Update: the survey results are currently on hold, pending development of a valid way to remove some duplicate entries. A couple of people availed themselves of the untracked form to submit many responses, making the results invalid as a measure of general canyon sentiment. About all we can say at the moment is that on the first couple days, when responses were heavy, outweighing repeat submissions, the results looked a lot like they did in 2016, with perhaps a small shift toward a more favorable view of STRs.
Regardless of the outcome of the Jan. 11 hearing, we think it would be better for the zoning regulation to be explicit about STRs, so that permissible uses and distinctions from related classifications like Guest Ranches and Overnight Accommodations are clear. Therefore we’re interested in your opinion, not only for the pending matter, but also a future zoning amendment. Please give us your feedback in the following survey:
https://forms.gle/BK4xySf7iAWQh6sC6
The form has three fairly brief parts. Page 1 repeats some questions that we asked in 2016, when the zoning advisory committee originally drafted an STR standard. Page 2 considers some additional questions related to the recent and pending hearings. Page 3 seeks feedback on the current draft, which is now 5 years old.
Please take a look soon, because we’re just a week out from the hearing.
Background
History
Several classifications that provide for accommodations have been present in the zoning for a long time. In the Bridger Bowl Base Area, the B-districts provide for Overnight Accommodations and Recreational Housing. In the AE district (most of the Canyon), those aren’t available, but there are Guest Ranch and Bed and Breakfast classifications. All of these are conditional uses. Nothing in the regulations mentions short-term rentals by name.
In 2016-2017, the Zoning Advisory Committee (BCZAC) held a series of public meetings to discuss STRs, including a well-attended one at the fire station community room. We also ran a survey via the BCPOA email list. Following those sessions, BCZAC drafted a standard that created a Conditional Use Permit for short term rentals.
In 2021, the Planning Department submitted a zoning amendment incorporating the BCZAC work, but omitting the STR and PUD sections. BCPOA opposed these omissions, but supported the amendment as a whole, for many other beneficial improvements to the zoning language.
Current Status of STRs
The county’s current interpretation of zoning regulations is that STRs are not permitted in most zoning districts:
If short-term rentals are not mentioned in the specific zoning district regulation, they are not permitted anywhere in that zoning district.
The only exception in Bridger Canyon is Overnight Accommodations and Recreational Housing in the Base Area. See the STR FAQ for details. BCPOA had nothing to do with the drafting of this interpretation, and in fact just discovered the county’s web page yesterday.
BCPOA Position
BCPOA doesn’t have a formal position statement on STRs, and there’s some diversity of board member views. We have certainly never tried to ban them – in fact, we spent a lot of time and money trying to induce the county to adopt a CUP legalizing them.
Generally we think a ban would be difficult to enforce and possibly counterproductive, so it would be better to permit STRs with a few safeguards against nuisances and density creep. No matter what the standards are, we would like to see the adoption of explicit language mentioning STRs, to avoid the ambiguity that has led to the current appeal.
BCPOA’s Role
BCPOA isn’t a regulator; we’re an advocate for Bridger Canyon. From our bylaws:
The purpose of this corporation shall be:
- to preserve the rural character and the natural beauty and resources of Bridger
Canyon;- to guide and direct orderly growth and development;
- to maintain, through organization, a definite influence in all matters which may
affect residence or property rights and enjoyment thereof;- to disseminate information regarding zoning requirements and local issues, and
- to hold regular meetings for open discussions of problems of mutual interest and
concern
The zoning regulations are administered by the Planning Department. Conditional Uses, appeals, variances and amendments are elevated to the Planning & Zoning Commission or the County Commission.
Twitter
Facebook
Canyon email list
RSS
Email
Dear Tom.
Thank you so much this comprehensive update and promotion of the new Short Term Rental survey.
In “background and history” you point out the county planning board “new” interpretation that “anything not explicitly mentioned in zoning is automatically not allowed” and applying that “catch all phrase” to ban STRs without legal president or community input is so insane, unfair and ridiculous it makes my head hurt. But to fix the “legal limbo” you need people to respond to this survey.
I humbly invite anyone who is AGAINST short-term-rental property rights to read my perspective. It may not change your mind, but it will hopefully give you a more comprehensive understanding of another point of view.
Comments on short term rentals:
As a long time STR Bridger Canyon property owner and native Montanan, I am obviously passionate about preserving property rights for rental income so my husband and I can continue to afford our little piece of paradise near my childhood home in Bridger Canyon.
But self-interest does not make me wrong about the benefits to our Bridger Canyon community of allowing short-term rentals. For anyone whose first reaction to rentals is negative, I would encourage you to look at the bigger picture and consider your own property rights. Even if you do not plan to ever rent your property short term or otherwise, the right to do so is still extremely important to your property value and economic flexibility as circumstances in life change. Unexpected hardships happen all the time and flexibility to create income to maintain property may be key to keeping your valuable Bridger Canyon land or passing it down to family.
Also, the freedom to determine land use on your own property (within reason) is near sacred for Montanans. No Montanan hates it more than when “outsiders” tell us what we can and can not do on our own land, especially when it has little or no effect on them. As a rural community, most Bridger Canyon homes are separated if not isolated from neighbors so that any impact of who occupies a home (tourist or owner) is significantly less than in town. In those few areas of the canyon where homes are closer together, it may make sense to draw zoning sub-zones with specific rental regulations to accommodate a specific neighborhood consensus on land use, like the current areas delineated near Bridger bowl. But it seems extremely unfair for property rights land use to be restricted throughout Bridger Canyon where impact on other owners miles away is near zero.
