New vacation rental house approved

A conditional use permit for a nightly rental was granted for a yet to be built home on Main Street at Monday’s meeting of the Hill City Common Council.

While approved, there were still concerns about the number of nightly rentals being granted in Hill City.

“For being on (the Hill City Planning and Zoning Commission) for six year and now this council, this continues to be an issue,” said alderman Dale Householder.

For Householder, there are four prevailing schools of thought on what to do with nightly and vacation rentals in Hill City: no discussion, limit the number, no more and then there are those who feel it should be market driven.

Householder said nightly and vacation rentals are popping up more and more, and he worries the market would be oversaturated.

This conditional use permit would be for a vacation and nightly rental for a new single family home to be built in the near future. Most of the properties surrounding the proposed house are either zoned commercial or have a conditional use permit to allow for vacation rental use.

The planning and zoning commission recommended approval by a vote of 4-0-1 at its last meeting.

Two letters were submitted and read by Dani Schade, development service coordinator for the city. Both were in opposition to the proposal and both cited the fact that nightly vacation rentals are making housing less affordable in Hill City where affordable housing is already an issue.

Both letters, too, raised concerns regarding Hill City becoming a more seasonal town and attracting fewer and fewer year-round residents.

Alderman Carl Doaty said he had similar issues to the ones raised by the letter writers.

“I’ve read these letters and talked to a bunch of other people in my work — a resident who has lived here for a ling time and a new one,” he said. “They both said the same thing: either no more nightly rentals, or the city should do a percentage.”

Affordable housing, he said, is very hard to come by, and while the Bull Run Subdivision is a good start to bring in more reasonably priced housing, Doaty said he would like to see a moratorium until the council comes up with a good way to handle the growing number of vacation rentals.

He said, too, that he knew he was going to be moving to a tourist and vacation destination, but he said he hopes to see the city turn more toward permanent residents.

“I’m just afraid if we keep allowing nightly rentals we have the possibility Hill City is going to become more of a seasonal town like Keystone where it’s hard to find things to do in the offseason,” he said.

The matter was moved by alderman Jason Gillaspie and seconded by alderman Gary Auch.

When mayor Kathy Skorzewski called for any additional comments, Householder said he tends to agree with Doaty on the idea that it’s time to look at a moratorium; however, he said right now is not the appropriate time to do so because it would be unfair to the applicant.

“I don’t disagree, but it’s all zoned for nightly rentals around it,” Gillaspie said.

When it came time to vote, the matter passed 3-1 with Doaty being the lone nay.

The second reading of the update to commercial and commercial/residential zone definitions was approved by the council.

The only comment regarding the second reading was brought up by Doaty. He said he was approached by a citizen about the Bumpin’ Buffalo playing music from its roof that had profane language.

Since the update has to deal with noise within the central business district, he wanted to know what could be done about issues like this in the future.

Schade said a sound permit would have been required.

“Generally if it’s enough to trigger a complaint, people can call either city hall or public works,” she added. “Or if they approach the business they’ll typically turn it down.”

Doaty said he will pass along that information. The second reading passed 4-0.

A new contract between the city and the Pennington County Sheriff’s Office was approved.

Brett McMacken, city administrator for Hill City, said he brought the matter to council a month ago. The council agreed then that the contract was good; however, there was concern regarding a part of the contract where the council felt it was forced to have the deputies live in a specific location.

“I contacted the sheriff’s office and worked through a couple different versions of the sentence to show that it’s encouraged but not required to have the deputies live here,” McMacken said. “Ultimately, we went back to the wording in the original contract. …We’re right back where we started.”

He said the rest of the contract looks good, and he is happy with it and the council should approve.

The council approved the contract 4-0.