Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Vacation Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bonner County commissioners continue appeal over vacation-rental occupancy after applicants cite HOA parking
Summary
The Board of County Commissioners agreed to continue an appeal by Bill and Karen Ferguson contesting a planning staff renewal that reduced their Priest Lake vacation-rental occupancy to nine people because on-site parking is limited; the applicants say HOA common-area parking should count toward their allotted off-street spaces.
Bonner County commissioners agreed to continue an appeal by property owners who contend off-site, HOA-managed parking should count toward their vacation-rental occupancy limits.
The dispute centers on a renewal the Planning Department approved May 19, 2025, that reduced occupancy at a Priest Lake cabin from 12 people to nine because the county counted three off-street parking spaces on the property. Planning staff applied the county’s current vacation-rental rules, adopted in Ordinance 707 in 2024, which tie permitted occupancy to bedrooms and the number of off-street spaces on the parcel.
Alex Vann, planning staff, told commissioners the renewal application was processed under BCRC 12‑4‑84 and that the new ordinance requires “all off‑street parking servicing the vacation rental shall be located on the property,” language the department said prevents use of a common HOA lot for the owners’ extra parking. Vann said the applicants’ 2021 permit authorized a 12‑person maximum under the earlier standard but that the 2024 ordinance set a new occupancy formula that reduced their allowable occupants to nine given the property’s three designated spaces.
Attorney A.T. Miller, representing Bill and Karen Ferguson, said the Fergusons have relied on common HOA parking near the property for years and argued they hold an undivided property interest in the common area that allows off‑lot parking. “There is no evidence that they have had any on‑street parking that has created any health, safety or welfare issue,” Miller said, and he asked the board to modify the renewal to restore the 12‑person occupancy.
Karen and Bill Ferguson told commissioners they did not receive notice of the ordinance change before submitting this year’s renewal and that the county’s renewal form offered no field to document access to HOA parking. They said overflow parking in the HOA tennis‑court and boat‑trailer areas is typically available within about 200 yards of the cabin and that they have never allowed on‑street parking.
Commissioners discussed whether new records the applicants requested might affect the decision. The board voted to continue the appeal to the July 2025 meeting to allow the applicant time to review public‑records material and participate remotely if desired. No final determination on the permit or occupancy limit was made at the session.
Why it matters: The case highlights how the county’s 2024 change to vacation‑rental occupancy standards (Ordinance 707) affects existing permits and whether shared or HOA common‑area parking can be counted as off‑street parking for occupancy calculations. It also raises questions about notice procedures for ordinance changes and the evidence the board will accept when interpreting “off‑street parking” under county code.
