At the last board meeting, we reviewed the draft above, produced by the Zoning Committee. The board didn’t move the draft forward, but rather sent it back to committee for further work, and generations of alternatives. Generally the criteria in section 1, particularly 1.b. and 1.d., where regarded as too permissive. Please share your comments below, or email the board. Specific suggestions are most helpful.
BCPOA
Bridger Canyon Property Owners' Association
Twitter
Facebook
Canyon email list
RSS
Email
Please, no STR’s in the canyon. There is no program/system in place for oversight and, more importantly, STR’s go against the original Zoning Regs; the same Zoning Regs that are the reason why we and so many others bought property here years ago and made it our home.
NO STR’s. NO COMPROMISE.
Thank you,
Linda Svendsen
I am totally opposed to any short term rentals, as it is setting a president that allows businesses to operate in Bridger Canyon.There is also no way to police compliance.I live on a road that is very dangerous in the winter, how would each short term renter know of the dangers.There are many other problems str present, for example, how it effects your property value and many more.
I am 100% opposed to allowing any short-term rentals in Bridger Canyon. The commercialization of Bridger Canyon is NOT why we live here.
I am a lifelong Bridger Canyon resident and am in support of the new draft as written. We don’t own or personally have interest in creating a STR. However, I think the draft has the correct provisions set in place to effectively manage STR’S. Also, I am not opposed to the grandfathered clause. It seems that the city of Bozeman did the same for the very beginning of STR’s and I know it has and would benefit long time residents, not newcomers. Thank you for all your time and consideration in this matter.
Hi Simia, Bozeman grandfathered STRs because that is a normal thing to do (and avoid lawsuits for “takings”) when people have been operating under an established legal framework and then the government changes that framework. It’s fair because the people were fully legal and following established law. Ironically, the other element of that example of grandfathering was that Bozeman gave 90 days before their change took effect, which allowed some people who had NOT been doing STRs to quickly jump through the hoops and get “grandfathered”. So it wasn’t even a recognition of length of operation but the need to bend over backwards, bureaucratically to be fair. Anyone in the Canyon who wanted to do an STR could have petitioned for a text amendment before starting operations and then begun operating AFTER the amendment was adopted. But instead, every single operator just went ahead (in some cases for many years) and only now, when enforcement has come into play, are claiming they need to be grandfathered. They were never legal and grandfathering them sets a terrible example of rewarding bad behavior. All those property owners have legal options for use of their property; long-term rental, Bed and Breakfast, etc. No one is being denied rights because the rights they say are being denied did not ever exist. Cheers!
Thank you Simia for recognizing the obvious.
1- The Grandfather Clause is Montana State Law (76-2-208, MCA) and included in Part 1 Administrative regulations as well (Sec. 5.1). And would be appropriate for current STR owners who already have a Tourist Home license to “avoid undue hardship” as stated in the regulations, especially since so much undeserved “hardship” has been experienced recently.
2- Short-term renting is not illegal. Short Term Rental owners are not criminals for exercising their legal right to rent. Even in the unlikely scenario that a court decides STRs are a violation of zoning, a zoning violation is no where near an illegal act like drunk driving or dealing drugs. The drama and scary rhetoric is laughable and clearly meant to intimidate.
3- The current STR controversy was created by the county, not STR owners. And can easily be fixed by getting a ZTA passed that defines and regulates STRs in Bridger Canyon just like Big Sky or Bozeman Pass with a revokable permit for the very first time.
4- For decades, a few STRs (10-15) have come and gone, spread over 23 miles of public roads in our zoning district. If about one STR every 2 miles did not “change the nature of Bridger Canyon.” in the last 53 years, they cannot possibly pose a danger now, especially if STRs finally get some rules to help mitigate if problems arise.
5- The right to rent a single family home has NEVER been prohibited in zoning regulations and “duration of rental” (to this day) is not defined in the Gallatin County Growth Policy, Bridger Canyon General Plan, or Bridger Canyon Zoning Regulations. But ADUs and Guesthouses before them ARE restricted from renting. So why restrict one type of dwelling and not the other?
