The Sandpoint Planning and Zoning Commission voted on Nov. 18 to postpone a decision on proposed amendments to the city’s short-term rental ordinance until a public hearing on Dec. 16, after staff outlined major changes and dozens of residents offered testimony for and against the draft.

Community Planning & Development Director Jason Welker framed the proposal as a reluctant but necessary rewrite to bring the city’s short-term rental rules into compliance with recent Idaho law. "We are bringing our city ordinance into compliance with state law," Welker said, pointing to Idaho Code 67 65 39 and the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in a Lava Hot Springs case. Welker told the commission that the existing 2017 ordinance placed a hard cap — 35 non-owner-occupied STRs in residential zones — equal to about 1% of housing in those zones and that recent case law makes such a cap vulnerable.

The draft ordinance would remove the numerical cap while adding or strengthening measures the city says are allowed by state law: a new ‘‘high-occupancy’’ STR classification that triggers a conditional-use permit and public hearing for intensive rentals (staff used 12 occupants as the proposed cutoff modeled on other Idaho cities); off-street parking requirements for STRs (including ADUs and units above garages); a 20-vehicular-mile requirement for a local representative who can respond to complaints; a complaint-driven enforcement regime with fines and potential permit revocation; and a shift to an annual renewal window to streamline administration. Staff said state agencies (Idaho Transportation Department, Independent Highway District, DEQ) had no objections to the specific Chosen Motors site and staff also reviewed other Idaho cities for legal models.

More than a half-dozen residents spoke. Eric Engling, who said he has lived in Sandpoint for five years, urged the commission to postpone or reject what he called a deregulatory shift. "Changing our entire housing policy out of fear of litigation is not leadership. It's surrender," Engling said. Other residents warned of investor-driven conversions of housing, loss of neighborhood character and excessive occupancy. Some speakers supported easing limits so homeowners could operate non-owner-occupied ADUs; others urged the commission to keep strong controls to protect long-term rental supply.

Commissioners asked detailed legal questions about where regulation becomes prohibition; city legal counsel advised that courts have distinguished regulation from prohibition but that the line is fact-specific. Counsel told the commission the 35-unit hard cap was likely indefensible in light of the Lava Hot Springs decision and recommended drafting defensible regulations tied to health, safety and neighborhood integrity. Commissioners also asked whether a temporary moratorium or waiting for a pending McCall appeal would be safer; counsel said a moratorium under the local land-use act requires an emergency finding and was unlikely to apply, and that the commission could postpone action to evaluate litigation risk.

After deliberation, the commission voted to postpone the STR amendment for further review of occupancy and parking standards and to schedule a new public hearing Dec. 16. The motion passed with three votes in favor and one opposed. Staff will return with revised language and responses to the specific concerns raised.