BCPOA statement on Short-Term Rental/Accessory Dwelling zoning amendment for Bridger Canyon
As many of you are aware, the Gallatin County Planning and Zoning Commission will be considering the adoption of a text amendment (not submitted by BCPOA) to the Bridger Canyon Zoning Regulation to allow for short-term rentals in Bridger Canyon. The hearing for this matter is scheduled for June 13 at the Gallatin County Courthouse beginning at 8:30 am. [The amendment text and narrative are posted here.]
We have received and listened to feedback from residents in the canyon and know that there are diverse opinions regarding short term rentals in general and this zone text amendment in particular. After compilation of survey responses from BCPOA members, Bridger Canyon residents, and Bridger Canyon property owners along with much consideration, debate, legal consultation, and discussion, the Board of the Bridger Canyon Property Owners Association has elected to oppose the adoption of this amendment. We are aware that our position will reflect the input of all involved.
https://bcpoa.net/2024/05/may-2024-str-survey-preliminary-responses
[Missed the survey? Take it now here.]
At the Board level, we have kept two objectives in mind throughout the discussion of this issue. Our first objective (and really the reason for the original formation of the Board) is to look at the zoning Regulation and the General Plan and ensure that our position remains consistent with these. Our second goal is to solicit feedback from Canyon residents and property owners and attempt to arrive at a solution that works well for residents in the canyon.
With that in mind, we believe that there may be a path forward for short-term rentals in the Canyon. This process must be subject to certain standards and guardrails that protect the rural and community aspects of the Canyon, respect the concerns of our community, and address the needs of most Canyon community members. We are actively engaged in seeking such a solution. We do not believe the current zoning text amendment accomplishes this objective. Specifically, this short-term rental/accessory dwelling zoning text amendment lacks provisions to:
- Respect the current intent of the Zoning Regulation and General Plan,
- Provide meaningful standards for permitting and enforcement, and
- Limit Commercial Development of short-term rentals.
The Board plans to testify to this effect at the upcoming Commission meeting on June 13. However you may think about this issue, we emphatically encourage you to participate in the hearing and voice your opinion by either commenting in person or providing written testimony to the Planning and Zoning Commission at planning@gallatin.mt.gov. Submit comments by May 30, 2024 for inclusion in the Planning Departments analysis and staff report. Submit by June 12, 2024 for inclusion in the record and review by Commission on the hearing date. [More details on commenting and testifying are provided here.]
Update: the Planning Department has requested that comment be directed to the Director, at
Twitter
Facebook
Canyon email list
RSS
Email
Pingback: Short Term Rental/Accessory Dwelling zoning amendment hearing June 13th | BCPOA
This amendment needs to be forcefully rejected. Scrape away the false, emotional language about stolen “property rights” and the “Newspeak” claims that this will benefit the Canyon community and you find a naked effort to protect the investment and financial interests of a small group of primarily non-resident, non-Canyon, out-of-state investors who have found themselves, finally, on the radar of Gallatin County Code Enforcement. As stated above, there are many ways of allowing sensible regulation of STRs and there are many examples from across the region where counties and municipalities have paved the way with community-focused regulations. Rejecting this amendment is needed to make time to rationally discuss the options. This is how zoning is supposed to work. A new, unforeseen activity/use comes along and the community and county officials work together to decide if and how the activity/use will be allowed and regulated. This proposed amendment would open the Canyon to unlimited growth of investor-owned STRs (Airbnb/VRBO).
Hi Kent.
Perhaps you don’t want any competition.
https://youtu.be/r_F27vVgvhg?si=zajF3rO_sN6yA0GN
PS – you can comment as much as you want on that link
Hi Wendy, now you are just being childish. You seem incapable of grasping details, context or nuance.