6- I know because I lived it – And I can prove it. Go to BridgerCanyon.org and click on “Zoning History.” (http://bridgercanyon.org)
Bridger Bowl was the booking agent (received a 12% commission) for Short Term Rentals in Bridger Canyon and around Bozeman for decades and would not have been doing so if STRs were “illegal” or a violation of zoning. Bridger Bowl reservations only stopped in 2020 due to covid and competition from AirBnB.
The fact is that STRs are an asset to our community and local economy not a detriment or danger. Vacation homes in Bridger Canyon bring in quality guests who use a single family home the same way the owner family would (cooking, sleeping, sanitation) spend lots of money in the local economy, actually have fewer cars and drive less than locals and do the best thing of all – they go home.
I understand the natural reaction to resist change. But banning STRs would be the actual change, while regulating STRs would be a clear step forward to mitigate problems and limit numbers if that becomes an issue.
In response:
1. This is the actual text that Wendy references re “grandfathering”: 76-2-208. ”Continuation of nonconforming uses. Any LAWFUL (my emphasis) which is made of land or buildings at the time any zoning resolution is adopted by the board of county commissioners may be continued although such use does not conform to the provisions of such resolution.”
The current STRs outside the Base Area are non-compliant with the zoning, i.e. NOT lawful. “Grandfathering” is inappropriate for non-legal uses for obvious reasons of fairness. Simply because you have been acting in violation of local regulations for a long time does not make your operation worthy of being anointed with legality. This has always been the case, there was no “zoning resolution” that changed the original status wherein STRs were not allowed outside the Base Area. Current and former Commissioners and Planning Directors will all confirm this and they have done so repeatedly in response to Wendy’s false claims otherwise. Wendy has profited annually from her non-compliant STR for about 16 years. Where is the “hardship”?
2. No one claims that zoning scofflaws are equivalent to drunk drivers. The fact remains that Wendy and others, fully aware that their STRs are NOT compliant with zoning, chose to ignore that fact and continue their business. The responsible thing for STR operators to do would be to a: cease operations and b: seek to have the zoning amended and c: if successful, start up again fully legal or if unsuccessful, use their property in a different, compliant way.
3. The problem exists because Wendy and others ignore the regulations and continue operations. The STRs are victims but of their own irresponsibility and lack of due diligence.
4. Wendy ignores the fact that from 2020 to 2023 the number of STRs increased dramatically, all non-compliant and not legal. This is a trend nationally that is well-researched. We should be looking forward and anticipating problems rather than backward before Covid and the Airbnb/VRBO website supercharged STR growth.
5. STRs are a commercial activity. Common sense tells us that is the case, the STR websites consistently call it a business, the need for an Accommodation license and paying bed tax differentiate long-term rental from STRs. This is not rocket science.
6. Wendy invokes the casual relationship from years back when Bridger Bowl listed overnight accommodations on their website as proof of legality. The long-time former marketing director at Bridger Bowl says this is false. Bridger is not the arbiter of compliance with the zoning, the Planning Department is that arbiter. Wendy could have made a 5-minute phone call, at any point in the last 16 years and asked the Planning Department for a determination of whether her property could be an STR. If she did that, she ignored the answer, which was always “No”. If she didn’t the failure of due diligence is hers to own.
STRs have their place. It is in the Base Area where it has always been. Wendy is a non-resident, investor-owned STR. This kind of STR (as opposed to renting out your residence part-time) is at the core of the controversy about STRs nationwide. It is the kind of STR that drove the City of Bozeman to ban all future non-owner-occupied STRs precisely because homes were being converted to year-round tourist accommodations and impacting housing availability and community cohesion.
Against my better judgement to continue ignoring Kent’s continual false statements, I have decided to respond.
First, Kent has no idea what he is talking about.
We did our “due diligence” 2 decades ago before purchasing our Bridger Canyon property that has no restrictive covenants. We consulted Gallatin County Planning experts in 2005, 2006, 2012, 2013 and 2017 and were assured each time, that renting a primary dwelling is not prohibited in zoning (like guesthouses were), which meant renting a single family primary dwelling on any parcel of record, for any duration short or long term, is unregulated, allowed and compliant with zoning.
