Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Short Term Rentals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planners debate ownership, LLC loopholes and recreational-amenity limits in draft short-term rental ordinance
Summary
At a work session staff presented a cleaned draft of Page County's short-term rental ordinance. Commissioners debated owner-occupancy definitions, a proposed two‑year ownership requirement and whether transfers to LLCs could be used to bypass the rule; a public hearing was scheduled for July 14, 2026.
Staff presented a revised draft of a proposed short-term tourist rental ordinance and said a new definition for "owner-occupied short-term tourist rental" had been added at the county attorney's recommendation. Staff asked how commissioners wanted to proceed with review and highlighted several edits intended to clarify formatting and definitions.
A lengthy discussion focused on the proposed two-year ownership requirement and how ownership changes would be treated. One commissioner warned that allowing a change of entity (for example moving property into a new LLC) to count toward the two-year requirement would create a loophole: "If we allow them to use the change of LLCs to bypass the 2 year ownership, then all you need to do is create an LLC every 18 months," a commissioner said. Commissioners considered whether ownership time should follow the underlying owner regardless of business entity or require reestablishing the time period after transfers; no final decision was reached and staff was asked to present clearer language at the public hearing.
Commissioners also debated allowing a single SUP application to cover multiple contiguous parcels and whether the ordinance should cap the number of short-term rentals that may be requested in one application. Staff noted the county fee schedule currently treats contiguous-lot applications as a single application; commissioners discussed whether the ordinance itself should include a limit or whether the fee schedule and SUP review can address the issue.
Other points discussed included green-belt/screening requirements, whether commercial zones should be treated differently, occupancy counting for young children (a proposed exemption for children six and under), and whether recreational amenities such as pickleball courts, pools or multiple active facilities should trigger SUP review. Commissioners agreed that some items may be better handled on a site-by-site SUP basis but flagged Wildflower Lane complaints (high capacity/mini‑resort concerns) as an example the ordinance should try to address.
A motion to schedule a public hearing on the draft ordinance for 07/14/2026 was made and seconded; the transcript does not contain the full roll-call vote for that motion.
