Since being elected in April, many people have asked me what is it like being a Town Trustee. One of the questions people often ask is what is the most difficult type of issue to address in that role.
Hands down my answer relates to balancing the interests of a single property owner against the interests of other property owners in the area. It is quite apparent to me that the most important issues the Town Board addresses deal with real estate in Estes Park.
While the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment have first crack at dealing with real estate issues, the Town Board is the entity of last resort on issues of land use – including those dealing with zoning and use restrictions.
Decisions on such issues involve the Town Trustees acting in a “quasi-judicial” capacity, and much to the dismay of many local citizens, they are unable to discuss such issues outside of a regular Town Board meeting.
I am a firm believer in the sanctity of private property rights as a bedrock principle of our American polity. However, those rights have limits when they affect adjacent property owners, who also have private property rights with respect to the enjoyment of their properties. This is why the Town has a zoning ordinance and is also related to the requirements of our Town development code.
So where do my property rights need to yield to yours? It is a difficult question and one without a clear answer. Generally speaking, I believe each property owner should be free to use their property as they desire as long as that use does not substantially impair the use of property by adjacent owners.
One area where these interests intersect is noise. Because of numerous resident complaints I have heard, I have been advocating for a stronger noise ordinance since noise generated from one property clearly affects adjacent owners’ rights to the quiet enjoyment of their properties. The loop construction has brought this issue to the forefront.
Although nothing the Town Board enacts will directly affect loop construction because those terms were previously negotiated between the Town and its contractors, it will remain important in the future since completion of the loop will not end construction – no doubt the funding from the extension this year of the 1% supplemental sales tax in Ballot Issue 1A will result in more construction – from street upgrades to trail building and maintenance to stormwater infrastructure improvements.
I will be advocating to add an objective decibel-based standard for noise violations to our Town ordinances to facilitate voluntary compliance. These decibel limits should be consistent with the state limits for different zoning districts.
In addition, I will also be advocating for changing the approval of variances from the noise ordinance from the Town Engineer to the Town Board. In my opinion we need political accountability for waivers and variances from our regulations and the Town Board is the only body that can provide such accountability.
Another area in which the Town Board addresses these conflicts is with respect to vacation rentals. Some of the vacation rental owners in town believe that the Town is aligned against vacation rentals. I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of our Town Board’s policies. Certainly, the town has a substantial interest in health and safety in vacation rentals just as we do with respect to any lodging accommodations and that is why we license vacation rentals and subject them to important life safety inspections.
However, unlike some other communities we have generally not attempted to impose economic limits on owners, such as limits on the number of days rented. We do, however, impose a “linkage fee” on vacation rentals to ameliorate the perceived impact of vacation rentals on the availability of workforce housing and we also limit the number of vacation rentals in residential areas of town.
Because of recent issues regarding bed and breakfast licenses, we will be considering the prospect of authorizing “hosted” short term rentals (in which an owner or manager is physically present on the property during periods of rental, which is currently not allowed under a vacation rental license).We will be needing to revisit these issues as they apply to a new category of short term rentals. I encourage residents to weigh in on these issues as they arise.
Finally, and probably most important, we will be revisiting our Town development code and will necessarily be balancing the interests of owners and other property owners in the community.
The development code impacts new construction and substantial renovations of property in our community and will have a substantial impact on what our community looks like in future years. This will involve balancing the interests of the owner seeking approval for development against the interests of the community.
Too much regulation and the costs of development balloon and directly affect the affordability of property within the Town. Too little regulation risks health and safety of the owner and of the community.
The process of revising our development code is expected to occur over a period of two years. It is critically important that we obtain input from the community to help guide our Town Board decisions on the development code and I encourage each of our residents to weigh in as this discussion emerges.
It’s your community and the shape of the development code will dramatically affect what that community looks like in future years.
I want to hear from residents and property owners concerning their views on where to strike the proper balance. I will be hosting a community round table discussion this Wednesday, August 14 at 4:30 p.m. at the conference room of the REMax offices, 1200 Graves Avenue. Please join me and lets have a community conversation about these important issues.
Thank you Bill. I believe you are a great addition to the Board and a fair minded person. Pretty much agree with your comments; however, the linkage fee was imposed by a Board that was definitely biased against STR owners. With legislation and new local regulations/taxes passed since then, there is no need for this punitive fee. There also has been little accountability about the monies these fees have raised.
I disagree that running a commercial business within residential neighborhoods (short term rentals) is a fundamental “property right.” If I wanted to make some extra money by accepting and storing low-level radioactive waste on my residential property, I doubt that many would accept a claim of “It’s my property and my right!”
Many communities around the State are realizing the STRs and multiple (2nd/3rd/4th) property ownership are damaging the fabric of their communities. There is an interesting article on the Colorado Sun – “Colorado resort communities want to impose a vacancy tax on unoccupied homes” which also floats the idea of real estate transfer taxes. I hope this link to that article is acceptable.
https://coloradosun.com/2024/08/07/colorado-ski-towns-vacancy-tax/
Mr. Thomas – I would object to radioactive waste storage because of health and safety concerns – a legitimate issue for local government. The impact of STRs on our community is not large – as evidenced by the study supporting the STR linkage fee. When asked how many houses would enter the workforce housing pool if STRs were prohibited in Estes, the consultant said only 30 to 90 out of 500 plus vacation rentals in town. Taxing vacant homes is also a bad idea – the ultimate taxation without representation.