Not Prohibited = Allowed
In the past, “unregulated” meant “free use” so everyone in the BC zoning district had the “right to rent for any duration” and a small number of homeowners have done so for decades without harming anyone or changing anything.
Please note – The late Richard Lyons testified in 2017 that “STRs are not presently a pervasive phenomenon in Bridger Canyon. Based upon my periodic checking VRBO, MRBO, AirBnB throughout 2016, at most there are about a dozen properties listed at any one time.”
Fast forward to 2023, there were 13 STRs listed in the AE sub-district, about the same as 8 year earlier, according to the late Richard Lyons. Kent’s scary rhetoric that STRs have “dramatically increased” is simply NOT TRUE in the Bridger Canyon Zoning District. Any assertion that STRs will “skyrocket” if finally regulated with limitations through a zone text amendment is meritless speculation and fear mongering meant to bully the BCPOA board, members and other owners into giving up their property rights for a fictional Boogyman.
Unfortunately, in 2023, without notification or due process, the county changed policy from “Not Prohibited = Allowed” to “Not Listed = Not Allowed” and proceeded to ban STRs and only STRs in every zoning district where STRs are not listed in regulations.
An even greater injustice is the fact that an official Bridger Canyon Zoning Advisory Committee worked for years and finally submitted zoning updates in 2017 that included regulations that would have listed and strictly limited STRs in Bridger Canyon zoning. But the Planning Department rejected those STR regulations, creating the void that is now being used to cause chaos. This is not right.
The county policy might be justified if short term renting was defined in BC regulations and then “not listed” as a permitted or a conditional use in the AE sub-district, like guesthouses were defined but not listed in the RF subdistrict. But short term rentals are NOT specifically defined in BC zoning regulations, the BC General Plan or Part 1 Admin regulations. The “overnight accommodations” referred to by Kent only apply to the Bridger Bowl Base area subdistrict and ONLY for a PUD.
How is it possible that a common land use property right is suddenly banned (without public notice, committee recommendation or public hearings) when the banned use is not even defined in the regulation? And why only STRs?
By this standard, literally every thing that is not specifically listed in zoning is technically banned.
Owning a cat or a dog or any pet is not listed, so pet ownership must be illegal.
Landscaping is not listed so planting flowers must be banned according to the county.
Parking or storing an RV or motor home is not listed so that must be illegal too.
Keeping horses for pleasure riding is not listed so it mush be banned.
Outdoor cooking facilities are not listed so it must be illegal to cook a steak on an outdoor grill.
Friends and family visiting or staying a few days is not listed as a permitted use, so it must be banned.
Hunting on one’s own property is not listed so it must not be allowed.
Even long term renting is not listed so it must be banned.
Question for all to consider –
If short term renting was aways “not allowed” by zoning, why did no one file a complaint to enforce that “so called” restriction in the last 52 years before the change in policy? Deb Stratford (BPCOA zoning expert) filed every possible complaint she could think of against numerous Bridger Canyon owners, but not one of them was against Short Term Renting a single family dwelling.
Not even Kent, filed a complaint against STRs in all the previous years that STRs have existed in Bridger Canyon even though he says they were always illegal?
The obvious answer is – Because there was no basis to file a complaint against STR owners, just for renting short term. When Kent, Deb, Richard, Tom and others did their due diligence and asked the county, they found out that BECAUSE renting short term was not listed in regulations, it was allowed as an unregulated, unrestricted, legal land use, property right. Which is why STR regulations were proposed by the Zoning Advisory Committee.
After proposed STR regulations were rejected, Kent or any other property owner who thought STRs should be banned, could have submitted their own Zone Text Amendment to list and ban STRs. But they did not.
Perhaps because Kent knows that people don’t like their property rights messed with whether they choose to use them or not.
