Englewood board studies STR primary-residency waiver; members favor removing waiver or adopting location carve-out
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
In a study session staff reported seven waiver requests since 2020 (six granted), highlighted ambiguity in the term 'predominant,' and the board signaled broad support for recommending that City Council either discontinue the primary-residency waiver or replace it with a proximity-based by-right carve-out tied to hospitals.
Englewood City planning staff reviewed the city’s short-term rental (STR) primary-residency waiver process and asked the Board of Adjustment and Appeals whether the waiver should be reformed or discontinued.
Planning Manager Brian Isom summarized the background: waiver provisions were adopted in 2020 and STR regulations were refined in 2023. "Since the adoption of the waiver process in 2020, we've had 7 total requests. 6 have been granted, ranging from 6 months to 26 months," Isom said, noting one denial in 2020 and one property that sought renewal twice. Staff highlighted recurring problems: an undefined term 'predominant/predominantly' used across provisions; uncertain and potentially HIPAA-sensitive alternative documentation (guest records or hospital affidavits); and administrative burden on third parties when the city requests affidavits from medical providers.
Board members questioned whether the waiver process still serves its intended purpose. Several members said hospitals have declined to provide affidavits and that requiring hospital cooperation is impractical. Members discussed alternatives including a simple distance/proximity metric to the major hospitals (a by-right carve-out for properties within a defined radius) or allowing waivers by right in certain zoning districts rather than sending each case to the board. One member suggested a walkshed or 51%-of-nights plurality approach to define 'predominant,' while others said plurality is hard to verify for first-time applicants.
Staff estimated the administrative workload for a typical waiver case at roughly 20 staff-hours from initial review to board hearing and follow-up. Several members noted that most approved waivers did not continue beyond one year and questioned whether the process justified the staff and board time.
Board members generally endorsed sending guidance to City Council. Staff said they would research other municipalities’ approaches and prepare options — including discontinuing the waiver or substituting a clearly defined location-based rule — for Council consideration.
The study session concluded with staff thanking the board for direction and noting public comment opportunities would remain available at the City Council level.