Campfire Ranch STR appeals hearing continues with county

Dispute over commerical use and notice of violation

[  By Katherine Nettles  ]

An appeals case surrounding a Washington Gulch homeowner involved in a dispute with Gunnison County over his property’s commercial use came one step closer to possible resolution last week, after almost four months of hearings with the Gunnison County Board of Adjustments (BOA). The property owner, who has disputed his violation notices from Gunnison County and notices to cease and desist short-term rentals (STRs), had a third portion of a continued hearing to his appeal with the BOA on June 6, and the BOA closed its public hearing on the matter during that meeting and plans to meet in two weeks to discuss a final decision. 

The issue began last winter when Drew Fink, who bought a property in Washington Gulch in August 2022 and signed on with a property management company to manage the home as a short-term rental, received a building code violation notice from Gunnison County in late December stating that he had failed to apply for the proper permits. Then on January 11, 2024, Fink was issued a stop order which suspended his certificate of occupancy for the property. While the certificate was later reinstated, it only allowed the original maximum capacity of six people, rather than the 12 people that management company Campfire Ranch had been advertising. 

Fink’s company, McCloud Placer LLC, filed a lawsuit against the county and along with Campfire Ranch, appealed the county’s actions with the BOA on January 19. 

While the lawsuits are still pending in Gunnison County District court, the BOA began hearing the case in February, and opened a public hearing on the matter on April 23. That hearing was continued to and concluded on June 6, after several more hours of continued testimony from all parties involved.  

In the meantime, the home remains off the market for short-term rental. 

Fink answered several questions during the public hearing from the BOA board about his relationship with Campfire Ranch, including how to define the distinction between an individual STR and the Campfire Ranch resorts. The BOA focused on the combined marketing campaigns, use of the property for various celebrations and events and amenities such as gear shuttles, guiding, selling goods and concierge services upon request including food and grocery delivery, catering and more. 

Then the appellants made a presentation, with Fink asking why the distinction of his home was questioned and how that characterization as being a resort could affect other homes rented short-term. 

“The fundamental residential character of the home does not change because of the activities the group chooses to do while they are renting the home,” he argued. His attorney also argued that the building codes enforced were being incorrectly applied, and that the operation had been sought out and targeted unfairly with overzealous actions rather than simply picking up the phone to talk with them about concerns.

Gunnison County building/environmental health official Crystal Lambert then presented her reasons for issuing the notice of violation and the stop order. She also spoke to a lack of engagement from the owner or property management to communicate their STR plans and work with the county on compliance with health and safety regulations. She said they had never characterized the property as a commercial one, but that among other things, doubling the occupancy warrants an updated onsite wastewater treatment system permit or a variance.

Gunnison County assistant county manager for community and economic development Cathie Pagano said that while Fink’s and Campfire Ranch’s legal representatives had repeatedly expressed opinions about the county’s building codes, they never cited any specific standards or sections from the codes themselves to reference. “That was concerning to me,” she summarized. 

Lambert also said she had never targeted Fink’s home or sought out Campfire Ranch properties, and that such allegations were “outrageous.” She said she had not “picked up the phone” as they suggested, because she learned long ago that when notifying someone of a violation it is important to send a letter and maintain formality. She said she would very much like to see the property owner’s vision for his home come to fruition and that she specializes in helping people get into compliance. 

Board members closed the public hearing after three hours of presentations and testimony, and board member Laura Puckett Daniels outlined the decisions before them.

First, she asked, they had to decide if the county staff made their original decision that there was a change in use or occupancy prompting the notice of violation without credible evidence or cause and/or inconsistent with the Land Use Resolution (LUR)or exceeding their jurisdiction; second, was the original staff decision that the property was being used commercially which prompted a stop order made with no credible evidence and/or inconsistent with the LUR or exceeding jurisdiction; third, did the staff violate the appellant’s right to due process by issuing noticed without prior communication; and last, was the applicant singled out for enforcement. 

Board members agreed that they would continue that meeting to June 25 from 1:30-5:30 p.m., and Puckett Daniels charged the board with getting their thoughts and reasoning together on the determinations needed and suggested they each bring those ideas to the next meeting.