If any of Kent’s frivolous claims were true that STRs cause harm in Bridger Canyon then his Short Term Rental in Bozeman must be equally harmful as a “non-owner-occupied” STR income property. But wait … Kent’s “non-owner- occupied STR” wasn’t banned like all the others in Bozeman because he took advantage of a “grandfather clause.”
for proof see https://youtu.be/r_F27vVgvhg?si=aTJRXRRUoLcmseSo
You Kent are the one causing harm. You are abusing the county complaint process to harass people who have done nothing to harm you. If it were not for snooping around on AirBnB, you would never know any of the property owners you filed against were short term renting. What is it now? … 17 complaints you filed since last December. Not a single STR you filed against can be seen from your house. Most of them, like mine, are miles from your property and cannot possibly have an affect on your life.
So what is the point? Is hurting others fun for you?
We need to come together as a community to solve the STR dilemma created by Gallatin County. Compromise and progress is now more urgent because of Kent’s unnecessary abuse of the zoning complaint system that is hurting our community by taking property rights from all and financially harming property owners who need STR income to pay taxes, mortgage and maintenance.
At least BCPOA, Bridger Canyon PRC and numerous concerned BC property owners are making the effort and doing the thankless job of attempting to get something accomplished that defines and regulates STR use for the first time in BC zoning.
It is well past time to stopped hurting and start helping.
There are some serious factual problems with this comment.
‘the county changed policy from “Not Prohibited = Allowed” to “Not Listed = Not Allowed”’ is obviously untrue. Two former commissioners – Steve White and Don Seifert – both weighed in on your facebook post to point this out. If this were true, where was the list of prohibited uses in the zoning regulations of 1971, 1989, or 1999-2020? The regulations never mentioned many large scale uses – was it really true that you could build a steel mill, an oil refinery, or a baseball stadium, because they were not prohibited? This is absurd.
To say that “When Kent, Deb, Richard, Tom and others did their due diligence and asked the county, they found out that BECAUSE renting short term was not listed in regulations, it was allowed as an unregulated, unrestricted, legal land use, property right. Which is why STR regulations were proposed by the Zoning Advisory Committee” is categorically false. In fact, in 2016, and in a public meeting which you attended, Richard Lyon and I pointed out that under the zoning language prevailing (the 1999 amendment, but almost the same in 1971), STRs were not a listed use, and therefore prohibited without a Commission finding of “similar use”.
“Deb Stratford (BPCOA zoning expert) filed every possible complaint she could think of against numerous Bridger Canyon owners” is a gross overstatement. BCPOA has filed very few complaints in the 19 years I’ve been on the board. There were quite a few we declined to pursue, in hope of a better legislative solution.
It’s also inaccurate to ask, “the banned use is not even defined in the regulation?” because STRs are defined in the regulation, as Recreational Housing and Overnight Accommodations, provided only in the Base Area. Just last month the MT Supreme Court, in Myers v. Kleinhans, pointed out that an AirBnB fit the common definition of commerce applicable under MT contract law, and the BC General Plan provides only B&Bs and Guest Ranches as commercial uses outside the Base Area.
Finally, the list under “By this standard, literally every thing that is not specifically listed in zoning is technically banned” is pure fantasy – a huge strawdog. Zoning, by the authorization in state law, controls structures and a limited set of commercial or occupational uses. Pets, plants, family, hunting, etc. are not touched by zoning.
We feel that NO STRs is optimum for preserving our canyon’s way of life.
As a Bridger Canyon Resident I don’t think we should restrict our neighbors on what they can or cannot do with their properties. I understand that policies are made after “bad behavior” but do we need to restrict everything because fear of possible negative effects? I know of STR near my home and they are beautifully well kept. They do bring income into our local businesses. I see the good. Our visitors in Bridger Canyon should be reminded of the Agriculture that still surrounds us. Good host should educate what this area means to us. I support the STR. People should be good humans and good neighbors.
HI Rhea, Zoning, by definition, is a limitation on what people can do with their properties. The impact of STRs on communities across the West is well documented, so concern is founded on current events. I heartily agree that people should be good humans and good neighbors which is why I oppose rewarding those with demonstrated, well-documented scofflaw behavior.
Thank you Rhea.
You are so right.
STR homes are usually better kept because owners have a little extra income for maintenance and improvements. In a high real estate market like Bridger Canyon, an STR does not make anyone a profit, but STR income does help people keep and improve property to preserve property values for all.
