Where there is already material precedence within the population, Summit County should be striving to improve compliance, not trying to overturn a neighborhood after years of neglect as an administration. The county should take responsibility to anticipate that there will be increased tourism near the ski resort, which also happens to be uphill of the Peak 7 neighborhoods. Therefore, the short-term rental exemptions proposed for Peak 8 and for the Highlands should also be considered for Peak 7.

At least 70% of the Peak 7 homes are already supported by municipal infrastructure, including cable, public water and sewer lines. The owners who short-term rent also pay premiums for this infrastructure that locals do not pay.

Peak 7 is already far beyond the criteria the county intended for the proposed “neighborhood only zones.” The majority of Peak 7 owners are already primarily non-local (over 60% are second-home owners) and about 25% have short-term rental permits.

Peak 7 is comprises older covenants and setback requirements that would not be consistent with the 100-foot distance required between neighbors’ structures. This inept requirement suggests that you and all your adjacent neighbors should not have so much as a hot tub within 100 feet of one another. Not only is this degrading, but one neighbor would not have the right to trespass onto another’s property to even measure whether they met such an absurd requirement.

Due to the proximity to the ski resort, Peak 7 will inevitably attract second-home buyers. With a median sold price of $1.3 million in Peak 7, homes are still beyond reach for average local buyers. Thus, this ordinance still accomplishes nothing to correct woes in local housing. However, if Peak 7 were exempt, the county is much more likely to acquire support for improved permit compliance and rental fees.