Bear Lake County Planning & Zoning Meeting by Kathi Izatt

 

Giving the courtroom full of attendees his self-admitted “politically incorrect opinion,” County Planning and Zoning Commission member Sean Bartschi told the crowd that those who own short-term rentals (or STRs) should, “figure out a way not to be a pain in the butt.”

Wednesday’s meeting brought opinions aplenty which added to written input received earlier. Attorney Loyal Hulme indicated he represented a group of homeowners with concerns over the then-current draft of the STR ordinance, an item given attention by the County Commissioners for quite some time.

The draft STR ordinance set an initial $500 fee followed by a $300 annual renewal, limited per-bedroom occupants to four persons, required an owner representative be available within 30 minutes of the property, no RVs could be used as a rental, and other items which were dissected and discussed during the hearing.

Hulme cautioned against adopting an ordinance applicable to presently-operated rentals which may be deemed a “taking” under Idaho law. Should such a possibility be realized, Hulme noted that the county’s liability and economic impact could be significant due to revenue lost and the reduction in property value.

Most meeting participants supported an ordinance but requested modifications that would make the ordinance palatable to both sides—those who rent and those who are near rentals. Suggestions included a change in the number of bedroom occupants to coincide with International Building Code regulations governing square feet in relationship to occupants, allowing time to meet the ordinance regulations such as designated off-street parking, longer response time by property managers due to heavy summer traffic and fees similar to other jurisdictions for the same functions.

P&Z vice-chair Kristy Crane asked rental-home manager Spencer Bailey what the maximum size of an STR should be, before an STR is considered a motel. Unsatisfied with his response regarding the average occupancy of 47-50 per night in larger rentals, Crane pushed for a specific number of square feet to differentiate between the two uses.

Later during the hearing, another speaker explained that no commercial uses such as motels are allowed where STRs are currently located in the County. As a consequence, STRs are the only possibility for those who wish to spend a few days in the neighborhood. A past but limiting decision made by the P&Z and the County Commissioners to prohibit commercial uses on the lakeshore, was such an example.

Chairman Albert Johnson commented, “If we had a motel application, we’d have a bigger crowd here than we do tonight!” His objection was met with a reminder that a function of the P&Z is to plan for current and future needs including the possibility of motels to house vacationers.

P&Z members acknowledged several matters in the draft ordinance involved noise, waste, water, and sewer, all of which are covered in regulations already on the books. Nonetheless, they voiced objections to the size of many rentals and what they perceived to be extraordinary demands upon county or city infrastructure.

Repeatedly mentioned were property rights of STR owners and neighboring owners, which may be in conflict if renters “party til 2 a.m. every night all summer,” as Bartschi put it. Bailey stated during his experience managing rentals that, “Nine out of ten renters calm down with a call.”

Bill Stock, a former P&Z member and Fish Haven homeowner, provided input regarding House Bill 216, which outlined the legislature’s intent in 2017 when the STR regulations came into focus in Idaho. The legislature specified that the legislation was “designed to promote access to short-term rentals...by limiting local governmental authority to prohibit these beneficial property uses, or to specifically target them for regulations...to preserve personal property rights... and enhancing local tax revenue...” Using those as a guideline, Stock questioned Bear Lake’s proposed ordinance, which he felt did not fit within the legislature’s parameters.

Ending the public hearing, after which members of the community were absent, the P&Z opted to revise the ordinance immediately. Following a marathon that ended at approximately 11:30 that night, the P&Z members, with one dissenting vote, finalized their edits and scheduled a November public hearing regarding the ordinance in what they propose be its final form. Upon learning of that late-night decision short-circuiting what the public expected, Stock asserted, “Nothing good happens after 10 p.m.”