Best of all for my family, our STR has given us the opportunity to bring our family to Montana every year for a few months for 18 yeas so they also feel like Montana is their home as much as we do.
Now that the kids are grown, we are finally able to come home and take care of our vacation home ourselves and relieve relatives of the burden.
We are not wealthy, so we still need some part time STR income to pay the mortgage, but we have great plans to try starting a berry farm. And like you said Rhea, educate visitors about agriculture, organic cultivation and indigenous plants as well as all the good food and other products that can be made and enjoyed from indigenous plants. Montana Department of Commerce has started a promotion for Agritourism in Montana and think it is a great idea.
“In a high real estate market like Bridger Canyon, an STR does not make anyone a profit,..”, Really? Your statement flies in the face of reason and reality. First, paying off your mortgage, as you have done for 16 years surely counts as “profit”. The Lewis’, whose egregious disregard for the zoning, the County’s authority, and the terms of their CUP “profited”, conservatively, $100 K per year during the two years WHILE they were stalling and disputing the zoning. That pays a lot of lawyer fees.
In 2023 your STR (on just Airbnb and VRBO) very conservatively brought you $18k in “profit”. I say conservatively because that is based on 10 reviews on Airbnb at a MINIMUM of 3 nights and 10 nights on VRBO, all at your standard price of $450. Over at VRBO, where the review shows the length of each stay the average is SIX nights per stay which would effectively double your profit for 2023. And then you have your own website, https://www.bozemanvacationrental.com/, where you actively solicit people to book directly with you and avoid the charges of Airbnb and VRBO. So there are an unknown number of visits and “profit” associated with your direct booking website.
This all illustrates the challenge of policing and enforcing the 120 days of rental referenced in the DRAFT and belies your suggestion that STRs do not make a profit.
It is naive and disingenuous to suggest that the DRAFT won’t encourage the growth of STRs in the Canyon and naive to think that enforcement of the proposed regulations won’t be fraught with more challenges and loopholes than the Code Compliance office can handle.
STR growth is driven by the fact that the Return on Investment (ROI), the “profit”, is 3-5 times the ROI for long-term renting. That kind of money can bring out the worst in people. Witness the dozen or so STR operators in the Canyon who have ignored the rules for years.
To have the businesses of STRs in Bridger Canyon goes against everything our zoning regulations have tried to preserve. There are no rules and regulations that can prevent creative and innovative challenges to the zoning regulations once conditional uses and exceptions are introduced. And there is no regulatory body set up or willing to enforce the conditions for having STRs in the proposed regulations.
Please, do not introduce STR businesses into the canyon. And do not reward the few that have ignored the zoning regs and opened STRs to to gain from this at the expense of the rest of the canyon.
The Draft ZTA has three problematic areas, any one of which should cause it to be rejected. First, It creates criteria for renting one’s OWN residence for 120 days of the year in spite of the fact that no property owners have expressed interest in doing that on their property. Why create regulations to regulate a theoretical constituency? Second, it allows existing, non-owner occupied, full-time STRs if the operator lives on “adjacent” property. The rationale is that “adjacent” means sufficient supervision of guests to avoid problems. If the adjacent standard is accepted, we will shortly see another ZTA asking that all ADUs be rentable, long or short-term with the rationale that an ADU is even more adjacent (and “housing crisis” thrown in). This is what the Wendy Dickson ZTA included and the Commission will be hard-pressed to repudiate the “adjacent” standard they accepted when applied to ADUs. There is only one property owner in the Canyon who would currently benefit from the “adjacent” standard. That property owner, Peter Serino, has been operating STRs for over two years in violation of both the zoning and State law requiring an Accommodation license. The “adjacent” standard appears to be a lightly disguised bit of spot zoning (which is illegal) to the financial advantage of a Peter, a current BCPOA Board Member. Third, the so-called “grandfathering” standard is a complete capitulation to those non-resident property owners who have operated illegally for years. It is a reward for bad behavior, dishonest representations about “property rights” and disdain for the authority and legacy of the zoning. In Bozeman, the city “grandfathered” some STRs but only those that had ALWAYS been fully compliant with all the rules up until the date that the rules changed. In other words, “grandfathering” acknowledges GOOD behavior when the rules change. It does not apply to allowing those who have knowingly been out of compliance and operating illegally regarding State law to be forgiven and proceed legally. Any claim that STRs were once allowed and that changed is ENTIRELY FALSE as per past and present Commissioners and past and present Planning Department directors. If any amendment were to pass it must make all parties start from scratch, and through the CUP process, a property owner’s history of compliance or non-compliance should be factored in.