You completely ignore the central points I made in that video commentary including the fact that we had been completely legal and compliant from the beginning and B3 zoning explicitly talks about overnight accommodation. I pointed out that we are already doing more than our fair share of providing affordable housing in the city core and that the STR allows us to keep rents affordable. You portray yourself as so concerned about affordable housing. Why aren’t you renting your place in the Canyon long-term? The answer is simple, you would make far less money and wouldn’t be able to stay there whenever you wanted. And why would you think STRs in Bridger Canyon are competition for our STR in downtown Bozeman? There is already PLENTY of competition in downtown, literally dozens of other STRs. Are you incapable of understanding the difference between people wanting a multi-bedroom house out in the countryside and people looking for a studio accommodation (with no kitchen) in the center of the city? You are flogging a nonsensical dead horse with your effort at a gotcha post. Again…Our STR is in the Bozeman City limits, not Bridger Canyon… an entirely different set of rules and jurisdiction. Our STR has ALWAYS been completely legal. Yours has never been legal or permitted. If you are such a diligent STR operator, why did you let the Accommodation LIcense, required by the State lapse in 2021? You and some other STR operators who thought they would just keep flying under the legal radar have now rushed to do what the law required of you all along, applying for a Health Department Accommodation License.. but you KNOW (and so does your lawyer) that even though the License is required it DOES NOT make your STR legal. Blocking me on your Facebook page, not allowing me to comment on your ridiculous mischaracterization of my situation versus yours is a real window into your character. Another window into your character is your petty creation of a Youtube channel for your “organization” which you do NOT link to on your organization page. What’s with that? Link to that youtube clip on your BCPRC page and I will be glad to comment. But you know NO ONE will ever see that page because you don’t post it. You are a piece of work and clearly do not deserve the benefit of the doubt I afforded you when this whole thing started.
I sent the following comment to the Planning and Zoning Commission:
I purchased 200 acres of land up Beasley Creek in 1989 ( under my name), and several years later purchased an additional 320 acres (titled under Doren Holdings LLC – a family LLC). We built a house on 40 of the 200 acres where my two daughters, now 32 and 34 were raised. That house was subsequently sold, burned down in the recent Bridger fire and has since been rebuilt by the new owner. I placed a conservation easement on the 520 acres in the mid-1990s and still own 480 acres of this land. The land is critical wildlife habitat for elk, moose, black bear, mountain lion, mountain goat etc.
I was Chairman of the BCPOA for several years during a time where there were many pressures on Bridger Canyon Zoning and the General Plan— a proposed intensive condo development at Crosscut Ranch, the land trade that resulted in the Big Sky/Yellowstone Club land consolidation in return in part for sacrificing wild land in Bridger Canyon etc. Bridger Canyon is special because of the integrity of its Zoning Ordinance and General Plan. It has withstood many challenges over the past 40 years against it. Many individuals and businesses have attempted to make money in the special place that Bridger Canyon is by attempting to increase the value of their property through amendments to the Ordinance and pursuing noncompliant uses.
We now have a $93 billion dollar market capitalization corporation – AirBNB, whether directly or indirectly through it’s hosts, pushing for an amendment to our Ordinance and General Plan in order to allow for profits to be made by people that have bought into Bridger Canyon ownership knowing full well what the restrictions were with respect to the use of their property. So this current push to change our zoning ordinance is a thinly veiled attempt to make profit out of the unique community and wildlife habitat that our Ordinance and General Plan have created.
For the above reasons, the 480 acres that I and my family own in Bridger Canyon are opposed to any amendment that allows for short term rentals in Bridger Canyon.
Regards,
Michael Liebelson
Property Owner
Hi Michael.. thanks again for everything you did during your tenure to protect the integrity of the zoning and the place we call home.
Dear Michael,
I have been an owner of a 10 acre tract in the Canyon since 1990.
This is the first I’ve heard of AirBnB having any interest in our area. As far as I know, one has to contact Air BnB if they want to list their property with them.
I have been renting my house out for short or long term rentals since 1990. There have never been any objections from anyone in the Canyon regarding this. I think a blanket restriction is unneccessary and restricts me from using my property for my own benefit.
I believe there should be restrictions on rentals and rules regarding it. But I don’t understand why your would want to control unequivocably other homeowners from using their property in a legal, albeit restricted, manner. I stopped my rental when the County prohibited it and I understand the objections regarding the rentals. So why not build restrictions into the Canyon Zoning and have a BCPOA rules representative assigned to approve and check on the uses of rented properties in the Canyon. I find a total, blanket rejection of a formerly accepted use to be unreasonable and unfair.
I don’t wish to upset anyone with my opinion but that has been the way it has been done since I came into the Canyon and would like the freedom to continue, within the rules. Thank for for your attention to my letter. Respectfully, Mary McClain