 20 council meeting, the five councilmen considering the ordinance backed off its direction to use a finite and “simple” cap-and-zone equation that would limit STRs to 35 percent in zones where short-term renting is currently permitted, along with “grandfathering in” those properties that hold STR business licenses in the zones where it is technically prohibited, but no additional STRs would have been allowed in those non-permitted zones.
Mayor Glenn Michel and councilwoman Laura Mitchell have recused themselves from the discussion since they hold STR business licenses in the prohibited zones.
“We’ve come a long way and gone round and round with the discussion,” said councilman Jim Schmidt. “One suggestion we had in the past was allowing anyone in Crested Butte with a permanent residence to rent that residence up to 29 days. A thought was to put that back in the ordinance so they could use it no matter where they live in town so it could assist them in paying their mortgage. Can we include that or are there legal issues?”
Town attorney John Belkin said if the council had a valid reason for the addition, they could include such a provision.
“I would prefer just setting a hard cap,” said mayor pro tem Roland Mason. “I think there is a grey area when you try to define what a permanent resident is. We should allow anyone to apply for the permits. Defining a permanent resident could get sticky.”
“I agree with Jim,” said councilman Paul Merck. “Those permanent residents in town are who we most want to protect.”
“We’re protecting everyone by using a 35 percent cap,” said Mason. “A 35 percent cap would allow another 32 licenses to be issued. I think our town can absorb 35 percent.”
Mason opened the discussion up to the dozen people in the audience. Steve Brown posed several questions to the council dealing with the legality of the ordinance under Colorado law in terms of rent control. Belkin said the statute did not apply to Crested Butte’s situation.
Brown asked if the ordinance would bring neighbors back to neighborhoods. Mason said not necessarily, but the intent of the ordinance was to avoid turning residences in town into commercial uses.
Brown also brought up the potential of a legal challenge and the costs associated with such action. He also brought up the issue of whether the ordinance treated everyone fairly and if limiting STRs would have a negative impact on the tourist economy.
David Owen urged the council to “not enact prohibition by zone. It reminds me of the Whatever USA wristbands,” he said. “Only so many were available for locals at the last minute. Others were denied entrance to their own town. It was a negative experience. The 35 percent cap is like that. Some people get in and others don’t. The hard cap is the least logical and fair but prohibition by zone is neither fair nor logical. If you make it so my neighbor with a license can do it but I can’t, then I get all the negatives without any of the benefits of short-term rentals. The lawbreakers will be the winners. Those of us who obeyed the rules will be the losers. It’s not your job to designate winners and losers. I urge you not to pass this.”
Resident Caren Carroll agreed with Owen. “My plea is for fairness and allowing locals like us to help pay their bills. We are looking at kids heading to college.”
Carroll, a Certified Public Accountant, told the council that according to Internal Revenue Service rules, a permanent resident is defined as someone living in the property at least half the year.
Liz Sawyer also agreed with Owen’s fairness argument. “It is not really fair to restrict zones when the town has given out licenses for years,” she said. “It’s just not fair. There are a lot of locals living in the Verzuh annexation and I too have kids heading to college. I could use the extra income. I’m not asking for months and months and months but am looking for some help with income.”
“I too should have gotten my license,” added resident Don Pulley. “This is a hard one to swallow. I didn’t think about it when you first started talking about the issue but I’m thinking about it now. I always thought Crested Butte would be fair so I didn’t worry about it much. Maybe offer another opportunity to give people a chance to get a license.”
“It sure feels like the direction shifted last meeting,” said Todd Carroll. “Locals and residents are getting priced out. Like Liz said, I enjoy meeting the people here for a week or two to visit. It is also a question of fairness. It seems STR income can help locals actually stay here. And I don’t understand the nexus of the 35 percent figure.”
“Think about the Crested Butte middle class,” reiterated Susan Eskew. “In the interest of fairness, don’t squeeze these folks out. They’re here tonight and part of the community.”
“I think you are on the right track here,” said Jim Starr. “If you go with Jim [Schmidt’s] suggestion for allowing permanent residents to rent their homes, you address 80 or 90 percent of the comments. As for a legal challenge, Denver and Boulder have similar language so they’ll be on your side. I don’t think allowing permanent residents will increase the numbers that much.”
Mindy Sturm said she still was still not sure what problem the council was trying to solve. “Is there a problem? The precedent has been set all over town by the town issuing business licenses in zones where it is not allowed. Another point is that many of us have aging parents we need to take care of and STRs allow us to come and go in such situations. As for Denver and Boulder being with us in a legal challenge, they have much different economies than Crested Butte so I’m not sure they would be there. This is badly written legislation with too many loopholes and room for lawsuits.”
“I think we need to navigate the question if we can have an exemption for permanent residents,” said councilman Chris Ladoulis. “If permanent residents rent their house and leave for a bit, is it inconsistent with what we’re trying to accomplish? I don’t think so.”
“What we’re doing with this discussion is great. We’re getting more information,” said Merck. “Our community is really asking to be able to fairly rent their houses and use their investment in a resort town to stay here.”
“We are looking for a good compromise and when you compromise not everyone will be happy,” said Mason.
“If we add permanent residents, what about lowering the overall cap to 20 percent with the exception for permanent residents,” suggested councilman Jackson Petito. “A restriction that applies to the whole town is fair. But if people can use it to help pay their mortgages, then let’s keep the overall percentage cap lower. And I don’t think defining a permanent resident would be sticky.”
“Zoning is always unfair,” said Schmidt. “And I disagree with David Owen that grandfathering in those who were issued business licenses is not fair. What about the young woman who said she rented her place 180 days a year? Is she a permanent resident? People will cheat on whatever we pass but I’d suggest allowing all permanent residents to be able to rent their places for 29 days a year, no matter what zone they are in.”
“I’m okay with the permanent resident exception,” added Ladoulis. “It reflects the intent of what we’re after, which is to have residents living in residential zones even if they are gone some days during the year.”
Town staff will gather information on what exempting permanent residents from the STR limit would mean to the town’s overall potential STR numbers. Council indicated it would be open to changing the percentage cap based on that information.
“The reality of this is that someone will always be on the outside looking in when you try to put restrictions on something,” said town building and zoning director Bob Gillie. “So a different cast will likely be here objecting to any changes.”
“This is the cast we were looking for,” responded Merck.
Because of scheduling conflicts and spring break, the council continued the discussion of the ordinance with the proposed changes to the May 15 council meeting.