What has happened over the years is that just 3 or so STRs operated under the radar. Then in 2020-2023 as Covid drove interest in STRs, the number of STRs in the Canyon increased by ten. That extraordinary growth coupled with the Lewis case of blatant disregard for the zoning and the CUP process has awakened many in the Canyon to the danger of STR growth. The Lewis case took nearly three years to resolve. During that time, none of the STR operators (as of November 2023) had bothered to a: ask the County if their activity was legal or b: obtain an Accommodation License, as required by State law. This is the definition of scofflaw and failure to do basic due diligence.
Every property owner should reflect on their relations with their own neighbors. You may not be BFFs, but you know that they will help when needed and vice-versa. Consider if those neighbors’ homes become STRs and how that affects your sense of community and solidarity. As Tom indicates, the BCPOA Board is very divided on this DRAFT ZTA. Board members are legally obliged to act in the best interest of the community, yet the Board has members who have clear financial conflicts of interest.
When and if there is an actual constituency for limited STR rental of a property owner’s OWN residence and when the County’s enforcement ability is more timely and trustworthy, a future ZTA could be considered. But for now, the BCPOA Board should inform the Commission that the status quo of no STRs outside the Base Area should be maintained. With the current, simple, unambiguous “not allowed” standard Code enforcement is glacially slow but is actually working. In the past year, the majority of illegal STRs are either now voluntarily gone, under review by Code Compliance or seeking to qualify for a legal designation like guest ranch or bed and breakfast.
A new set of untested regulations can only make enforcement slower and more prone to skullduggery and loopholes. It’s not like the current group of STR operators have been “trustworthy, loyal, obedient” Scouts. How and Who will police the 120 days of rental limit? The County has indicated it will leave it to the public complaint system, pitting neighbor against neighbor.
Please contact your BCPOA Board representative and tell them to tell the Commission to leave the NO STR status quo in place.
We have no personal interest in doing an STR. We have known of damage done to a family member ‘s house who rented, although not a STR. Renters can be destructive not just to their rental but to the surrounding land. One neighbor did STR’s with no problems but he had another neighbor keeping an eye on things. He acted as an on-site property manager. This seems to be the right approach and works in other situations, like public campgrounds where there is a “Host”. Having a paid property manager might be a compromise but would raise the SRT costs.
Dear fellow Bridger Canyon property owners.
The above Zone Text Amendment concept draft is a good faith effort by the BCPOA zoning committee to propose compromise regulation ideas that would govern Short Term Rentals for the first time in 53 years of Bridger Canyon Zoning. BCPOA is simply following the instructions given by Commissioners in June when they granted a continuation for the Zone Text Amendment submitted and paid for by another nonprofit organization of Bridger Canyon Owners – the Bridger Canyon Property Rights Coalition.
Zoning is complicated and boring and NOT FUN or easy. Agree to disagree, support or oppose, please have respect for the countless hours sacrificed by community members in both organizations giving up time with family and things they would rather be doing, to find a workable path forward that preserves our community values as well as valuable property rights.
We are tryin to do our best.
