Council advances clean draft of short-term rental ordinance, sets direction on caps and vested-rights review

The Boulder Town Council on Nov. 13 reviewed and accepted a "clean" draft of a short-term-rental ordinance for presentation and a vote at the council's Dec. 2 regular meeting after line-by-line work and public comment.

Councilors agreed to remove language labeling item 3 as subject to "possible action" or a "moratorium" so the meeting could be used to prepare a finalized draft. That procedural amendment passed by roll call (four in favor, one opposed).

The clean draft reflects several policy choices the council endorsed during the work session. Staff recommended and council accepted a cap expressed as a limit on conditional use permits (CUPs) — set at 12 — not as a limit on all lodging listings. Staff and commenters clarified town records show five active CUPs; councilors also noted there are additional short-term listings in town files (one speaker cited 22 listings), some of which may lack CUPs or were authorized under different rules.

On 'vested rights' for preexisting operators, staff and an outside commenter said the Board of Adjustment must review and document any claim that an RSTR predated the ordinance. As a staff summary put it, "if your order adjustment says you're an existing nonconforming use, then you can get a business license." Michael Wynne, a caller who identified himself by name, cautioned that vested rights are "potential" and are not automatic; property owners must take legal steps and provide documentation for rights to "run with the land."

The draft moves grandfathering and qualification language from the business-license section into the land-use chapter so nonconforming-use letters issued by the Board of Adjustment can be the authoritative record for who qualifies for a license. Staff said tax-payment history (records from 2020 onward) is one usable test for showing the existence of a pre-ordinance operation.

To strengthen ongoing enforcement, the ordinance would shift residency verification from a one-time CUP requirement into the annual business-license renewal process and require a signed affidavit each year certifying continued compliance with CUP conditions, health and safety codes, tax obligations, and any mitigation measures.

Staff also compiled a list of site-specific impacts planning commissioners should consider in CUP reviews — including neighborhood impacts, lot configuration, guest limits, parking and driveway access, outdoor lighting and trespass, noise, health and sanitation, fire risk, and time-of-year or duration restrictions — and said the ordinance needs to name anticipated detrimental impacts so a CUP can be defended under state law.

Councilors debated whether neighborhood-based limits should be in the ordinance text or implemented by zoning changes. Staff and a councilor warned that any change that affects zoning must be shown on the official zoning map to survive legal challenge.

Public commenters urged clearer explanations of vested-rights consequences before a vote, asked that the council require out-of-compliance operators to pursue CUPs rather than be grandfathered, and recommended distributing RSTRs across neighborhoods rather than concentrating them.

The council concluded the work session by indicating consensus to forward the clean draft to the Dec. 2 agenda as a business item for final consideration and vote.

Votes at a glance: the council adopted the agenda amendment to remove "possible action" and "moratorium" language (4–1), and indicated consensus to advance the clean draft to the Dec. 2 meeting.

What happens next: staff will archive the November 4 draft with comments for the public record, post the clean 2025-8 version in the meeting materials, and place the ordinance on the Dec. 2 business agenda for a formal vote.