Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clear Creek staff proposes new residency verification, denials and revocation rules for short‑term rentals
Summary
County planning staff presented administrative rules to verify primary‑residence short‑term rental licenses, add complaint‑based review, and set one‑year revocation/denial durations. Commissioners asked clarifying questions; staff said rules would apply prospectively and be complaint‑driven to limit enforcement workload.
Planning and Building Services presented a proposed residency verification procedure and clarified rules for denials, prohibitions and license revocations under the county’s short‑term rental ordinance. The proposals are administrative rules staff plans to apply going forward.
Lede: David (Planning staff) told commissioners the county adopted a short‑term rental ordinance and now needs administrative procedures to verify claims that a property is a primary residence and to standardize denials and revocations.
Nut graf: The proposed process would require a complainant to submit an address, a basis for concern and contact information. Staff would notify the property owner and request supporting documentation (examples suggested: bank or credit‑card transactions showing local purchases, vehicle registration, voter registration). If staff determines the property is not a primary residence, the owner’s primary‑residence license could be revoked or denied for one year; standard license rules (the limited number of non‑resident “standard” licenses) remain in place.
Key details and board concerns - Residency verification would be complaint‑driven (staff does not have resources for proactive review). Complainants must provide the address, basis for concern and contact info. - Staff suggested debit/credit card transactions showing local, recurring purchases (gas, groceries) as evidence of residency, but said other forms of evidence would be considered. - Denials and revocations would carry a one‑year minimum bar to reapply; that full time may be longer depending on the wait list for standard licenses. - Responsible agents (local managers) who repeatedly support non‑compliant properties could themselves be disallowed from serving as agents at licensed properties. - Non‑licensed violators would go through code‑enforcement procedures; staff indicated fines ultimately are assessed through court process and that prohibition from ever obtaining a license is a severe penalty that would follow due process.
Board feedback and next steps - Commissioners asked about edge cases (LLCs, multi‑property ownership, how voter registration is checked). Staff said ownership via LLCs complicates counting how many STRs a single person controls; the county currently enforces proximity/abutting rules to disperse standard licenses. - Staff said the rules would be applied prospectively, not retroactively, and asked the board for any policy guidance before publishing the administrative rules. Staff also said staff would add clearer instructions on how to report complaints and would coordinate communications (newsletter, social media) so property owners understand consequences.
Ending note: Commissioners supported clearer verification procedures while asking staff to craft clear public communications and to avoid hard 10‑day cutoffs that might unintentionally bar review.