Hi Wendy, You have referenced Bridger Canyon Property Rights Coalition as a “non-profit”, a 501c3 tax-exempt charitable organization both here and in your newsletter. BCPRC does not appear in a search of the IRS database of approved 501 c 3 non-profits. Can you provide your EIN? https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-exempt-organization-search
Wendy Dickson references this video (where she has blocked any ability to respond) https://youtu.be/r_F27vVgvhg?si=aTJRXRRUoLcmseSo. This is a case where the facts matter. The difference between the STR that we operate in the Bozeman City Limits and Wendy’s non-permitted STR in Bridger Canyon is that our STR has always been legal, Wendy’s isn’t and hasn’t ever been. Just ask the County Commissioners and the Planning Department. The City of Bozeman established regulations and upon complying with those regulations we operated fully legally. When the City realized, from public outcry, that that non-owner-occupied investor STRs (like Wendy’s) were harming the community, they voted to change the previous regulations and ban all FUTURE non-owner-occupied STRs. In making that change, they had an obligation, both ethical and legal, to be fair with those who had played by the former rules. So they “grandfathered” our STR and many others. Simply put, Wendy has not played by the rules in Bridger Canyon.
Another critical point. Our Bozeman STR is in the B3 Zoning District which, like the Bridger Bowl Base Area in Bridger Canyon SPECIFICALLY mentions STRs (overnight accommodations) as an APPROVED use. Wendy presumably has no complaint about the STRs in the Base Area, so her concern about our fully legal, approved STR in the B3 District of Bozeman is absurd. STRs have their place, where they make sense and where they are operated under a clear legal framework.
Dear BCPOA
My wife and I are strongly in favor of allowing Short Term Rentals in Bridger Canyon
We have lived next door to one for over 20 years. We sometimes see the renters to say hello and they are always so grateful to spend a short time in the beautiful place we call home.
Before we bought our home, our family often rented a house in the canyon to go skiing. In fact, we would book through Bridger Bowl who had a discounted ski package with the house.
This summer our extended family will rent next door so they too can experience our canyon. If the STR were unavailable they would have to rent 4-5 hotel rooms in town. Which choice would your family prefer?
We think this whole discussion is aimed at something that is not a problem by some who selfishly guard
their own good fortune to live here and keep other families unable to enjoy a short visit.
I would ask you to perform a simple
experiment . Next time you are driving in the canyon look at any house and ask yourself is that house occupied by the owner? Is that house being rented on a long term basis? Is that house being rented short term? I think you will see that whatever might be true has absolutely nothing to do with you,
Let’s concentrate on other pressing issues. For instance excessive speed on Bridger Canyon Road and the extror
Lastly, we bought our home without restrictions on this use. We did not buy into a neighborhood with an HOA prohibiting STR’s To aributarily take this property right away may be unconstitutional. Single family homes have historically been rented in this county and state by their owners.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the vast majority of STR guests are not pleasant people who don’t cause problems. The concern is proper education, preparation and setting of expectations for visitors before they arrive so they understand the demands of winter driving, fire danger, fireworks, guns, wildlife on the roads, etc. That job of educating should fall fully on any STR operator.
The big problem with the ZTA that Wendy Dickson has proposed is that it would make every single home in the Canyon a potential full-time, year-round STR. And in the last three years we saw the number of STRs in the Canyon, all non-owner-occupied like Wendy’s, triple. Right now you have just Wendy’s STR near you and the impact is negligible. Not a problem for you and that’s your view. Others would find the quality of their immediate neighborhoods diminished by suddenly having a full-time STR next door. Imagine if all the other homes surrounding you became full-time STRs (or even half of them) which is not far-fetched given your proximity to Bridger Bowl. There would be nothing to stop that happening if Wendy prevails. If there were a way to arbitrarily set a maximum number of STRs in the Canyon, that might be a solution. But that is just not feasible in that a quota would make each of those permits, like a liquor license, intrinsically valuable. Set a limit of 10 STRs in the Canyon and someone eager to STR their vacation home, with a battalion of attorneys comes along and sues because 10 is an arbitrary number and inherently unfair.
Another problem is completely reversing the agreement that got rid of caretaker’s residence and guest house and created ADUs. That change predicated on an absolute prohibition on renting ADUs. Now Wendy wants to make all ADUs long-term rentable. If the ZTA were to pass it would be a very short-time before another ZTA is proposed to make ADUs short-term rentable and the argument will be that ADUs as short-term rentals means even closer supervision of guests.
The core of the Zoning’s purpose is to limit density. Think about the additional traffic generated by all that increased density.