On the positive side, STRs can benefit Bridger Canyon residents by providing options for visiting family and friends to rent an STR in the canyon rather than a hotel in town requiring more driving up and down canyon roads. Bridger Canyon STRs arguably decrease traffic because tourists stay nearer recreation hot spots like hiking trails, Crosscut and Bridger Bowl Ski Area rather than driving back and forth from rentals and hotels Bozeman. Best of all, STRs increase tourist dollars and tax revenue that support local businesses and help decrease resident taxes as well as help pay for much needed infrastructure development.
Most importantly, STRs promote quality tourists (families and couples) who come to enjoy the great outdoors, spend lots of money in the local economy and then GO HOME.
I am open to further discussion on this topic.
Wendy Dickson
314-805-1858 (talk and text)
My wife and I agree with Wendy Dickson’s comments regarding STRs. She reflects our thinking.
I agree with Wendy’s opinion
We have a neighbor who has short term renters and it was trouble-free as far as I know. In another case we had a renter at another location where the children were running wild on four-wheelers or motor cycles. In the first case a neighbor kept an eye on the renters, the other had no supervision. So the answer seems to be not just giving the renters a key and hoping for the best but some type of property management keeping track. It does add cost. We personally have no plans to rent out our house.
I agree with John. As a neighbor it should not be my responsibility to deal with problem renters. Anyone offering a property for rent should be obligated to provide a local contact that is responsible for renters’ behavior to protect the community from ‘bad actors’. Owners who rent their property should be required to have a local contact for neighbors to report problems. Ideally that contact is the owner themselves, but if the owner does not live on the property, or is not available 24/7, then they need to hire someone to perform the function.
If the BCPOA can figure out a way to ensure or promote responsible property management, then I have no objection to renting.
Well said Wendy. I am a great proponent for STR. I believe that having a STR is a win-win situation for the property owner and the city of Bozeman. Think of all the revenue that is garnered from going ‘to get coffee’, going out to eat, going to the movies, and being in the middle of the best skiing areas!! Downhill skiers have Bridger Bowl and Big Sky. Cross country folks have so many options. Why not share our lovely places? In the summer there is hiking and fishing and camping and so much more!! We build good relationship all over the world with other individuals and families- like Germany, France, Japan, among many. Its like an exchange program where we become friends and learn about other cultures and societies. Then we build better understanding among the nations which is what the world needs right now.
We should be able to have a right to be able to determine how to use our property. Let us have the freedom to determine the best way for us to use our land and property to our benefit as it will benefit all.
Missing from all these comments is the elephant in the room, the non-owner-occupied (NOO), year-round STR, the NOOSTR! 😉 . Property owners in Bridger Canyon should ask themselves, “How would I feel if my nearest neighbor’s home sold to a private investor and became a year-round tourism accommodation indefinitely?” There are already 6 such STRs operating in the Canyon in violation of zoning. They are out-of-state investors, a few local residents and Wendy, who grew up here but has been out of state for 15 years and who acknowledges that her STR is her business. All but one (Wendy) of those are also violating State law regarding Health Department Accommodation Licenses. Wendy’s solution could make it legal for EVERY home. I repeat, EVERY home in the Canyon to become a year-round “Airbnb Hotel”. It is exactly the NOOSTRs that the City of Bozeman recently banned outright because of their harmful effect on the community and available housing for residents. Most homes in the Canyon would be very attractive to private investors because the year-round desirability of the Canyon can provide sufficient income to cover the mortgage on a million-dollar property. At one point does the Canyon stop being a community and become a destination resort village? During the last 25 years, Canyon residents fought off three well-funded, well-lawyered efforts to turn Bridger Bowl into a destination resort. Let’s not give that up.
You can’t write regs to benefit locals but block others i.e. equal protection clause.
Short-term renting is a small business. It is NOT the same as long-term renting and as such should be regulated or prohibited according to how the activity aligns with both the letter of the zoning regulations and the intent behind the creation of the original zoning.
I am not unsympathetic to Wendy’s particular situation, but some of her reasoning is faulty, in my view. First, the fact that many homes are at a good distance from each other hardly means that you won’t be impacted by a year-round STR next door. Remember that thing called Winter and tourists who are clueless driving in it? Or Fourth of July? And how does that reasoning mollify someone living where homes are quite near each other?
Should we allow all money-making activities, regardless of their impact because of “unexpected hardships”?
And in response to Linda Meuret, what you describe so warmly is the original idea behind Airbnb; side-income and meeting new people. But both Airbnb and VRBO were not imagined as web-based marketing, sales, accounting and reservations platforms for investor-owned properties. They were based on the idea of the resident-owners sharing their homes part-time. Wendy’s operation has always been a year-round Tourism Accommodation, she is not present while the guests are there. If she lived in the home, she could convert it to a Bed and Breakfast (for which the legal framework is long-established) and have no worries. But she would make a lot less money.
I would support the original VRBO model where the resident/owner offers their entire home as an STR for a minor part of the year while they are away. Perhaps they spend the winter in Tucson or Temecula each year. If they want to rent it as an STR while they are away, I’m fine with that. And I would note, that model allows the home to generate income for “unexpected hardships”.
.