The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Implementing retroactive restrictions on ADUs “is why people hate government”
By Mark Reaman
The Crested Butte town council ran into too many lingering questions at the October 21 council meeting to approve changes to the town’s affordable housing guidelines and town code related to affordable housing. Council will relook at the revisions at the first meeting in November.
The lengthiest discussion between council, staff and the town attorney, came over how to address “an error” in a 2022 ordinance tied to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in town. The 2022 update included a clause that ADU renters needed to be participants in the local workforce. The original ADU regulations did not have such a workforce requirement. That 2022 ordinance change was presented to the council two years ago as to apply only to ADU rentals going forward. But the date of when the change would start was left out of the ordinance, so town staff has been treating all ADUs under the workforce requirement, even if property owners did not have that requirement associated with their deed.
The ordinance error impacts Crested Butte’s 94 ADUs as well as another 63 long-term rental units located primarily in commercial buildings.
In a memo to the council, Crested Butte housing director Erin Ganser said that “assuming the original intent of the ADU update, only 35%…of these units would be set aside for local workforce. Owners and prospective owners of ADUs with whom staff has engaged over the past months have been receptive and accepting of the workforce requirement.”
But the change in policy did not sit well with some members of council.
“I’m a little nervous in retroactively changing the nature of an agreement,” said mayor Ian Billick.
“I too am hesitant to do that,” agreed councilmember Mallika Magner. “We had litigation in the past over a similar situation and settled the issue.”
“If we are legally sound, our focus is on the need for workforce housing,” countered councilmember Beth Goldstone. “The intent has always been to target the local workforce.”
“It was targeting a different demographic in 1995. In the 90s, the situation was one where the incentive structure created a lot of ADUs in town,” said Billick. “Now with a new community, the ADU incentives need to be very different. I would anticipate that these retroactive actions would be the death of ADUs.”
“We are currently in the midst of creating a lot of units geared toward workforce housing in the community,” noted councilmember Jason MacMillan.
“I support the town’s history of creating varied deed restrictions and affordable housing configurations that target different needs and situations, despite the difficulty of administering them,” said Magner. “By taking away this option it hurts the ability to have small houses peppered through the community.”
“I’m also hesitant implementing retroactive restrictions,” said councilmember Kent Cowherd. “These ADUs built in the 90s were meant in part to help people with their mortgage. My (architectural) clients these days don’t necessarily want an ADU in their backyard. That income isn’t a concern for people moving here now.”
“I think of our housing stock as a portfolio,” said Billick. “ADUs are an easy win for the town. We don’t have to buy land or pay for construction. They are flexible.”
“For me, I’m focused on increasing the workforce housing,” reiterated Goldstone. “There’s an imbalance in the community. We need to have places for locals that work here to live to make the valley function.”
“Is this the appropriate mechanism?” asked Billick. “To retroactively tell people they have to change their deal?”
“We’re not kicking people out of their ADU,” Goldstone responded. “We would just be adding the restriction to the next renter after someone leaves.”
“Going retroactive on this is like a punch to the stomach,” said Cowherd. “It’s a reason why people hate government.”
In a straw poll over the issue, Goldstone and councilmember Gabi Prochaska were willing to take the retroactive action. “I’m with Beth,” said Prochaska. “I think the intent in the 90s was to provide workforce housing. It’s heavy-handed government I guess.”
Councilmember Jason MacMillan wanted to think over the issue further and determine if there was a middle ground.
“The owner of an ADU could come into town hall and ask that the restriction be changed to apply to workforce housing,” said Goldstone.
“They could and that has never happened once,” said MacDonald.
Citizen Kristina Schomer commented during the public hearing. “It seems to me that reopening the discussion from 2022 is opportunistic. The decision made in 2022 came after lots of council and BOZAR and public discussion,” she said. “It seems that to decide to not correct what is described as an error is disingenuous. It seems the right thing to do is correct the error and if you want, bring up the potential change at a later date.”
With councilmember Anna Fenerty not at the meeting, no clear majority side was established so council will reconsider the issue at the next meeting. Town attorney Karl Hanlon will draw up some potential language for the council to consider on the matter.
Several other issues stymied the council as well so the board will take a couple weeks to ponder the ramifications of the potential changes to the affordable housing guidelines before voting on them in November when the public hearing will resume.
