HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-13-26 Public Comment - C. Gillam - STR Legacy- RA ZoneFrom:Claire Gillam
To:Bozeman Public Comment
Subject:[EXTERNAL]STR Legacy- RA Zone
Date:Monday, April 13, 2026 12:41:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to formally request clarification and reconsideration regarding
the recent removal of Type 1 and Type 2 short-term rental allowances
within RA zoning districts (which includes what used to be R2) under the
updated Unified Development Code.
It was my understanding during the UDC update process that these changes
would not materially impact existing allowances in R2 zoning. I am aware
of at least one instance in which City staff initially confirmed this
understanding in writing, only to later reverse course. As a result, affected
property owners were not given adequate notice or a meaningful
opportunity, such as a standard 30-day public comment period, to respond
to what is, in practice, a significant policy shift.
I would respectfully request a clear explanation of the policy rationale
behind removing Type 1 and Type 2 uses from R2 zoning. Understanding
the intent and supporting data would allow property owners like myself to
better engage constructively in this process.
My concern is grounded in reliance and long-term investment decisions. I
purchased my property in 2004 specifically because it was zoned R2 and
included a separate lower-level apartment. The ability to generate rental
income was a key factor in that decision. Since then, we have made
substantial improvements to the home while maintaining a rental unit.
Currently, we operate this unit as a short-term rental, which also supports
local employment through cleaning, maintenance, and property
management services.
Like many residents, we rely on this income to offset rising property taxes
and the increasing cost of living. While property values have risen, our
household income has not increased proportionally. Eliminating this use
removes an important financial tool for homeowners who are trying to
remain in their homes.
It is also important to note that the surrounding neighborhood reflects a
clear pattern of multi-unit housing: there are fourplexes, duplexes, and
larger apartment buildings in immediate proximity. The R2 designation has
historically supported a mix of housing types and rental opportunities,
making the removal of these uses feel inconsistent with the established
character of the area.
I would also like to address the commonly cited argument that restricting
short-term rentals improves housing affordability. To date, I have not seen
compelling, locally grounded data demonstrating a direct causal
relationship between limiting Type 1 and Type 2 rentals and improved
affordability. In fact, current market conditions suggest a relatively high
vacancy rate in long-term rentals, which would typically indicate
downward pressure on rents. If affordability is the primary concern,
property tax policy and overall cost burdens on homeowners should be part
of that conversation.
Given these considerations, I respectfully request that the Commission
consider the following:
Grandfathering / Legacy Protections: Extend a legacy clause, similar
to what has been applied to Type 3 uses, to allow existing, legally
operating Type 1 and Type 2 rentals to continue until the property is
sold or ownership changes.
Reinstatement in RA to allow or to separate out R2 of RA. I can
understand why R1 and RS don't allow, they never allowed second
units or separate rentals. While in R2 allows Type 1 and Type 2 short-
term rentals within R2 zoning, where multi-unit and rental uses are
already an established and compatible part of the neighborhood fabric.
Consistency Across Zones: Alternatively, consider allowing Type 1
and Type 2 uses across residential zones, provided operators meet all
established regulations and performance standards. These two type of
STR's are for primary owners only and should be an option if
applicable and can get through the permiting process.
Finally, I would encourage the City to consider the broader legal principle
of “reasonable investment-backed expectations,” which is often referenced
in land use and zoning contexts. Property owners who purchased and
improved their homes based on existing zoning allowances should not be
disproportionately impacted by regulatory changes without clear
justification and transitional protections. Montana law also generally
recognizes nonconforming or pre-existing uses in zoning changes, which
further underscores the importance of a fair and predictable approach.
I appreciate your time and consideration and would welcome further
dialogue to better understand the City’s reasoning and to share additional
perspectives.
Sincerely,
Claire
-- A. Claire Gillam