‘VRBO ordinance’ now in effect

After being approved by City of Custer voters by a 57 percent to 43 percent margin, the residential zoning code (Ordinance 802), which defines permitted uses and structures within a residential district, and therefore regulates Vacation Rentals by Owners (VRBO), has gone into effect.The updated ordinance, which was passed by the Custer City Council in April, took effect immediately following a special meeting of the Custer City Council last Friday at which the council canvassed the vote.At the May 21 meeting of the Custer City Council, it was announced that Ordinance 802, an ordinance passed with a package of other ordinances brought about by the city determining how to vest regulate VRBOs, was officially referred to a vote when a petition for a referral was filed at city hall May 17.The issue, listed on the ballot as a referred law, described how the city passed the ordinance, which grants additional uses and structures (use by right), establishes eligibility for certain conditional uses and provides guidelines to maintain the residential zone.The old residential zoning code, established in 1995, limited permitted principal uses (use by right) to single family dwellings only. The list of permitted conditional uses in that version did not specifically include family day cares and short-term rentals, leaving them susceptible to being prohibited. Home occupations in the 1995 version were listed as an eligible permitted conditional use if they met three criteria.Ordinance 802 grants three additional permitted principal uses, including some home occupations. The ordinance defines specific conditional use eligibility for other home occupations, family day cares and short-term rentals. The ordinance also provides additional opportunity and guidelines for principal uses, accessory uses, conditional uses, restrictions and requirements within the residential zone of the city while still maintaining the residential essence of the neighborhood.VRBOs and other such businesses in a residential district will now be required to obtain a conditional use permit, the process for which was previously passed by the council, but was not referred to a vote.In that process, an application would be submitted to the city, along with a one-time $200 fee. The application would then be looked at by the city’s planning commission for approval or denial.Before it goes to the planning commission, however, public notification will take place, which includes a sign placed on the property, a letter sent to property owners within 250 feet of the property the application is for and a legal notice published in the newspaper. The public will be allowed to come to the planning commission meeting where the application is being considered to speak either for or against.The revised conditional use permit ordinance states the granting of a permit “shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, detrimental to the public welfare, or be in conflict with the comprehensive plan for development. There is a nine-point checklist that will be used by the planning commission when it considers approval or denial of the application.Approval or denial of the application can be appealed by any party, which would be heard by the city council acting as the board of adjustments.This issue began to brew as far back as the fall of 2016 when Boot Hill Subdivision residents complained about some of the homes there being used as vacation rentals, with some Boot Hill residents calling the homes “glorified hotels” that have people coming and going all hours of the night, many times with children who go onto property they are not supposed to be on. The situation creates parking issues and they say the homes are not being taxed properly because they are not owner-occupied. Opponents also say the homes disrupt the quality of life in the neighborhood with constant racket while also driving down property values.Those who have argued for regulation maintain that VRBOs are a business and should be regulated as such. City ordinance prohibits the operation of a  business in a residential area without a conditional-use permit approved by the city.Those opposed to the regulation argue the rentals are not businesses and should be handled by neighborhood associations, not the city. Those opposed to the regulation also argue the rentals are a positive for the city to bring in more people while encouraging the owners of the homes to keep them in good condition. Discouraging them might give the impression visitors are not wanted here, they argue. Those opposed to the regulation say it is important to consider the rights of a property owner when the vacation rental issue is discussed. Unless a homeowner’s association or subdivision covenants forbid it, property owners have every right to use their property as they see fit, they say.City planning director  Tim Hartmann said investigation into a streamlined review process for those short-term rentals and other residential businesses already in operation is being investigated by the city’s elected officials.“They are addressing potential options for existing short-term rentals and home-based occupations and are researching possible partial resolution of such,” he said.