Killington Zoning Bylaw Amendment

[GMCrra]

No, condos are not exempt from this amendment, just their wastewater requirements may be different under act 250.

There is no state law setting 2 per bedroom for short term rentals, its a long term housing guideline based on septic. If the town is going to enforce that, it should be enforced on every residential use of property in town including full time occupancy, share houses, etc. Is Stowe or Ludlow doing this?

Reasonable rules or a permit is fine by me, but you should expect a group lawsuit if its enforced. Is the town going to show up in VT Supreme court with an internet listing as its evidence?

If this bylaw stays, Killington will have among the most harsh and expensive regulations for a resort town in the country. Period.

[GMCrra]

The local environmental district seemed to agree that Estabrook was a commercial use or hotel:
https://nrb.vermont.gov/sites/nrb/files ... 01-392.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

However, did Killington's bylaw define over 16 as a hotel prior to this new amendment?

Then there is this VT supreme court case, that found short rentals were not commercial or change of use. Including a bunk room, etc.

https://law.justia.com/cases/vermont/su ... 1-085.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Act 250 is for new development and over 10 units.

Not exactly clear cut is it?

[Seacoaster]

No, condos are not exempt from this amendment, just their wastewater requirements may be different under act 250.

There is no state law setting 2 per bedroom for short term rentals, its a long term housing guideline based on septic. If the town is going to enforce that, it should be enforced on every residential use of property in town including full time occupancy, share houses, etc. Is Stowe or Ludlow doing this?

Reasonable rules or a permit is fine by me, but you should expect a group lawsuit if its enforced. Is the town going to show up in VT Supreme court with an internet listing as its evidence?

If this bylaw stays, Killington will have among the most harsh and expensive regulations for a resort town in the country. Period.

Exempt, in the sense it does not apply to them as ACT 250 permits will override the towns guidelines for occupancy and WW, enforcabilty, yes, but not in the sense of allowable occupancy which seems to be the contention.

The state WW permitting is for housing units which are not defined as STR or LT, it is an engineering standard which is applied as part of a units WW permitting when a site is developed, which then dictates occupancy. If people purchased not understanding the way the WW permitting is done, this is a bad business decision their behalf.

Agreed on reasonable rules/permitting, which this is. The Town will essentially show up to the VTSC with an affidavit(hence the need for a registry) where the owner acknowledges what the property will legally occupy based on its WW permits. If an ad is then created contrary to the legal document, then , yes, I would assume after proper notification, without rectification, there will be consequences. As a side note, what is the argument in VTSC going to be, "We have been breaking the law forever, why can we not continue to now, just because there is new zoning affirming state regulations to prevent us from breaking the law?" The issue currently is that there is no real declaration and therefore makes it impossible to enforce.

What is your source for the statement that these will be the most harsh and expensive in the country? If you do not think others will go down the same path, you are denying reality. Woodstock's regulations makes these look like child's play.

[Seacoaster]

The local environmental district seemed to agree that Estabrook was a commercial use or hotel:
https://nrb.vermont.gov/sites/nrb/files ... 01-392.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The finding was that the owner will need to request an ACT 250 permit, not sure how this validates a point?

However, did Killington's bylaw define over 16 as a hotel prior to this new amendment? I believe this fell under state fire regulations.

Then there is this VT supreme court case, that found short rentals were not commercial or change of use. Including a bunk room, etc.

https://law.justia.com/cases/vermont/su ... 1-085.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Exactly, therfore these would default to existing regulations for residential property, of which includes WW permitting and resulting occupancy.

Act 250 is for new development and over 10 units. ACT 250 has been around for a long while, part of which addresses these types of developments, correct.

Not exactly clear cut is it?

It actually is clear cut, the WW permitting states X number of Bedrooms at 2 occupants per, basic math tells you maximum occupancy. There is nothing gray in those equations. A realtor cannot list a 3 bedroom WW permit as 4, 5 or 6 bedrooms.

[GMCrra]

The intent behind laws is important too, clearly VT never intended to outlaw sleeper sofas and bunk beds either.

And your point supports the fact that its discriminatory for the town to single out only STRs to enforce this rule. It's not necessary for the town to add that to zoning or enforce it selectively, but they are. And other VT ski towns are not.

Woodstock's STR rules are unconstitutional, I read that even their attorney wouldn't want to defend it. It's unconstitutional to ban parties and events on private property and limit rentals the way they are. No one will sue them since they didn't hire an enforcement agency like Killington wants to do. It's a complaint based enforcement, which is what Killington should have given they have grandfathered rentals in every zoning district and rentals subsidize 50% of the town budget.

Show me another resort town similar to Killington that is enforcing 2 per bedroom, or one that went +2 and hired an enforcement agency/data firm. I've seen one or other, not many with both. So I stand by my assertion that Killington will have among the harshest and most expensive STR rules for a resort town in the country.

Is it legal to issue a zoning permit and then require an annual registration as a condition to keep a land use permit? Obviously they'd prefer an ordinance, but not sure VT law allows that.

[yiddle on da fiddle]

Ok , Sport...here's a Cliff Notes V2.0 for this. Estabrook Rd...in its entirety..is ZONED...RESIDENTIAL. Further ...there are stated land records in place...that NO parcel on Estabrook...may be converted from Residential. Town Hall?..has NO requests...filings....etc... that even MAKE such a modification request. K Town went way overboard defending this...seems all they had to do is sit on their hands...and nod NO. Connolly...asserts he HAD said modification...but wouldnt show it to Town Hall. SERIOUSLY?....

[yiddle on da fiddle]

why the Town didnt just step up...and rescind the Cert of Occupancy?...is baffling. Not they didnt have just cause...

[GMCrra]

The WW rules for 2 per bedroom were updated in 2006. They aren’t a specific law but are covered under Vt law. Most states don’t allow retroactive laws as this would be, hence the 2007 clean slate which allowed grandfathering.

Real estate disclosure law for wastewater and bedrooms are another matter.

This bylaw is a creative attempt by the town to get people to give up their grandfather claims in exchange for +2. That’s fine, but slapping on annual fees and unfair compliance firms under questionable legality is an issue.

I personally think estabrook would have lost in environmental court but had a chance to prevail in Supreme Court, especially given that Toor case precedent.

It makes sense a settlement would have occurred before property listed for sale.

The overwhelming majority of owners don’t want to overload occupancy or septic and the occupancy advertising is just a means of competitive differentiation. I doubt people are renting to that many very often. And I don’t know anyone buying in Killington only to rent short term as you elude, if lodging were that great an investment the mountain would own rather than just manage more of it. They don’t, as the leverage and losses stink in the downturns. VT taxes capital gains at 80%! In first year and doesn’t make sense to hold less than 5 years, there is little flipping and speculation on real estate due to this.

[Seacoaster]

I know 6 people off the top of my head who have(plus myself) and are buying specifically for the purpose of STR. I think we are going to learn a lot more about this "clean slate" idea as we move forward, with many being surprised as to what it actually allows for and what types of changes void its protections.

[GMCrra]

I meant first time buyers to the area. I own and rent multiple units myself as well.

If covid impacts visitation and operations this winter, as is looking more likely, we may find out next spring and summer how many are in over their head with real estate.

Vail stock MTN is probably a better investment than K real estate right here over next few years.

[hillbangin]

Vail stock MTN is probably a better investment than K real estate right here over next few years.

Uhhh - anything is a better investment than Killington real estate.

You have to love it - because it's not an earner.

[TheLurker]

There’s a reason they call it speculation. If you can’t afford to own it out right, you’re just gambling.

[Big Bob]

I live next to a collage town in NH. They have a maximum of three un related people per unit along with one person per so many square feet of habitable area to control amount of people per unit weather they are on town sewer or septic. They also now license landlords and require the fire dept to inspect units for fire code compliance. If the unit is occupied by a family they can have as many as they want.
Killington will not be the first or the last town to be regulating rental units, get used to it.

[GMCrra]

I think a college town is different as 50% of the homes aren't on rental market and 75% of owners aren't non local. Burlington is very different from Killington.

VT supreme court didn't find it legal to restrict non family, like your NH example. They said it was a residential non commercial use, akin to having guests for holidays.

VT fire safety already inspects and a license would require an ordinance which it isn't clear thats legal under current VT law.

Many towns are doing questionable things and many lawsuits are occurring. It doesn't make it right.

These things seem often to be driven by special interests

[noknees]

Sounds like the proposed STR will be put up for a town vote in November. Hopefully, the locals will come out and vote on these new proposed regulations.